One more comment. A example of one approach its available here http://oqi.wisc.edu/resourcelibrary/uploads/resources/Project_Prioritization_Guide_v_1.pdf

Considering this approach, after framing the business capabilities and projects identified to improve the business capabilities, the decision of the selected project to improve its supported by an objective analysis.

Suggestions or ideas for other approaches are welcomed...

here, I have a decision making matrix, i am not sure if it is appropriate, you can have a look. ^^

Hi Pedro,

Interesting... my experience has been; the more we try to push senior decision makers through a process, the more resistant they become, so in general, I would suggest keeping the process light and as Toyota executives apparently say... take time to make important decisions and reach consensus... not easy either!

On the process front however, you might consider Risk (weighted opportunities and threats), more detailed is Kepner Trago matrix and simplest is a listing and discusssion of pros and cons of course. Risk and KT intros are even available on Wikipedia I think.

Whatever process a facilitator chooses to use, I feel decision making is a team game and we should regard the team as our customers if we are to facilitate their work. I'd consider testing your approach with your customers on an individual basis before proceeding to team work.

I like your question and hope to see thoughts from others following.

Kind regards,

Robin

Thanks for the suggestions, that I expect to articulate here in a correct way.

Jun your document could be used with the input of "Capabilities" needed to improve and crossed with organizational objectives. Drilling down to the appropriate level related to each capabilities in the enterprise architecture, we could identify related improvement projects/plans. After that we could use a matrix for the organizational objectives crossed with projects that have bigger impacts on the strategy.

Considering the comments of Robin, it seems adequate that the seniors decision makers define the "weighting" of the "factors", e.g. the "weighting" of the project needed to improve. In this way we could have an objective project improvement selection or improvements priorities, and at the same time the involvement of the decision team. But in this case, if we put the "decision onus" in a decision making matrix, wouldn't they feel less accountability "stressed", and at the same time involved in the "weighting factors"? I am trying figure out if this makes sense to use in "real organizations", in a context of action-research.

@Robin I will check your suggested matrices ASAP and analyze that.

Kind regards,

Pedro

Hi Pedro,

I like the way you are bringing ideas together and envisaging ways they can be put into practice. Some people say creative people create twice: once in the mind and then in reality, and you are doing this.

Some seniors/leaders may be satisfied with an input that weights factors and provides a guiding framework in which others can make decisions and execute the best projects. Personally, this is how I like to work as I believe it empowers others. Other seniors may feel the system could get out of control unless they are intimately involved in decisions to a very low level into the operation.

So, a system of 'checks and balances' would ideally be in place too. This could be described as Programme Mgt; at it's simplest, regular reporting of progress against the key factors determined prior to launching projects. A skilled programme manager can facilitate senior management reviews and therefore cater for the different requirements of the individuals at that level.

Clearly, there is cost to setting up programme management, so the organisation needs to 'value' the activity high enough to invest in it. And have sufficient scale to justify it.

Excuse me if you are very much aware of this type of approach... but I hope I am responding to the neat way you are developing your thoughts above.

Regards all,

Robin

Hi Robin, thanks for your encouraging words! :-) I am trying to identify a logical and simple approach, and I found an enlightenment in this discussion based on the ideas shared.

Considering that the problem is to apply a decision of project improvement in a context of a meeting. How we do the weighting of factors? Probably a best way its question top management, considering the strategic goals to weighting them, giving some guidelines were, for example doing the weighting considering impact on costs, quality, capacity or time (averaging the four values based on a Likert scale). In this way we could not give high rates to factors with only impacts on costs, e.g. that could no be good, to customers (quality)? But in this case, probably would be a more heavy approach, but if we have previously collect some information about the weighting on the context of the organization based, for example based on EFQM... Humm?

If I understand what you said about the regular programming report against key factors determined prior, in my case I don't have this scenery (unfortunately), but if I had access organizations with a historic of projects improvement and key factors associated, to identify the success or not of the project, I think would be interesting...

Considering the aspects that an organisation needs to 'value' the activity high enough to invest in it, this could be done after the assessment meeting, and were could be used Activity Based Costing, but that implies to have processes already identified and the activities already "costed ", another think that I don't have in my scenarios. I think this could be the next step!

Sorry for the divagation, but I think that this subject reflection its very positive!

Thanks for sharing the ideas!

Regards,

Pedro

Some idea sharing!

Before we go to the decision in the context of projects improvement, we need to consider an architecture (as an a foundation to give meaning and context to the business improvement). Probably we need an approach to identify the business aspects, manly the business strategy in a context of a Business Architecture delimited by BPM and defining end-to-end processes, without a technological layer. Were we put the concepts of capabilities to encapsulate the end-to-end processes.

After this evaluation we could go do a fast decision for project improvement, as we posted were, or we could go forward after the decision matrix, with or without an Entreprise Architecture analysis with a more technological approach.

Considering Business Architecture as a should-be model and Enterprise Architecture as as-is model, linking the two areas we make the identification of a gap improvement considering should-be (strategy) versus as-is (e.g. technological reality) and get improvement projects (e.g. technological improvement). In this context the decision matrix its more supported because it could be "decisioned" in information of the organization as-is, but its a heavier process....

With this in mind started analyzing ADOit and to test this I will try a case study in a organization.... The idea for the decision its to apply as light approach for identifying project improvements, the other way is well supported with organizational information and decisions knowing the impact for the organizations, at least in their processes....

Thanks!

Pedro Sobreiro

Hi Pedro, this is an interesting chain of thoughts! I can only reflect on it sounding like a very good idea and approach to test. It reminds me of discussions I had when working for AstraZeneca... we focused on the following sequence: people, process, technology as a sequence of diagnosing business process needs, developing an idealised achitecture for any technical solution and then addressing the technical solutions that would meet the requirements. In the IS/IT field, we defined User Requirements Specification as a way of moving towards real technical solutions. So, again, good thinking and I encourage you to try this thinking with those you would be working with. Do you know an organisation for a case study?

Kind regards,

Robin

Hi Robin, since I started to post were there have been a lot of changes, not in a sense that changed initial thought, but in a way that I feel the idea more supported.

Basically the global idea of the approach for the organization is:

(1) Identify what they want, what is their strategy, clarifying its mission and vision. And here its not to copy what is in the commercial slogan, this means thinking what they want to do. In my reality make sense to do this, because most of the times there isn't a formalized strategy;

(2) With the stakeholders as base, identify the objectives, that must be aligned with vision and defined for each dimension, as in BSC;

(3) Define at least an objective for each stakeholder and link to the BSC dimensions;

(4) Identify the business capabilities that are needed to deal with what the organization wants to be. Probably is need a drill down to clarify the capabilities, more one or two levels, at least the identification of the end-to-end business processes ;

(5) define a matrix crossing business capabilities with objectives, and evaluate what capabilities have more impact, in objectives and which of them are more adequate to be improved. Business capabilities in my perspective is like organizational skills including people, technology, ;

This work must be done quick and light, most of the case in a day or afternoon, and the result is a commitment of top leaders of the organization with the improvement area and their support. After this start the "real work" manly in the area of BPM. The improvement decision is to be supported with a decision matrix.

The organization that I made some contacts it is public and manages public facilities, and it's medium size. And the work until now had been related collecting information and background as a facilitator for a "stress" situation, where I want to get out with an improvement decision. I think that I will manage this next week or third week of August.

Kind regards,

Pedro Sobreiro

Hey Pedro,

Exciting! The organisation you describe sounds ideal for the approach you describe (and vice versa!). Your mention of quick and light sounds as though it will get the sort of buy in you are looking for and enable some prioritisation of the projects to follow.

I don't mean to intrude on your working practices, but I wondered how you intend to design the 'workshop(s)' that will achieve your goals?

Again I like simple frameworks and some good friends once introduced me to:

Know, Feel, Do - ask youself and any members of a facilitating team: what do we want the delegates to know, feel and do. This enables the facilitators to think about the content and behavioural approach they intend to take, and makes them think about the people themselves and the way they might react.

Input, Process, Output - as with any process, planning the inputs required for the process (or meeting agenda) helps the facilitators plan for the inputs including pre-work that will be required to make the most of the workshop time of the delegates, and most importantly!! what outputs the group is aiming for.

Excuse me if this is stuff you already practice.

Hope this is helping and I look forward to hearing more as you move forwards.

Kind regards,

Robin

Robin the alignment of the initial workshop it is at the moment one of my biggest worries, because means that I have to be very good articulating and acting as an "enabler" for the output "improvement area". As negative aspect is a lack of experience in this context, like coordination top management and experts in the major areas of the organization, but considering a test that I made for the approach, with my department colleagues I founded the need to:

(1) previously the workshop to clarify or define the initial concepts with each element, before the meeting. At least to realise some sort of alignment to what will be done in the workshop, were its also important some message by the top leader for the importance of the work in the workshop;

(2) Use a directory of business processes, but don't put the focus on it, e.g. Process Classification Framework (EFQM). Just in case that when we are identifying the business capabilities we need help the generation of ideas for capabilities. Probably a practitioner doesn't need so much if this, but this isn't my case;

Defined a worksheet with six steps, divided for each sheet and to be filled during the workshop, also putted some examples in each step. Although it could be used post its, that could be more interactive, e.g. for the identification of business capabilities.The idea is a simple tool and not distracting one, I think could be used: excel; a datashow; white board and some wall to put post'its if needed. Another guidelines that I found useful are from Alec Sharp.

Thanks for the orientations and sharing! I agree sometimes we need an overall clarification for the work to be done. And I am opened to suggestions and enlightenments.

Robin next week I will try to articulate this and any suggestion is welcomed. When I manage to move forward I will share it.

Kind regards,

Pedro Sobreiro