Starting with the concept of a scalable data-set – see the Big Picture of EPPI above. To start – it’s all about Processes (Workflows) that get some predetermined (or non-pre-determined) job done: Tasks performed to produce Outputs to Stakeholder Requirements. Requirements for either the Tasks or the Outputs, or Requirements for both.
Beginning with the end in mind – to provision all of the assets, human and environmental, necessary to enable that WorkFlow-Process Performance – requires understanding what that all might include.
I like to eventually focus on the people level who have to do the Workflow-Process level work performance to make the Organizational-Enterprise level successful, in order to provide the Societal level with benefits — after understanding that larger, umbrella view of the 3 levels of CONTEXT above the Performer.
I use the L-C-S Framework (covered yesterday) as my organizing scheme.
To create an EPPA – Enterprise Process Performer Architecture – consistent with the Enterprise, and with it’s organizational scheme – typically a “functional view” versus a “process-view.”
Then one can systematically tease out, elicit, all of the enablers needed for a process, or a set of processes (a system in my language). And assess their current and future adequacy. And determine where to focus limited/constrained Enterprise resources. For the R of it all (as in ROI) where the R is for “Rewards achieved” and/or “Risks avoided” – for the sake of the Enterprise.
The purpose of the Leadership and Support segments of the L-C-S Model is to identify those “processes/workflows” that are typically owned/in-control by others. And therefore the Instructional and Informational Content needed to support them should be created and in-the-control of the appropriate organizational entity. See next graphic.
Click on each graphic to enlarge and then copy. Please respect my copyright and other markings. Please give credit where credit is due.
Strategic Planning may own box L2. Corporate Communications might own box L6. HR would own S2. Note: not unique, but S2 and S3 are huge underneath the covers of those simple titles…S2- Human Assets Management and S3- Environmental Assets Management – labels from the late 1980s and early 1990s when I was a partner at SWI – Svenson & Wallace Inc. Those labels pre-dated the Human Capital Management movement.
This version kinda came out of my exposure/experiences with MRP (Material Requirements Planning) and then MRP-II (Manufacturing Requirements Planning) that later led to ERP (Enterprise Requirements Planning) – by the way – those ERP systems have a 70% installation failure (cost overruns, schedule overruns, outright cancellations, etc.). – from the book: “Hard Facts” by Pfeffer and Sutton.
But I digress.
The trick for any department in focus (in the scope of your efforts) is to determine what is needed to support the multitude of processes that they own/are responsible for to the Enterprise. And the trick also includes identify others’ Core Processes that they don’t own – but that they support – they work in someone elses’ workflow/processes. Those also go into the Core – but are identified perhaps differently. For the content and ownership exist elsewhere – they still need to be on the radar screen for at least some of the department’s staff, but certainly for the management group of that entity.
So – Organize a Wiki?
If you organized your enabling Instructional and Informational Content in this framework – you would put links to the appropriate content, regardless of who owns the process/workflow/AoPs,
on this graphic…regardless of where the content actually sat in cyberspace – internally on the Intranet, or externally to the Internet.
You’d have named the specific processes for the Core section of the L-C-S Framework – and allowed for “drill-downs” as appropriate.
One might click on L2- Strategic Planning and find an appropriate sub-menu of other links:
- Enterprise Procedures/Tools/Templates
- Instructional Resources
- Appropriate and Non-Appropriate Examples and Explanations
- Internal Best Practices
- External Best Practices
- Lessons Learned
Something like that anyway!
To make it easier for the Performers. To make it easier for the content developers and maintainers. And perhaps for the Regulators and potential Customers – to see that you’ve really got it together.
That “easier” stuff that results from using this or a similar model/framework, includes these “whys” –
- accelerating more accurate and appropriate performance via the performance support/guidance provided
- supporting learning in the workflow
- supporting learning prior to the workflow
- supporting remediation
- reducing costs for development
- reducing costs for maintenance (especially of those enterprise departments/entities that cover everyone else including themselves (the Finance organization has to do its own budgets and financials as well, do they not? And HR has to apply HR stuff to themselves, no?))
Then all one has to do is orient everyone to the simple concept of the framework – and how to access their wiki page.
Governance of the content (are you highly regulated or regulated at all?) can be accomplished using a variety of formal and informal mechanisms. It’s the same approach I present in lean-ISD – which covered the governance of projects (ISD projects but equally applicable to others).
And in T&D Systems View – 12-O’Clock (at the top of the heap so to speak) is the Governance & Advisory System – the most important for keeping things together and tight, and/or keeping things fluid or loose. Or an appropriate mix. A blend.
As always, it depends.
# # #
Pingback: T&D: Not All K/S Needs Are Equal | EPPIC - Pursuing Performance