Difference between revisions of "Doctrine Patterns"
(→Use a common language) |
(→Use appropriate methods) |
||
Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
===Use appropriate methods=== | ===Use appropriate methods=== | ||
e.g. agile vs lean vs six sigma | e.g. agile vs lean vs six sigma | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{Book|18}} | ||
+ | Governance had to accept that there are currently no single methods of management that are suitable for all environments. The use of multiple methods and techniques based upon context had to become a norm.{{Book cite 18}} | ||
===Use a systematic mechanism of learning=== | ===Use a systematic mechanism of learning=== |
Revision as of 15:43, 3 November 2017
These are patterns that are universally useful. Although they are all useful, there is a priority to their usefulness. Start with the Phase I patterns first, and work to adopt the later phases after earlier phases are more or less mastered.
Contents
- 1 Phase I
- 2 Phase II
- 2.1 Be transparent
- 2.2 Focus on the outcome, not a contract
- 2.3 Think aptitude and attitude
- 2.4 Strategy is iterative, not linear
- 2.5 Move fast
- 2.6 Use appropriate tools
- 2.7 Think small
- 2.8 A bias towards action
- 2.9 Be pragmatic
- 2.10 Manage inertia
- 2.11 Use standards where appropriate
- 2.12 Distribute power and decision making
- 2.13 Think Fast, Inexpensive, Restrained, and Elegant (FIRE)
- 2.14 Effectiveness over efficiency
- 2.15 Manage failure
- 3 Phase III
- 4 Phase IV
- 5 References
Phase I
Know your users
e.g. customers, shareholders, regulators, staff
Challenge assumptions
speak up and question
Use appropriate methods
e.g. agile vs lean vs six sigma
From chapter 18 in the book:
Governance had to accept that there are currently no single methods of management that are suitable for all environments. The use of multiple methods and techniques based upon context had to become a norm.[1]
Use a systematic mechanism of learning
bias towards data
Focus on user needs
Focus on high situational awareness
Understand what is being considered
From chapter 18 in the book:
A major failing of “Better for Less” was the lack of emphasis on maps. I need to increase situational awareness beyond simple mental models and structures such as ILC. To achieve this, we needed to develop maps within government which requires an anchor (user need), an understanding of position (the value chain and components involved) and an understanding of movement (evolution). To begin with, the proposed governance system needed to clearly reflect user needs in all its decision-making processes. The users include not only departmental users but also the wider public who will interact with any services provided. It was essential, therefore, that those users’ needs were determined at the outset, represented in the creation of any proposal and any expected outcomes of any proposal are set against those needs. But this was not enough, we needed also the value chain that provided those user needs and how evolved the components were. Maps therefore became a critical part of the Governance structure.[2]
Remove bias and duplication
Use a common language
necessary for collaboration
From chapter 18 in the book:
The governance system had to provide a mechanism for coordination and engagement across groups including departments and spend control. This requires a mechanism of shared learning – for example, discovery and dissemination of examples of good practice. To achieve this, we must have a common language. Maps were that language.[3]
Think small
know the details
Phase II
Be transparent
A bias towards open
From chapter 18 in the book:
The governance system had to be entirely transparent. For example, proposals must be published openly in one place and in one format through a shared and public pipeline. This must allow for examination of proposals both internally and externally of Government to encourage interaction of departments and public members to any proposal.[4]
Focus on the outcome, not a contract
Think aptitude and attitude
Strategy is iterative, not linear
fast reactive cycles
Move fast
An imperfect plan executed today is better than a perfect plan executed tomorrow.
From chapter 18 in the book:
We understood that there would be inertia to the changes we were proposing and that existing culture and structures could well rise to combat us. We put in place an initial concept of work streams that targeted different areas. The idea was that if we ever put this in place then we’d have 100 days or so to make the changes before resistance overwhelmed us. [5]
Use appropriate tools
e.g. mapping, financial models
Think small
as in teams
A bias towards action
learn by playing the game
Be pragmatic
It doesn't matter if the cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice
From chapter 18 in the book:
We accepted that not everything would fit into the structure or work streams that we had described. A majority would and it was the cost reduction and improvement in those cases that would generate the most savings. However, it was important to acknowledge that a one-size fits all approach would not work and will be vulnerable to inertia. Pragmatism to achieve the change was more important than ideology. We also had to maintain the existing IT estate whilst acknowledging the future will require a fundamentally different approach based upon agile, open and effective local delivery. We would have to not only audit but sweat the existing assets until they could be replaced.[6]
Manage inertia
e.g. existing practice, political capital, previous investment
Use standards where appropriate
Distribute power and decision making
Think Fast, Inexpensive, Restrained, and Elegant (FIRE)
Effectiveness over efficiency
Manage failure
Phase III
Provide purpose, mastery & autonomy
Do better with less
Continual improvement
From chapter 18 of the book:
Such an approach had to be transparent and measured in terms of cost. It had to provide challenge for what was currently being built. From this we developed the idea of a scrutiny board which later became spend control under OCTO. It wasn’t enough to simply reduce spending; our focus was on dramatically reducing waste whilst improving public services. We couldn’t do this without measurement.
We understood that this would not be a big bang approach but an iterative process – a constant cycle of doing better with less. To this end, we proposed the use of open data with a focus on the Government becoming more transparent. We also added the use of open source including the practices associated with it and the use of open standards to drive competitive markets. [7]
Be the owner
Take responsibility
Set exceptional standards
Great is just not good enough
Optimise flow
remove bottlenecks
Strategy is complex
There will be uncertainty
Commit to the direction, be adaptive along the path
crossing the river by feeling the stones
From chapter 18 in the book:
To enable the change, we needed a clear and effective message from authority combined with a commitment to change. However, in the past this has been notoriously difficult as only one minister in the Cabinet Office (Tom Watson MP) prior to 2010 had any real commitment to understanding technology. However, with a change of Government there might be an opportunity with a new ministerial team.
To support of all this, we proposed a structure based upon the innovate – leverage – commoditise model. The structure included innovation funds operating at local levels, a scrutiny board encouraging challenge along with a common technology service providing industrialised components. The structure was based upon concepts of open, it was data driven with emphasis on not just defining but measuring success. It was iterative and adaptive using constant feedback from the frontline and citizens alike. To support this, we would have to develop in-house capabilities in engineering including more agile like approaches. We would also need to build a curriculum for confidence and understanding of the issues of IT for mid ranking to senior officials and ministers. We would need take a more modular approach to creating systems that encouraged re-use. We would need to be prepared to adapt the model itself as we discovered more.[8]
A bias towards the new
Be curious, take appropriate risks
From chapter {{{1}}} in the book:
[[Category:Chapter {{{1}}}|Doctrine Patterns]]
We focused on an outside-in approach to innovation where change was driven and encouraged at the local level through seed funds rather than Government trying to force its own concept of change through “big IT”. The role of central Government was reduced to providing engineering expertise, an intelligent customer function to challenge what was done, industrialised component services, encouragement of change and showing what good looked like.[9]
Be humble
Listen, be selfless, have fortitude
Think big
Inspire others, provide direction
From chapter 18 of the book:
We need to get out of the mindset of thinking about specific systems and tackle the whole problem. We needed to break away from these isolated individual systems. We needed to change the default delivery mechanism for public services towards online services using automated processes for most citizens. We needed an approached that focused relentlessly on delivery to the citizen and their needs.[10]
Seek the best
Phase IV
Exploit the landscape
Design for constant evolution
There is no core
Everything is transient
List to your ecosystems
acts as future sensing engines
From chapter 18 in the book:
We viewed the existing centralized approach as problematic because it was often remote from the real needs of either public service employees, intermediaries or citizens alike. We envisaged a new engineering group that would work in the field and spot and then nurture opportunities for change at the frontline, working closely with service delivery providers.[11]
There is no one culture
e.g. Pioneers, Settlers, Town Planners
References
- ↑ http://blog.gardeviance.org/2017/08/better-for-less.html
- ↑ http://blog.gardeviance.org/2017/08/better-for-less.html
- ↑ http://blog.gardeviance.org/2017/08/better-for-less.html
- ↑ http://blog.gardeviance.org/2017/08/better-for-less.html
- ↑ http://blog.gardeviance.org/2017/08/better-for-less.html
- ↑ http://blog.gardeviance.org/2017/08/better-for-less.html
- ↑ http://blog.gardeviance.org/2017/08/better-for-less.html
- ↑ http://blog.gardeviance.org/2017/08/better-for-less.html
- ↑ http://blog.gardeviance.org/2017/08/better-for-less.html
- ↑ http://blog.gardeviance.org/2017/08/better-for-less.html
- ↑ http://blog.gardeviance.org/2017/08/better-for-less.html