

  All Discussions  |  

  Hello Post  |  

  Direct Messages  |   

  Categories  |  

  How-To(Forum)

Revisit Purpose and Plan

DD

Dear all,

This is a group email to BIG CIC FULL Members and those I have noted as “special members” - people who have given time, thought, and energy to the BIG idea.

My current view is that, in terms of substance, BIG is in a strong position. We have:

Clearly defined problem and opportunity statements, aimed at a range of possible protagonists - with a natural focus on strategy, governance, and P3 professionals if we choose to prioritise.

A growing body of knowledge and supporting material that people can dip into - concepts to talk with, principles to engage with, components to deliver with, and a roadmap to work towards.

The early shape of professional credentials and, through the BoK Club, an entity capable of pushing this forward.

The beginnings of a membership base - 200+ members, a LinkedIn group of around 850, and a further 100+ helpers and friends.

Community forums on LinkedIn and via the Community Portal Simon has set up.

Significant outputs from the conference - an updated core presentation, strong case material, readiness tools, and, most importantly, perspectives from respected professionals across strategy, governance, and P3.

In short: we are ready to push on.

My view is that while content development must continue, publicity and engagement are now the critical priorities. For me, that translates into three themes.

First - Partners.
Can we support people to make a living from the BIG idea? If they can, it justifies sustained effort and enables client organisations to benefit from what we have built. This must include consultants who engage, adapt, and adopt; trainers who explain; technologists who configure enabling platforms; and service providers who support operations and journeys.

Second - Professional bodies.
BIG is integrative. We are not trying to tell strategy, governance, or P3 professionals what to do. We are trying to pull these worlds together, rather than reinforce bilateral interfaces or false boundaries. Can we position BIG so that it sits alongside each profession - visible whenever strategy, governance, or P3 is discussed?

Third - Membership.
We have to grow it, pragmatically and persistently, to get a snowball effect.

If we focus on these relationships, I believe we can help more organisations genuinely benefit from what we have done - and, in doing so, build members, FULL members, Associates, and recognised experts. Most importantly, we can help organisations that are currently ineffective at strategy delivery to become effective.

You may or may not want to be part of the BIG core driving this forward. Either way, you are people to work with or alongside. This is not about asking you to help BIG CIC for its own sake - it is about finding practical ways to collaborate so that what you want to achieve, and what BIG is trying to achieve, reinforce each other.

So the blunt question is this:
Is BIG CIC going to oversee a passive body of knowledge maintained by a few enthusiasts - or are we going to push this into the mainstream? And are we naive to think that a largely volunteer effort, with little investment, can get there?

As Adrian Dooley recently put it, I may be “stupid enough to put the development of the profession before profits” - but my stupidity does have limits.

What do you think? What can you advise, influence, or do?

If you are willing to engage, please join one of the following sessions:

Join here:
https://zoom.us/join

Monday 19th, 6pm UK
Passcode - 851 5604 1951
Security code - jugyvFP02-

Thursday 22nd, 8.30 am UK
Passcode - 810 9663 3738
Security code - ekdhwPW03-

Friday 23rd, 12.30 pm UK
Passcode - 851 7934 8362
Security code - vluxaXH88_

Best regards,

David

Join here:
https://zoom.us/join

Monday 19th, 6pm UK
Passcode - 851 5604 1951
Security code - jugyvFP02-

Thursday 22nd, 8.30 am UK
Passcode - 810 9663 3738
Security code - ekdhwPW03-

Friday 23rd, 12.30 pm UK
Passcode - 851 7934 8362
Security code - vluxaXH88_

Best regards,

David

gcreighton

Thanks David, I’ve got access to this thread and I’ll see you online on Thursday;. Or if I waken early tomorrow I’ll see you at the monday night session.

DD

All - here is a write up I prepared from the meeting transcript.
In summary:

BIG CIC Annual Reflection - Summary and Direction

The meeting reviewed the past year of BIG CIC activity and clarified priorities for the year ahead. Participants recognised strong progress in thought leadership, content quality and community engagement, including events, the conference, the Book Club, the BIG Shop, and the publication of multiple integrated governance examples.

A central theme was the growing recognition of a systemic gap between strategy and delivery. Strategy, governance and P3 professionals all see parts of the problem, but operate through separate bodies of knowledge. BIG’s distinctive value is in showing how these disciplines must operate together, not in isolation.

The group agreed that BIG faces two distinct but related challenges:

Explaining the BIG Body of Knowledge so practitioners and academics understand it.

Engaging organisational stakeholders by addressing specific pains and expectations that BIG-enabled solutions can resolve.

These require different approaches and different audiences. When the group refers to “marketing”, it must be clear whether the aim is professional validation, partner enablement, or stakeholder engagement that triggers action.

Case studies and practical application

There was strong consensus that practical, accessible case examples are essential. While eight examples now exist, they need wider visibility and clearer framing so protagonists can recognise their own situations. The aim is not abstract endorsement, but concrete demonstrations of how BIG helps organisations act.

Commercial and professional partnerships

Commercial partners are seen as critical to turning BIG into applied solutions. A plain-English Partner Agreement is in progress with two organisations, and infrastructure exists to list and support partners. The constraint is not intent but community bandwidth to develop and sustain relationships.

Similarly, engagement with professional bodies has long been recognised as valuable for credibility and reach. Several seeded connections already exist across strategy, governance, P3, product management and standards communities, but again progress is limited by capacity rather than opportunity.

Framework focus and messaging

The group agreed that the full BIG vision is too broad to land in one step. Engagement should start with focused “elephant steaks” - specific problems, roles or trigger scenarios that BIG can address, then expand outward. The BoK already contains substantial material to support this approach, though it may need rationalisation and clearer pathways.

Reaching senior executives directly remains difficult. Influence is more likely to come via trusted practitioners, partners and subordinates who can connect BIG to real organisational challenges.

Technology and AI

Technology, particularly AI, was seen as an accelerator rather than the core proposition. BIG already defines an integrated information and tooling landscape; AI extends this by enabling faster interpretation, validation and interrogation of governance information. Existing prototypes and demonstrators show this is feasible, but further development depends on partner capability and focus.

Agreed workstreams
Five priority workstreams emerged:
Clarifying target protagonist groups and ownership across Strategy, Governance and Change.
Expanding, packaging and publicising case examples.
Enabling commercial partners to generate business using BIG.
Building sustainable relationships with professional bodies and academics.
Sustaining BIG’s independence, quality and integrity.

Next steps

David will circulate recordings, transcripts and a written summary, propose focused working groups, and continue supporting partners to generate applied use cases. Participants are invited to self-select into theme groups, progress tactical applications, and provide feedback on priorities.
The agreed direction is pragmatic rather than grand - small, focused steps that demonstrate value, build credibility, and allow BIG to grow through use rather than explanation.

Please be my guest to comment here on this fuller version - https://1drv.ms/w/c/d0aba75fb08f11c7/IQAJB0-jE6k1SK3TmQcbj5uWASk3kyx0mMpcD9OziI73N3I?e=rNOJTu

What is wrong, what is missing?

Laters,



  All Discussions  |  

  Hello Post  |  

  Direct Messages  |   

  Categories  |  

  How-To(Forum)