

  All Discussions  |  

  Hello Post  |  

  Direct Messages  |   

  Categories  |  

  How-To(Forum)

Purpose

DD

The current BIG Purpose is publicised here: https://big-cic.org.uk/purpose-vision-and-goals/

The purpose of the BIG CIC can be summarised as follows:

Knowledge Advancement: To sustain and expand knowledge regarding Business Integrated Governance
Knowledge Sharing: To share the BIG Body of Knowledge (BoK) as widely as possible, making it accessible to both the public and members
Community Involvement: To encourage volunteer participation, welcoming individuals to contribute to our Knowledge Advancement and Sharing
Integration of Key Domains: To use BIG principles to integrate vital domains such as strategy, governance, assurance, business as usual, value creation, and change
Collaboration: To actively collaborate with the public, professional bodies, and commercial partners on Integration
Education and Accreditation: To provide a syllabus for training and accreditation, overseeing examinations and issuing BIG credentials
The Purpose of the BIG CIC is not: To deliver consulting / training services or technology-based products

What do we need to change?

simon

This is parallel to what’s built into this community’s onboarding pathway…

🙂

And something that is needing activity in cooperation to develop - I think you hit the nail on the head in recent emails…
Caio
Simon

ahudson

Is the purpose to advance knowledge, learning and collaborate on content development or to achieve a measurable level of adoption, impact and outcome?

simon

ahudson

(Welcome @ahudson 😁)

Are the two options an “Either | or”? (and I wouldn’t regard the two as exhaustive in any way)

I posit most of the members of big CIC will see the purpose of involvement as career advancement via expertise, influence/ name recognition and credentialization.
Practical Assistance in covering that middle ground between strategy formulation and operational beneficial delivery.

Their involed ‘organisations’ will see the purpose as increased stakeholder value or perhaps initially a more limited “ increased shareholder equity ”

I suggest the CIC itself has a purpose of facilitating the above stakeholders - Who will have a very diverse range of interests and skills industries and targets for value

For me the “level of adoption” is a trailing metric that indicates the relevance and applicability of, and transferability/ packaging of the gathered knowledge and the PURPOSE behind “gathering knowledge” is so that it can be USED

3¢ 🙂

DD

ahudson - I know where you are coming from :-)

I think as a provider of knowledge, we could probably only track some simple metrics:

Member registrations / Logins
LinkedIn Group Memberships and related stats (new / active members, posts, views etc)
Website page stats
at the moment, we don’t have a feedback page - but I think perhaps this forum can provide that function
- we could track attendances at BIG related events

With respect to evidence of impact, I don’t know how to capture that presently. I know people use the content for various reasons, but I have no bandwidth to hunt people down for testimony and people are not posting / commenting on the LinkedIn posts I do.
There are some indirect measure

exam passes
donors

Until we have partners who are delivering products / services related to BIG, I don’t know how to direct measure impact.

ChrisB

I suggest that the only real measure is one that gauges if the BIG content is being used in practice to help organizations improve their governance, and I would suggest that this is specific to improving sustainability / purpose through integrated governance.
While we wait for the first actual implementations or at least ‘intentions’, we can use interim measures to show if activities designed to further our goals are likely to be effective.
Which measures?
I think that we should simply define metrics for each activity that indicate a successful outcome of that activity, and in doing so ensure that those metrics are aligned in some way with the overall purpose of driving good governance.
Having 2 or 3 at most proxy measures to show interim progress overall may be useful, such as exam passes or donors or registrations or feedback/validation of content, and at least one metric that indicates CIC viability of course, as an operational/existential metric for the CIC.

DD

What are our goals?

BIG CIC - we are only doing if members want it - what levels do we think are expected?

Membership
event attendees
Exam passes
LinkedIn Group members, posts, views
Testimonials
usage examples
Sponsors listed
Funds raised
“I have used” button clicks

Clearly - success us dependent on BIG CIC publicity (which is voluntary), partner engagement and professional body engagement

Partners - we are only doing if partners can make a buck

publicly listed propositions - we can see
public usage examples - shared
public exam passes - on the BIG CIC pages
funding provided - BIG CIC will know
Private data - not available to BIG CIC?
leads and opportunities
related revenue
product service types sold

The relationship is totally dependent:

The BIG CIC needs partners to publicise BIG CIC to grow the membership
Partners need BIG CIC to create the value opportunity
BIG CIC needs partners to generate revenue to want to publicise BIG CIC

This is chicken and egg.

Some partners want to get in for the reputation benefit - but this takes effort and presents risk
some partners want to wait until there is more free stuff and try to cash in later

Basically - if we can’t get Partners - then this stops.

DD

Focusing on Purpose:
This is what I have condensed it too. Lets see what people tomorrow say.

Purpose of the BIG CIC
We need to separate the purpose of BIG (not this) and the Purpose of the BIG CIC
Knowledge Growth & Sharing – Expand and share knowledge on Business Integrated Governance (BIG) with members, professional bodies, partners and the public

Community Engagement – Encourage volunteer participation in knowledge advancement and sharing.
Domain Integration – Work with relevant professional bodies to align and integrate knowledge within and adjacent to BIG
Partner development – Support organisations to define and develop consulting, services, training and solutions leveraging BIG.
Education & Accreditation – provide the Body of Knowledge, oversee exams, and issue BIG credentials.

Scope Limitation – BIG CIC does not offer consulting, training services, or tech products.

A lot of this discussion above is goals related - not addressed here.

ahudson

I’ve been working with SME leaders..and trying to get to the bottom of the leadership pain points.
1) Stuck in the weeds - so much going on, not enough time to stand back - strategic clarity is a buzz word that’s going around in MckInsey and other circles.
2) It’s worth doing a literature review on pain points from some of the top academics and insight papers - McK, HBR, Bain, PwC,
3) what about the context of AI disruption - whole business models are changing, if you don’t keep up you could be out of business in the blink of an eye.
4) how do execs cope with the massive disruption going on with all manner of international chaos - wars, plagues, trade wars, proxy wars you name it - it’s a mad world out there - the risk agenda and being ready to cope
5) data is getting a lot of coverage, but so much money is spent on it, what is the ROI? Data management, integration, dashboards, maintenance, migration… then what about all the systems - are they really helping, are they adding value, how do you know if they are adding value or not?
6) employee engagement is a big issue - check out the gallup employee engagement survey and the impact of changing generational attitudes to work.
7) what about integrated strategy tools - well frankly there aren’t any.
8) communication is even more chaotic with the advent of Slack/teams - there are chats going on all over the place - becoming quite overwhelming.
…just putting a few points out form the exec perspective.
—are we clear about which execs, what size of organisation, sector, maturity etc…
…. how does this relate to the organisation’s operating model or BAU?

DD

Hi ahudson
I love all your points.
I think these are related to the drivers for people to use BIG. I use the phrase “trigger scenarios” - within peoples perspective of their situation - what collections of problem and opportunity cause consideration of implications, and development of need / action?

To date - and as a start - we have identified the importance of strategy delivery, the relation to integrated governance and brainstormed some stakeholder groups and a stereotypical set of pains / expectations -https://big-cic.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Chapter-3.pdf and shared a deeper exploration of beneficiaries here - https://big-cic.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Chapter-10.pdf

This work must continue, and we need to find practical, contemporary ways to engage stakeholder, and share those - but also use them as BIG CIC to engage stakeholder groups to share the knowledge AND as partners to sell services (that is up to partners) - this is a job for an Engagement workstream,

I think all the triggers you mention (points 1, 3, 4, 5, 6) can have BIG positioned in the need / action column.

WRT Point 2 - It would be a good exercise for one of the workstreams to take on a literature search to refresh / replace what has been seeded.
WRT point 7 - there are tools - e.g. a few that support https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoshin_Kanri - and the strategy information model backbone
WRT point 8 - we are seeing that problem to :-) - but I think the same workstream to develop the triggers should also cover some example target scenarios - and also perhaps ask - why do so many organisations have so little in place to manage the connection of strategy to delivery!!!

I have noted your points to define Engagement and Development workloads



  All Discussions  |  

  Hello Post  |  

  Direct Messages  |   

  Categories  |  

  How-To(Forum)