Hello simon
The most recent text about Bus Sup is in chapter 6 of the BoK here
I am aware that Chapter 6 does not align perfectly with the older Business Support Document. There is an opportunity to:
- revamp “Business Support” completely
- align the older Business Support Document with Chapter 6
- simply apply reformatting and tweaks
- leave it behind for posterity
Frankly - what gets done depends on someone engaging with it. I would love to read a revamp, at a minimum align the older document, but I’d be grateful for a reformat.
Working through your points:
- The old document did have a lot of PMO language in it. It was written around the time that a version of it was spun off into Praxis - and was P3 focused, Since then the main body of knowledge is less P3 centric - hence of of the things to update is to make it more generic.
- One of the main principles in BIG is that to operate integrated governance, we would be best served by integrated support. Hence - you’ll see the words “hub and spoke” used which recognises local support is needed, but that to operate integrated governance, aspects of that ned to be harmonised.
- I dont believe there is any call for authority over organisational resources except for the ones used in Business Support - which we refer to as a ‘Management Team’ - i.e. a regular business function - much like House of PMO call for a PMO to be treated as a business function.
- I dont recognised your characterisation of “corporate equivalent of communism as in centrally controlled decision making over everything”. I would agree with “centrally supported operation of decision making”. Directors, sponsors, function heads, value stream leads call the shots on decisions.
- We did look very hard at VSM in the early days prompted by connections with the APM Systems Thinking SIG - and there is an alignment presentation somewhere. I dug this picture out -
One aspect to these accountability nodes which I think is useful is the idea of sample agendas and example MI which might be needed - as those discussions seeded the original Core P3M Data Model - offering a process to use to define an organisations data model more than offer a data template,
I believe there is a suggestion that the Business Support Function is the place where change implementation is managed out of, and would ideally be able to independently invent or have been informed of the different models.
I am keen to welcome PMO professionals to look at this - but on the other hand - they only have one perspective - which is not Business Support.
If there are folks who want to take of the challenge of proposing what this document should contain, then build it - I’d be delighted to support them in that, and help them welcome viewpoints on the old content and opinions on what the new content should consist of.
Please all chip in on the debate - but it will need someone / a group to pick this up if there is to be any point in debating the merits / demerits.
I will make a LinkedIn post to drive people to this discussion when I have a moment.
