

  All Discussions  |  

  Hello Post  |  

  Direct Messages  |   

  Categories  |  

  How-To(Forum)

Tactical or strategic - or not?

DD

Dear all

@ChrisB @Veronica and I met this morning and I tried to pursue whether there were aspects of the Professional Exam Presentations we could extract and gather to provide members and the public with example situations they could take learnings from, to encourage them to leverage BIG. Specifically - to help them get out of their domain constraint.

I also used the words Tactical and Strategic to broadly categorise use of BIG to solve a particular situation (Tactical - i.e. extract and use of some aspects of BIG in a local setting - e.g. use of Accountability to establish “Fair Accountability” across projects with benefit in mind - working to a plan for BIG) or a broader scenario over a longer term (Strategic - e.g. having higher level consensus on drivers, a vision for BIG and a roadmap to value - working to a strategy for BIG)

This was tabled as 2 of the presentations were specifically emerging out of the PMO domains which were leveraging some of the BIG Components (if they had existed). I used the word “tactical” to describe them, as the cases (to my ears) were solving a situation - not aspects of a calculated roadmap for integrated governance (which I would have referred to as strategic).

I wanted to talk about how we could generically describe the scenarios, and then speculate as to which aspects of BIG would have been useful at the time - to deal with the particular situation (greater tactical exploitation of BIG), and also facilitate the step to a broader, roadmap-based initiative (strategic exploitation of BIG)

In the past when I’ve done this, I’ve classified vs the BIG Components used. This could as easily map vs the principles addressed.

I think it is important to have the conversation as I often hear PMOs struggle to get on the strategy agenda - and are often only seen as a tactical delivery instrument - not as a strategic enabler.

From our experiences - how can we get a PMO into the broader integrated governance / strategy delivery game? IMO we need to support PMOs to get beyond the implementation of stuff to deal with their local situation - to be talking about roadmap foe integrated governance as the enabler for strategy delivery.

For those that have not seen it - have a look at the services taxonomy which discusses the journey.

IMO this discussion fits within a P3 / Change Theme to BIG to go into matters from a PMO / P3 perspective. I’ve seeded this here - and I would imagine this becomes an active part of the community too.

Q1 - In my terms - how can we flip PMO use of BIG from tactical (my problem) to strategic (broader vision and roadmap)? Can we leverage the write ups to support us?

Q2 - Or what other terms could we use instead of tactical and strategic when referring to an approach to leveraging BIG?

Answers on a post card please….

ChrisB

DD Some thoughts about strategy - very pertinent to integrated governance and why BIG is so important to strategy delivery.
http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2013/02/dont_let_strategy_become_plann.html?goback=%2Egde_134530_member_217041010#comment-789869205

And this link from Bernard Marr: https://bernardmarr.com/what-is-the-execution-premium-process-a-summary-of-the-6-steps-to-better-manage-your-strategy/

We can start anywhere in the organisation, but if there is no strategy for the organisation then we can indeed start building a BIG operating model capabilities, in line with relevant (to that unit) BIG principles in the interim, but we can’t really build integrated governance and accountability in the absence of an organizational strategy to drive that.

A clear roadmap guides the work whatever place we start, supported by stakeholder engagement and a clear scope and consensus on values expected. Start by getting these right using the maturity assessment of BIG Principles and getting stakeholders together and formulation the scope and high level roadmap, along with expected values. Then get into the detailed planning of the project to deliver on the roadmap. The scope could be a low level unit or the whole organisation and this will impact on what principles and nodes are included, but the process is much the same up until we start looking at the detailed project plan.

I suggest we can expand on current samples in BIG BoK, and use the case studies (suitably anonymised), to build sample roadmaps with results and discussions to reflect on the case studies as resources to help drive understanding and interest and implementation of BIG. It is a simple matter then to link steps in the roadmap to such things as the services taxonomy in a visual and useful way.

DD

ChrisB
I like the blogs
“making of an integrated set of choices that collectively position the firm in its industry so as to create sustainable advantage relative to competition and deliver superior financial returns.” :-)
The second blog is very familiar :-)
I’ve overseen the implementation of probably 200+ PPM solutions and related accoutrements. I would always hear - you need to be at P3M maturity level 3 to do that. Clearly, customers didn’t need to be at level 3 to benefit, but were soon then at level 3.
My point is - I dont think we need a corporate strategy to fully do integrated governance and BIG - but we’ll certainly make it easier to create and sustain integrated strategy if we have elements of BIG in place in some areas to start with. :-)
Start somewhere - develop onwards?



  All Discussions  |  

  Hello Post  |  

  Direct Messages  |   

  Categories  |  

  How-To(Forum)