Purpose

I think it’s a fair statement to say “all organisations exist to create value for some stakeholders”.

I will posit it is true.

I think it follows that we need to then define organisational existence and value and stakeholders before we can meaningfully develop ideas from the opening statement.

Organisational existence

Is for as long as two or more people [intelligences!¿] cooperate in activity in the hope that it benefits them and/or at least one other person [intelligence]

Value

Anything that someone would choose to have [in exchange for something they already have?]

Stakeholders

Anyone (any intelligence?) with interest[s] in something whether legitimate in other’s opinion or not, whether _vested_or not.

I guess we have to define Benefit now too

Benefit

Anything that is considered by the user/ owner to enhance their existence in some way.
The receipt of value.
Value can be realised as a benefit and either consumed in realisation now (like food), or continuously (like a sculpture), or in the future (like a frozen steak or unopened bottle of claret to go with it).

Capital

When value is at rest maybe we call it an asset aka CAPITAL.
For example an acquired skill that we are able to exercise on demand.
When capital is in use it may be consumed as part of the value generation process - such as the transformation of raw materials to a finished product - or it may be a catalyst surviving the process intact - such as an acquired skill (In fact it may be enhanced or it may suffer a small amount of wear and tear the subject of depreciation as a tax allowance that recognises the erosion of semi permanent capital through use and thus a future need to replace it).

I think these definitions are about as wide as and inclusive as is possible for them to be.
Much of the conversation around BIG can be more restricted in the definitions that it uses.

Backcasting

A good technique for imagining the Path to Value is to BackCast from an imagined valuable future - Imaginary hindsight

Imagined Future State

The imagined future can be described in a testable definition that is capable of being subjected to a “yes | no” or “is | is not achieved” test.
By completing prototype statements of the form
As <role> I see/ hear/ feel/ smell <people/ things> actively generating <benefits> in <context> by <date>. We establish a viseral word picture of a valuable future.
This statement (and supporting ones to be descibed soon) should be tested for several qualities…

Realism

There are two ‘acid tests’ to be applied:

“I as <role> have the resorce control, capacity, power, influence and will to achieve <testable destination> by <‘date’>” AND
those I depend on have a clear WIIFM interest in acheiving it.

First Backcast

Then each signicant stakeholder (willing contributor?) drafts the 1, 2, 3 or 4 mandatory pre-requisites:

“As <role> in operations (BAU, RtO) I have <staff/ things/> in <capacity/ competancies> required by my role to achieve the target organisational operating state”

When the aggregate list of “in operations” is assembled and deduplicated, contradictions resolved, commitments compared to total capacity with in the organisation wide {intended-existing activity} minus {ceased activity (and costs and benefits per stakeholder with needed emotional adjustments noted)} plus {intended-new-activity (&emotions)} can the “I as <role> have the resorce control, capacity, power, inflence and will to achieve <operational activity norm> by <‘date’>” test be given a reliable first and continuously reassessed answer.

First BackCast ‘needs’ often include hidden private agendas.
Some of these are politically necessary to secure cooperation (but not normally all!). Recognition of removal is required for success.

Second (& Third) BackCast

Repeat the 1st BackCast “I as <role> have the resorce control, capacity, power, inflence and will to achieve <activity> by <‘date’>” (possibly by descending from leaders to managers to supervisor to coal-face staff).
Adjust aspirations / resourcing/ politicing (nemawashi) etc where an Who reconcilable contradiction exists.
Continuously ask “are we back to actions that can to taken immediately today?”
If not backcast again.
Three rounds is a good target.
Two or four acceptable.
More suggests too much optimised, backcast detail or to phrase another way insufficient flexability to grab serendipity and avoid shit-happens

Benefit Tests

“As role, on date in context I see behaviors” must be a yes / no test of a state where benefits will (won’t) be flowing that can be used to recognise Benefit Flow Start then Benefit Flow Ramp-Up then Benefit Flow Stability.

Stability marks PROGRAM Close.
Project close can be at either Start or Ramp-Up as agreed by Ops in an RtO state.
The two tests are separate and the gap between them needs to be somebody’s responsibility. Perhaps hand-over is a ramp down of project (CtO) and a parallel ramp up of operations via BAU | RtO.

That is The Future Planned Backwards

Back casting yields the Minimum Necessary path.
We can now plan forwards achievement of the nearest set of milestones and inch pebbles on the way to the new benefits flows.

Plans are Useless but Planning Indispensable

Whether we use predictive planning for well defined targets that we fully understand how to deliver in a stable context
or
whether we use exploratory empirical iterative development methods with pivots and sprints for defined targets that are unstable-as-destinations and or methods-of-delivery can now be a selection made on a case-by-case basis that is influenced by the business’ targets and the delivery team’s skills within the context of competitors regulators customers and for other internal | external factors

That’s a start to being BIG