Planning a short task 101 – the POAD This article is for the management, operations or technical newbie who is […]
Our colleagues over at Phase One Consulting Group have sponsored the creation of The Planning Institute . The Planning Institute was formed to help foster the standards and methods by which collaborative planning is performed. We stumbled upon this update in following Phase One`s blog on Plan for the Future .
From the The Planning Institute methodology overview and the overall web site, the new Collaborative Planning Methodology (CPM) is the replacement for the 2008 FSAM method which is primarily sourced from the 2006 MBT method. You can see how those methods were originally developed at Developing a Transformation Approach.
The Planning Institute concept has been in the works since 2006 when MBT originally got legs and the idea was to move to an open-source methodology and get tied into more and more methods, approaches, frameworks, maturity models, etc. For instance, MBT work products were mapped to supported variuos architecture frameworks (FEAF, DODAF, TOGAF, C4ISR) and FSAM mapped into various other IT Portfolio planning (CPIC, A&A, Privacy). MBT also was build with the premise of linking segment architecture to the IT Investment Maturity Framework. It will be interesting to see where CPM gets mapped into to bring in larger communities – PMP? Smart Lean Government?
This did get slightly sidetracked in 2007, when MBT was lifted to be the OMB FSAM, and for good reason, as that did help establish a Federal Government direction towards common analysis, architecture, and planning methods. It is nice to see the progression back towards open-source methods.
As the Phaseone blog notes:
No one in our industry wants to be on the front page of the Washington Post! There are many approaches to planning … many that result in the dreaded analysis paralysis. When we do take the time to plan, why does it sometimes not result in better performance? I believe the critical element to planning is collaboration. Ultimately, we have to realize that in most mission and business areas, there are a lot of people who have a lot of opinions. There is never a single individual who is always right, always wrong, or all knowledgeable about any given topic. Why do people come from so many different perspectives? Well, all of these people have different experiences, different responsibilities, and different levels of creativity and ambition. The bottom line: working hard to get the best out of these individuals is key to gaining consensus, and ultimately delivering a better plan and a better product.
Why do we need an update aside from its been 7-8 years?
FSAM did stumble to be unwieldy – presented too waterfall. Only a few groups like CDC and USGS (latter with Xentity) developed an Agile or adapted version of FSAM to do the products needed and required at the right time.
MBT had a similar curse. It could take 6-9 months to get to a 3-5 year plan, which is hard to fathom now. Now the DOI Geospatial Modernization Blueprint still is being implemented and still is relevant as the tact there was more like the CPM intent – the business and data investment issues are as relevant today as when the Geospatial blueprint started on MBT 1.0.
In Response to that, Xentity did introduce with Government sponsors the concept of FSAM and MBT as Transformation Lab Services to get more agile shorter, more tactical wins in change , but it was bad timing to get off the ground
Checking out the new Collaborative Planning Methodology (CPM)
The CPM is taken the Geospatial Blueprint tact of more on the longer-term planning issue level, and less on the technical architecture. The CPM is an update less do to technology, disruptions, or even agile project methods, but more a response to the gridlock of technology portfolio change.
It is a “full planning and implementation lifecycle”, where as FSAM stopped at planning and design, and was more about architecture, and MBT attempted at the implementation portion, but in all honesty, its strength was on the collaborative blueprint development by enterprise service or mission area.
CPM is not bent on any technology pattern such as cloud, nor even IT. Nor does it suggest as MBT and FSAM to be focused on specific segments. It really leans more towards a planning, and less about architecture. That does hint to the fact that the disruptions are moving so fast, discussing actual architecture recommendations are becoming more and more difficult to stay current.
What has carried on in CPM from FSAM and MBT?
What is very cool to see is the DOI, PhaseOne, and Xentity teams original concepts of governance gates between major decision points/steps, step at-a-glance view, work product based methods. This pattern still is critical to assure a solid foundation is laid. CPM is still broken down the same way as MBT and FSAM even with the complexity burden pie chart.
Looking back when we originally introduces this 1-page concept to a method during the methodology creation production workshops in DC and Denver, its amazing to see it stand as a key information reduction graphic even since MBT 1.0. Overall, it also gives a sense of comparing the maturing style of the planning as disruptions move SO MUCH faster in just ten years.
CPM Step 3 (2014)
FSAM Step 3 (2008)
MBT Step 3 (2005-2007)
Step Title: Define and Plan
Step Title: Define Business and Information Requirements
Step Title: Analyze the Business and Define the Target Business Environment
Amazing similarities, but you can see the appropriate gravitational move less from system architecting to portfolio designing to roadmapping.
To save some clicks, here are some excerpts from the Planning Institute site
THE COLLABORATIVE PLANNING METHODOLOGY (CPM)
Planning is done to effect change in support of an organization’s Strategic Plan, and the many types of planners (e.g. architects, organization and program managers, strategic planners, capital planners, and other planners) must work together to develop an integrated, actionable plan to implement that change. Planning should be used to determine the exact changes that are needed to implement an organization’s Strategic Plan, enable consistent decision-making, and provide measurable benefits to the organization. In short, an organization’s Strategic Plan should be executed by well-rounded planning that results in purposeful projects with measurable benefits.
In today’s environment, which demands more efficient government through the reuse of solutions and services, organizations need actionable, consistent, and rigorous plans to implement Strategic Plans and solve priority needs. These integrated plans should support efforts to leverage other Federal, state, local, tribal, and international experiences and results as a means of reusing rather than inventing from scratch. Plans should be consistent and rigorous descriptions of the structure of the organization or enterprise, how IT resources will be efficiently used, and how the use of assets such as IT will ultimately achieve stated strategies and needs.
The role of planners is to help facilitate and support a common understanding of needs based on the organization’s Strategic Plan, help formulate recommendations to meet those needs, and facilitate the development of a plan of action that is grounded in an integrated view of not just technology planning, but the full spectrum of planning disciplines to include, but not limited to, mission/business, IT resources, capital, security, infrastructure, human capital, performance, and records planning.
Planners provide facilitation and integration to enable this collaborative planning discipline, and work with specialists and subject matter experts from these planning groups in order to formulate a plan of action that not only meets needs but is also implementable within financial, political, and organizational constraints. In addition, planners have an important role to play in the investment, implementation, and performance measurement activities and decisions that result from this integrated planning process.
The Collaborative Planning Methodology, shown in Figure 1, is a simple, repeatable process that consists of integrated, multi-disciplinary analysis that results in recommendations formed in collaboration with sponsors, stakeholders, planners, and implementers. This methodology includes the master steps and detailed guidance for planners to use throughout the planning process. Architecture is but one planning discipline included in this methodology. Over time the methods and approaches of other planning disciplines will continue to be interwoven into this common methodology to provide a single, collaborative approach for organizations to use.
The Collaborative Planning Methodology is the next generation replacement for the Federal Segment Architecture Methodology (FSAM). As the replacement for the FSAM, the Collaborative Planning Methodology has been designed to be more flexible, more widely applicable, and more inclusive of the larger set of planning disciplines.
The Collaborative Planning Methodology is intended as a full planning and implementation lifecycle for use at all levels of scope defined in the Common Approach to Federal Enterprise Architecture: International, National, Federal, Sector, Agency, Segment, System, and Application.
Collaborative Planning Methodology Overview
The Collaborative Planning Methodology consists of two phases: (1) Organize and Plan and (2)Implement and Measure. Although the phases are shown as sequential, in fact there are frequent and important iterations within and between the phases. In the first phase, planners serve a key role facilitating the collaboration between sponsors and various stakeholders to clearly identify and prioritize needs, research other organizations facing similar needs, and formulate the plans to address the stated needs. In the second phase, planners shift into a participatory role, supporting other key personnel working to implement and monitor change related activities. As part of the second phase of the methodology, planners specifically support investment, procurement, implementation, and performance measurement actions and decisions.
The Collaborative Planning Methodology is stakeholder-centered with a focus on understanding and validating needs from sponsor and stakeholder perspectives, planning for those needs, and ensuring that what is planned ultimately results in the intended outcomes (Step 1). Additionally, this methodology is structured to embrace the principles of leverage and reuse by assisting planners in determining whether there are other organizations that have previously addressed similar needs, and whether their business model, experiences, and work products can be leveraged to expedite improvement (Step 2).
Ultimately, the Collaborative Planning Methodology helps planners work with sponsors and stakeholders to clearly articulate a roadmap that defines needs, what will be done to address those needs, when actions will be taken, how much it will cost, what benefits will be achieved, when those benefits will be achieved, and how those benefits will be measured (Step 3). The methodology also helps planners support sponsors and stakeholders as they make decisions regarding which courses of action are appropriate for the mission, including specific investment and implementation decisions (Step 4). Finally and perhaps most importantly, the methodology provides planners with guidance in their support of measuring the actual performance changes that have resulted from the recommendations, and in turn, using these results in future planning activities (Step 5).
For more information please see the other CPM pages as well as the Downloads Page where detailed guidance documents are available.
More about the Planning Institute notes:
WHO ARE WE?
We are a collection of government, industry, and non-profit organizations and individuals who are interested in better ways to conduct planning. We advocate open source methodologies that can be used around the globe to solve major IT and non-IT challenges..
WHAT IS OUR GOAL?
Our goal is to see the wide-spread use of open source methodologies for planning so that we can better (1) collaborate, (2) innovate, (3) and build a better future. The easier it is for us to work together, using a common vocabulary and process, the easier it will be to build a better future.
Xentity, Methodology Development example (2002-2008 How TAA grew to MBT grew to OMB FSAM)
Over 6 years, it took several iterations of method, applying to projects scaling up method scope, application on programs/segments, lots of info sharing, and then promotion to base of FSAM. This is not to direct the Content of the ACT-IAC, Smart Lean Government (SLG) efforts, but how the method got developed, training material built out and trainer, how the team went out information sharing, promoting, and then helping apply to support true business transformation and modernization blueprints.
Summary of Objectives:
– Covered how Xentity and partners supported the Dept of the Interior iterate/develop the “Methodology for Business Transformation” showing some sample deliverables, templates, and visuals
– Discuss how we iterated from Bureau TAA (02-03) to DOI MBT (04-06) to OMB FSAM (07-08) through maturing from bureau, to agency, to federal through not only iterative method development, but through applying in iteration. First a few blueprints at bureau, then four at agency cutting across different driven blueprints (legal, organization development, target architecture, and shared services), then improving the method, and doing more blueprints, then doing more communications and training, and finally, promotion to OMB through collaborative integration with other methods.
– Cover lessons learned, critical success factors (i.e. framework agnostic, mapping to frameworks, culture understood, tested in 3 cycles of blueprints, breaking into services, first attempted foray into doing as NGO in 2006)
– Pitfalls (i.e. overselling, under training, lacking certification, didn’t emphasize earlier phases, limited bureau accountability, perception and politics, moving to FSAM – losing key aspects, calling it method instead of approach, perceived waterfall and not presented situational, training/maintenance budget limits)
– Cover things we would do now differently (i.e. wiki, more examples, more new Media communications)
Related Xentity links:
- Developing a Transformation Approach – Jan 2006
- Kbase – Methodology for Business Transformation (Partner Access Only at this time)
- Kbase – Federal Segment Architecture Methodology (Partner Access Only at this time)