1. Building a Roadmap for
Implementing
SocioTechnical Change
Notes on Accommodation,
Assimilation and Maturity
Richard Veryard September 2012
2. Implementing something somewhere
Something … Somewhere …
Suppose we wish to implement … into some system or
A technology environment
A product or platform An organization, which may be
distributed or federated
A solution (to some problem
or requirement) An ecosystem
A strategy or policy A community, which may be
homogeneous or
A complex change
heterogeneous
A concept (e.g. “excellence”,
“org intelligence”)
Let’s call this “the target”.
Let’s call this “the solution”
3. Implementation requires Adaptation
Accommodation Assimilation
The target must The solution must be
accommodate the assimilated into the
solution. target.
Therefore there must be Therefore there must be
some managed change to
some managed change to the solution.
the target.
E.g. detailed solution
E.g. organizational development or
development customization
5. Assimilation
Solution as built Solution in use
Devices, support systems (vendor Local instructions & guidelines,
hotline), general interfaces, local interfaces, working
training packages, standard practices, fixes and work-
(reusable) solution templates arounds, user templates,
usability gap
7. Implementation Endpoint: Maturity
A mature solution … … in a mature target
Solution as Organization
Designed aligned
Intentions
aligned
aligned
Solution aligned
Organization
in Use Reality
8. So this gives us five streams of managed
adaptation/adoption
Direction and Coordination
Solution as designed/built
maturity
Solution in use
Organizational realities
Organizational intentions
time
9. Each stream can be managed separately
Different management concerns
Different specialist skills (technical, organizational,
political, cultural)
Different timescales, characteristic rates of change
10. Multiple Time Horizons
Hours Install software
Days Train staff
Months Pilot project,
Renegotiate incentives
Budget cycle
Years Technological maturity
Cultural change
Decades Technological lifecycles
Deep cultural change
11. Management Hierarchy
months years decades
days months years decades
hours days months years
hours days months
hours days
12. Two Perspectives
Target Management Perspective Supplier Perspective
Can we implement this Can we deliver this
solution? solution?
How should we How should we deliver
implement this solution? this solution?
How much will it cost How much will it cost us?
overall? How much will it cost the
How long will it take? customer overall?
How long will it take?
13. Implementation Roadmap
implies a Maturity Model
SOA example NCW example
Command and
Control
Self-
Traditional Collaboratio Synchronizatio
n n
Shared
Awareness
3 4
Business
Consistency
& Design
Developing Information
Situational Sharing
Time to
Market
Awareness
1 2
Cost
Reduction
Risk
Reduction
Organic
Sources 0
Source CBDi Source: CCRP
14. Capability Levels
Readiness Maturity Null
No relevant capability identified
Learning
Excellent Some relevant initiative or trial
identified
Adequate
Improving Sufficient to get started
Improving
Getting more efficient and/or
effective
Learning
Adequate Excellent
Null Enabling maximum
performance.
Must Should Could Source: CBDI Forum
16. Outcome Distribution
Differentiation
Intense usage
by selected Deep Full
users
Usage Usage
Integration
Initial Broad
Usage Usage
Occasional
Outcomes usage by
many users
17. Capability
Stepping stone
Phasing capabilities
Set of capabilities needed to
support proper usage by selected
users Differentiation
Focus on integration Deep Full
(=joining things up)
Set of capabilities needed
Integration
Initial Broad
(Deep Usage = Applied) Outcomes
to broaden the user base
across the extended
enterprise
Focus on differentiation
(=supporting diversity of
Set of capabilities needed to get started usage across different
(Initial Usage = Early Learning) classes of user)
(Broad Usage =
Enterprise)
18. Capability Dependency Quantity of Usage
Phase 2 Citizen-Centric
Integration
Diversity of Applications
Value of Usage
(“Joined-Up
18 Experience”)
Understanding
Citizen Process
Integration of Portal
Semantics
Supply-Side Integration Outcomes
Integration
Outcomes Knowledge
about usage
Technical
Rich
Integration
Content
(WSRP?)
User Differentiated Popular
Textual Awareness
Feedback Support
Content Solution
Support for Loop (“user-friendly”)
Funding
Special Stakeholder
Groups
User Support
(Help Desk) Communication
“My Page” Customization programme
Profiles Additional (Marketing)
Solutions
Funding
Stakeholder Broad range Strategy
Citizen Identity and Identification of content
Authentication
Phase 1 Phase 3
19. Phasing and Milestones (SOA Example)
Adoption
Fragment Project Domain Enterprise Ecosystem
Phases
Committed Committed
Status Interested
(Domain) (Enterprise)
Expertise Isolated Shareable Widespread
Assets Low Medium High
Activities Volume Volume Volume
Standard
Provisional Adopted Optimized
Practices
Few Minority Minority Majority
Projects Pilot Stand-Alone Integrated Integrated
20. Evolutionary Adaptation
The Solution Changes Over Time The Taregt Changes Over Time
Evolution of Learning by doing
requirements - what we Ongoing interaction with
really want countless other change
Demanding solutions – programmes and
what the solution requires initiatives
from us
21. Moving the GoalPosts
Maturity as Sociotechnical Congruence
Socio … … technical
Actual Technology
Organization in Use
Envisioned Installed
Organization Technology
22. Balancing the Elements of Implementation
based on ancient Chinese thought
Fire represents drive or purpose
The Implementation Program
Fire champions the benefits of the solution
Earth represents the raw material, networking,
social infrastructure.
The Program Office acts as a Center of
Wood Earth Excellence
Metal represents formal structure
Custodian of architectures and processes
Water represents intelligence, insight
Identifying and promoting opportunities
for sharing, collaboration and synergy.
Water Metal Wood represents planned activity
A Program Office to performs
programme management and
coordination functions.
23. … based on ancient Chinese thought
which leads to a cycle of workshops
Benefits
Agree business case
Motivation Support
Agree the transition organization, including
Project(s), Program Office and Steering
Committee. Provision tools and
Delivery Support infrastructure.
Growth Network Structure
Adopt and customize formal structures
(Reference Architecture, Process)
Understanding Opportunity
Architecture and planning
Delivery
Understanding Formal
Opportunity Structure Benefits
Review ROI from implementation activity,
approve next iteration
24. History
This framework was first developed in the late 1980s for
implementing software development tools and methods
(Information Engineering and associated CASE tools)
into large organizations.
The framework has also been used for subsequent
technologies including SOA.
The theoretical framework has been presented at a
number of conferences including IFIP WG 8.6 (1994).
User perspectiveFrom the perspective of the user organization, technology is usually acquired as the solution to some perceived problem or opportunity. This often follows a requirements engineering process, in which indeterminate wants are converted into defined needs, and a business case is constructed to support investment and/or procurement judgements.Procurement and implementation are often regarded as separate concerns. In the worst case, this may result in the procurement of solutions that turn out to be completely unimplementable. More frequently, attempted cost savings in the procurement process can result in significant cost escalations in the implementation process.Existing methods for requirements engineering, business case formulation and procurement are weak in methods for analysing implementability and for optimizing the total costs of acquisition and implementation. For a given solution, the main questions from the user perspective are as shown above:Users will want to compare several alternative solutions against these four criteria. They will also want to consider interactions between technologies, since they are unlikely to have the luxury of implementing technologies one at a time. Vendor perspectiveFrom the perspective of the vendor, technological products are usually developed to provide a solution to some class of perceived problems or opportunities, in some class of potential user organizations. This may follow a market requirements survey (demand pull), or may emerge from research and development (technology push).During the planning, development, marketing and selling of the solution, the vendor needs to think about the deliverability and implementability of the solution. Once the solution is developed and sold, the vendor may need to think about the actual method/approach of delivery and implementation. For a given type of user organization, main questions from a vendor perspective are:Vendors also wish to develop generic approaches, so that they can reuse tactics, materials and skills across many customers and prospects.
Capability Depth“These C2 maturity levels are scalable, in that they can be applied to groups of individuals and organizations of any size.”Source: Maturity Levels for NATO NEC Command, Dec 2006Capability Breadth“A scope based approach to maturity is the most useful determinant of maturity that decomposes well to each of the stream views because services are increasingly useful as they are used more widely, and conversely expanding the SOA scope beyond traditional organizational boundaries is without question the hardest thing to achieve “Source: CBDI Forum, Fine-Tuning the SOA Maturity Model, April 2007
OutcomesOutcome DistributionIn many situations, outcomes are not just simple binary events, but can be quantified. It is often useful to distribute outcomes across two dimensions – breadth and depth. Breadth refers to the scale, quantity and diversity of the outcome. For example, the penetration of a given technology across a target user population. Given an assumption of heterogeneity across the target population, greater breadth typically requires some degree of differentiation. Depth refers to the quality and intensity of the outcome. For example, the ability of some sectors within the target population to achieve maximum exploitation of a given technology. Given an assumption of complexity in the systems architectures, greater depth typically requires some degree of integration (which may be physical or virtual),