To add a comment to John’s….
This framework does actually feel quite broad to me, and in some senses covers very similar ground to TGF / SCF.
But for me the key flaw is the mental model that seems to underpin it. This is a recipe for managing a city like a giant engineering project, where some “űber-project manager” is managing a huge city-wide gantt chart. The reality is that cities aren’t like that. Change in cities gets delivered by the combined actions of tens of thousands of individual organisations and hundreds of thousands (or millions) of individual people. That can process of change can be shaped through the interventions of city leadership, but not managed and controlled in the linear way suggested by this spreadsheet.
The TGF / SCF approach is very different. Both follow the approach described below (I’ve quoted the SCF: TGF is the same except the word “government” replaces “city”), which focuses on:
“…. the key aspects of governance, planning and decision making that need to be managed at a whole-of-city level. This does not mean a top-down, centrally planned and managed approach; it does mean taking a city-wide approach to:
· establishing an integrated vision, strategy and benefits realization plan;
· underpinning this with an operating model which balances the need for city-wide management on the one hand and local innovation on the other;
· taking a “viral” approach to implementation: establishing the business processes, capacity and structures that can drive transformation and create sustained improvements over time, even if all the steps of that transformational journey cannot be planned in detail at the outset.”
The APQC approach by contrasts looks precisely like a “top-down, centrally planned and managed approach”. It looks like the sort of thing management consultants could happily spend 12 months filling out for a city, achieving next to no impact in the real world. This may be unfair, if the spreadsheet you’ve sent is simply a summary of actions and there is another document somewhere which looks at the underpinning approach and “how to”. If not, I’d suggest we are unequivocal in recommending to Christchurch that they focus on TGF!
Chris Parker
Managing Partner
CS Transform Limited
T: +44 7951 754060
F: +44 207 681 3908
Citizen Service Transformation
I seem to remember coming across this APQC outfit some time ago but dismissed them as another trade body, ala SLG in USA, trying to do stuff in a slightly different part of the market place. I think it's fair to say that the TGF goes far wider than their Process Framework and unless anyone sees the need then I don't propose to engage with them.
Not sure what you're asking here:
Is the APQC Framework out for public review, if so then as I said I don't feel pressure to respond although I suppose we could just say "See TGF".
If this document is the APQC response to "How to re-build Christchurch", then we or NZ Gov should push the BSI Smart Cities and TGF stuff as that is clearly much more appropriate and complete.
So where are things at present? Has Christchurch put out any sort of Request for Info, in which case we could respond to that direct?
I thought I’d bring this to your attention.
I admit to never hearing of it before, but in the context of some very early consideration of developing Christchurch (you know, the city that got smashed with a big earthquake 2/3 years ago) into a Smart City /Sensing city (and my forwarding them links to BSI Smart Cities profile of the TGF and the TGF itself of course!) a colleague of mine contributed this.
At first blush it looks to be quite complementary to the TGF, but I’d welcome your views.
_____________________________________________
The attached Draft planners framework, produced by the APQC (professional body) is currently out for global review. Wondered whether any of this framework would be of interest in the “Sensing City” context; or whether they would produce something similar – or maybe an extension – to this proposed framework? Is there scope for us (NZ Govt) to provide our own input to this future industry standard (potentially) and influence during it’s consultation period?
I think there is some synergy here, even if it’s more of us as the provider for a change (rather than a consumer!).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php