[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [tgf] APQC - Process Classification Frameworks
|
Ok everyone. thanks for those views. As I said at the outset, I had not heard of it before, and my simple mind thought ‘if I were a programme manager for some part of a smart city initiative, and
I had embraced the TGF and BSI Smart Cities profile, I would be looking around for tools to help me and my project managers implement it. Maybe this thing could be somehow leveraged/adapted’. But my sense from the responses is that there is more danger in doing that than creating implementation tools from scratch or looking elsewhere for them (CST
being an obvious place to look of course!). OK, fair enough. John: No, I was not proposing the TC offers comments to their review. No, this is not APQC’s response to Christchurch..it is just the smart city ‘profile’ checklist
of their PCF from what I can tell, supported by other docs available on their website tho’ I haven’t looked at those. No, Christchurch has not issued an RFI, since the meeting today is the very first kick off meeting to just get folks in a room to decide if
it is an idea worth exploring further. And yes, TGF and the BSI SC profile have been offered by the GCIO’s Engagement Manager in attendance for that meeting, to give them some comfort that, like most things in life these days, it has been done before so there’s
no need to re-invent everything. But since a colleague in the unit circulated the APQC link, it might be offered up by the Engagement Manager as well. There will be plenty of opportunity to put forward views later . Meanwhile I’ll give the folks here a sense
of the TC’s concerns. So, let’s leave it there and I’ll report any progress as I hear of it. Thanks again, much appreciated. Cheers Colin From: tgf@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:tgf@lists.oasis-open.org]
On Behalf Of Mark Woodward I'm in more-or-less the same place as Chris on this one. I did look at AQPC a few years ago when I was at Lancaster University (one of their PCFs is for Education), but didn't take it anywhere as I felt that there was a danger of it stifling
any innovation. The idea of a standard process framework setting out "best practice" can be useful for things like purchase-to-pay processes, things that are well-understood and unlikely to change until a genuine paradigm shift of some sort shows up, but
trying to apply it to something where innovation is not only still possible but probably inevitable is misguided in my view. Regards, Mark On 29 Jul 2014, at 10:21, Chris Parker <chris.parker@cstransform.com> wrote:
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 From: tgf@lists.oasis-open.org
[mailto:tgf@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of John Borras Colin 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? John
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]