The key words “MUST”, “MUST NOT”, “REQUIRED”, “SHALL”,
“SHALL NOT”, “SHOULD”, “SHOULD NOT”, “RECOMMENDED”, “MAY”, and “OPTIONAL” in
this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
The notations and conventions used for the patterns in this
document are covered in section 1.7 below.
[RFC2119] S.
Bradner, Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels, http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt, IETF RFC 2119, March 1997.
[Alexander 1964] C. Alexander, Notes on the Synthesis of Form,
Harvard University Press, 1964
[Alexander 1979] C. Alexander, The Timeless Way of Building,
Oxford University Press, 1979
[Brown 2011] P. Brown, Introducing Pattern Languages,
http://peterfbrown.com/patternlanguages.aspx, March 2011.
[Coplien 1996] J. O. Coplien, Software Patterns,
Bell Laboratories, The Hillside Group 1996
[EIF] The European
Interoperability Framework, version 2, European Commission 2010, Annex 2 of
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2010:0744:FIN:EN:PDF
[OIX] Open Identity Exchange, http://openidentityexchange.org/
[SFIA] The Skills Framework for the
Information Age, SFIA Foundation, http://www.sfia.org.uk/cgi-bin/wms.pl/932
[SOA-RAF] The SOA Reference Architecture
Framework, OASIS, http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=soa-rm
[SOA-RM] The Reference Model for
Service-Oriented Architecture, OASIS, http://docs.oasis-open.org/soa-rm/v1.0/
[PMRM] The Privacy Management Reference
Model, OASIS, http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=pmrm
[TGF-Primer] Transformational Government Framework Primer, 17 March
2011. OASIS Committee Note Draft 01 http://docs.oasis-open.org/tgf/TGF-Primer/v1.0/TGF-Primer-v1.0.docx
The text in the remainder of this section 1
Introduction is for information only and is neither normative nor part
of the TGF Pattern Language.
Transformational Government is defined in the Framework as
“A managed process of ICT-enabled change in the public sector, which puts the
needs of citizens and businesses at the heart of that process and which
achieves significant and transformational impacts on the efficiency and
effectiveness of government.” This definition deliberately avoids describing
some perfect “end-state” for government. That is not the intent of the Transformational
Government Framework.
Rather, the focus is on the process
of transformation: how a government can build a new way of working which
enables it rapidly and efficiently to adapt to changing citizen needs and
emerging political and market priorities. Central to this process is a strong
emphasis on leadership and governance as well as an
active role played by all stakeholders in the creation, delivery
and use of government services.
Whereas the [TGF-Primer] is intended primarily as a
detailed and comprehensive introduction to the Framework, the TGF Pattern
Language is intended as a working reference manual and tool of the main
concerns that the Framework covers. It is intended to be readable end-to-end as
a piece of prose but is structured also in a way that lends itself to being
quoted and used pattern by pattern and to being encapsulated in more formal,
tractable, and machine-processable forms including concept maps, Topic Maps,
RDF or OWL.
The idea of Pattern Languages, as a process for analyzing
recurrent problems and a mechanism for capturing those problems and archetypal
solutions, was first outlined by architect Christopher Alexander [Alexander
1964] and [Alexander 1979]: “The value of a Pattern Language is that remains
readable and engaging whilst providing basic hooks for further machine
processing… [it] is not an ‘out-of-the-box’ solution but rather some ‘familiar’
patterns with which a team can work” [Brown 2011].
Each pattern in a pattern language is expressed essentially
as a three-part rule:
The context in which a particular problem
arises (the ex-ante condition) and in which the pattern is intended to be used;
The ‘system of forces’ or problem to be solved
and that includes the drivers, constraints and concerns that the pattern is
intended to address – Alexander highlighted that this ‘system’ often involved
conflicting forces (for example, an architect’s desire confronted with a
material limitation) that the pattern should seek to resolve;
The ‘configuration’ or solution.
The exact configuration will vary from one pattern language
to another but each pattern in the TGF Pattern Language will be structured as
follows:
The name of the pattern and a reference
number
An introduction that sets the context and,
optionally, indicates how the pattern contributes to a larger pattern
A headline statement that captures the essence
of the problem being addressed
The body of the problem being addressed as
well as constraints and evidence for the pattern’s validity
The solution stated as an instruction or
instructions – what needs to be done
Optionally, some completion notes that links
the pattern to related and more detailed patterns that further implement or
extend the current pattern. This may also include references to external
resources that are not part of the standard
The patterns of the TGF Pattern Language are grouped
together and organized into a series of sections, corresponding to the
high-level structure of the Transformational Government Framework.
Some patterns may be used in more than one part of the
overall Framework but will only be outlined completely once, when first
encountered. Thereafter, reference will be made back to its original definition.
Below is an example of a pattern together with comments
about the notation and conventions used.
Note: The example is not a pattern that is
part of the TGF Pattern Language as it was drafted from an early proof of
concept. It is strictly informative.
[4]
Collaborative Stakeholder
Governance
It
is a core responsibility of the [22] Transformational
Government Leadership and stakeholders together to design and
deliver a [5] Benefit Realisation Strategy.
The [29] Business Management Framework provides
guidance on six key aspects of business management including collaboration
between stakeholders. Both [21] Strategic
Clarity and [24] Stakeholder
Engagement ensure that stakeholder views are clear and understood;
and effective [38] Policy Product Management
helps ensure that they share a common understanding of TG program expectations,
including the [2] Guiding Principles.
v v
v
The TG program
requires a process by which all key stakeholders are identified, engaged and
buy-in to the transformation program.
Development and delivery of an
effective Transformational Government program requires engagement with a very
wide range of stakeholders, not only across the whole of government but also
with the private sector, voluntary and community sectors as well as with
business and citizen users of public services. A significant effort is needed
to include all stakeholders in the governance of the Transformational
Government program at an appropriate and effective level.
The Collaborative Stakeholder Governance Model assists a TG
program to engage successfully with stakeholders and align them effectively
behind shared objectives. It does this through stakeholder mapping and
stakeholder engagement as well as keeping an eye open to potential or required
cooperation with TG programs of other governments and agencies.
Therefore:
A conformant TG program must have
a Collaborative Stakeholder Governance Model as part of its overall business
management.
This model must explicitly articulate a comprehensive
stakeholder map, coupled with the structures, processes and incentives needed
to deliver full understanding and buy-in to the program, plus effective
stakeholder action in support of it.
Tooling should be provided with
the aim of supporting all stakeholders and facilitating their collaboration as
partners in the TG Franchise Marketplace.
v v
v
Stakeholder
collaboration is further aided by a [37] Common
Terminology and Reference Model and more specifically an up-to-date
mapping of stakeholders depicted in a [63]
Stakeholder Model, and their engagement through the [74] Stakeholder Engagement Model; in addition
to a clear understanding of how they form part of the TG [58] Ecosystem and contribute to [75] Interoperability. Stakeholders also play
key roles in the development of the [39]
Franchise Marketplace Model.
Any process of transformation introduces new concepts or
radically changes our understanding of existing ones. That process therefore
requires that unambiguous terms are used consistently to refer to those
concepts. Transformational Government is no exception, and a number of key
terms are introduced and used:
-
some of them may be familiar;
-
some may be familiar but are used in a very specific or
unfamiliar way;
-
some may be unfamiliar or entirely new
We therefore invite readers to refer to the “Core
Terminology” in the [TGF-Primer], which is provided to ensure a clear,
consistent and shared understanding of the key concepts involved.
2
The Transformational Government Framework
In the increasingly common situation of governments being
expected to deliver better and more services for less cost whilst maintaining
high-level oversight and governance, the Transformational Government Framework
provides a methodology for designing and delivering an effective program of
technology-enabled change at all levels of government.
The Transformational Government Framework (TGF) is made up
of four high-level components that can be seen schematically below:
Figure 1 - The Overall Framework
The TGF Pattern Language
The core concepts and building blocks of the Framework are
expressed below as a set of Patterns that together make up an initial set of “Core
Patterns” of what can be an evolving TGF Pattern Language.
The patterns in the TGF Pattern Language mostly cover the
core delivery processes, “topped and tailed” by patterns concerned with Guiding
Principles and Critical Success Factors.
The Transformational Government Framework is made up of a
core of 20 patterns, starting and ending with high level concerns, Guiding
Principles and Critical Success Factors.
Component 1 – Guiding Principles
[1] Guiding
Principles
A one size-fits-all approach to
government transformation will not work. There are nevertheless some guiding
principles which are universal and help inform the delivery of services.
v v
v
A management hand on the tiller is not enough to deliver
effective transformation.
“Transformational Government” is a managed process of
ICT-enabled change in the public sector, which puts the needs of citizens and
businesses at the heart of that process and which achieves significant and
transformational impacts on the efficiency and effectiveness of government.
However, even the most well intentioned and effectively governed program can
drift off course without clear direction provided by explicit and
well-publicized guiding principles.
Therefore:
Use a set of high-level guiding
principles that cover as a minimum the need to:
-
Develop a detailed and segmented understanding of your citizen
and business customers;
-
Build services around customer needs, not organizational
structure;
-
Ensure service transformation is done with citizens, businesses,
and organizations and not to them;
-
Grow the market for transformed services;
-
Manage and measure key critical success factors.
v v
v
See also “Part II, Component 1: Guiding Principles” in [TGF
Primer].
Delivering these principles, in line with the Critical
Success Factors, requires government to re-visit – and potentially to transform
– every stage of the service delivery process. The Transformational Government
Framework identifies four main delivery processes, each of which must be
managed in a government-wide and citizen-centric way in order to deliver
effective transformation. Most of the following patterns are concerned with the
delivery processes and are presented in four sections :
·
Section 2.1 Business Management
·
Section 2.2 Customer Management
·
Section 2.3 Channel Management; and
·
Section 2.4 Technology Management
Patterns [2] to [16] below cover all four of these delivery
mechanisms.
The core set of TGF patterns is completed by patterns [17]
to [19] for the key Critical Success Factors and the final pattern [20]
Benefits Realization.
Component 2 – Delivery Processes
2.1 Business Management
[2] Program
Leadership
Transformation programs require
strategic clarity and sustained leadership over a period of years.
v v
v
There is no “ideal” leadership structure for a
transformation program. Transformational government cannot be pursued on a
project-by-project or agency-specific basis but requires a whole-of-government
view.
The transformational government program needs to connect up
relevant activities in different agencies at different levels of government
within and between countries. All program stakeholders have a common, agreed
and comprehensive view of what the program is seeking to achieve.
The optimal positioning of the leadership team will depend
on the context of each specific government. Key functions should be occupied by
individuals with sufficient authority to command the resources and mobilize the
support necessary to fulfill this mission. Effective leadership of a program
requires the senior accountable leaders to have access to a mix of key skills
in the leadership team which they build around them, including: strategy
development skills, stakeholder engagement skills, marketing skills, commercial
skills and technology management skills. It is not essential that all Ministers
and senior management are committed to the transformation program from the
outset. Indeed, a key feature of an effective roadmap for transformation is
that it nurtures and grows support for the strategy through the implementation
process. However, it is important that the program is seen not simply as a
centralized or top-down initiative. Sharing leadership roles with senior colleagues
across the Government organization is important.
Therefore:
Have a clear vision based on an All-of-Government view
and focus on results.
Focus on taking concrete, practical steps in the short to
medium term, rather than continually describing the long-term vision.
Political and management leadership must commit to the
program for the long term. This is particularly relevant given the realities of
changing political leadership and underlines the need to provide for continuity
across those changes.
Establish clear accountability at
both the political and management levels of the program.
Deploy formal program management
disciplines and have a clearly identified mix of leadership skills.
Engage a broad-based leadership
team across the wider government.
Ensure the Program’s
interoperability with other services and programs through appropriate
Government-to-Government cooperation.
v v
v
Establish a strong Business Case and know what outcomes you want
to achieve, know where you are now and how you will measure success. These are
amongst several [17] Critical Success Factors and which are further
detailed in Part II of the [TGF Primer].
The private, voluntary and
community sectors have considerable influence on citizen attitudes and
behavior. These influences must be transformed into partnerships which enable
the market to deliver program objectives. This requires a “map” of all
stakeholders as part of overall business management.
v v
v
It is not enough to map and understand stakeholder
relationships and concerns. Classic models of ‘actor’ and ‘stakeholder’ also
need to be re-assessed
Leaders from all parts of the government organization, as
well as other organizations involved in the program, are motivated for the
program to succeed and are engaged in clear and collaborative governance
mechanisms to manage any risks and issues. The development and delivery of an
effective Transformational Government program requires engagement with a very
wide range of stakeholders, not only across the whole of government but also, in
most cases, with one or more of the private, voluntary and community sectors as
well as with public service customers. A significant effort is needed to
include all stakeholders in the governance of the Transformational Government
program at an appropriate and effective level.
The generic concept of ‘User’ that is dominant in
traditional IT stakeholder engagement models needs to be replaced by a model
that disambiguates and identifies the different interests and concerns that are
at stake as well as the key groups of stakeholders in the development of any
service. By clearly separating out key stakeholder groups and starting to
recognize and articulate their specific concerns as stakeholders (any
individual’s role may vary according to context), an understand can
evolve of how stakeholders relate (in different roles): to each other; to
various administrations and services involved; to policy drivers and
constraints; and how these all come together in a coherent ecosystem supported
by a Transformational Government Framework.
Therefore:
Put a Collaborative Stakeholder
Governance Model in place that ensures that all stakeholders are identified and
engaged; and that they buy-in to the transformation program.
Create a Stakeholder Engagement
Model that ensures that there are adequate Stakeholder Engagement Structures,
Stakeholder Engagement Processes and Stakeholder Incentives in place.
Have a clear understanding both of
the transformational government program as well as how to engage with it,
irrespective of stakeholder role – as public service customer, supplier,
delivery partner elsewhere in the public, private and voluntary sector,
politician, the media, etc.
Develop a comprehensive
stakeholder map, coupled with the structures, processes and incentives
needed to deliver full understanding and buy-in to the program, plus effective
stakeholder action in support of it.
Model the stakeholders, actors and
systems that comprise the overall service ecosystem and their relationships to
each other. Maintain and update the stakeholder model on a regular basis.
v v
v
There is no single, correct model for doing this
successfully, but any conformant TGF program needs to make sure that it defines
its own Collaborative Stakeholder Engagement Model which explicitly articulates
all of these elements: map all stakeholders, coupled with the structures,
processes and incentives needed to deliver full understanding and buy-in to the
program, plus effective stakeholder action in support of it.
Map All Stakeholders and maintain this map as part of
overall business management. The development of successful customer franchises
within the [7] Franchise Marketplace will depend on the
effectiveness of collaborative governance.
See also “The Stakeholder Engagement Model” in Part III(a) of
the [TGF Primer] (“Guidance on the TGF Business Management Framework”).
In any change program of the breadth and complexity that the
TGF supports, it is vital that all stakeholders have a common understanding of
the key concepts involved and how they interrelate, and have a common language
to describe these in.
v v
v
Leadership and communication both break down when
stakeholders understand and use terms and concepts in very different ways,
leading to ambiguity, misunderstanding and, potentially, loss of stakeholder
engagement.
Concepts do not exist in isolation. In addition to clear
definitions and agreed terms, It is the broader understanding of the
relationships between concepts that give them fuller meaning and allow us to
model our world, our business activities, our stakeholders, etc. in a way that
increases the chance that our digital systems are an accurate reflection of our
work. Any conformant agency should be able to use a common terminology without
ambiguity and be sure that these terms are used consistently throughout all
work.
Therefore:
Ensure that all stakeholders have a clear, consistent and
common understanding of the key concepts involved in Transformational
Government; how these concepts relate to each other; how they can be formally
modeled; and how such models can be leveraged and integrated into new and
existing information architectures. To this end:
Seek agreement among stakeholders to establish and
maintain an agreed and shared Common Terminology and Reference Model.
v v
v
A core terminology is proposed in the [TGF Primer]
and any program should consider this as a basis for its own terminology and
reference model.
In any government, “Policy
Products” - the written policies, frameworks and standards which inform
government activity - are important drivers of change. In the context of
Transformational Government, the [2] Program Leadership will use a wide
set of Policy Products to help deliver the program.
v v
v
Traditional policy approaches for e-government have often
been too narrowly focused. An effective Transformational Government program
requires a more holistic approach to policy development.
We define a "Policy Product" as: any document that
has been formally adopted on a government-wide basis in order to help achieve
the goals of transformational government. These documents vary in nature (from
statutory documents with legal force, through mandated policies, to informal
guidance and best practice) and in length (some may be very lengthy documents;
others just a few paragraphs of text).
Over recent years, several governments have published a wide
range of Policy Products as part of their work on e-Government, including
e-Government Visions, e-Government Strategies, e-Government Interoperability
Frameworks, and Enterprise Architectures. Other governments are therefore able
to draw on these as reference models when developing their own Policy
Products. However, we believe that the set of Policy Products required to
ensure that a holistic, government -wide vision for transformation can be
delivered is much broader than is currently being addressed in most
Interoperability Frameworks and Enterprise Architectures.
This more holistic approach is captured in the matrix shown
below, which MUST be used to create a map of all the Policy Products needed to
deliver a particular TGF program effectively. This matrix maps the four
delivery processes of the TGF (Business Management, Customer Management,
Channel Management and Technology Management) against five broad
interoperability domains identified in the [EIF] (technical, semantic,
organizational, legal, and policy interoperability). While the EIF framework is
conceptually complete, mapping it against these core delivery processes
provides a much clearer sense of the actions needed.
Therefore:
Use the following matrix to
classify the Policy Products:
Delivery Processes
|
Interoperability
Levels
|
|
Political
|
Legal
|
Organizational
|
Semantic
|
Technical
|
|
Business
Management
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Customer
Management
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Channel
Management
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Technology
Management
|
|
|
|
|
|
Identify, for each and every cell in the matrix, the
policy product(s) that are needed to deliver the Transformational Program
effectively. Nil, one, or multiple policy product(s) may be required per cell.
Consideration MUST be given to every cell as to which policy products might be
included.
v v
v
The [2] Program Leadership should undertake this
policy gap analysis through [3] Engagement with Stakeholders, and
then ensure that the accountability and process for developing any missing
Policy Products is embedded within the [8] Roadmap for Transformation.
Examples of policy products that can be found to populate
the cells of the matrix can be found in ‘Policy Product Management’ in Part
III(a) of the [TGF Primer].
A central task of the [2] Program Leadership is to
enable the machinery of government to deliver customer-centric services. They
need to cooperate with stakeholders in developing a new business model that
delivers those services in practice, when and where they are needed.
v v
v
The failure to create an appropriate new business model
has arguably been the greatest weakness of most traditional e‑Government
programs. The transition to e‑Government has involved overlaying
technology onto the existing business model of government: a business model
based around existing functionally-oriented government departments and
agencies. These behave like unconnected silos in which policy-making, budgets,
accountability, decision-making and service delivery are all embedded within a
vertically-integrated delivery chain based around delivery functions
rather than recipient needs.
The experience of governments around the world over the last
two decades has been that silo-based delivery of services simply does not
provide an effective and efficient approach to e-government. Without
examination of, or fundamental change to, the underlying business model level,
the design and delivery of services remains fragmented and driven by the
structures of government, rather than the needs of the government’s customers.
Government transformation programs involve a shift in
emphasis, away from silo-based delivery and towards an integrated,
multi-channel, service delivery approach: an approach which enables a
whole-of-government view of the customer and an ability to deliver services to
citizens and businesses where and when they need it most, including through
one-stop services and through private and voluntary sector intermediaries.
v v
v
Therefore:
Establish a Transformational Business Model to help
build services around citizen and business needs, not government’s
organizational structure. This will include:
·
providing citizens and businesses with services which are
accessible in one stop and ideally offered over multiple channels
·
enabling those services also to be delivered by private and
voluntary sector intermediaries.
The Transformational Business Model must go beyond simple
coordination between the existing silos and should include:
- An
integrated business and information architecture which enables a
whole-of-government view of the customer, thus making possible both the
integration of services and “cross-selling” between services
·
Incentives and business processes that encourage the internal
cultural change and cross-silo collaboration needed to drive the integration
and joining-up of services.
·
A cross-government strategy for shared development, management
and re-use of common customer data sets, applications, and applications
interfaces (e.g. authentication, payments, and notifications).
Do not spend money on technology before addressing
organizational and business change and design for re-use and interoperability.
v v
v
Rather than attempting to restructure Government to deliver
such a Transformational Business Model, the [7] Franchise Marketplace SHOULD be considered as the recommended approach to
implement this model. Multi-channel delivery of services can be provided
through optimized [14] Channel Transformation. Common customer data sets
can be built as shared services with customer data under customer control and
managed using [16] Technology Development and Management. This pattern
is facilitated by placing citizen, business, and organizational data under
their control as set out in [11] Customer Identity Management.
The [6] Transformational Business Model underpins the
requirement of Transformational Government programs to build services around
citizen and business needs rather than government’s organizational structure.
This includes having a whole-of-government view of the customer; as well as
providing those customers with services that are accessible when and where they
are most needed and ideally offered over multiple channels. This can be
achieved using a “Franchise Marketplace”
v v v
There is a seeming paradox -
given the huge range of government service delivery - between keeping “global”
oversight of all aspects of a customer’s needs at the same time as delivering
well-targeted services in an agile way.
Too many government
departments and agencies have overlapping but partial information about their
citizens and business customers, but nobody takes a lead responsibility for
owning and managing that information across government, let alone using it to
design better services.
One way of addressing this
problem has been to restructure government: to put responsibility for customer
insight and service delivery into a single, central organization which then
acts as the “retail arm” for government as a whole to interact with all its
customers.
Under this model, one
organization becomes responsible for the service delivery function across all
channels - face-to-face, contact center, web - with relevant staff and budgets
being transferred from other agencies.
This is one way of implementing the [6] Transformational Business
Model as required but with one obvious difficulty: making structural
changes to government can be extremely hard. The sheer scale of the “government
business” means that any changes need to be implemented carefully over a long
period of time and take account of the inherent risks in organizational
restructuring. The resulting large-scale delivery organization needs extremely
careful management if it is to maintain the agility that smaller-scale, more
focused delivery organizations can achieve.
An alternative approach is called the “Franchise
Marketplace”: a model that permits the joining-up of services from all parts of
government and external stakeholders in a way that makes sense to citizens and
businesses, yet without attempting to restructure the participating parts of
government.
v v v
Therefore:
Establish a number of agile, cross-government, virtual
"franchise businesses" that:
a) are
based around customer segments (such as, for example, parents, motorists,
disabled people) and that sit inside the existing structure of government;
b) deliver
customer-centric, trusted and interoperable content and transactions to
citizens, businesses and other organizations; and
c) act
as champions of and drivers for customer-centric public service improvement.
v v v
The Franchise Marketplace is a specific example of a [6]
Transformational Business Model and is considered as the most effective and
lowest risk way of delivering the element of the [1] Guiding Principles
which requires Transformation Programs to “Build services around customer
needs, not organizational structure”. More detail on the Franchise Marketplace
model is set out in the [TGF-Primer]
It is essential that the vision
of the [2] Program Leadership, and the associated [6] Transformation
Business Model and process of [5] Policy Product Management are
translated into an effective Roadmap for Transformation. This should not be
some all-encompassing master plan – which tends to be brittle and prone to
failure – but a pragmatic framework for delivering clearly identifiable results
in achievable stages.
v v
v
Big-bang approaches don’t work
Since everything can clearly not be done at once, it is
vital to map out which elements of the transformation program need to be
started immediately, which can be done later, and in what order. The "big
bang" approach to implementation has been shown not to work or be
effective. By its nature it is heavily reliant on significant levels of
simultaneous technological and organizational change. Instead, a
transformational government program will develop a phased delivery roadmap
which balances quick wins with the key steps needed to drive longer term
transformation.
Therefore:
Establish a phased Transformation Roadmap.
Work with citizens and businesses to identify a set of
services that represents a ‘quick win’ for government and its customers alike.
Give priority to services that can be delivered quickly,
at low cost, and low risk using ‘off the shelf’ (rather than bespoke)
solutions.
Establish systems to learn from early customer
experience, to improve services in the light of this, and then to drive higher
levels of take-up.
Work with early adopters within the government organization
in order to create exemplars and internal champions and thus learn from
experience and drive longer-term transformation.
v v
v
The [TGF Primer] gives further details of best
practices for planning and delivering a Transformation Roadmap. In particular,
it sets out a Strategic Trade-off Model which can be helpful in guiding the
focus of the [2] Program Leadership through the course of
the transformation program as it evolves. It also describes the typical
structure of a best practice Transformation Roadmap, covering five main phases:
Plan, Initiate, Deliver, Consolidate, and Transform.
The Transformation Roadmap should be pursued with due
attention to risk management, and should therefore include checkpoints at key
stages to allow regular, independent review of performance against the [17]
Critical Success Factors.
[9] Brand-Led
Service Delivery
Insight into citizen and business
needs helps develop a detailed and segmented understanding of citizens and
businesses as customers of government services.
v v
v
A lack of focus on customers often leads to duplicated
and inefficient government services delivered through inappropriate channels.
Understanding customer needs, and how to design and deliver
services that users will engage with, requires a brand-led approach. A brand is
something much deeper and more fundamental than logos, badging and corporate
identity. It is the underlying promise made by an organization to its customers
about the products and services it delivers, as reflected in the reality of how
customers experience those products and services. Branding is a discipline in
which governments lag behind the best of the private sector. Whereas brand
development in the private sector is an explicit and vital driver of overall product
and service strategy, the public sector has largely ignored a painful fact:
that its services constitute a brand, whether they acknowledge this or not, and
one that is all-too-often perceived negatively.
In a brand-led company, customer insight informs all aspects
of the product development process, and involves a comprehensive program of
qualitative and quantitative research to understand and segment the customer
base. Lessons learned from this are fed into a brand-led product management
process - not as a one-off input of initial research, but through a continuous
process of iterative design and customer testing. A key output from this is a
set of brand values for the product or service, which then need to drive all
aspects of service delivery, support, and marketing. This is all managed as an
iterative process of continuous improvement.
If governments are to succeed in the ambition of shifting
service delivery decisively away from traditional channels to lower-cost digital
channels, then these branding challenges must be met.
Therefore:
Establish a culture of Brand-led Service Delivery across
government, based around three key pillars of (i) Customer Insight, (ii) Product
Management, and (iii) Marketing and Communication:
(i)
Customer Insight: Don’t assume to know what customers of a
service think. Be obsessive about understanding the needs of customers – both
internal and external – on a segmented basis. Invest in developing a real-time,
event-level understanding of citizen and business interactions with government.
(ii) Product
management: Establish a brand-led product management process covering all
stages of government service design and delivery, agreed and managed at a
whole-of-government level, which gives citizens access to "one-stop
services” available over multiple channels.
(iii) Marketing
and communication: Use the brand values for one-stop government to drive all
aspects of marketing and communications for government services.
v v
v
Often, governments may face significant gaps in terms of the
people and skills needed to manage brand-led product development and marketing
cycles of this nature, so identifying and addressing these gaps as part of the [18] Skills strategy is vital. It is also vitally important that the
drive to brand-led service delivery is led at a whole-of-government level: the
element of the [1] Guiding Principles which points to the need to “own
the customer at the whole-of-government” level is therefore of particular
significance for this pattern. The cultural change required by brand-led
service delivery will be facilitated and accelerated through [10] Customer
Empowerment.
Many e-Government programs have
failed because the citizen and business customers of public sector services are
seen as simply passive recipients of those services rather than active
stakeholders in their design and delivery.
v v
v
Service transformation is done with citizens, businesses
and organizations, and not to them
The focus of a Transformational Government program is on
citizens, businesses, and other organizations being actively engaged as owners
and participants – as stakeholders – in the creation of public services and not
just as passive consumers of those services.
Therefore:
Engage service customers directly
in service design and delivery as active stakeholders.
Encourage and enable service
innovation in the Citizen-to-Citizen, Business-to-Citizen,
Citizen-to-Government, and Business-to-Government sectors.
Give people the technology tools
that enable them to create public value themselves. Give them ownership and
control of their personal data.
Make all non-personally
identifiable data that is held by government, freely open for reuse and
innovation by third parties.
v v
v
Encourage internal cultural change with the [6] Transformational Business Model as well as through [3] Engagement with Stakeholders by use of a [7] Franchise Marketplace.
A key element of the [1]
Guiding Principles is that “Service transformation is done with citizens, businesses,
and organizations and not to them”. One of the consequences of this is that an
effective identity management strategy needs to give people – whether acting on
their own behalf as a citizen, or on behalf of another citizen or of a business
– ownership and control of their personal data.
v v v
Identity management is a key enabler of effective service
delivery, yet something with which most governments struggle. At the heart of
that struggle is often a failure to put the customer – whether a citizen or a
business – at the center of government's thinking about identity.
Identity is a complex, and by definition deeply personal,
concept. An individual may have multiple, overlapping and partial "identities”,
each of which is associated with different rights and permissions, even
different addresses. These identities often overlap, but in some cases the individual
may want to keep them separate in order to protect privacy. At other times, the
individual may want them to be joined up, and be frustrated at constantly
having to furnish government with the same information over and over again.
Governments have often struggled to manage this complexity, for reasons
described in [TGF-Primer].
A wide range of agencies, standards bodies and advocacy
groups are deeply involved in many aspects of the work needed to resolve these
problems, from technical models for privacy management (such as the OASIS [PMRM])
through to the business, legal and social issues around online identity
assurance (such as promoted by [OIX]). It is not the purpose of the
Transformational Government Framework to address the details of identity
management but rather to give high-level guidance on the main issues that a
conformant program should seek to address – based on a set of best practices
which is emerging around the world and which we believe represents a way
forward for transformational government, which is broadly applicable across a
very wide range of governments.
Therefore:
Establish a Customer Identity Management Framework and
within this:
-
Have a business architecture based on federation between a
wide range of trusted organizations (the Government, banks, employers etc.),
and a clear model for cross-trust between these organizations;
-
Use a supporting technology architecture which does not rely
on monolithic and potentially vulnerable large databases but which, in line
with the SOA paradigm, uses Internet-based gateway services to act as a broker
between the different databases and IT systems of participants in the federated
trust model;
-
Put people directly in control of their own data, able to manage
their own relationship with government – whether on their own behalf as individual
citizens or in another identity relationship or intermediated role – and with
clearly visible controls to reassure them that this is the case.
v v v
Further
details about this Identity Management approach are described in [TGF
Primer]. No one Government has implemented all features of this approach,
but all are being successfully deployed around the world, and together they
represent our view of the approach to identity management which will best help
deliver Transformational Government. This pattern is important in order to
deliver integrated, citizen-centric services as part of a [6] Transformational Business Model and the [7] Franchise Marketplace, as well as to enable the customer-led service
innovation envisaged by [10] Customer Empowerment. At a
technology level, the approach is underpinned by the SOA-based [16] Technology Development and Management.
[12] Channel Management Framework
Government services are delivered
through a wide range of channels. One of the core aims of a Transformational
Government program is to ensure that these are managed in the most cost-effective
way at a whole-of-government level, and meet the needs of citizen and business
customers.
v v
v
Channel management is often a
weak spot in government service delivery, with widespread duplication,
inefficiency and lack of user-focus.
Experience has shown the common
pitfalls in channel management by governments include:
·
Managing new, digital channels as
"bolt-ons", with business and technical architectures which are
entirely separate from traditional face-to-face or paper-based channels
·
No common view of customer service
across multiple channels
·
Operational practices, unit costs
and service standards for many channels which fall well below standards set for
those channels in the private sector
·
A reliance on government-owned
channels, with insufficient understanding of how to partner with private and
voluntary sector organizations who have existing trusted channels to government
customers
·
Unproductive
and costly competition among service delivery channels
Transformational Government
programs seek to avoid these pitfalls, by building a channel management
approach centered on the needs and behavior of its citizen and business
customers. This means that delivery of services needs to be customer-centric,
with services accessible where and when citizens and businesses want to use
them, including through both "one-stop" services and a wide range of
private and voluntary sector intermediaries. Services should be offered over
multiple channels, but with clear policies to shift service users into
lower-cost digital channels (including a digital inclusion strategy to enable
take-up of digital services by those segments of the customer population
currently unable or unwilling to use them)
Therefore:
Establish a Channel Management Framework, which includes:
·
a clear audit of what existing
channels are currently used to deliver government services, and the costs and
service levels associated with these (‘Channel Mapping’); and
·
the vision and roadmap for
developing a new channel management approach centered on the needs and behavior
of citizens and businesses (‘Channel Transformation’).
v v v
This pattern helps deliver
integrated, customer-centric services as part of a [6] Transformation
Business Model and the [7] Franchise Marketplace, as well as to
enable the service innovation envisaged by [10] Customer Empowerment.
It is extended by two further
patterns, [13] Channel Mapping and [14] Channel Transformation
Strategy.
[13] Channel
Mapping
A vital first step in developing
a [12] Channel Management Framework is to carry out a mapping of
existing delivery channels across government, and to put a cost to each
transaction delivered through these channels based on standard industry
assumptions.
v v v
Government service delivery organizations often do not
have a clear and quantified understanding of which channels their customers
use, what the average and marginal costs of delivery through these channels is,
or how service levels and customer satisfaction vary by channel.
When government organizations carry out a full channel
mapping for the first time, a common finding is that much customer contact
between governments and citizens/businesses is:
·
unnecessary - because the user is
struggling to find the right place to get the service they need, resulting in
multiple contacts before their need is finally resolved
·
hidden and un-costed - because
only some of these customer contacts are caught by existing management
information systems. The rest are just lost within the broader operational
structure and budget of the organization.
And when channel mapping is undertaken at the
whole-of-government level, it typically highlights significant duplication
across government (for example: having multiple high-street locations in the
same town serving different government departments or agencies; thousands of
contact telephone numbers; hundreds or even thousands of web-sites). There is
significant scope for delivering both cost savings and service improvements by
joining government services together through channels managed on a shared basis,
and through channels managed by private and voluntary sector intermediaries.
Therefore:
Establish a clear map of customer interactions by channel, and the true
costs of these, in order to provide essential data in both building the
business case for service transformation, and in highlighting priority areas
for reform.
Take a holistic approach to understanding the range of
channels through which government services are and could be delivered,
including both “Channel Mix” (that is, the physical type of channel being used,
including face-to-face, mail, e-mail, Internet and telephone) and also the
variety of "Channel Ownership" options that are available (including
service delivery through private and voluntary sector channels).
v v v
This pattern is needed to inform development of a [14]
Channel Transformation Strategy. Further details on how to set about
Channel Mapping can be found in Part III(c) of the [TGF Primer].
[14] Channel Transformation
The [12] Channel Management Framework requires a TGF
program not only to undertake [16] Channel Mapping of existing channel
usage and channel costs, but also to develop a Channel Transformation Strategy that
sets out the vision and roadmap for developing a new channel management
approach centered around the needs and behavior of citizens and businesses.
v v v
Government can learn a lot from the best of private
sector approaches to channel management, but also needs to recognize unique
challenges and opportunities that apply to channel management in the public
sector.
Once a full [13] Channel
Mapping has captured the current channel mix and cost base, it is important
to map out a strategy for the future desired channel mix, and the future
customer experience over different channels. Successful private-sector
businesses tend to be more effective at this than government. They understand
that each channel opens up different ways to create value for customers, so
they differentiate services across channels. They also take a hard-nosed
approach to channel management, with customers being encouraged to use the
channels that are most efficient from a business point of view. They also
realize that channel shift is a complicated process, which needs planning over
a multi-year period.
Transformational Government programs adopt a similar
approach, setting out clear strategies for channel transformation. Typically
though they recognize two distinct differences between the public and private
sector:
·
First, government has an obligation to provide services on a universal
basis, so is not able to pick and choose which customers it will engage with
through different channels. "Directed choice" towards cheaper
channels is therefore the strategy selected for most citizen-facing services
(although a number of governments are increasingly looking to make
Internet-only services the norm for businesses).
·
Second, in terms of the online channel, government is in a unique
position compared with any other online service provider. Whereas an online
bank or retailer is limited by the size of the online population in the market,
a government can take action significantly to increase that online population.
"Digital inclusion" policies, aimed at increasing the proportion of potential
customers who have access to and confidence in using online channels, are
therefore an important part of government channel strategies which would not
normally be seen in their private-sector counterparts.
In addressing these issues, it is important to recognize
that government service delivery cannot be divorced from what is happening in
the broader market: the expectations of citizens and businesses are shaped by
their experiences of other services. Demand for e-services across society will
continue to grow while other market players (in the private, voluntary and
community sectors) will have a significant influence on the attitudes and
behavior of public service customers.
Therefore:
Develop a Channel Transformation Strategy and within
this:
·
Shift customers where appropriate
to lower cost digital channels - including through digital inclusion policies
which build access to and demand for e-services in those segments of the
population that face barriers to their use;
·
Optimize the cost and
performance of each channel, using public and private sector benchmarks to
drive improvement;
·
Improve cross-channel
management, by building channel support services around a common, web-based
infrastructure in order both to improve customer service and reduce costs;
·
Facilitate development of a
thriving mixed economy delivery of services;
·
Build partnerships which enable
the market and others to work with the government to deliver jointly-owned
objectives.
v v v
The Channel Transformation Strategy must be informed by [13]
Channel Mapping, and must address how to shift customers into lower-cost
channels while maintaining and reinforcing [10] Customer Empowerment.
The mixed economy of delivery of government services is developed with private
and voluntary sector intermediaries and SHOULD be addressed using the [7]
Franchise Marketplace pattern. A significant effort is needed to include
all stakeholders in the governance of the Transformational Government program
at an appropriate and effective level: see [3] Engagement with Stakeholders.
The key milestones and accountabilities for delivery of the Channel
Transformation Strategy should be embedded within the [8] Roadmap for
Transformation.
[15] Resources
Management
All too often, technology
resources are seen as a means to an end, artifacts that are used to accomplish
a particular problem at hand and thus something transient to be disposed of at
the end of a particular cycle. As systems become more complex and organizations
mature, resource re-use becomes ever more important and prevalent.
v v
v
Technology resources need to be managed as much as any
other resource.
Technology resources are increasingly re-used beyond the
scope of their original intended use. This is to be encouraged. However, in
order to be re-used effectively, resources need to be identified and managed by
explicitly designated owners and also be identifiable across ownership domains.
The ability to identify a resource is important in system
interactions, in order to determine such things as rights and authorizations,
as well as to understand what functions are being performed; what the results
mean. Within large-scale, SOA ecosystems, interactions take place across
ownership boundaries and the combination of interactions can be unpredictable.
Identifiers provide the means for all resources important to a given SOA system
to be unambiguously identifiable at any moment and in any interaction.
Establishing resource identity and subsequently managing
those resources and their identities thus become an important part technology
management.
Therefore:
Manage information and ICT system resources as distinct,
valued assets
Manage issues related to the Identification, ownership,
stewardship and usage policies for each asset type.
v v
v
Section 3.1.3 of the [SOA-RAF] looks at the issue of
resources and how they should be identified and managed.
[16] Technology
Development and Management
Technological change is more
rapid than organizational change and yet governments often find themselves
locked-in to particular technology solutions.
v v
v
Governments need to protect themselves against the
downside of technology evolution and maintain governance of ICT development and
deployment
Transformational Government needs a strategic IT platform to
guarantee future agility as business and customer priorities change. Such a
platform cannot afford to be locked-in to specific technologies or solutions
that prevent or limit such agility.
Therefore:
Concentrate technology resources
and efforts around leveraging open standards and SOA Principles so as to ensure
development and deployment agility, and support all customer interactions, from
face-to-face interactions by frontline staff to online self-service
interactions.
Use the Reference Model for
Service-Oriented Architecture [SOA-RM] as the primary
source for core concepts and definitions of the SOA paradigm. Have a clear
understanding of the goals, motivations and requirements that any SOA-based
system is intended to address. Identify boundaries of ownership of all components
in any SOA ecosystem.
Realize discrete services that can
perform work on behalf of other parties. Use common building blocks that can be
re-used to enable flexible and adaptive use of technology to react quickly to
changing customer needs and demands. Have clear service descriptions and
contracts for any capability that is offered for use by another party.
Manage key ICT building blocks as
government-wide resources and make them available as re-usable, shared services
- in particular common customer data sets (e.g. name, address); applications
and application interfaces (e.g. authentication, payments, notifications); and
core ICT infrastructure.
Wherever possible prefer
interoperable, open standards, particularly when these are well supported in
the market-place.
Pay due attention to the total
cost of ownership and operation of technology and consider the possible value
of open source when making technology choices.
v v
v
This pattern should be seen in conjunction with the [8] Roadmap for Transformation.
The [EIF] has a useful definition of “open” in 5.1.1
“Specifications, openness and reuse”.
[17] Critical
Success Factors
There is now an increasing body
of research which seeks to understand why some ICT‑enabled transformation
programs succeed and why others fail. A number of critical success factors are needed
for the delivery processes covered in the patterns above.
v v
v
Programs and projects which seek to deliver
Transformational Government face significant risks to successful delivery.
Clarity and insight into the consequences of transformation are needed.
It is unrealistic to expect to get everything right first
time and moving forward will be a process of continuous improvement. Systems
are needed which allow the government organization to understand the current
position, to plan, to move quickly, and to learn from experience.
These risks are not related to the technology itself – which
is largely mature and proven – but rather to business and cultural changes.
Such changes are needed within government to deliver the business management,
customer management and channel management transformations required as part of
a Transformational Government program. A conformant program needs to keep track
of a core set of critical success factors throughout the lifetime of the
program.
Therefore:
Develop then manage and measure a
clearly defined set of Critical Success Factors.
Seek regular, independent review
of performance against those critical success factors.
Have mechanisms in place to assess
risk and handle monitoring, recovery and roll-back.
v v
v
The
[TGF Primer] recommends nine core Critical Success Factors:
-
Strategic Clarity
-
Program Leadership
-
User Focus
-
Engagement with Stakeholders
-
Skills
-
Supplier Partnership
-
Future-Proofing
-
Achievable Delivery and
-
Benefits realization
[20] Benefits Realization is
used to measure the level of success in achieving [17] Critical Success
Factors.
See “Part II, Component 2: Critical
Success Factors” in [TGF Primer] for further details.
Implementing a Transformational
Government program and establishing [9] Brand-Led Service Delivery involves taking a holistic, market-driven approach
to service design and delivery, which in turn often requires new skills. Part
of the responsibility of [2] Program Leadership is to ensure that program leaders have the skills needed to drive all aspects of
the program. This focus on skills has of course to be part of an effective HR
Management discipline.
v v
v
Governments generally lack the key skills to manage
service development. Where they do exist there is often reliability on a small
number of individuals with no continuity plans in place for when those
individuals are either absent for any reason or leave the team.
We know that the full range of business change, product and
marketing management, program management, and technology skills needed to
deliver transformational change does not already exist in our organization.
Many of the policy products required for the
Transformational Government program will take us into new territory and it is
unlikely that we will all the skills necessary to develop these in-house.
Therefore:
Ensure the right skills mix is
available to the program, particularly in the leadership team but also
throughout the whole delivery team.
Map out the required skills
together with a clear strategy for acquiring them and a continuity plan for
maintaining them.
Be prepared to buy-in or borrow
the necessary skills in the short term to fill any gaps.
Ensure that the program
leaders, i.e. the senior accountable leaders, have the skills needed to drive
ICT-enabled business transformation, and have access to external support.
Ensure there is skills integration
and skills transfer by having effective mechanisms to maximize value from the
skills available in all parts of the delivery team, bringing together
internal and external skills into an integrated team.
v v
v
The development of a Transformation Competency Framework is
a good way of producing a taxonomy of the competencies required to deliver
ICT-enabled transformation, which should then be underpinned by tools enabling
organizations to assess their competency gaps and individuals to build their
own personal development plans. Deployment of a formal competency framework
such as [SFIA] can be helpful in identifying and building the right
skill sets. As an example see the UK’s eGovernment Competency Framework which is
available at www.civilservice.gov.uk/my-civil-service/networks/professional/it/framework.aspx
.
See also [5] Policy Product Management, [19] Supplier
Partnership and [17] Critical Success Factors.
Governments rely heavily on
suppliers to deliver large parts of their services. These suppliers are usually
external organizations but they can also be other internal parts of government.
The management of supplier relationships needs to sit above the management of
individual contracts and it is important that distinction is fully understood
by all parties.
v v
v
Transformational Government programs require effective,
partnership-based relationships with suppliers.
Supplier partnerships should set
out a formalized and robust way of managing, monitoring and developing supplier
and commissioning party performance whilst at the same time minimizing risks to
the business. ‘Partnerships’ focus on the overall relationship over time rather
than the specific relationship around an individual, time-limited, contract.
Successful partnerships require specific skills sets to
effectively manage the relationship. Attention should be given to this as part
of the wider focus on ensuring the requisite skills are available to the
program.
Therefore:
Select
suppliers based on long-term value for money rather than the price in the
short-term, and in particular based on the degree of confidence that the
chosen suppliers will secure delivery of the expected business benefits.
Manage
the relationship with strategic suppliers at the level of top management on
both sides of the partnership with joint responsibility for the success of the
program.
Resolve
issues on a regular (e.g. daily) basis rather than as part of regular schedule
partnership review meetings.
Seek pragmatic
solutions to problems and opportunities for improvement within the overall
relationship without contravening any particular contractual term or schedule.
Ensure
client/supplier integration into an effective program delivery team with shared
management information systems.
Ensure
there is always a win-win situation for both sides of the partnership.
v v
v
A good example of Supplier
Management Guidelines is available at: www.ogc.gov.uk/contract_management_strategic_supplier_management.asp
See also the [3] Engagement with Stakeholders, [18] Skills
and [7] Franchise Marketplace
No program has any value if it
does not or cannot deliver what has been promised. Benefits Realization is
therefore a core responsibility for the [2] Program Leadership.
v v
v
All intended benefits need to be delivered in practice,
and this will not happen without pro-active benefits management.
Many organizations often fail to pro-actively manage the
downstream benefits after an individual ICT project or program has been
completed. Often, ICT programs are seen as “completed” once the
technical implementation is initially operational. Yet in order to reap the
full projected benefits (efficiency savings, customer service improvements
etc.), on‑going management is essential, often involving significant
organizational and cultural changes. The Transformational Government Framework
does not seek to specify in detail what benefits and impacts a Transformational
Government program should seek to achieve – that is a matter for each
individual government – however, the TGF does set out a best practice approach
to benefits realization.
Therefore:
Establish a benefits realization
strategy to ensure that the intended benefits from the Transformational
Government program are delivered in practice. Build that strategy around the
three pillars of (i) Benefit Mapping, (ii) Benefit Tracking and (iii) Benefit
Delivery:
(i)
Set out all the intended outcomes from the transformation program
and be clear how the outputs from specific activities and investments in the
program flow through to deliver those outcomes;
(ii)
Baseline current performance against the target output and
outcomes, define “smart” success criteria for future performance, and track
progress against planned delivery trajectories
aimed at achieving these success criteria; and
(iii) Ensure that governance arrangements are in place to
ensure clear accountabilities for the delivery of every intended outcome.
v v
v
See also Component 4 (“Benefits realization Strategy”) of
the [TGF Primer] for further details. The benefits realization strategy
should be a formal document, developed as part of the [5] Policy Product
Management process and in collaboration with [3] Engagement with
Stakeholders. Benefits realization is an integral part of the [17]
Critical Success Factors, and review of progress against the benefits
realization strategy should be part of the checkpoint process recommended
therein.
The following statements
indicate whether, and if so to what extent, each of the above patterns are to
be used in a conformant transformational government program.
All conformant
Transformational Government programs:
1. MUST
use the [1] Guiding Principles;
2. MUST
have [2] Program Leadership including:
-
Clear accountability at both the political and administrative
levels;
-
Deployment of formal program management disciplines;
-
A clearly identified mix of leadership skills;
-
Engagement of a broad-based leadership team across the wider
government.
3. MUST
demonstrate [3] Engagement with Stakeholders;
4. MUST
agree and use a [4] Common Terminology;
5. MUST
create a Policy Product Map (using the matrix as a tool to help identify the
Policy Products required) within the relevant government as outlined in [5] Policy Product Management;
6. MUST
have a [6] Transformational Business Model;
7. SHOULD
consider the [7] Franchise Marketplace as the
recommended approach to implementing the [6] Transformational Business Model;
8. MUST
have a [8] Roadmap for Transformation;
9. MUST
have a [9] Brand-Led Service Delivery Strategy, which
is agreed and managed at a whole-of-government level and which addresses:
-
Customer Insight
-
Product Management
-
Marketing and communication;
10. MUST have a [10] Stakeholder Empowerment framework, which encourages and
enables service innovation in the Citizen-to-Citizen, Business-to-Citizen,
Citizen-to-Government, and Business-to-Government sectors;
11. MUST
have a [11] Customer Identity Management framework,
which:
-
Uses a federated business model;
-
Uses a service-oriented architecture (as part of the wider SOA
described in the TGF Technology Management Framework);
-
Gives people control over, as well as choice and transparency regarding,
their personal data;
12. MUST have a [12] Channel Management Framework;
13. MUST include [13] Channel Mapping;
14. MUST address [14] Channel Transformation;
15. MUST provide [15] Resources Management;
16. MUST address [16] Technology Development and Management;
17. MUST measure
and manage [17] Critical Success Factors] and SHOULD consider
using at a minimum the specific critical success factors outlined in the [TGF
Primer].
18. MUST address [18] Skills issues;
19. MUST establish a [19] Supplier Partnership.
20. MUST have a [20]
Benefits Realization strategy which addresses the areas of benefits mapping,
benefits tracking and benefits delivery.
The following individuals have participated in the creation
of this specification and are gratefully acknowledged:
Participants:
Oliver Bell, Microsoft Corporation
John Borras, Individual Member
Peter F Brown, Individual Member
Nig Greenaway, Fujitsu Ltd
Ted Haas, GS1
Andy Hopkirk, Individual Member
Gershon Janssen, Individual Member
Arnaud Martens, Belgian SPF Finances
Steve Mutkoski, Microsoft Corporation
Chris Parker, CS Transform Ltd
John Ross, Individual Member
Trond Arne Undheim, Oracle Corporation
Colin Wallis, New Zealand Government
David Webber, Oracle Corporation
Joe Wheeler, MTG Management Consultants, LLC
|
Revision
|
Date
|
Editor
|
Changes Made
|
|
01-incomplete
|
2011-05-17
|
Peter F Brown
|
Initial Draft – incomplete
|
|
02-complete
|
2011-06-13
|
Peter F Brown
|
Complete draft – first full (draft) set of patterns
|
|
03-incomplete
|
2011-07-05
|
Peter F Brown
|
Incorporates comments, edits from TC members
|
|
03-incomplete
|
2011-07-11
|
Peter F Brown
|
Update of missing patterns and revisions of text so far.
Two patterns, [4] and [18], still missing
|
|
03-complete
(This document)
|
2011-07-13
|
Peter F Brown
|
Completed draft. Ready for submission as Committee
Specification Draft
|
|
03-complete
|
2011-07-18
|
Peter F Brown
|
Minor typos corrected
|
|
03-complete
|
2011-07-20
|
Peter F Brown
|
Typos and minor textual amendments proposed by Nig
Greenaway
|
|
04
|
2011-08-03
|
Peter F Brown
|
Amendment to conformance clause 9 modified as per TC vote
on 21 July 2011
Acknowledgments section completed
|
|
05
|
2011-11-10
|
Peter F Brown
|
Disposition of issues from Public Review (CDPRD01). Some
minor formatting issues remain
|
