Read Part 1 and Part 2 of our case study.
The first opportunity to use the new decision making model arrived fairly shortly after the meeting to introduce the model. We allocated 2 hours for the meeting in order to accommodate a learning curve. We didn’t expect the decision to be made after the two hours, but were confident we would have a plan to move forward to get a decision made shortly thereafter.
We needed to make a decision on technology would be used in order to create a number of databases required for the project at go-live. A simple decision would be to use current technology within the organization, but what was in place was limited in functionality and there was some concern that it would not meet needs going forward. However, use of any other technology likely would require time for employees to get up to speed in learning the technology and outside resources to assist in building the needed interfaces and back end structure.
We invited the following individuals to the meeting (these were the ones most able to help get information for the decision based on their expertise and were not necessary just team members, some others in the organization were invited also based on expertise.) We noted to other team members that we would update the entire team during an upcoming team meeting; however, they were not going to be attending this meeting. Additionally, the sponsor was not attending as this was simply a planning meeting to understand what we needed to do and how we would proceed based on the RAPID® model.
(Roles detailed below refers to what we discussed during this initial meeting, not all roles were discussed in detail in this meeting):
| ROLE |
DESCRIPTION |
INVOLVEMENT and OWNER (Lead) |
TIMING |
|
Input |
Provide information needed to make a decision (expertise, best practices in the industry, external industry best practices, analysis, etc.) |
LEAD: IT Lead on Team (Allan) Additional resources:
|
5 days allocated |
|
Agree |
Keep whole team in loop, ensure sharing of information, providing feedback to Input role. |
LEAD: IT Lead on Team (Allan) |
As needed with a scheduled update at an upcoming team meeting |
|
Perform |
Implement a decision once made; determine timing to do so based on complexity and project due dates. |
IT Project Team resources – Abigail, Paul, Lauren |
Develop plan to implement within 3 days of decision being made |
Each individual left the meeting with an understanding of tasks to be completed to order to get a decision made as well as timing. One and half weeks were allocated for gathering information and making a proposal to the sponsor. A check in meeting was scheduled for after the first week to check on progress.
At a team meeting, Allan provide an update and shared who was responsible for what part of the RAPID® model as well as timing for providing a recommendation to the project sponsor. He also provided background information on the issue to be resolved as well as the expertise of those involved in the process. We felt this was important initially as the team adapted to not being involved in the details of every decision.
I checked in with the team after the meeting and received great feedback from all. They felt “in the loop” which was important to ensure they would buy-in to the use of the process for decision making.
For the next few decisions made using the model (over approximately a two month time period), we provided significant details to the project team to ensure continued comfort with how decisions were being made. This included both presentations at meetings as well as providing information on the internal SharePoint site. After the second month, it was shared that all detailed information would be provided via the SharePoint site and a high level update provided at team meetings. This was satisfactory with the extended project team because we had worked to establish confidence and trust in the process.
As a best practice, early on in the project determine how decisions will be made and who is involved. When done early on, it avoids the issues this team encountered by having too many team members involved in every detail.
