2010-11 emperor has no clothes-governance in age of gov transparency

8/2/2019 2010-11 Emperor Has No Clothes-Governance in Age of Gov Transparency

1/112

The Emperor

has no Clothes

Risk & Results in

Increasingly TransparentGovernment 2.0 World

www.fmi.ca

ProfessionalDevelopment Week

November 2010
http://www.fmi.ca/http://www.fmi.ca/


2/112

There is nothing more difficult to

carry out, nor more doubtful of

success, nor more dangerous tohandle than to initiate a new order

of things.

Niccolo Machiavelli


3/112


4/112

Age of Transparency


5/112

With apologies to

Hans Christian Andersen,Brothers Grimm,Aesop,Mother Goose


6/112

and all the technology

companies with fairy tailjustification for your

money.


7/112

evangelical descriptions of theGovernment 2.0 examples presented

during the event. However, there was

an under-emphasis on subjects suchas process change, adaptable

methodology, and cultural dynamics.

Steve Guengerich


8/112

Government 2.0 Governance in Context

Scope

Enterprise

Project

Social Transactional

Focus


9/112

Government 2.0 Governance in Context

Scope

External

Internal

Social Transactional

Focus


10/112

The future aint what it used to be

Yogi Berra


11/112

vendors brewing costjustification


12/112

Facts

vs.Deduction

(the white paper)vs.

Urban Myth(the case study)


13/112

What should work

vs.What actually works


14/112

Truthiness

i t d ti


15/112

Drivers for Innovative Approaches

globalization transparency

technologygovernance

crisis knowledge

introduction

i t d ti


16/112

Premise

Traditional approaches to IT risknot fully effective

Less so in Government 2.0 era

Exposing:

risk adverse = high risk

highly predictable = failure

New approach to risk required

Change in governancemechanisms

introduction

i t d ti


17/112

Agenda

Risk & government IT innovation Government IT risk approaches

Government 2.0 adoption

Transparency changes (mostly)everything?

Risk 2.0

Value 2.0

Governance 2.0

Government 2.0 good practices

introduction


18/112

Most of our assumptions have

outlived their uselessness.

Marshall McLuhan

risk & innovation


19/112

TLAs

GRC (Governance, Risk & Compliance)

ERM

(Enterprise Risk Management)

risk & innovation


20/112

Risk is good


21/112

Risk has Reward Upside


22/112

Risk Reward

Reward

positive

negative

low high

Risk


23/112

Governments tend to be risk-

averse, including in theiracquisition of technology. What is

not clear is if government would be

innovative in its use of technologywere it not for the fact that its

processes at mitigating risk often

also kill innovation.2003-04-16 Gartner Managing Risk in Public-Sector

Procurement

risk & innovation


24/112

What is government innovation?

Lacks the prerequisites for innovation? Creative thinking

Idea experimentation

Inventiveness

Economic incubator

Government as Platform

Services modernization improved citizen and business services

risk & innovation

gov IT risk
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/images/1594487715/ref=dp_image_0?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books


25/112

Agenda




Risk 2.0

Value 2.0

Governance 2.0


gov IT risk


26/112

Risk can be more about fear thanrisk

gov IT risk


27/112

Approaches to IT Risk

What can go wrong? The FUD Factor

Anecdotes

Urban myths

Edge cases

Riskfactors Political

Contractual

Programmatic

What can go right? Absolute certainty

Facts

Scientific studies

Proven elsewhere

Risk factors Innovation

gov IT risk


28/112

Typical Government IT Project Concerns

Policy Operational

PoliticalWill project be completed

within the current

Government mandate?

Will project be on time?

ContractualWill vendors complainabout unfair practices?

Will the right solution / bestvalue be acquired?

ProgrammaticDid the expected outcomes

occur?Will project be on budget?

based on Gartner framework


29/112

Interpretation of Government IT Failure

Policy Operational

PoliticalProves policy

ineffectiveness

Civil servants did not have

competence to execute policy

ContractualProves policy was too

expensive to have benefits

Civil servants unable tochoose most effective solution

ProgrammaticProves policy was too

difficult to have benefits

Civil servants were not able to

manage the project on time &

on budget



30/112

Focusing so much energy on

avoiding political embarrassment

leaves too little energy, or interest,

to mitigate the challenges of

programmatic risks, thus

threatening the project's success.

2003-04-16 Gartner Managing Risk in Public-SectorProcurement

S & U id f G t IT Ri k


31/112

Success & Upside of Government IT Risk

Policy Operational

Political Government is committedto effective policy.

Low cost with high benefits

thanks to effective project

management

Contractual

Efficient, effective,

competitive and costeffective.


thanks to effective contractmanagement

Programmatic

Efficient, effective,

competitive and cost

effective.


thanks to effective project

management

InnovationGovernment is world leader

in innovation.


thanks to leveraging

innovative solutions.


gov IT risk


32/112

The NewNormal

Same depth of analysis on what can goright, what can go wrong needed

Riskidentified to mitigate Room for experimentation with chance of

failure

Riskof not doing it Risk of rogue Web 2

g

gov 2.0 adoption


33/112

Agenda




Risk 2.0

Value 2.0

Governance 2.0


G t 2 0 Ad ti Li


34/112

Government 2.0 Adoption: Lies,damn lies and statistics?

F t 2007 V l fgov 2.0 adoption


35/112

Forrester 2007: Value ofWeb 2.0 in Enterprise

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

RSS

Podcasting

Wikis

Social networking

Blogs

Substantial Value

Moderate Value

Limited Value

No value

Don't Know

e 2.0

F t 2010 W b 2 0gov 2.0 adoption


36/112

Forrester 2010: Web 2.0adoption in business plans

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Microblogs

Idea generation tools

Social networking tools

Blogs

Discussion forums

Wikis

Implemented, notexpanding

New or expanded

deploymentsNo plans

Don't know

e 2.0

ZEW/C dit f 2009gov 2.0 adoption


37/112

ZEW/Creditreform 2009:Web 2.0 In-house usage

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Exchanges of information

Knowledge management

Communication

Contacts management

Innovation/suggestions

e 2.0

ZEW/C dit f 2009gov 2.0 adoption

2 0


38/112

ZEW/Creditreform 2009:Web 2.0 External usage

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Customer and supplier relations

External communication

Work on joint projects

Marketing

e 2.0

IDC 2009 Leadership Use ofgov 2.0 adoption


39/112

IDC 2009: Leadership Use ofWeb 2.0 Technologies

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

RSS

Blogs

YouTube

Wikis

Twitter

Livecasting

Facebook

VirtualWorld

% Deploying Technology

Government

Non-Government

IDC 2009 : Using Web 2 0 forgov 2.0 adoption


40/112

IDC 2009 : Using Web 2.0 forInformation Delivery

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Education

Recruitment

Co-Develop Content

Response to Feedback

Customer Alerts

Program Info

(%)

% Deploying Technology

HP 2010: US Federal Governmentgov 2.0 adoption


41/112

HP 2010: US Federal GovernmentSurvey on Government 2.0 Usage

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Social Networks General

Blogs

Video & Muiltimedia sharing

Social Networks Government Specific

Podcasting

Wikis

Collaboration Suite

Syndicated web feeds

Virtual worlds


42/112

Gartner 2009 Recommendations

Benefit Less than 2

Years 2 to 5 Years

5 to 10

Years

More than

10 Years

Transformational Web 2.0 Cloud

Computing

High

Green IT Social

Software

Suites

Shared

Services

Moderate Corporate

Blogging

Micro-blogging Wikis

Low

From Gartner: Emerging Technologies & Government Transformation Hype Cycles

Benefits from IT-Enabled Connected


43/112

Benefits from IT-Enabled Connected

GovernmentInternal

To Provider Agencies and Governments

External

To Consumer Citizens and Businesses

1. Avoidance of duplication 1. Faster service delivery

2. Reduction in transaction costs 2. Greater efficacy

3. Simplified bureaucratic procedures3. Increased flexibility of service use

4. Greater efficiencies 4. Innovation in service delivery

5. Richer communications &

coordination

5. Greater participation and inclusion

6. Enhanced transparency 6. Greater citizen empowerment

7. Greater information sharing 7. Greater openness and transparency

8. Secure information managementSource: Dr. Pallab Saha

transparency


44/112

Agenda




Risk 2.0

Value 2.0

Governance 2.0



45/112

Unintended transparencymight

not be every public sector

managers dream.

Tommy Dejbjerg Pedersen

Transparency means you cant


46/112

Transparency means you can tput your reputation back together

again

value 2.0


47/112

Citizens are Watching You

transparency


48/112

Reputational Risks

Beyond your network No control over your message

Not engaging social networks

huge reputational risk

transparency


49/112

Unintended Consequences

input

outturnoutput

mandate

budget

outcome

transparency


50/112

Unintended consequences

False positive:

Measurementsshow success, butimpact is negative

False negative:

Measurementsshow failure, butimpact is positive

Why?

No objectivemeasurement likeprofit

Measured

Outcomes

Outcomesnot

measured

transparency


51/112

Unintended Consequences

input

outturnoutput

mandate

budget

outcome

Web 2 Eratransparency


52/112

Web 1 Era Push business models

Commercial software Customer service

Bestseller products

Traditional media

1 to 1 Customer relationships

Centralized product development

Web 2 Era Pull business models

Open source software

Customer self-service

The Long Tail

Social Media

Customer community management

Decentralized product development

institutionscommunities of

individuals

shift of

control

unpredictabilityvariety

volume

central productionpeerproduction

Source:

Dion Hinchcliffe

ZDNet


53/112

Digital Age DemocracyA New Era of Digital Governance

Industrial Era Digital Era

Democracy Representative Participatory

Citizens Passive Consumers Active Partners

Politics

Broadcast, Mass,

Polarized One-to-One

StatesNational,

Monocultural

Global, Local,

Virtual,

MulticulturalSource: Mills Davis, Microsoft

risk 2.0


54/112

Agenda




Risk 2.0

Value 2.0

Governance 2.0



55/112

Im the NO guy in your organization and

most likely the person to bring your

enterprise 2.0 or web 2.0 project to agrinding halt. People in my position do not

want to hear about being social.I dont care

what you had for lunch or what your kids did

last night. I dont want to endanger themulti-million dollar value of this company so

that you can play with Facebook inside the

office. Now get out of my office before I sic my

flying monkeys on you.

Doug Cornelius, Compliance Building blog

risk 2.0


56/112

IDC 2009 : Top Challenges YourOrganization Faces in Deploying Web 2.0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Budget

Technical Expertise

HR Constraints

Security

(%)

Government

Non-Government

HP 2009: Main Barrier to Government 2 0risk 2.0


57/112

HP 2009: Main Barrier to Government 2.0Adoption, US Federal Government

40%

21%

14%

9%

8%

9% Security Concerns

Lack of Budget

Technical expertise/ability

Uncertainty regarding whatresources are available

Lack of compelling need orreason

None


58/112

Deloitte 2009: Biggest barrier torisk 2.0


59/112

Deloitte 2009: Biggest barrier toeffective Web 2.0 implementation

31%

18%25%

5%

18%

2%Culture of hierarchy doesn't fitflattening of organization

Potential loss of control overmessaging

Limited awareness of Web 2.0technologies

Concerns that Web 2.0 initiativesmay increase workload

Concerns that privacy and securitycan't be managed sufficiently

Don't know

Deloitte 2009: Mitigating the downsides of a risk 2.0


60/112

flattened organization, such as the potentialdisenfranchisement of middle management,presents a:

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

Significant challenge

Moderate challenge

Little challenge

No challenge

Deloitte 2009: Managing the generational divide in anrisk 2.0


61/112

g g gorganization introducing collaborative technologies intothe work environment presents a

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%


Moderate challenge

Little challenge

No challenge

Deloitte 2009: Developing a compellingrisk 2.0


62/112

Deloitte 2009: Developing a compellingcase for Web 2.0 presents a:

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%


Moderate challenge

Little challenge

No challenge


63/112

Fear around the security of data is a

real issue and the risk can never be

entirely eliminatedJessica Hawkins, Ovum


64/112

Models of Government Data

Publish Social Media

PurposeYou know how data

will be used

You do not know

how data will be

used

Container Documents Machine readable

Quality Vetted, edited,approved

Community Vetted

Deployed Slow Rapid


65/112

Web 2.0 does uncomfortable things: it

releases assets into the wild, it

empowers users to speak their mind, it

asks people to share and collaborate ina way which has been unprecedented

in the past.

Mike Ellis-Science Museum UK, Brian Kelly-University ofBath

risk 2.0


66/112

Constraints

1. Legacy systems

2. Organizational risk aversion

3. Personal risk aversion

4. Policy limitations

5. Internal view of the public & expertise

Sources: Alexandra Samuel. Ariel Waldman

Government 2 Risk and Perceivedrisk 2.0


67/112

Risk

Risk

PerceivedRisk

value 2.0


68/112

Agenda

Risk & government IT innovation

Government IT risk approaches



Risk 2.0

Value 2.0

Governance 2.0


value 2.0


69/112

Government 2.0 Value Proposition

Public Value

Better/fairer decisions

Increased Capacity

Solving wicked problems

Support

Increased legitimacy of public decisions

Government Value Add

Source: Yasmin Fodil, Anna York

HP 2010: Top Benefit to Adopt

value 2.0


70/112

HP 2010: Top Benefit to AdoptGovernment 2.0 in US Federal Government

33%

20%

20%

18%

5%3%

Improved services to the public

Citizen participation in government

Collaboration between agencies

Government transparency

Innovation by government

Government 2.0 offers no benefits

Deloitte 2009: Where will Web 2.0 havevalue 2.0


71/112

Deloitte 2009: Where will Web 2.0 havegreatest impact for government?

9%

32%

28%

23%

9% Enhance resources for resourcemanagement

Improve collaborative policydevelopment

Remove layers between line workers andleadership

Enhance innovation

Facilitate access to information requests

value 2.0


72/112

Will it Be Used?

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000

450000

500000

Paid subscription

Documents publishedOpen data

Source: Government of Australia

Deloitte 2009: Collaborative technologies

value 2.0


73/112

Deloitte 2009: Collaborative technologies

Biggest impact Hardest to implement

10%

13%

11%

23%

18%

26%

Generate policy ideas

Refine and prioritize thebest ideas

Apply networkedapproaches to societalchallengesFeedback/evaluation

Change daily operations

Information sharing &

more effective use ofgovernment information

14%

8%

25%

3%

44%

5%

value 2.0


74/112

Out of Network

Source: INgage Networks


75/112

Government 2.0 Footprint

social

Government 2.0

struct

ural

back office e-government

internal external

Focus

value 2.0


76/112

Out of Network vs. In Network

Source: INgage Networks

value 2.0


77/112

Network Effect

network

node

Number of Nodes 8

Potential Maximum Value

(by power law)

Metcalfes Law 60

Odlyzko & Tilly Law16.6

Reeds Law -257

Source: http://web2.wsj/com

Deloitte 2009: User-driven citizen feedback will


78/112

Deloitte 2009: User driven citizen feedback willhave the greatest impact on

13%

52%

5%

30%Programs/services aredeveloped

Programs/services are

delivered

Policy is developed

Policy is refined


79/112

ROI is a delectable option thathas unexpected risk

value 2.0


80/112

Return on Investment Model

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

CostRevenue

Return


81/112

It is the framework which changes with each

new technology and not just the picture

within the frame.

Marshall McLuhan

ROI T di i l M d l f V l

value 2.0


82/112

ROI Traditional Model for Value

Poor analytical framework for socialmedia

Deals with internal revenue and costs

Silo only the value of the data set in

isolation

Network?node

E i V l Add EVA

value 2.0


83/112

Economic Value Add - EVA

Incremental cost tomake data openand machinereadable

Value to privatesector

In aggregatenetwork

node

A d

governance 2.0


84/112

Agenda




Transparency changes (mostly)

everything?

Risk 2.0

Value 2.0

Governance 2.0 Government 2.0 good practices


85/112

55% of IT mgrs believe #ITGovernance is

effective, but just 40% of business unit mgrsdo

Cutter Consortium Tweet

Deloitte 2009: Governance solutions thatgovernance 2.0


86/112

will have greatest impact on government

18%

14%

14%

17%

21%

16%

Develop implementationtoolkit

Present Web 2.0 at CXOcouncils

Presidential directive

Reverse mentoring

Create e-people/e-democracyorganization

Desination of collaboration

champion for cross-boundrycollaboration

Deloitte 2009: Business case solutions thatwill have the most transformational impact on

governance 2.0


87/112

will have the most transformational impact ongovernment

34%

13%

8%

28%

17%Develop government-wide businesscase

Reduce costs of travel

Focus groups

Redefine business case to focus oneffectiveness

Reduce costs through duplication


88/112

In the IDC survey, only 18% of

government responders indicate their

agency measures the success of Web2.0 technology in meeting mission

objectives, 14% for industry

Adelaide OBrien IDC 2009

Architectural Maturity Stages & IT Value


89/112

Business SilosStandardized

TechnologyOptimized Core Business Modularity

Locally Optimized

Business Solutions

Enterprise-Wide

Technology Standards

Standard Enterprise

Processes, Data

Standard Interfaces &

Business

Strategic Business Value

Local Flexibility

Source: Jeanne W. Ross


90/112

Risk of Failure = More RapidlyFinding Solution


91/112

You cant manage IT the same way youve

always managed it and empower flexibility.James Staten, Forrester Research

Web 2.0 vs. Traditional Viewpoint


92/112

Chaos Control

1. People will use the tools anyway 1. Not on work time

2. Internal and external social

networking2. Company confidential information

3. Free expression of ideas 3. Privacy concerns

4. Individualization of information

context

4. Regulatory compliance & e-

discovery

5. Expertise vs. opinion 5. Control over content & opinion

6. Non standard tools 6. Process to codify knowledge

7. Burden on infrastructure 7. Return on investment?

8. Secure information management Source: Nick Semple


93/112

Governance processes are often

overweight, take too long to develop

and suffer from slow implementation.

Dr. R. Cherinka, Dr. R. Miller, J. Prezzama and C. Smith, MitreCorporation

Change and Governance

governance 2.0


94/112

Change and Governance

1.0 2.0

What never works

What no longer works

What worked

Simplified & Effective RiskManagement in 2 0 World

governance 2.0


95/112

Management in 2.0 World

Source: Victoria Government

How do we let the Government2 0 genie out of the bottle?


96/112

2.0 genie out of the bottle?

Comparing Conventional and SystemsThinking Source: Dr. Pallab Saha


97/112

ThinkingConventional (Open-Loop) Thinking Systems (Closed-Loop) Thinking

Static thinkingFocusing on particular events

Dynamic thinkingFraming a problem in terms a pattern

of behaviour over time

Systems-as-effectViewing behaviour generated by a

system as driven by external forces.

System-as-causePlacing responsibility for a behaviour

on internal factors and actors.

FragmentedBelieving that really knowing

something means focusing on the

details

HolisticBelieving that to know something

requires understanding the context of

relationships.

Factors thinking

Listing factors that influence orcorrelate with some results.

Operational thinking

Concentrating on causality andunderstanding how a behaviour isgenerated.

Straight-line thinkingViewing causality as running in one

direction, ignoring the independence

and interaction between and among

Loop thinkingViewing causality as an ongoing

process, with effect feeding back to

influence the causes and the causes

Source: Dr. Pallab Saha

High Level Relationship of Government


98/112

High Level Relationship of Government

Enterprise Architecture (EA) and E-

Government Maturity

E-Government Maturity

Stages

Government EA Maturity Stages

Business

Silos

Standardized

Technology

Rationalized

Data &

Applications

Business

Modularity

1. Web Presence

2. Interaction

3. Transaction

4. Transformation

Source: Dr. Pallab Saha

Framework for Government Use ofWeb 2 0


99/112

Mashups of service and content through intermediaries, web service

Citizen/business engagement to enhance trust and loyalty

Service provision at citizens location

Virtual world experimentation

Employee & constituent feedback on info, service, forums

Tagging and social bookmarketing of govt content

Wikis to support interaction, citizen engagement

Social network sites and blogs

Virtual world interactions

Institutional vs external oriented blogs

Enterprise social networks Podcasts & vlogs

Wikis

RSS

Service

Focused

Interaction Focused

Communications Focused

Web 2.0

Internally focused(employee and other agencies)

vs.

externally focused(citizens & business)

Source: Ai-Mei Chang, P.K.

Kannan

Government 2.0 Risk Register

Low Medium High


100/112

Low Medium High

InformationQuality*

Costs (existing

data)

HumanResource

capabilities

Technical

capabilities Information

Quality*

Costs (new data)

Mandate &

Mission

Legal Liability

Intellectual

Property

Security

Privacy

Source: Linda Cureton,

Brian Drake, Dr. Mark

Drapeau, Steve Radick,

Michael J. Russell

Government IT Governance Structures


101/112

Bottom-Up

Mandate,Governance &

Control

Top-Down

Mandate &Bottom-Up

Governance &

Control

Top-Down

Mandate &Control, Bottom-

Up Governance

Top-Down

Mandate,Control,

Governance

Projects Government

2.0 i.e.

Collaboration

Sharedservices

Government

2.0 i.e. Wiki

Budget

process

Government

2.0 i.e.

Ideation

Access to

Information E-Government

i.e.

transactions

Software Governance Structures


102/112

Bottom-Up

Mandate,

Governance &Control

Top-Down

Mandate &

Bottom-UpGovernance &

Control

Top-Down

Mandate &

Control, Bottom-UpGovernance

Central Control

Real identity Wiki Moderated

discussion,

forum, blog

Document

management &traditional

collaborative

tools

Government 2.0 Risk FactorsInternal Cross

Across External to


103/112

ProjectF

ocus

Internal SiloInternal Cross

AgencyGovernment

Tiers

expert

community

External open

Activity SupportProgrammatic

SupportMission Policy Support

Policy

Development

Modest Size Big Bang

Broadcast Broadcast+ Interactive

Communication Focused Interaction FocusedService

Focused

Experimental Early Stage Roll-out

Business function ownership Leadership ownership IT ownership

Managed user

identity

Peer

governanceModerated Open

Technolo

gy

Footprin

t

Enterprise

Architecture

Rationalized

data and

applications

Standardized technologiesSilos, No

Standards

Open Source

internally hosted

Commercial

internally

hosted

Open Source

internally

hosted &

adapted

Commercial

internally

hosted &

adapted

External Social

Network

Custom

Developed

Low Moderate MediumMedium-

High High

Government 2.0 Governance Matrix


104/112

Government 2.0 Governance Matrix

Risk

Register

High

Medium

Low

Agenda

good practices


105/112

Agenda




Transparency changes (mostly)

everything?

Risk 2.0

Value 2.0

Governance 2.0 Government 2.0 good practices


106/112

As technology advances, it reverses the

characteristics of every situation again and

again. The age of automation is going to be

the age of do it yourself.

Marshall McLuhan

McKinsey 2009: Measures toSuccessfully implement Web 2 0 Tools

good practices


107/112

Successfully implement Web 2.0 Tools

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Integrating into employees' day-to-day work activites

Senior leaders role modeling/championing use oftechnology

Providing informal incentives

Allowing nonwork uses

Providing formal incentives

Internet Evolution to 2020


108/112

Internet Evolution to 2020

Increasingk

nowledge

connec

tivity

Increasing social connectivity

1.0The Web:

Connects Information

2.0

The Social Web:Connects People

3.0

The Semantic Web:Connects Knowledge

4.0The Ubiquitous Web:Connects Knowledge

Source: Mills Davis

Government 2.0 Sequence Good Practices


109/112

2 q

Scope

External

Internal

Departmental Transformational

Focus

1. Follow before Lead

2. Small internal low cost

projects with chance of failure

3. Focus on small wins4. Iterate

5. Governance Level 2

Value of Small Projects


110/112

Value of Small Projects

Government 2.0 GovernanceExperimentation

StageOperational Stage


111/112

Stage

Build Capacity Follow before Lead Build tech & social capacity

Develop Gov 2 Mission Strawman mission Develop engagement goals

Design for Outcomes Strawman metrics Align to mission

Create an Implementation

StrategyTools follow goals Tools follow goals

Gov 2 Policies Code of Conduct Code of Conduct

Identify StakeholdersIdentify enthusiasts,

championsCross-functional teams

Develop Governance

StrategySmall projects Program management

Value Motivation Economic value add

Extend/Consult IT

standardsConsider draft changes IT Governance

IterateDevelop feedback

mechanisms

Project specifications Clearly defined

Focus Internal Internal & External

Presentation + More Details:


112/112

Presentation + More Details:

www.freebalance.com/blog

Follow:

@freebalance

Join:

www.freebalancecustomerexchange.com
http://www.freebalance.com/bloghttp://www.freebalancecustomerexchange.com/http://www.freebalancecustomerexchange.com/http://www.freebalance.com/blog