Directing-Mind Overview, Directing-Mind Applications, D-M Briefing Purpose, D-M Control Philosophy, D-M Control Structure, D-M Decision Making, D-M Project Stages, D-M Programme Controls, D-M Reporting, D-M Management Roles

Directing-Mind Overview

Directing-Mind is a proven, easily implemented method for directing business operations or programmes of activities.  Directing-Mind facilitates control across departmental, organisational or national boundaries.

Directing-Mind is for managers who define and delegate clear responsibility for tasks or projects to individuals or groups.  It provides:

i.                   A logical management control structure that can be independent of formal organisation structures;

ii.                 A staged lifecycle for all tasks or projects to progress through:

iii.              A powerful rule-building capability (D-M Rules) that automates decision making at each stage;

iv.                Special purpose software (WorkoutII) that maintains the control and reporting structures and includes a comprehensive reporting facility.

Directing-Mind benefits include:

·        Work delegation with clear accountability;

·        Focus on results;

·        Consistency in decision making;

·        Risk and opportunity identification;

·        Low costs of control. 

Top

Directing-Mind Applications

Directing-Mind is designed for controlling complex activities such as:

·        Capital investment programmes;

·        Culture/process changes;

·        Managing departmental operations;

·        Integrating mergers or acquisitions;

·        New product development/launch;

·        Systems implementations;

·        Business/geographic diversification;

·        Large development programmes;

·        Managing the whole business;

·        … and many more.

The scale of the activities controlled can range from managing tens of projects to directing several thousand.

Top

  Directing-Mind Briefing Purpose

This brief is for managers who will be using Directing-Mind (D-M) to set up, direct and track to completion a Programme of Projects.  It should be read prior to the start of D-M planning using the Implementation Planning Guide.

Directing-Mind distinguishes between the terms Programme and Project thus:

A Programme: Delivering a public result to a fixed deadline by directing the parallel or simultaneous execution of multiple inter-related Projects. Most senior management roles fit this definition making Directing-Mind appropriate for managing cyclical, ongoing business activities as well as for major one-off efforts.

A Project: Producing a discrete outcome by organising and managing the human, financial and material resources required to complete a defined scope of work constrained by cost and time.  Routine management tasks with clear objectives, as well as specific new activities, match this definition.

Directing-Mind assumes that formal management responsibility for carrying out all programme tasks will be delegated to individuals or entities such as suppliers or contractors.  D-M’s WorkoutII control system is designed to support this approach.  It steers the programme’s projects through a four-stage lifecycle whilst providing the management information needed to direct the whole programme to a successful conclusion.

This site explains the Directing-Mind methodology and the main features of its control system.  It provides the information needed to understand how a D-M programme operates and to prepare for implementation.

Top

Directing-Mind Control Philosophy

Directing-Mind’s fundamental control principle is the clear delegation of authority to deliver ‘discrete outcomes from defined scopes of work’.  Authority is delegated within a structured control and reporting framework.  At the project level this is given in four consecutive stages each with specific deliverables.

A project stage begins when an individual is formally authorised to manage it to produce specific deliverables by a given date.  Each stage thus has a clearly defined stage-end – a gate or checkpoint at which a decision must be made about its future.   The nature and number of the deliverables (tangible outputs, measures, reports etc.) will be determined for that stage of that project by the programme’s D-M Rules (q.v.) held in the WorkoutII control system.

At stage-end the project manager must confirm formally that the deliverables have been produced and also provide an update of data to inform the decision about the next stage.  The report of a successful stage completion will trigger decision making about the next one.

The four project stages are the basis for control, decision-making and reporting.  D-M does not itself require project managers to report during a stage.  However the D-M Rules can specify interim reporting as one of the stage deliverables if the nature of a project (risk and/or cost and/or size and/or type) makes it advisable. 

In the D-M process project managers are expected to inform programme management as soon as it appears possible that a stage might not be completed as specified.  This frees up senior management time by avoiding the usual deluge of information about things that are actually proceeding as planned.  The D-M reporting system provides regular comprehensive overview reports on the programme using parameters selected by its management.

Top

Directing-Mind Control Structure

Directing-Mind provides a logical control structure for directing programmes of every size and complexity.  It will support programmes ranging from those operating in a single department or enterprise to those that span organisational and/or national boundaries.  To do this it has three levels of control and reporting above the individual projects.  The levels cascade objectives and controls down to projects.  At each level there is clear individual accountability for producing the results needed.

It is important to note that the D-M structure exists to control the delivery of work for the programme.  It will often be independent of the formal day-to-day management reporting lines of the individual contributors.  Equally it may map onto them or it may be a mix of both.

The Programme

The highest level is the Programme and its goal.  These belong to the programme manager who is the person charged with ‘delivering the public result to the fixed deadline’.  All the subsidiary levels exist to support meeting the programme goal.

Key Business Areas (KBAs)

Below the programme are the Key Business Areas.  Each KBA holds a major objective for the programme and is used to allot management responsibility for achieving that key objective to a named KBA Owner.

A KBA also has a named KBA Manager.  The distinction between Owner and Manager is valuable in large programmes where a KBA can have many of the characteristics of a programme in its own right.  In these situations a senior person may own a number of KBAs and appoint others as their KBA Manager(s).  In smaller programmes a KBA Owner and Manager may be the same person; in some the programme manager may actually take these roles.

The control system requires there to be at least one KBA per programme.  There is no upper limit but a logical approach to defining them will result in a number relevant to the programme size and complexity.  New KBAs can be created during the programme if the need arises.

Initiatives

The next level is the Initiative each of which belongs to one of the KBAs for which it is a control sub-division.  Each Initiative controls a group of related projects that, in total, meet the objective that the Initiative has to deliver to its KBA.  Every project in the programme belongs to an Initiative, whether or not its project manager has a direct reporting relationship to the Initiative manager.  A project cannot be set up without a parent Initiative. 

Each Initiative has a name, a description of its objective and a manager.  The description should make clear both why it exists and how it will contribute to its KBA’s objective. 

The control system requires there to be at least one Initiative per KBA.  There is again no upper limit but a logical approach to determining how to achieve each KBA’s objective using the skills or disciplines of suitable managers should result in an appropriate number.  New Initiatives can also be added as required.

Structuring Programmes

D-M programme structuring is independent of the formal organisation(s) in which it is to be used.  It has the single purpose of supporting the achievement of the programme goal.  Two broad structures, Single Organisation programmes and Complex Organisation programmes, are the most commonly seen.  Both are described below to help identify that most appropriate to the reader.

Single Organisations

A single organisation programme where all the projects and those working on them will all be under the direct control of a single management is quickly and easily set up in the D-M control structure.  For instance, if it has one KBA and, say, three Initiatives the initial control structure will look something like this:

This, or an even simpler structure, will normally suit a single departmental or one-off programme of activity where there is one overall manager to whom all those contributing normally report.  This structure is in the D-M Starter-set.

If that planning shows that, for example, two managers have very distinct roles and objectives they should each own a separate KBA and least one Initiative thus:

Complex Organisations

Most programmes have to deal with the complexities of working with a number of contributors from a variety of organisations.  Typically these contributors, who may be whole organisations, are not solely engaged on work for the programme.  In many cases, a person will have a role in the programme (managing a KBA, an Initiative or a Project) whilst they also carry out their normal duties.  This results in a programme control challenge at least like this:

More often, as below, people in several organisations will have roles in several programmes as well as their normal duties resulting in this type of complexity:

The D-M control structure of KBAs and Initiatives provides an elegant means of managing in these complex environments.   It makes clear who is responsible for delivering what, when and to whom.  This is particularly relevant in cross-organisational or cross-disciplinary programmes where the ‘contract to deliver’ is the most effective control tool.

In ‘boundary crossing’ situations it is advisable that one person in each contributing organisation is defined as at least an Initiative manager if not a KBA Manager so that they have a clear control and reporting role in the programme.
Top

Directing-Mind Decision Making

Managers arrive at decisions by permutating their knowledge and experience with the facts available and the circumstances of the particular case.  The factors usually considered include the type of activity and its priority, its costs and benefits, its risks and rewards, its relationships to other activities and so on.

Directing-Mind provides the D-M Rules capability that replicates this managerial decision making process.  Setting up and using D-M Rules gives the programme consistency in decision-making and allows it to be automated where appropriate.  

The programme’s D-M Rules will make decisions about its projects based on permutations of factors such as those described above.  The decisions required are specified as a set of D-M Rules in the WorkoutII control system.  These D-M Rules are used at stage-end to determine systematically what should happen next.   Their use will result in the project being either:

Automatically authorised to proceed to the next stage - because it meets the programme’s criteria for this to happen;

or

Referred to a specified decision maker who may then authorise it to proceed, put it on hold or kill it off.

As noted earlier, the stage authorisation specifies the deliverables that the project manager must produce to complete that stage.  A key function of the D-M Rules is to ensure that the deliverables specified are appropriate to that project.  For example, it might be decided that all projects above a financial threshold must include a detailed business case in the deliverables whilst those below it, or of a different nature, need only include a summary case. 

Equally, the D-M Rules might be set up to allow low cost projects for compliance with Health and Safety Regulations to proceed automatically, at least to the end of stage three, if the funds are in budget.  On the other hand, they could require formal approval for each stage of a project of equivalent cost proposed for a different purpose. 

The D-M Rules will effect these decisions and many others as specified by the programme management. 


Managing Risks and Opportunities

The consideration of risks and rewards in decision-making was mentioned above.  These are worthy of further explanation because of the key place they have in all management thinking.

Most people find it easiest to relate both risk and opportunity, which may be closely allied, in a graphic representation rather than statistical measures although these may be necessary for particularly complex situations.  We have found the most effective representations to be the use one or more four-by-four grids.  These grids, which in D-M are called Business Effects Matrices, allow the project and programme risks and/or opportunities, or both, to be defined and tracked by their positioning. 

For instance, common pairings of concerns might include relationships between factors such as those below, each with up to four sub-categories:

·        Urgency and Business Value

·        Size and Complexity

·        Cost and Expertise

·        Complexity and Urgency

·        Reputation and Cost

·        Sector and Profitability

·        Etc.

Each of these, or any other pairs of relationships, can be evaluated in a grid thus:

D-M provides three Business Effects Matrices for which the programme can choose its own descriptions of and values for each axis.  Every project will then be associated with one of the sixteen cells in each stage.  Each cell is also assigned a priority rating for use in selection and reporting at all levels.

These matrices help the programme manager to monitor the portfolio of actual or emergent risks at all times.
Top

Directing-Mind Project Stages

In outline, the D-M Project Lifecycle is:

The nature and purpose of each stage is summarised below.

Project Stage Descriptions

The names given in parentheses illustrate the thinking behind the four-stage approach.  Other names or purposes for stages may be used if preferred.

Stage One: (New Project Request) - the process that identifies or confirms the need for a new project, outlines its key criteria and seeks approval for it to move to the next stage by the application of the D-M Rules. 

Stage Two:  (Evaluate Options) - if the project is authorised to proceed, this stage is where the original idea will be developed into a workable proposal or set of options for a decision, guided by the D-M Rules, on whether to go further. 

Stage Three:  (Develop Solution or Prepare to Implement) - this stage covers the work needed to take the project to the point where applying the D-M Rules leads to a further ‘go/no-go’ decision on its implementation or completion.

Stage Four: (Implement or Operate) - this is the stage where either a one-off implementation is effected or an ongoing ‘operating activity’ project is managed through a business cycle to completion.

Top

Directing-Mind Programme Controls

The Directing-Mind ethos of delegated responsibility makes the stage-end the focus of formal reporting and control.  As illustrated in the D-M Project Lifecycle, the project manager’s report of a stage completion causes the D-M Rules to make the appropriate decision.  This will produce one of the following control documents:

·        Request for Authorisation of Next Stage** - if the D-M Rules determine that the next stage requires authorisation by a nominated person.

·        Authorisation to Proceed to Next Stage** - if the D-M Rules determine that it meets the criteria for automatic authorisation.   This will also be produced after a Request for Authorisation of Next Stage is approved.

·        Notification of Project Refused – if the nominated person decides that it should be killed off.

·        Notification of Project Placed on Hold - if the nominated person decides that it should be held for reconsideration at a later date.

** These are single-sheet ‘turnaround’ documents designed to keep paperwork to a minimum.  A project that passes automatically through all stage-ends generates five control documents; one that requires a management decision at each stage-end produces eight. 

Although the control documents can be distributed electronically the primary copy is a physical record to be signed by the appropriate person.  This is because it has been found that accurate information is more likely to be provided over a real signature than by email.  Given the brevity and simplicity of the D-M controls this approach provides a good audit trail and is not seen as onerous.

Interim Controls

As noted earlier the D-M control process does not require reporting during a stage.  Nonetheless any form of interim controls or reporting can be specified as stage deliverables if required.  For instance during a particularly lengthy, costly or sensitive stage it could be sensible to specify regular progress reporting to the Initiative or KBA manager as a deliverable.  Such progress reports would be made outwith the D-M control framework but their production would be confirmed in the stage-end report.
Top

Directing-Mind Reporting

Distribution of the control documents described above is the only mandatory reporting in D-M.  A range of discretionary reports, textual and graphic, is available using a very flexible filtering mechanism.  These can be set up for regular or ad hoc production and provide completely current reports at any level.

The standard generally available reports are:

  • Project Status: All or selected Projects showing Status, Project Dates, Current Stage and Project Manager.
  • Organisation Initiative Summary: Project Status by Initiative and open Projects breakdown by Type.
  • Organisation KBA Summary: Project Status by KBA and open Projects breakdown by Initiative within KBA.
  • Organisation Project Summary: Overall Project Status and open Projects breakdown by KBA.
  • Project Risk Summary: Summary of Project Risk for all Projects.
  • Project Risk Summary by KBA: Summary of Project Risk by KBA.
  • Progress Report: Shows progress of all Projects over two years.
  • Late Completions: Projects that have missed Planned End Dates.
  • Cost Values Report: Current cost estimates for all or a selection of Projects.

There are also a number of reports that document the structure and purposes of all aspects of the Programme.  All reports are designed so that they can be distributed electronically and/or posted onto a website.

Top

  Directing-Mind Management Roles

The specific roles held by individuals in a D-M programme are described below.  It should be noted that the titles used are there for programme purposes only.  All reports and other documentation will show an individual’s normal job title.

Programme Manager

The person responsible for directing the whole programme to completion.  The manager decides on the programme structure and its controls.

KBA Owner

The person ultimately responsible for achieving the objectives set for their KBA and therefore for setting up its Initiatives and defining their objectives.  They may delegate operational responsibility to a KBA Manager or discharge it themselves.  In some programmes the programme manager may also own (and/or manage) one or more KBAs.

KBA Manager

The person responsible to the KBA Owner for achieving the goals set for the KBA by providing the operational control focus for the KBA and its Initiatives.  May also be the KBA Owner.

Initiative Manager

The person responsible for:

i)                   Identifying or sponsoring the projects needed to achieve the objective set for their Initiative; and

ii)                 Managing the control process for all the projects in the Initiative; and

iii)              Initiating appropriate action when project managers identify problems.

Project Manager

The person responsible for delivery of the specified outcome of a project stage to produce the results and deliverables authorised.  Each project will be tracked through the four- stage lifecycle in which the project manager must formally report the completion of each stage.

D-M Change Controller

The person who operates the WorkoutII control system on behalf of the programme manager.  This person issues and receives all control documents, produces scheduled and ad hoc reports and maintains the programme audit trail.
Top