Articles
How to select your new computer system
Four-page introduction, from the published version, to our proven method to avoid the common pitfalls during supplier/system evaluation and selection. Note the scoring illustration is doubly a fragment: there would be more columns for (typically) four candidate systems; there would be many more rows - generally between 100 and 250 scored requirements.
Techniques, tools & methods we find helpful
Issues sessions
This variant of Action Learning is excellent for circumstances when the subject experts are probably around the table. The process draws on the peer experience and is self-directing to solve the problems of most interest to the group. It usually works well even if people have not had time to prepare, so you can use this document to give a short briefing on the process at the start of the session.
Role/responsibility matrix from GDPM
Goal Directed Project Management was developed and published by three Norwegian academics. One approach we have found hugely useful on projects is the GDPM technique nicknamed the Role/Responsibility Matrix - more correctly known as the Responsibility Chart. It is excellent for clarifying and controlling matrix management. This is our Excel implementation of RRM - on most projects, we use the middle one of the three tables, with people's names listed down the left and the project roles across (such as 'Project Board' or 'Capital Approval'). Note the coded roles at top left, including the 'little d' to show joint decision-making, often highly relevant to collaborations. Also note you can combine the coding on the matrix with Excel's powerful AutoFilter facility (see Excel's help if new to you). Filtering, say, an Evaluation Team column to 'NonBlanks' gives a shortlist of team members, for printing or perhaps pasting invitation lists. Alternatively, you might filter the matrix to immediately find who must be consulted for capital expenditure decisions.
Format for a networking 1-2-1
A facility, not a constraint! We have put some thought into making the 1-2-1 more effective as a business development technique, and adapted elements from BNI and other networking groups. These headings work well for an effective 1-2-1 to support referrals by establishing mutual advantage and understanding. We replace the explanatory notes in the right-hand column of the table with the answers we get during the meeting or telephone call.
Weighted attribute matrix
A generic template for complex decisions that is especially useful where: (a) there are multiple decision-makers, multiple criteria and multiple options to assess; (b) decisions are complex, messy, high-risk, expensive, cut across boundaries, may involve organisational politics and have few opportunities for trial-and-error; (c) there is no perfect solution, but degrees of fit with a need to manage expectations; (d) the decision-makers need to understand the trade-offs involved in Option X vs Y. The principle of the Weighted Attribute Matrix (WAM) is to extend (ie multiply) 'weight' for importance by candidate 'fit' for suitability. We normally use the range 0-5 for the weights and 0-3 for the fit score, with definitions behind the weights and scores. Therefore, the top mark is 15. Since zero is a valid finished entry, this format uses 0.1 to flag weights or scores not yet determined. Candidates that are strong in areas that are important to the project pick up loads of points compared to their rivals that are weak in important areas. We have used WAM on more than 60 projects, with content for evaluating strategies, venture and corporate capital investment decisions (see below), lifestyle/residence choices and IT system selections. Once you have the numbers, you can do some simple but powerful analyses, such as compare the top two candidates directly.
Weighting process
Note in the weighted attribute matrix technique (WAM) above the key terms 'weights' (for importance of each criterion) and 'scores' (for fit of each candidate to each criterion). For instance, with 25 criteria and 4 options you would have 25 weight values and 100 scores. The weights stipulate - mathematically - the differences between the 'must have' and 'nice to have' criteria or requirements. This standard document - usually a handout before a workshop - introduces the definitions of the weights (normally in the range of 0-5), and the suggested process to determine them.
Investment assessments - graph of fit
A different example of the weighted attribute matrix (WAM) technique (see above) applied to assessing investment proposals. This shows a different facet of the technique - the summary of fit at Category level. The chart shows the shape of the fit of two candidate investments (A & B, in cream & blue). The 'back blocks' (in purple) show the shape of a perfect investment pitch, in the eyes of this company. This visualisation is easy to do once you have the scoring matrix, but is astonishingly powerful in clarifying the position and therefore getting a decision that sticks.
Company information, project contributions & experience
Summary brochure - Decision Evaluation Ltd
Our services, benefits, people and rigorous project processes. Our specialism is to get committees of senior managers to make good decisions to time. We use formal decision-making methodologies to do so. Since founding in 1992, we have helped clients with IT decisions (large, package, systems procurement), and still do so, but now also apply the same toolset to non-IT capital projects. See Figure 2 for our method for building decision-making methods - our tool for building tools makes us toolmakers for the knowledge economy.
CV - Martin Tate
Shows 28 years of career and consultancy experience for Martin Tate, founder of Decision Evaluation. Illustrates achievements when applying or creating formal decision-making methods on complex, high-risk capital projects including strategy, procurement, investment assessments, carbon management, supplier evaluation and system selection.
