Learning module:02

 Unit of competence: Contribute to the Development of Strategy

 Module Title: Contributing to the Development of Strategy

Occupational code: ICT DBA4 02 0710

 LO1: Plan for strategy

 LO2: Investigate the current environment

 LO3: Participate in feedback session

LO4: Finalize and validate plan

Trainees manual and information sheet for DBA level IV

Compiled GK

LO1: Plan for strategy

What is strategy ?

strategy
 Definitions
1.A method or plan chosen to bring about a desired future, such as achievement of a goal or solution to a problem.
2.The art and science of planning and marshalling resources for their most efficient and effective use. The term is
derived from the Greek word for generalship or leading an army. See also tactics.

Strategy: Definitions and Meaning

Introduction
The concept of strategy has been borrowed from the military and adapted for use in business.  A review of what
noted writers about business strategy have to say suggests that adopting the concept was easy because the adaptation
required has been modest.  In business, as in the military, strategy bridges the gap between policy and tactics. 
Together, strategy and tactics bridge the gap between ends and means (Figure 1).  This paper reviews various
definitions of strategy for the purpose of clarifying the concept and placing it in context. The author's aim is to make
the concepts of policy, strategy, tactics, ends, and means more useful to those who concern themselves with these
matters.

Figure 1 - Strategy & Tactics

Some Language Basics

Strategy is a term that comes from the Greek strategia, meaning "generalship." In the military, strategy often refers
to maneuvering troops into position before the enemy is actually engaged. In this sense, strategy refers to the
deployment of troops. Once the enemy has been engaged, attention shifts to tactics. Here, the employment of troops
is central. Substitute "resources" for troops and the transfer of the concept to the business world begins to take form.

Strategy also refers to the means by which policy is effected, accounting for Clauswitz’ famous statement that war is
the continuation of political relations via other means. Given the centuries-old military origins of strategy, it seems
sensible to begin our examination of strategy with the military view. For that, there is no better source than B. H.
Liddell Hart.

Strategy According to B. H. Liddell Hart

In his book, Strategy [1], Liddell Hart examines wars and battles from the time of the ancient Greeks through World War II. He concludes
that Clausewitz’ definition of strategy as "the art of the employment of battles as a means to gain the object of war" is seriously flawed in
that this view of strategy intrudes upon policy and makes battle the only means of achieving strategic ends. Liddell Hart observes that
Clausewitz later acknowledged these flaws and then points to what he views as a wiser definition of strategy set forth by Moltke: "the
practical adaptation of the means placed at a general’s disposal to the attainment of the object in view." In Moltke's formulation, military
strategy is clearly a means to political ends.

Concluding his review of wars, policy, strategy and tactics, Liddell Hart arrives at this short definition of strategy:
"the art of distributing and applying military means to fulfil the ends of policy." Deleting the word "military" from
Liddell Hart’s definition makes it easy to export the concept of strategy to the business world. That brings us to one
of the people considered by many to be the father of strategic planning in the business world: George Steiner.
Strategy According to George Steiner
George Steiner, a professor of management and one of the founders of The California Management Review, is generally considered a key
figure in the origins and development of strategic planning. His book, Strategic Planning [2], is close to being a bible on the subject. Yet,
Steiner does not bother to define strategy except in the notes at the end of his book. There, he notes that strategy entered the management
literature as a way of referring to what one did to counter a competitor’s actual or predicted moves. Steiner also points out in his notes that
there is very little agreement as to the meaning of strategy in the business world. Some of the definitions in use to which Steiner pointed
include the following:

 Strategy is that which top management does that is of great importance to the organization.
 Strategy refers to basic directional decisions, that is, to purposes and missions.
 Strategy consists of the important actions necessary to realize these directions.
 Strategy answers the question: What should the organization be doing?
 Strategy answers the question: What are the ends we seek and how should we achieve them?

Steiner was writing in 1979, at roughly the mid-point of the rise of strategic planning. Perhaps the confusion
surrounding strategy contributed to the demise of strategic planning in the late 1980s. The rise and subsequent fall of
strategic planning brings us to Henry Mintzberg.

Strategy According to Henry Mintzberg

Henry Mintzberg, in his 1994 book, The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning [3], points out that people use "strategy" in several different
ways, the most common being these four:

1. Strategy is a plan, a "how," a means of getting from here to there.

2. Strategy is a pattern in actions over time; for example, a company that regularly markets very expensive products is
using a "high end" strategy.
3. Strategy is position; that is, it reflects decisions to offer particular products or services in particular markets.
4. Strategy is perspective, that is, vision and direction.

Mintzberg argues that strategy emerges over time as intentions collide with and accommodate a changing reality.
Thus, one might start with a perspective and conclude that it calls for a certain position, which is to be achieved by
way of a carefully crafted plan, with the eventual outcome and strategy reflected in a pattern evident in decisions and
actions over time. This pattern in decisions and actions defines what Mintzberg called "realized" or emergent
strategy.

Mintzberg’s typology has support in the earlier writings of others concerned with strategy in the business world, most notably, Kenneth
Andrews, a Harvard Business School professor and for many years editor of the Harvard Business Review.

Strategy According to Kenneth Andrews

Kenneth Andrews presents this lengthy definition of strategy in his book, The Concept of Corporate Strategy [4]:

"Corporate strategy is the pattern [italics added] of decisions in a company that determines and reveals its objectives,
purposes, or goals, produces the principal policies and plans for achieving those goals, and defines the range of
business the company is to pursue, the kind of economic and human organization it is or intends to be, and the nature
of the economic and non-economic contribution it intends to make to its shareholders, employees, customers, and
communities. (pp.18-19)."

Andrew’s definition obviously anticipates Mintzberg’s attention to pattern, plan, and perspective. Andrews also
draws a distinction between "corporate strategy," which determines the businesses in which a company will
compete, and "business strategy," which defines the basis of competition for a given business. Thus, he also
anticipated "position" as a form of strategy. Strategy as the basis for competition brings us to another Harvard
Business School professor, Michael Porter, the undisputed guru of competitive strategy.
Strategy According to Michael Porter
In a 1996 Harvard Business Review article [5] and in an earlier book [6], Porter argues that competitive strategy is "about being different."
He adds, "It means deliberately choosing a different set of activities to deliver a unique mix of value." In short, Porter argues that strategy is
about competitive position, about differentiating yourself in the eyes of the customer, about adding value through a mix of activities
different from those used by competitors. In his earlier book, Porter defines competitive strategy as "a combination of the ends (goals) for
which the firm is striving and the means (policies) by which it is seeking to get there." Thus, Porter seems to embrace strategy as both plan
and position. (It should be noted that Porter writes about competitive strategy, not about strategy in general.)

Strategy According to Kepner-Tregoe

In Top Management Strategy [7], Benjamin Tregoe and John Zimmerman, of Kepner-Tregoe, Inc., define strategy as "the framework which
guides those choices that determine the nature and direction of an organization." Ultimately, this boils down to selecting products (or
services) to offer and the markets in which to offer them. Tregoe and Zimmerman urge executives to base these decisions on a single
"driving force" of the business. Although there are nine possible driving forces, only one can serve as the basis for strategy for a given
business. The nine possibilities are listed below:

1. Products offered 4. Production capability 7. Natural resources

2. Market needs 5. Method of sale 8. Size/growth

3. Technology 6. Method of distribution 9. Return/profit

It seems Tregoe and Zimmerman take the position that strategy is essentially a matter of perspective.

Strategy According to Michel Robert

Michel Robert takes a similar view of strategy in, Strategy Pure & Simple [8], where he argues that the real issues are "strategic
management" and "thinking strategically." For Robert, this boils down to decisions pertaining to four factors:

1. Products and services 3. Market segments

2. Customers 4. Geographic areas

Like Tregoe and Zimmerman, Robert claims that decisions about which products and services to offer, the customers
to be served, the market segments in which to operate, and the geographic areas of operations should be made on the
basis of a single "driving force." Again, like Tregoe and Zimmerman, Robert claims that several possible driving
forces exist but only one can be the basis for strategy. The 10 driving forces cited by Robert are:

1. Product-service 6. Sales-marketing method

2. User-customer 7. Distribution method

3. Market type 8. Natural resources

 4. Production capacity-capability 9. Size/growth

5. Technology 10. Return/profit

Strategy According to Treacy and Wiersema

The notion of restricting the basis on which strategy might be formulated has been carried one step farther by Michael Treacy and Fred
Wiersema, authors of The Discipline of Market Leaders [9]. In the Harvard Business Review article that presaged their book [10], Treacy
and Wiersema assert that companies achieve leadership positions by narrowing, not broadening their business focus. Treacy and Wiersema
identify three "value-disciplines" that can serve as the basis for strategy: operational excellence, customer intimacy, and product leadership.
As with driving forces, only one of these value disciplines can serve as the basis for strategy. Treacy and Wiersema’s three value disciplines
are briefly defined below:

1. Operational Excellence Strategy is predicated on the production and delivery of products

and services. The objective is to lead the industry in terms of
price and convenience.

2. Customer Intimacy Strategy is predicated on tailoring and shaping products and

services to fit an increasingly fine definition of the customer. The
objective is long-term customer loyalty and long-term customer
profitability.

3. Product Leadership Strategy is predicated on producing a continuous stream of state-

of-the-art products and services. The objective is the quick
commercialization of new ideas.

Each of the three value disciplines suggests different requirements. Operational Excellence implies world-class
marketing, manufacturing, and distribution processes. Customer Intimacy suggests staying close to the customer and
entails long-term relationships. Product Leadership clearly hinges on market-focused R&D as well as organizational
nimbleness and agility.

What Is Strategy?
What, then, is strategy? Is it a plan? Does it refer to how we will obtain the ends we seek? Is it a position taken? Just
as military forces might take the high ground prior to engaging the enemy, might a business take the position of low-
cost provider? Or does strategy refer to perspective, to the view one takes of matters, and to the purposes, directions,
decisions and actions stemming from this view? Lastly, does strategy refer to a pattern in our decisions and actions?
For example, does repeatedly copying a competitor’s new product offerings signal a "me too" strategy? Just what is
strategy?

Strategy is all these—it is perspective, position, plan, and pattern. Strategy is the bridge between policy or high-
order goals on the one hand and tactics or concrete actions on the other. Strategy and tactics together straddle the gap
between ends and means. In short, strategy is a term that refers to a complex web of thoughts, ideas, insights,
experiences, goals, expertise, memories, perceptions, and expectations that provides general guidance for specific
actions in pursuit of particular ends. Strategy is at once the course we chart, the journey we imagine and, at the same
time, it is the course we steer, the trip we actually make. Even when we are embarking on a voyage of discovery,
with no particular destination in mind, the voyage has a purpose, an outcome, an end to be kept in view.

Strategy, then, has no existence apart from the ends sought. It is a general framework that provides guidance for
actions to be taken and, at the same time, is shaped by the actions taken. This means that the necessary precondition
for formulating strategy is a clear and widespread understanding of the ends to be obtained. Without these ends in
view, action is purely tactical and can quickly degenerate into nothing more than a flailing about.

When there are no "ends in view" for the organization writ large, strategies still exist and they are still operational, even highly effective, but
for an individual or unit, not for the organization as a whole. The risks of not having a set of company-wide ends clearly in view include
missed opportunities, fragmented and wasted effort, working at cross purposes, and internecine warfare. A comment from Lionel Urwick's
classic Harvard Business Review article regarding the span of control is applicable here [11]:

"There is nothing which rots morale more quickly and more completely than . . . the feeling that those in authority
do not know their own minds."

For the leadership of an organization to remain unclear or to vacillate regarding ends, strategy, tactics and means is
to not know their own minds. The accompanying loss of morale is enormous.

One possible outcome of such a state of affairs is the emergence of a new dominant coalition within the existing
authority structure of the enterprise, one that will augment established authority in articulating the ends toward
which the company will strive. Also possible is the weakening of authority and the eventual collapse of the formal
organization. No amount of strategizing or strategic planning will compensate for the absence of a clear and
widespread understanding of the ends sought.

The Practical Question: How?

How does one determine, articulate and communicate company-wide ends? How does one ensure understanding and
obtain commitment to these ends? The quick answers are as follows:

The ends to be obtained are determined through discussions and debates regarding the company's future in light of
its current situation. Even a SWOT analysis (an assessment of Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) is
conducted based on current perceptions.

The ends settled on are articulated in plain language, free from flowery words and political "spin." The risk of
misdirection is too great to tolerate unfettered wordsmithing. Moreover, the ends are communicated regularly,
repeatedly, through a variety of channels and avenues. There is no end to their communication.

Understanding is ensured via discussion, dialog and even debate, in a word, through conversations. These
conversations are liberally sprinkled with examples, for instances, and what ifs. Initially, the CEO bears the burden
of these conversations with staff. As more people come to understand and commit to the ends being sought, this
communications burden can be shared with others. However, the CEO can never completely relinquish it. The CEO
is the keeper of the vision and, periodically, must be seen reaffirming it.

Ultimately, the ends sought can be expressed via a scorecard or some other device for measuring and publicly
reporting on company performance. Individual effort can then be assessed in light of these same ends. Suppose, for
instance, that a company has these ends in mind: improved customer service and satisfaction, reduced costs,
increased productivity, and increasing revenues from new products and services. It is a simple and undeniably
relevant matter for managers to periodically ask the following questions of the employees reporting to them:

 What have you done to improve customer service?

 What have you done to improve customer satisfaction?
 What have you done to reduce costs?
 What have you done to increase productivity?
 What have you done to increase revenues from new products and services?

The Decisions Are the Same

No matter which definition of strategy one uses, the decisions called for are the same. These decisions pertain to
choices between and among products and services, customers and markets, distribution channels, technologies,
pricing, and geographic operations, to name a few. What is required is a structured, disciplined, systematic way of
making these decisions. Using the "driving forces" approach is one option. Choosing on the basis of "value
disciplines" is another. Committing on the basis of "value-chain analysis" is yet a third. Using all three as a system
of cross-checks is also a possibility.

Some Fundamental Questions

Regardless of the definition of strategy, or the many factors affecting the choice of corporate or competitive strategy,
there are some fundamental questions to be asked and answered. These include the following:

 Related to Mission & Vision 1. Who are we?

2. What do we do?
3. Why are we here?
4. What kind of company are we?
5. What kind of company do we want to become?
6. What kind of company must we become?

 Related to Corporate Strategy 1. What is the current strategy, implicit or explicit?

2. What assumptions have to hold for the current
strategy to be viable?
3. What is happening in the larger, social and
educational environments?
4. What are our growth, size, and profitability goals?
5. In which markets will we compete?
6. In which businesses?
7. In which geographic areas?

 Related to Competitive Strategy 1. What is the current strategy, implicit or explicit?

2. What assumptions have to hold for the current
strategy to be viable?
3. What is happening in the industry, with our
competitors, and in general?
4. What are our growth, size, and profitability goals?
5. What products and services will we offer?
6. To what customers or users?
7. How will the selling/buying decisions be made?
8. How will we distribute our products and services?
9. What technologies will we employ?
10. What capabilities and capacities will we require?
11. Which ones are core?
12. What will we make, what will we buy, and what will
we acquire through alliance?
13. What are our options?
14. On what basis will we compete?
Some Concluding Remarks
1. Strategy has been borrowed from the military and adapted for business use. In truth, very little adaptation is required.
2. Strategy is about means. It is about the attainment of ends, not their specification. The specification of ends is a matter
of stating those future conditions and circumstances toward which effort is to be devoted until such time as those ends
are obtained.
3. Strategy is concerned with how you will achieve your aims, not with what those aims are or ought to be, or how they
are established. If strategy has any meaning at all, it is only in relation to some aim or end in view.
4. Strategy is one element in a four-part structure. First are the ends to be obtained. Second are the strategies for
obtaining them, the ways in which resources will be deployed. Third are tactics, the ways in which resources that have
been deployed are actually used or employed. Fourth and last are the resources themselves, the means at our
disposal. Thus it is that strategy and tactics bridge the gap between ends and means.
5. Establishing the aims or ends of an enterprise is a matter of policy and the root words there are both Greek: politeia
and polites—the state and the people. Determining the ends of an enterprise is mainly a matter of governance not
management and, conversely, achieving them is mostly a matter of management not governance.
6. Those who govern are responsible for seeing to it that the ends of the enterprise are clear to the people who people
that enterprise and that these ends are legitimate, ethical and that they benefit the enterprise and its members.
7. Strategy is the joint province of those who govern and those who manage. Tactics belong to those who manage.
Means or resources are jointly controlled. Those who govern and manage are jointly responsible for the deployment of
resources. Those who manage are responsible for the employment of those resources—but always in the context of
the ends sought and the strategy for their achievement.
8. Over time, the employment of resources yields actual results and these, in light of intended results, shape the future
deployment of resources. Thus it is that "realized" strategy emerges from the pattern of actions and decisions. And
thus it is that strategy is an adaptive, evolving view of what is required to obtain the ends in view.

This paper has taken a broad, multi-faceted look at the subject of strategy. Some readers might go away disappointed
that no final, unambiguous definition of strategy has been provided. The quick response is that there is none, that
strategy is a broad, ambiguous topic. We must all come to our own understanding, definition, and meaning. Helping
the reader do so is the chief aim of this paper.

References
1. Strategy (1967). B. H. Liddell Hart. Basic Books.
2. Strategic Planning (1979). George Steiner. Free Press.
3. The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning (1994). Henry Mintzberg. Basic Books.
4. The Concept of Corporate Strategy, 2nd Edition (1980). Kenneth Andrews. Dow-Jones Irwin.
5. "What is Strategy?" Michael Porter. Harvard Business Review (Nov-Dec 1996).
6. Competitive Strategy (1986). Michael Porter. Harvard Business School Press.
7. Top Management Strategy (1980). Benjamin Tregoe and John Zimmerman. Simon and Schuster.
8. Strategy: Pure and Simple (1993). Michel Robert. McGraw-Hill.
9. The Discipline of Market Leaders (1994). Michael Treacy and Fred Wiersema. Addison-Wesley.
10. "Customer Intimacy and Other Value Disciplines." Michael Treacy and Fred Wiersema. Harvard Business Review (Jan-
Feb 1993).
11. "The Span of Control." Lionel Urwick. Harvard Business Review (May-Jun 1956).

Related Reading

The "Development of Strategies that Work" database is a growing collection of policies, outcomes and analysis
based on information provided by governments in the national reports and national voluntary presentationsprepared
for the Annual Ministerial Reviews of the United Nations Economic and Social Council.
2.1 Plan for strategy
Strategic planning is an organization's process of defining its strategy, or direction, and making decisions on
allocating its resources to pursue this strategy. It may also extend to control mechanisms for guiding the
implementation of the strategy. Strategic planning became prominent in corporations during the 1960s and remains
an important aspect of strategic management. It is executed by strategic planners or strategists, who involve many
parties and research sources in their analysis of the organization and its relationship to the environment in which it
competes.[1]
Strategy has many definitions, but generally involves setting goals, determining actions to achieve the goals, and
mobilizing resources to execute the actions. A strategy describes how the ends (goals) will be achieved by the means
(resources). The senior leadership of an organization is generally tasked with determining strategy. Strategy can be
planned (intended) or can be observed as a pattern of activity (emergent) as the organization adapts to its
environment or competes.
Strategy includes processes of formulation and implementation; strategic planning helps coordinate both. However,
strategic planning is analytical in nature (i.e., it involves "finding the dots"); strategy formation itself involves
synthesis (i.e., "connecting the dots") via strategic thinking. As such, strategic planning occurs around the strategy
formation activity.[1]

Strategic planning is a process and thus has inputs, activities, outputs and outcomes. This process, like all processes,
has constraints. It may be formal or informal and is typically iterative, with feedback loops throughout the process.
Some elements of the process may be continuous and others may be executed as discrete projects with a definitive
start and end during a period. Strategic planning provides inputs for strategic thinking, which guides the actual
strategy formation. The end result is the organization's strategy, including a diagnosis of the environment and
competitive situation, a guiding policy on what the organization intends to accomplish, and key initiatives or action
plans for achieving the guiding policy. [2]

Michael Porter wrote in 1980 that formulation of competitive strategy includes consideration of four key elements:

1. Company strengths and weaknesses;

2. Personal values of the key implementers (i.e., management and the board);
3. Industry opportunities and threats; and
4. Broader societal expectations.[3]

The first two elements relate to factors internal to the company (i.e., the internal environment), while the latter two
relate to factors external to the company (i.e., the external environment).[3] These elements are considered throughout
the strategic planning process.

Inputs

Data is gathered from a variety of sources, such as interviews with key executives, review of publicly available
documents on the competition or market, primary research (e.g., visiting or observing competitor places of business
or comparing prices), industry studies, etc. This may be part of a competitive intelligence program. Inputs are
gathered to help support an understanding of the competitive environment and its opportunities and risks. Other
inputs include an understanding of the values of key stakeholders, such as the board, shareholders, and senior
management. These values may be captured in an organization's vision and mission statements.

Activities

The essence of formulating competitive strategy is relating a company to its environment.

Michael Porter[3]

Strategic planning activities include meetings and other communication among the organization's leaders and
personnel to develop a common understanding regarding the competitive environment and what the organization's
response to that environment (its strategy) should be. A variety of strategic planning tools (described in the section
below) may be completed as part of strategic planning activities.

The organization's leaders may have a series of questions they want answered in formulating the strategy and
gathering inputs, such as:
  What is the organization's business or interest?
 What is considered "value" to the customer or constituency?
 Which products and services should be included or excluded from the portfolio of offerings?
 What is the geographic scope of the organization?
 What differentiates the organization from its competitors in the eyes of customers and other stakeholders?
 Which skills and resources should be developed within the organization?[1][4]

Outputs

The output of strategic planning includes documentation and communication describing the organization's strategy
and how it should be implemented, sometimes referred to as the strategic plan. The strategy may include a diagnosis
of the competitive situation, a guiding policy for achieving the organization's goals, and specific action plans to be
implemented.[2] A strategic plan may cover multiple years and be updated periodically.

The organization may use a variety of methods of measuring and monitoring progress towards the objectives and
measures established, such as a balanced scorecard or strategy map. Companies may also plan their financial
statements (i.e., balance sheets, income statements, and cash flows) for several years when developing their strategic
plan, as part of the goal setting activity. The term operational budget is often used to describe the expected financial
performance of an organization for the upcoming year. Capital budgets very often form the backbone of a strategic
plan, especially as it increasingly relates to Information and Communications Technology (ICT).

Outcomes

Whilst the planning process produces outputs, as described above, strategy implementation or execution of the
strategic plan produces Outcomes. These outcomes will invariably differ from the strategic goals. How close they
are to the strategic goals and vision will determine the success or failure of the strategic plan. There will also arise
unintended Outcomes, which need to be attended to and understood for strategy development and execution to be a
true learning process.

LO2: Investigate the current environment

2.2  Investigate the current environment

 Introduction
 This Stage establishes the basis for subsequent work by focusing on the existing system and thereby identifying the
needs of the people and the requirements of the future system.
Back to top
 
Step 121 Establish Analysis Framework
The First Step is to establish an Analysis Framework; here we look at the Nature of the problem with a view to
customizing the approach to ensure it meets the needs of the system. It is assumed the some work has taken place
previous to this stage but this is not always so. Depending on what has been covered in the previous stages decides
the amount of work required in this step.
Essentially This step checks that the preceding work is satisfactory and allows us to establish the scale and nature of
the project.
Inputs
Feasibility Study Report
Project Initiation Document
Reports From Any Previous Studies
New/Modified Outputs
Requirements Catalogue
Context Diagram
Current Physical DFD Level One
Overview Of Logical Data Modeling
Agreed Systems Analysis And Design Method (SSADM or modified SSADM)
Back to top
Step 122 Investigate And Define Requirements
The Second Step is to Investigate and Define Requirements. The requirement catalogue will become the backbone of
the project. Entering Requirements may only be partly carried out during this stage. During this stage descriptions of
the current system are established. The Third Step is to Investigate Current Processes.
 
This step also establishes a complete list of users and their activities so that all potential users may be consulted.
This list must be made available to all other steps which require it such as Investigate Current Processing And
Investigate Current Data.
Inputs
Context Diagram
Level One Data Flow Diagram
Outputs
Context Diagram
Current Physical Data Flow Modeling
Back to top
Step 123 Investigate Current Processing
This step simply describes the existing systems. Here we record the existing system as a set of Data Flow Diagrams.
All current processes and data flows are documented regardless if they are right or wrong. We simply want a clear
picture of what the system currently does. This allows us to identify the problems in the current system and also
identify the aspects we want to keep.
We also create a Data Flow Model which is the combination of one or more levels of Dfd's plus their supporting
detail, i.e. External Entity Descriptions, Elementary Process Descriptions and I/O Descriptions.
The Detailed Information relating to data items is recorded in the Data Catalogue, i.e. attributes (fields)
Inputs
Context Diagram
Level One Data Flow Diagram
Outputs
 
Context Diagram
Current Physical Data Flow Modeling
topBack to top
Step 124 Investigate Current Data
During this stage it is sufficient to identify major entities. Details of there content is normally limited to major
attributes such as keys and other highly significant items. Identifying entities is frequently difficult especially trying
to reach a consensus agreement of them so the use of relational data analysis on documents usually will help.
Inputs
Overview LDS
Outputs
Current Environment LDM
topBack to top
Step 125 Derive Logical View Of Current Services
This Step brings together all the work done so far on the current system. One purpose of this stage is to check for
consistency between the steps. E.g. the Logical Data Store/Entity cross-reference is created in this step.
During this step we also convert the Physical DFM into a logical DFM by eliminating external physical factors,
duplication and redundancy. The LDM which is already by definition, Logical, is used for reference and validation.
Processes and data stores that are purely to service the physical implementation of the current system are deleted.
After these updates some DFD may no longer be viable in their own right and can be combined with other diagrams.
It is good practice to record the reasons, if any, why particular decisions were taken in case the situation changes and
they need to be revised.
Inputs
User Catalogue
Requirements Catalogue
Context Diagram
Current Physical DFM
Current Environment LDM
Outputs
Context Diagram
Logical Data Store/Entity cross-reference
Logical DFM
Requirements Catalogue
Current Environment LDM
topBack to top
Step 126 Assemble Investigation Results
This Step concludes the stage and is concerned with quality. This review concentrates on coherence and consistency
of the whole stage of products. This does not mean that quality reviewing only takes place at the end of the stage.
This Step requires links with the external Quality Assurance set up by the Project Board and mediated through the
Project Procedures for quality control. In contrast to the assembly steps there are no results to be formally published
by this step.
Inputs
User Catalogue
Context Diagram
Logical Data Store/Entity Cross-Reference
Logical DFM
Requirements Catalogue
Current Environment LDM
Outputs
Current Services Description
Requirements Catalogue
User Catalogue

 LO3: Participate in feedback session

 2.3 Participate in feedback session

“Giving feedback in a formal setting improves the motivation of your middle and top performers”

 What are O3 Feedback Sessions?

A feedback session is a formal meeting between a manager and employee where the discussion is focused on the
employee’s recent performance and the employee’s short term goals, (0-3 months).

These feedback sessions are a subset of your organisations overall employee performance planning and monitoring
framework.

 Link to Performance Appraisals

Many organisations will have an annual performance appraisal process. In this performance appraisal process a
manager and employee will meet to discuss the employee’s longer term career and performance goals. The
performance appraisal process generally commences with a one hour goal planning meeting, followed by a six
monthly and an end of year review discussion.

The O3 feedback sessions commence soon after the performance appraisal goal planning meeting. During the
feedback session the manager and employee will discuss the employee’s recent performance and how their recent
performance is helping them to realise their annual goals as stated in their performance appraisal goal plan.
 Feedback Session Frequency

Generally O3 meetings will occur monthly and last anything from 15 to 60 minutes, however you should typically
allow 30 minutes plus preparation time.

The mid-year performance appraisal review meeting then becomes a summary of the last five feedback sessions.
(Assuming you are having monthly one on one feedback sessions).

Some leadership programs suggest you should have a feedback session every week with each of your people. You
will find that leaders who have a weekly meeting with each of their staff tend to discuss the current status of
initiatives, share corporate communications and other changes in the organisation.

This weekly time is valuable for your employee and if you choose to have these weekly meeting you can then make
one of these meetings each month specifically about the employee’s current performance.

The duration and frequency of feedback sessions depends on the needs of your employee and should allow the
employee sufficient time to improve their performance between meetings. When determining the frequency of your
feedback sessions you may like to consider that:

 New or developing employees will generally require more frequent sessions. (Weekly is reasonable for a new
starter)
 Employees who are competent and content in their role will tend to require a shorter session and less frequent
 Employee needs should drive your time allocation and frequency

 Tip: Saving time in people management reduces performance; don’t pursue efficiencies in your people
management, focus on being effective and giving your people the time that they need.

 O3 Summary

Feedback sessions that are executed well will result in a stronger relationship between the manager and the
employee. In your feedback sessions you will focus your discussion on the employee’s performance., however you
also strengthen your relationship with the person.

To motivate your people with your feedabck sessions you will need to plan, prepare for, conduct and follow up your
feedback sessions effectively.

LO4: Finalize and validate plan

2.4 : Finalize and validate plan

When you put the finishing touches on something, such as agreeing on a specific time and place to meet your friend
on Saturday, you finalize your plans.

 Define finalize: to put (something, such as a plan or an agreement) in a final or ... Hermione ushered them out of the
hall to finalize their plans for the evening. Before construction can begin on the athletic facilities the City Counicl
needs to finalize the plans and put the project out for bid. The four-day planning event seeks to finalize exercise
scenarios, participant force offerings, schedule of events, and participant manning in ...