Delivery 5.0, adoption – Part 1 – Consulting, Solutioning

Reading Time: 2 mins

We spent several weeks early 2019 in putting together a framework for delivering projects. It’s the 5th revision of the process hence 5.0. This time the focus would be on quality. How did it translate so far?

What’s detailed here is the experience from two projects: IDP (India Data Portal) and NHRR (National Health Resource Repository). Both projects are part of the PSU SBU.

Client 1

Stakeholders – Industry experience, exposure to best standards in project management and solution detailing, work via external grants and hence more accountability.

What to build – A data portal.

Client workshop – excellent conversations and met desired outcomes.

Client 2

Stakeholders – Autonomous government agency, poor standards in project management and solution detailing, little oversight on grants and hence little accountability.

What to build – A data portal.

Client workshop – Stonewalled conversations, little information shared. Stakeholders do not know who the end users are.

Let us consider the listed projects and observe how individual items in Consulting Phase pan out.

Consulting, Solutioning Detailed Map Document

Section 1 – Consulting Phase

Task	Client 1	Client 2
Forms for client	No	No
Requirement workshop (hence interviews)	Effective	Ineffective
Data access	Yes	No
Requirement document clarity	Good	Bad

Part 2 – Solutioning Phase

Section 2 – Solutioning Phase

Context: Both projects are not insight driven. In fact, in Client 1’s case they explicitly don’t need insights. In Client 2’s case, data isn’t shared.

Task	Client 1	Client 2
Data analysis	None	None
Analyst workstream	No	No
Solution map workstream	Yes	Yes
Solution Review Board	No	No

Section 3 – Design Phase

Task	Client 1	Client 2
HFD brainstorming	Yes	Yes
Updates to features	Yes	Yes
Req. traceability to Invision	No	No
Design review	TBD	TBD

Section 4 – Analytics Phase

Analytics team isn’t involved in either of the projects.

Conclusion

Of the four phases, Analytics phase isn’t applicable at all. Solution Review Board has not reviewed the solution in either of the cases. As a process it’s tricky (time-consuming) to one-on-one match every feature from requirement document to Invision.