Quote from sachinm on 4 October 2023, 7:59 pm

Here we show how one can map constraints as an example to demonstrate their utility...

The theory of constraints argues that most systems outcomes are limited by certain bottlenecks (constraints) and improvements away from these constraints tend to be counterproductive because they just place more strain on a constraint.

Constraint mapping is useful for 3 reasons:

1. Once you map constraints, distribution and delegation of decision making and action is easier and safer.
2. Mapping and managing constraints help avoid a direct connection between a situational assessment and a decision about an action to take.
3. Mapping “Containers” at the innovation phase of a process can create a shared understanding for the group who are involved.

Now we can identify which of the constraint clusters are acting as constructors. So, not acting as a barrier but instead creating a replicable outcome (a process, a trial etc).

Quote from sachinm on 5 December 2023, 4:36 pm

Here, we show how PRUB-Logic ( Projects, Results, Uses and Benefits) created by Phil Driver, can clarify risk management interactions between Projects and Benefits.

Citation: "PRUB-Logic: Risk Management – Where Strategies Fail" © Copyright Phil Driver 2023

**Note: The below is extract taken from the original paper "PRUB-Logic: Risk Management – Where Strategies Fail" which can be downloaded by logged in Users**

In the physical world: Projects create Results that enable Uses to create Benefits

A set of multiple Projects, Results, Uses and Benefits is a Sub-Strategy. A set of Sub-Strategies is an Open-Strategy. Frequently many Projects are required to produce the set of necessary and sufficient Results to enable multiple Uses and Benefits, with the crucial risk-management interactions, as in Figure 1.

Figure 1: The generalised PRUB-Logic Sub-Strategy with dashed arrows indicating the risk-management interactions

Four key facts that greatly impact on the risk management of Sub-Strategies:

1. Only "Uses" create Benefits! Projects create assets, not Benefits. ‘Benefits realisation’ is achieved by "Uses", not by Project managers. Similarly, Benefits do not get ‘delivered’ by Project managers, they get ‘created’ by Uses.
2. Most "Uses" are voluntary. People don’t have to Use the Results of Projects.
3. While "Uses" are enabled by sufficient and necessary Results, "Uses" must also be inspired by Benefits, or they won’t happen (occasionally some Uses can be compelled by legislative Results).
4. The worth and level of inspiration from the Benefits must be determined by the users, not determined by Project managers/sponsors.

From a risk management perspective, PRUB-Logic, Sub-Strategies and Open-Strategies only work if they are simultaneously:

1. Logic: Is the set of proposed Results, theoretically, both necessary and sufficient to enable the hoped-for "Uses"?
2. Evidence: Is there compelling Evidence that the Results really will be (voluntarily) "Used"?
3. Worth: Will the Worth of the Benefits created by the Uses sufficiently inspire the users to undertake the "Uses"?

In answering the 3 questions above, we complement the traditional risk-management focus on Project Management and Cost-Benefit analysis.

To reduce the risk of Uses not happening as forecast, it is essential to identify all the right Results that are needed to fully enable the Uses. Failing to create a robust PRUB-Logic Sub-Strategy is a source of many non-productive Projects with a high risk of failure to meet the Project-sponsor’s expectations.

Do we have robust and compelling Evidence that the Results really will not only be Used but will be used at a sufficient level to justify the Projects?

For a PRUB-Logic Sub-Strategy to work, every single Link between Projects, Results, Uses and Benefits must be valid. This will support Uses to create worthwhile Benefits.

A PRUB-Logic Sub-Strategy will not happen unless Uses generate sufficient global worth and users individually receive sufficient motivational worth to inspire them to undertake the Uses.

Risk-management of a PRUB-Logic Sub-Strategy therefore requires an in-depth, quantitative understanding of the type, magnitude and worth of Benefits generated by Uses as defined by those who gain the Benefits.

In summary, risk-management of Uses and Benefits using the construct of a PRUB-Logic Sub-Strategy requires:

1. Logic: A theoretically logical PRUB-Logic Sub-Strategy that identifies all the Projects, Results, Uses and Benefits (social, economic, environmental, and cultural) that will start with the Projects generating a necessary and sufficient set of Results that will enable Uses to create sufficiently inspiring Benefits for the PRUB-Logic Sub-Strategy to be self-sufficient
2. Evidence: Compelling Evidence that users know about and genuinely will undertake the anticipated Uses
3. Worth: Complete confidence that the net global and motivational worth of the Benefits exceeds the costs of the Projects plus the costs of the Uses