February 2009 Archives

This report, courtesy of Brookings, envisions a new model for technology innovation which leverages the national labs, academic institutions and regional energy programs as part of the stimulus package. The DOE is about to release billions of dollars to states and local programs in energy efficiency (EE) and renewable energy (RE).

• $16B Energy Efficiency (EE) and Renewable Energy (RE)
• $8B Government building upgrades
• $6.5B Grid upgrades
• $22B tax rebates for solar, weatherization etc.
• $60B loan guarantees - new nuke, ethanol, bio-mass etc.
• $4.2B Block grants to states ($2.1B competitively awarded)
• $3.1B Qualified Conservation Bonds - not tax exempt, smaller grants for blended funding.

A big question is how to make these programs accountable? We are not going to get this money again, so effectiveness is critical.
Questions to consider...

1. What makes a partnership attractive to the feds?
2. What controls are there to insure money is well spent and the results are measured and then leveraged?
3. Rhetorically speaking, how do you take "programs/projects" and apply a multiplier?
4. What are the multipliers that can lead to exponential growth?
5. How do we take these investments and make them scalable?
6. How do we (the country) learn from the mistakes quickly and fix them?

Hypothesis...

What I've learned from huge IT implementations is that when you want to roll out large, highly distributed programs, you design for replication. This includes developing design patterns and creating artifacts which can be reused. The counties and states are designing projects and not thinking about exponential growth. There needs to be a third entity, like a PMO, who focuses on building the multiplier effect into this money. We need to leverage these $$ by designing for similarities, identifying standards, agreeing to processes for expansion and roll out. Clearly, the fed cannot micro-manage. But, can we afford a broadcast approach, where you throw the seeds out and see what grows? We desperately need to be more disciplined than that. In 18-24 months if there are not sufficient things to show for the investment, it will be a political nightmare.

Next a model for rapid growth...

I am agnostic, yet passionate, when it comes to approaches to organizing programs or initiatives relative to stakeholder engagement and governance. Most importantly, it needs to work – rather than meet a pedagogy. While an advisor may have preferences, often folks have a methodology, which they prefer and that is to be respected. Flexibility and adaptability are far more important than declarations of "there is one right way." So, while there are many different approaches to structure a stakeholder or governance strategy, which method or approach you use ultimately depends on the developmental phase of your group and what outcomes you seek through your effort.

As examples - I have used straight-forward models such as Discover, Define, Design, Deploy arrangements. On other engagements we have applied Rational Unified Process (RUP), which can also be used for designing governance and standards organizations. Even Xtreme Engineering can be a useful method. And then there are numerous frameworks such as open source governance models for IT or sustainability such as CobIT and FISDEV and the CMMi or the Competency Maturity Model Integration.

One approach that I think is particularly successful, looks at the definition, creation and management of a governance or multi-stakeholder body through the lenses of - Materiality, Completeness and Responsiveness.

- Materiality means "knowing what is important to you and your stakeholders."

- Completeness represents the practice of "understanding your impact and what stakeholders think of you."

- Responsiveness is the principle of "coherently responding to stakeholders concerns."

The three lenses provide a bridge of sorts linking together the three primary phases of stakeholder engagement, Thinking and Planning, Preparing and Engaging, Responding and Measuring. Within each phase are a series of tasks which must be completed to a level of "doneness" that will allow an organization to move on to the next task or phase. Some of these tasks may occur in series or in parallel or even iteratively. For example the task of identifying stakeholders by its nature supports the identification of material issues, which in turn identifies additional stakeholders.

The following is a high-level example of how I have organized a Stakeholder Strategy. The bullets are milestones that can be woven together to form an approach for your initiative:

Phase I - Think and Plan

• Identify and convene owners responsible for the success of this initiative
• Conduct current state analysis such as internal and external assessments or benchmarking and competitive analysis
• Identify stakeholders who are relevant and share material concerns
• Establish a common ground of values and ethics upon which to build the future
• Identify, document and research material concerns
• Determine and define an engagement strategy
• Develop road map
• Establish an engagement plan and an implementation schedule

Phase II - Preparing and Engaging

• Enable stakeholders to own outcomes through participation in the identification, design and creation of solutions to problems and opportunities.
• Identify ways of engaging that work and will produce value
• Build competency and capacity amongst stakeholders as a framework for success Engage with stakeholders to facilitate understanding, learning and improvement

Phase III - Responding and Measuring

• Mitigate risk through feedback and measurement - never stray too far from your values, vision and goals
• Conduct a gap analysis to identify what is being measured, what needs to be measured, what do stakeholders need measured to provide credibility
• Operationalize, internalize and communicate learning
• Measure, assess, and communicate performance
• Assess, re-map, re-define

This model is derived from the AccountAbility AA1000ES Assurance Framework for Stakeholder Engagement.