SWOT Analysis for EIRMS (Enterprise Information Resources ...


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • If we examine our organizations through the lense of a SWOT Analysis, there are External Factors and Internal Factors. External factors represent OPPORTUNITIES and THREATS, whereas Internal factors represent WEAKNESSES and STRENGTHS. The goal is to create SAVINGS STRATEGIES BUILT ON our STRENGTHS and Opportunities while building SAVINGS STRATEGIES BUILT ON DEFENSE of our Weaknesses and Threats.
  • This goes hand in hand with the Bell-shaped Curve or “The Law of Things”. If we chose to score all the things that we do in our organizations on a scale of 01 to 10. On the low end, our organizations do perform things that are less competitive and we call them Internal Weaknesses or a score of 0, 1 or 2. Most organizations are just about as good at their business as a whole bunch of their competitors. On a scale of 0 to 10, they score about 4, 5 or 6, which we say is competitive parity . Here too the bell-shaped curve works. For each of the factors, almost everyone in their industry falls near the middle of the curve, while a few score very high and a few score very low. On the high end, we do things that are more competitive, which we call Internal Strengths with scores of 8, 9 or 10. You’ll find that the bell-shaped curve is particularly useful when considering your organization’s strengths and weaknesses in comparison to your competition . But it is not good enough to say we are good at Marketing. You must be able to say we are significantly better at marketing than our competitors For only then could you build a strategy based on significant competitive advantage. Use the bell-shaped curve to identify your organization’s savings strengths and weaknesses as compared to your competition. Then be sure the strategies you develop build on your strengths and correct your weaknesses. The goal is to minimize your weaknesses while you maximize your strengths. If you we are successful at this, then we can improve savings overall.
  • How Not to Screw up Pluses and Deltas by Ron on March 29th, 2007. An extremely powerful, yet often misused, tool is pluses and deltas. I say misused since 9 out of 10 people I know (including MANY consultants) do not know how to do them properly. What are they? The easiest way to do pluses and deltas is to simply write “plus” and “delta” while drawing a line down the middle onto flip chart paper. The basic idea is after a meeting or training class (especially training classes) each person in the meeting or class will write on post-it notes things they liked about the session (pluses) and things they thought could be improved (deltas). Each person should leave at least one plus and delta before leaving. The biggest mistake The biggest mistake people make with pluses and deltas revolves around the proper definition of a delta. Deltas are NOT complaints. For example, if the room was too hot during the day a complaint would be “the room was too hot.” A delta would be “please make the room cooler.” There is a big difference. The reason this is so important is because the person running the meeting or training class should act on every delta they can. For example, I was running a Six Sigma training class once and got a delta “please provide sweet tea in afternoon.” This was an excellent delta since I could act on it – and I did. Subsequently, the next day there was a plus saying “thanks for the sweet tea!” Little acts like getting someone sweet tea can turn a good training session or meeting into a great one. So if all you get are complaints it can be hard to act on them. Good deltas, however, are easy to act on. Second biggest mistake The second biggest mistake people make is to argue or debate with the class or meeting attendees about deltas. If someone wants the room cooler don’t make any wise comments like, “I thought the temperature was fine.” As an administrator of the meeting or training class what you think matters little. Lastly, when running through the pluses and deltas with the participants (at end of the day or start of the next day) start with the deltas and end with the pluses. It makes things happier. If you don’t use pluses and deltas you are missing a great opportunity to hold better meetings and training classes. Give it a try and watch how much better things are when you do them correctly! Until next time, I wish you all the best on your journey towards continuous improvement.
  • SWOT Analysis for EIRMS (Enterprise Information Resources ...

    1. 1. SWOT Analysis for EIRMS (Enterprise Information Resources Management Strategy) Ben Berry – CIO ODOT October 2 nd 2009
    2. 2. Overview <ul><li>Purpose </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Emerge a SWOT (Internal Strengths & Weaknesses and External Opportunities & Threats) Analysis for the EIRMS (Enterprise Information Resources Management Strategy) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Executive Sponsor: Dugan Petty – State CIO </li></ul><ul><li>Owners: CIOMC – CIO Management Council </li></ul>
    3. 3. Kick off Dugan Petty – State CIO Executive Sponsor October 2 nd 2009
    4. 4. SWOT Workshop Context <ul><li>Changed Environment </li></ul><ul><li>Strategy Planning Process </li></ul><ul><li>Business-based Strategy/SWOT </li></ul>
    5. 5. SWOT Workshop Scope <ul><li>Collectively analyze and evaluate agencies’ abilities to accomplish their missions and business outcomes through their use of Information Resource Management (IRM). </li></ul><ul><li>IRM includes the strategic management of enterprise information, technology and human resources. Wise planning and use of IT (a subset of IRM) can help coordinate and unify an organization, and add further value when coordinated across multiple organizations (the enterprise). </li></ul>
    6. 6. SWOT Workshop Objectives <ul><li>Distill central theme or implications from the workshop to inform development of the information resource management strategy </li></ul><ul><li>Find commonality across agencies </li></ul><ul><li>Lead to strategic information resource management goals and objectives to most effectively support agencies’ achievement of their mission and business outcomes </li></ul>
    7. 7. Introduction <ul><li>Master Change Facilitator </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Ben Berry – CIO ODOT </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Facilitators </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Gabriela Pop, MBA – ODOT IT Intern </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Howie Pham, MBA – ODOT IT Intern </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Joyce Wu, MBA – ODOT IT Intern </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Diep Ho, MBA – ODOT IT Intern </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Coordinator </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Vickie Warner – Executive Assistant </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Participants </li></ul>
    8. 8. Ground Rules <ul><li>Evidence-based information, not just opinions </li></ul><ul><li>Encourage everyone to participate </li></ul><ul><li>Respect ideas </li></ul><ul><li>Listen, try not to interrupt </li></ul><ul><li>Be honest </li></ul><ul><li>…… </li></ul><ul><li>… </li></ul>
    9. 9. “ Synchronize the Organization ” <ul><li>Gather people from key agencies to create consensus decision making </li></ul>Agency CIO's The Team Master Change Facilitator Facilitators Internal Auditors Agency Line of Business Administrative Services Business Managers Enterprise Business Executives
    10. 10. L1 L2 LF1 LF2 M <ul><li>No group </li></ul><ul><li>Self or written </li></ul><ul><li>information </li></ul><ul><li>Gather info and </li></ul><ul><li>then Leader </li></ul><ul><li>decides </li></ul><ul><li>Leader meets </li></ul><ul><li>with people one </li></ul><ul><li>on one </li></ul><ul><li>Collects info </li></ul><ul><li>Leader makes </li></ul><ul><li>decision </li></ul>consultative <ul><li>Leader meets with </li></ul><ul><li>group in open forum </li></ul><ul><li>Prompts ideas and </li></ul><ul><li>considers input </li></ul><ul><li>Leader still makes </li></ul><ul><li>decision </li></ul>assumes Goal Congruence <ul><li>Group </li></ul><ul><li>participation </li></ul><ul><li>Group Decides </li></ul>autocratic consensus The Art of Decision Making Less time to decide (time efficient) Leader decides More time to decide (more developmental) Group decides
    11. 11. SWOT Process Steps <ul><li>Brainstorm ideas - Every idea is considered </li></ul><ul><li>Use the “In and Out Frame” </li></ul><ul><li>Categorize SWOT ideas generated </li></ul><ul><li>Prioritize SWOT ideas </li></ul><ul><li>Select top SWOT ideas </li></ul><ul><li>Report-out SWOT Analysis </li></ul>
    12. 12. External Factors Internal Factors Strategies Built on Strength Strategies Built on Defense <ul><li>External factors – Refers to factors outside the enterprise in state government such as: citizen/public, business partners, legislative partners, etc. </li></ul><ul><li>Internal factors – Refers to factors inside the enterprise that are related to: agency business and mission, business objectives and decision making, agency results, etc. </li></ul>Opportunities Threats Weaknesses Strengths
    13. 13. Bell-Shaped Curve “The Law of Things” Improved Enterprise Information Resource Strategy Internal Weaknesses Score 0 2 5 8 10 Internal Strengths Score M I N I M I Z E M A X I M I Z E Weaknesses Strengths Competitive Parity
    14. 14. Brainstorming Template
    15. 15. Brainstorming Template In and Out the Frame In the Frame Out the Frame Out the Frame
    16. 16. Brainstorming Template – Categorization Category Category Category
    17. 17. Brainstorming Template –Prioritization Category Category Category
    18. 18. Strengths SWOT Analysis for the EIRMS Collaboration Leadership Policy and contracts Opportunities Threats Weaknesses People Misc. Miscellaneous Misc. Misc. Resources Bureaucracy People / Leadership Enterprise approach Governance Collaboration Customer Technology Communication Resources/ Partners Enterprise approach Citizens Legislature Resources Security Technology
    19. 19. Final Report-Out Weaknesses Strengths Opportunities Threats Enterprise approach : - Raising frustrations. Citizens: - Legislature and citizens do not perceive the value of IT; public perception of government as wasteful and sloppy. Legislature: - Legislative perception; Union resistance to outsourcing solutions; Regulations and policies that build barriers. Security: - Security risks; Lack of sufficient funding for security issues. Resource: - Unfunded mandates; Mainframe support staff. Miscellaneous : - Turf Protection. Collaboration : - Enterprise opportunities; Shared email system; Better partnerships with the legislature. Customer : - Use technology to extend the service delivery model; take citizen view of state services; public expect “on-time” , “real time”. Communication/ PR : - Better education of citizens; Leverage citizens support for improvement; Communicate state accomplishments. Resources: - Use of federal government contracts. Miscellaneous : - Streamline DAS approval process on agency IT contracts; Leverage workforce ideas; Expectation of sustainability. Resources : - Lack of good funding vehicle for enterprise issues; Biennial budget process not aligned with IT lifecycle; No resource to look at common needs; Fragmented revenue stream. Enterprise approach : - No collective management; Lack of unified mission; Lack of ability for agencies to settle on enterprise business agreements. People ad leadership : - Employee morale; It staff skills evolving slower than technology; exhaustion of workforce; Risk adverse culture. Bureaucracy : - Lack of ability to move quickly; Time consuming IT contracting. Governance : - Immature IT governance process in some agencies; Spread IT governance statewide. Collaboration : - Cross agency relationship and collaboration; Recognize the need to improve enterprise imitative; CIOC- good forum for exchange ideas; Growing integration of enterprise architecture in agency efforts. Leadership : - United CIOs; Leadership/ mentoring across agency boundaries; data-based documented decisions. Policy and Contracts : - Ability to establish statewide contracts to leverage buying power; Staff augmentation contract; BCP planning process. People : - Intellectual capital abundance across agencies; Agency innovation in the use of information technology. Miscellaneous : - Involving business and administrative success; Web access to information; Successful use of project management.
    20. 20. Things that worked well Things that we’d change + Plus-Delta Everyone participated The facilitation was good Prep-work sufficient Productive discussions Different perspectives at the table Entertaining leadership Good structure, No surprises Nicely compressed timeframe Helpful interns More business people needed More time needed Too many colors Process suggestion: brainstorm first for 3 minutes and then discuss Some sticky notes were not discussed Too many dots  more dots needed
    21. 21. Final Words / Adjourn <ul><li>Value for the EIRMS </li></ul><ul><li>Next steps and owners </li></ul><ul><li>Suggestions </li></ul>
    22. 22. This presentation was designed by Gabriela Pop, a graduate of Willamette University MBA Program. For more information contact Ben Berry at [ Mailto:ben.berry@odot.state.or.us ] SWOT Analysis for EIRMS Synchronize the Organization
    23. 23. Room Layout