Outcome Relationship Models, presentation, Ned Newton, London, 23 June 2016 The APM Benefits Summit 2016 APM Benefits Management SIG

1. Outcome Relationship Models
Ned Newton
Atkins

2.  Mapping approaches within:
– benefits management
– International development, social change
– strategy creation
– value management
 Outcome Relationship Models (ORMs):
– Government programme ORMs
Niteworks rainbow team :
Atkins, BMT Hi-Q Sigma, Rhead (Costain), Serco & independents
– context, notation, layout
– ORM for a capability programme
– outcome analysis
 Mapping uses
Topics

3. MSP Benefits Map
• The standard benefits map
• Completed right to left
• For an emergent programme
completed from both sides
• Good high level summary
Project
Output
Capability Outcome Benefit
Corporate
Objective MSP® is a registered trade mark of
AXELOS Limited. All rights reserved.

4. Results Chain
• Developed by the DMR
Group (now part of Fujitsu
Consulting)
• Described by John Thorp
(2003) in The Information
Paradox
ContributionInitiative AssumptionIntermediate
Outcome
Results Chain TM is a trade mark of
Fujitsu Consulting (Canada) Inc.
End
Outcome

5. Benefits Dependency Network
• Developed by Cranfield
University’s Information
Systems Research Centre
(Ward and Daniel, 2006)
• Similar to Benefit
Dependency Map described
by Gerald Bradley in Benefit
Realisation Management
(2010)
IT Enabler Enabling
Change
Business
Change
Benefit Investment
Objective

6. Logic Model
• Many different types and
styles
• Theory of Change
Input Activity Output Initial
Outcome
Intermediate
Outcome
Long-term
Outcome

7. OpenStrategies
• Developed by Phil Driver and
described in Validating
Strategies (2014)
Project Result Use Benefit

8. Functional Analysis Systems Technique (FAST)
• Customer FAST Diagram
Higher-order
function
Second-level
function
Primary
function
Third-level
function
Supports

9. Outcome Relationship Model
• Atkins innovation
• Notation aids scaling
• Poster for the programme
• Export for analysis
Positive
Outcome
Negative
Outcome
Benefit Other Strategic
Direction
Intermediate
Outcome

10. TRACK ACTIVITIES
TRACK MILESTONES
TRACK OUTCOMES
PROJECT
DELIVERY
STRATEGICDIRECTION
REQUIREMENTS
BUSINESS
CHANGE
REPORT AGAINST
REQUIREMENTS
REPORT AGAINST
STRATEGIC DIRECTION
FORMING
TARGET
OPERATION CONSEQUENCES
POSITIVE
NEGATIVE
OUTPUTS
(Visio)
Outcome
Relationship
Model
+
(Excel)
Analysis
REQUIRED OUTCOMES
STRATEGICDIRECTION

11.  Infrastructure programme
 Capability programmes
 Recruitment programme
 Headquarters reorganisation programme
ORM Examples

12. 23. B
5. X Available 10. X Used 17. M
43. P Reduced D3
21. N Increased B2
BUSINESS CHANGE
Decreasing
Influence
2. X Exists
Project
Responsibility
ORM Notation 1
24. B19. Xa Used

13. Responsibility Area
Leads to
Means that
Part of
Line continues
Area
Programme Scope area
Group
ORM Notation 2
X X
Area
Snn
ID.
Area 1 Area 2 Area 3
Outcome Type
Positive NegativeIntermediate
OUTCOME STRATEGIC DIRECTION
MEASUREMENT RESPONSIBILITY NOTE
23. Efficiencies from shared services –
increased B3 M19 Reg Ops 37

14. TITLE
STRATEGIC
DIRECTION
DOCUMENT
INFORMATION
NOTATION
ABBREVIATIONS, NOTES, MEASURES
PROGRAMME
INFORMATION
OUTCOME MAP
ORM Layout

15. Capability ORM Summary
OUTPUTS
EXIST
CORPORATE
OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVES
BENEFITS
DIS-BENEFITS
KURs
EXPLOITING CAPABILITY POSSESSION
(Sales, Options, Influence)
ENABLING
READINESS
ENABLING
DEPLOYMENT
INFLUENCING
USE
OTHER
IMPACTS
FUNCTIONS
AND MISSION
IMPACTS
EXPLOITING GROWTH OPTIONS
(Upgraded/additional components)
STRATEGIC
DIRECTION
AT BASE
READINESS
(Ready to deploy)
ON SITE
DEPLOYMENT
(Ready to use)
IN OPERATION
USE

16. Capability ORM Example

17. STRATEGIC
DIRECTION
NOTES NOTATION
IMAGES
TITLE
OUTPUTS
EXIST
READINESS DEPLOYMENT USE FUNCTIONS AND MISSION IMPACTS
ENABLING
READINESS
ENABLING
DEPLOYMENT
INFLUENCING USE
OTHER IMPACTS
EXPLOITING CAPABILITY
POSSESSION
EXPLOITING GROWTH OPTIONS
CORPORATE
OBJECTIVES
BENEFITS
KURs
DIS-BENEFITS
TECHNOLOGY
STRATEGY
Capability ORM Example

18. Outcome Analysis
Importance Low importance
Aligns with other
priorities
Aligns with Level 2
strategic direction
Aligns with Level 1
strategic direction
Controllable Could not control
Could have
negligible control
Could control via
partners
Could control
Measurable
Very difficult to
measure
Difficult to measure
Significant effort to
measure
Straightforward to
measure
4321
HIGH LOW

19. 4321
HIGH LOW

20. 4321
HIGH LOW

21. Mapping uses
• supporting Understanding and Communications
• supporting Stakeholder Engagement
• understanding Strategic Context
• understanding Scope & Responsibilities
• identifying and understanding Dependencies
• informing Transition Planning
• supporting Resource Allocation
• informing Intermediate Outcome tracking
• identifying potential sources of Risk
• informing Benefit documentation and tracking
• supporting Business Change
• supporting Handover to BAU

22. Mapping – a key benefits realisation tool
Ned Newton
Atkins
ned.newton@atkinsglobal.com

23. This presentation was delivered
at an APM event
To find out more about
upcoming events please visit our
website www.apm.org.uk/events