I'm not sure what question you are answering. If its 'how would you run a traditional large change programme' then yes what you have documented is pretty reasonable. The development of a target operating model 'up front' is crucial as you need to know what the fuck it is you are attempting to deliver.
If the question is, how would you of used Programme management disciplines to deliver Brexit, then thats a different question. What was needed up front to develop a TOM would have been difficult and protracted. A better way of doing it would have been to form a small, senior, empowered, cross party steering group to consider the options and whip their respective parties into line. Perhaps with some discussion, some elements of a solution could have been found to appease Scotland and built a better solution to NI but who knows?
I cant help feeling that whatever the option put forward, it would have been too aligned to the EU for half the stakeholders and not aligned enough for the other half. A year or even 18 months of painful option wrangling and trying to get as many on side as possible would have made everything that followed a great deal easier.
I have significant doubts though that May/Corbyn would have been capable of leading such an activity, particularly considering the right wing of her party and various terrorists. After all, if you remember there was a process through HOC to vote on options and look how that turned out. So to make it work and achieve an operating model that the country could get behind required a very different type of politics than the incumbents were capable of providing leadership for.
In you response to Vic, you made all of that sound straightforward but I think it was anything but and explains why so much has been kicked down the road. Thoughts?
Once established though the workstreams are a great deal easier as they have a good handle on scope and what it is they are setting out to achieve.
One element which has been particularly badly done is readiness testing. In the past I have set up a matrix of workstreams on programmes both 'vertical' ones with their own scope of work and then 'horizontal' ones that offer a 'shared service' to each of the vertical workstreams. Typically this would include business readiness testing which would ensure all vertical workstreams are independently assessed before they can be given a go decision.
Big subject but all theoretical and wont change an atom.
I didn't think I was. I was applying the concept to a different context. (To wit, the paucity of information about how many ways to do Brexit there might be when people had to tick Remain or Leave.)Sorry Vic
You are not understanding how an options appraisal is done in the context of this exchange
Now thats just twisting words and is naughty. I forgive you though. I said they could have been honest and either supported leave or remain. Those are the only choices there are. They sat on the fence. Am I still being nonsensical?I've no idea what the point is. I only bother to correct nonsensical comments about what Labour could have done differently, and how many more people with opposing views might have been pissed off.
Truly cataclysmic.Percy Pig sweets to rise in price due to tariffs
Impact of goods made in the Eu ... but exported to the UK only to be reimported to the Eu
Point well and truly missed.Almost hit the corner flag.Truly cataclysmic.
Thats a response from someone who has never been near a sizeable programme of change.So we now need a workstream to test whether the workstreams are ready...
The problem is that all this is not in a closed corporate environment. It's in a febrile political setting (and that's just within the government) where half the people involved are not just resistant to change but bloody hostile (perhaps - unlike mcfc1632 who's so professional his own views wouldn't come into it - including most of the people recruited to the workstreams).
And with a government that doesn't listen anyway (as, for example, if you find your neighbours want to put two storeys on top of their house and now don't need planning consent) - everyone told the government it was a crap idea but they've done it anyway.
I've been on a task and finish group that came up with the best solution to a political problem (a built facility) - only for the political leaders to bottle out in the face of public opposition and actually say "we should have told you not to put this anywhere near people".
I'm saying it was nonsensical to think that Labour's choosing to support leave or remain would have got more votes than sitting on the fence.Now thats just twisting words and is naughty. I forgive you though. I said they could have been honest and either supported leave or remain. Those are the only choices there are. They sat on the fence. Am I still being nonsensical?
she's a twat..this is the nicest fight I've seen on here for a while.