Patent Publication Number: US-8543409-B2

Title: Business practices alignment methods

Description:
RELATED APPLICATIONS 
     This application is a continuation of pending U.S. application Ser. No. 10/708,962, filed Apr. 02, 2004. 
    
    
     BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION 
     1. Field of Invention 
     The present invention relates generally to the field of business methods and practices. More specifically, the present invention is related to discrepancy assessment, definition, planning, and evaluation between a current state and a defined state of business practice. 
     2. Discussion of Prior Art 
     As business environments become more complex and the number of multi-organization combinations increases, effectively clarifying desired changes and outcomes from a detailed business practices perspective becomes vital to the success and sustenance of overall business objectives. Business practices are key aspects of business organizations determining how an organization operates and how business is performed within an organization. They have a strong impact on what people do and how they do it, and what is deemed acceptable and unacceptable. Business practices are also a reflection of underlying behaviors, beliefs, values, assumptions, and mindsets held in common across an organization. This common underlying core of business practices is frequently referred to as culture. 
     Business practices are often seen as either an enabler or a barrier in the pursuit of goals that an organization has set for itself. If current business practices are well aligned with what an organization wants to do and how it wants to do it, current business practices will enable the achievement of desired outcomes. However, if current business practices are not well aligned or if there are conflicting sets of business practices within the organization or with other organizations required to achieve the goals, current business practices become a barrier to desired outcomes. 
     Circumstances in which current business practices are often a barrier include: 
     
         
         
           
             mergers or acquisitions in which two or more companies combine business structures to achieve new business results (e.g., HP/Compaq merger, IBM&#39;s acquisition of PricewaterhouseCoopers Consulting); 
             partnerships or alliances in which two or more companies work collaboratively and leverage their capabilities, while remaining separate and distinct entities (e.g., e-marketplace, joint venture, venture capital funding for an entrepreneurial venture); and 
             significant company transformations in which changes to business practices or existing culture must occur within an organization (e.g., bankruptcy, IBM&#39;s On Demand vision, combination of two or more autonomous business units, implementation of a shared services model).
 
At the core of each of these circumstances lie several factors necessitating consideration:
 
             individually and collectively, people carry perceptions, experiences, history, opinions, knowledge, skills, and preferences into these circumstances; 
             there exist a number of different methods to successfully perform work; 
             reconciling differences of opinion and preference to identify the “right” answers for a given circumstance can be difficult; 
             objectively measuring the degree of change that has occurred with respect to business practices and culture is difficult; and 
             significant transformation and integration efforts are lengthy, and often take years before they are considered self-sustaining. 
           
         
       
    
     The method of the present invention targets solutions to problems related to circumstances requiring business practice or culture synchronization. Thus, a focused, tangible, and systemic method is provided for organizations seeking to transform their business practices or cultures, or seeking to integrate or align their business practices or culture with that of one or more other organizations. 
     At a high level, there are three steps in the process of synchronizing one or more business entities. The first step is to determine the direction a participating entity will take through the definition of vision, mission, strategy, or objectives. The second step is to make business value decisions in view of a determined direction. Lastly, decisions are executed or implemented, thus ensuring that a targeted business value is achieved. In each of these steps, business practices and culture must be considered. 
     During an implementation or execution step, desired changes and outcomes are clarified. However, defining desired changes and outcomes in a way that is clearly actionable might require further consideration. Compounding this issue is the fact that there are typically several actionable alternatives to take in the pursuit of a goal. Conflicting versions of alternatives are also likely to be in current practice throughout a single organization and are highly likely to exist between organizations. 
     Prior art approaches to dealing with synchronizing, transforming, integrating, or aligning business practices and cultures are summarized in two basic approaches; an attribute and behavior approach and a principle and value approach. Both approaches are similar in that they seek to define aspects of a desired future state of business, define and communicate priorities, and are comprised of a few, key, high-level components. Also, both tend to describe a future state of business with discrete terms that are implied as equally weighted. 
     The focus on visible attributes and behaviors within an environment help to make aspects of a future state of business practice more tangible, objective, and measurable. However, attributes and behaviors are not likely to be fully understood unless communicated in a way that conveys desired and undesired outcomes, and how such outcomes are achieved in practice. Additionally, focusing on behaviors may do little to change the mindsets and belief systems of those performing work required to achieve desired outcomes. Without changes in thinking, particularly in terms of what is “right” for a given environment, it is more difficult to achieve permanent or self-sustaining change. Also, the definition of desired attributes and behaviors is frequently abstract and separated from the issues people are likely to experience, thus the definitions are inadequate to address differing opinions of what is expected. Such focus may provide less clarity regarding future expectations. If a group reconciliation process is used to identify attributes and behaviors, there is likely to be a high degree of commitment to those attributes or behaviors. However, without a method to predict how attributes and behaviors are incorporated into realistic work situations and dilemmas, it is likely that conflict will arise. 
     Because a principle and value approach seeks to define a desired future state of business in terms that identify priorities and what is appropriate for a given environment at a high level, such definitions are typically abstracted and disconnected from a real work context. Without a more tangible, visual way to describe expectations of business practice and workflow, little change may occur. The reasons for this are that people are not likely to fully grasp the ramifications of the desired changes, or worse, may believe that their actions already correspond to the desired changes since they agree with them intellectually. A principle and value approach states expectations in terms of singular statements with varying level of detail. Without contrasting statements and statements in which true differences of mindset and opinion exist within an environment, those implementing decisions may have little context to take appropriate action. 
     Either prior to or subsequent to the development of attributes and behaviors or principles and values defining a desired future state of business practice, a definition of the current state of business practice may be developed. Current state definitions are created to enable a gap assessment. An assessment seeking to objectively identify what is most likely to help create and drive the changes is more beneficial than an approach that simply relies on opinion. However, without the benefit of a discrete definition of future state of business practice expectations, it is common for people to work actively to manage the implications of business practice change to their best advantage. 
     Whatever the precise merits, features, and advantages of the above cited references, none of them achieves or fulfills the purposes of the present invention. 
     SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION 
     The system and method of the present invention provide for effective application of business practices within the business units in one or more business entities. In the first phase, a practices charter defining future state business practices is developed. A practices charter is developed that contains the reconciliation of right-versus-right spectrums. In a second phase, a practices charter is applied to develop realistic outcome narratives describing desired handling for hypothetical situations and dilemmas. In a third phase, discrepancies between outcome narratives and a current state of business practice are identified, and a prioritized action program is developed to address identified discrepancies, or barriers. Finally, progress is evaluated by utilizing outcome narratives to identify achievements and to target areas needing further improvement and additional actions. The combination of these phases comprises an end-to-end method for transforming, integrating, synchronizing, and aligning business practices or cultures. 
     A practices charter is comprised of decisions about key ways of performing actions and methods of performing actions at a detailed, actionable level. It is created by the identification of realistic alternatives that are conflicting with, or in tension with, other realistic alternatives. Alternatives reflect aspects of either a current state of business practice or a projected future state of business practice, including optional approaches, mindsets, and priorities, both of which are viewed as reasonable by one or more of parties familiar with a current environment and objectives of a business transformation. 
     Conflicting alternatives statements are paired in view of a spectrum model. The spectrum of the present invention is referred to as a right-versus-right spectrum; it reflects conflicting aspects of alternatives that parties have determined as plausible and realistic, although not necessarily equally so. A right-versus-right spectrum is used to define conflicting and overlapping alternatives, and may incorporate attributes and behaviors, principles and values, as well as other business practice drivers such as mindsets, expectations and work style. A right-versus-right spectrum is also used to determine priorities among topics. 
     Input for right-versus-right spectrums is obtained from specified parties involved in business synchronization. Subsequently, a reconciliation process is initiated, during which one of the alternatives is selected and the other rejected, or a combination of both alternatives is selected. As a final step of developing a practices charter, agreement regarding alternatives between specified parties within an organization or organizations is reached. 
     To aid the reconciliation process, an unevenly weighted scale is used. In a typical five-point scale, each of point represents an equal distribution of the total points in the scale. In reconciling differences between point values, conflict may arise due to the coarse granularity of such a scale; thus, a magnitude of conflict would appear to be greater. To combat these difficulties, an unevenly weighted scale is utilized. 
     In a second step of the method of the present invention, outcome narratives are developed. Tenets illustrated by a previously developed practices charter are applied to situations and dilemmas to develop outcome narratives. Situations and dilemmas of interest are circumstances requiring decisions and necessitating cooperation to achieve desired outcomes, situations being issues with a relatively small number of roles or a generally agreed upon preferable outcome and dilemmas being issues with a relatively large number of roles or general disagreement on preferable outcome. In applying agreements resulting as outcome from reconciled right-versus-right spectrums to develop outcome narratives, reference is made to a previously developed practices charter. 
     In the third phase of the method of the present invention, discrepancies between outcome narratives and a current state of activities are resolved by developing a prioritized action program. The identification of discrepancies, known as gap assessment, is performed after defining a work context. An assessment that is grounded in literal description of a work context is less likely to be vague or subject to debate. During gap assessment, implications of business transformation are elucidated. If a particular outcome narrative or its implications are not aligned with the goals of each participating entity, a practices charter is re-visited to ensure decisions embodied therein have been applied correctly to a current hypothetical circumstance. 
     In the fourth phase of the method of the present invention, progress is evaluated by using outcome narratives to identify achievements and targeting areas needing further improvement and additional actions. Additional actions are comprised of identifying and resolving new or continuing discrepancies from previous outcome narratives and developing further outcome narratives and subsequently performing additional gap assessments until a desired state of business practice is reached and is considered self-sustaining. 
    
    
     
       BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS 
         FIG. 1  illustrates a general process flow diagram of the present invention. 
         FIG. 2  is a process flow diagram illustrating the development of right-versus-right spectrums. 
         FIG. 3  is a process flow diagram illustrating the development, validation, and communication of outcome narratives. 
         FIG. 4  is a process flow diagram illustrating gap assessment. 
         FIG. 5  is a process flow diagram illustrating progress evaluation and the design of further actions. 
     
    
    
     DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS 
     While this invention is illustrated and described in a preferred embodiment, the invention may be produced in many different configurations. There is depicted in the drawings, and will herein be described in detail, a preferred embodiment of the invention, with the understanding that the present disclosure is to be considered as an exemplification of the principles of the invention and the associated functional specifications for its construction and is not intended to limit the invention to the embodiment illustrated. Those skilled in the art will envision many other possible variations within the scope of the present invention. 
     Referring now to  FIG. 1 , a business method process flow of the present invention is shown. In step  100 , focus and scope are established by a participating entity or entities in a synchronization of business practices or culture. Subsequently, alternatives statements personifying the entity&#39;s or entities&#39; goals are drafted in view of an unevenly weighted scale, or a right-versus-right spectrum in step  102 . As a result of right-versus-right reconciliation in step  104 , a practices charter communicating decisions is developed in step  106 . Tenets from a practices charter are used as an input in the development, validation, and communication of outcome narratives in step  110 . Also provided as an input to the development of outcome narratives are situations and dilemmas that have been identified and prioritized in step  108 . A gap assessment between a current state of business practice and outcome narratives developed in step  110  is performed in step  112 . Results of a gap assessment are used to identify actions to address gaps in step  114 , which is subsequently followed by the development of a prioritized action plan in step  116 . Finally, progress is evaluated and further actions are designed in step  118 . Actions include identifying additional actions to address new or continuing discrepancies as in step  114 , preparing new alternatives statements as in step  102 , reconciling subsequent new or revised right-versus-right spectrums as in step  104 , and preparing new outcome narratives as in step  110 . 
     Development of Practices Charter 
     In a first phase of the method of the present invention, a practices charter defining a future state of business practices is developed. Goals and intent for synchronizing a combined business entity, collaborating effort of a combined or distinct business entities, or transformations of all or units within a single entity, are elicited via interviews with key leaders of a participating entity or entities. Synchronizing goals are applied to business situations including, but not limited to: mergers, acquisitions, partnerships, joint ventures, alliances, e-marketplace; vision, mission, strategy, improvement, growth or contraction transformation; bankruptcy restructuring and recovery, business model or organizational restructuring, start-up companies, venture capital investments, and initial public offerings (IPO). Along with goals, additional supporting information indicating priorities and intent of entities involved in synchronization is obtained. In the second step, detailed alternatives statements supporting elucidated goals and priorities and embodying reasonable perspectives are derived. 
     Shown in  FIG. 2  is a process flow diagram of initial steps in the development of detailed alternatives statements. Stakeholders determined to be needed from a participating entity or entities, or those having the capability to identify current and anticipated issues in step  200  are selected to participate in the identification of conflicting alternatives in view of right-versus-right spectrums. A data collection process in view of a right-versus-right spectrum occurs by interviewing identified members, (e.g., key leaders or managers) of an entity or entities involved in synchronization, performing roles at various levels within an entity. In step  202 , a data gathering method is determined. Following in steps  204  and  206 , current and anticipated issues are raised and defined. Following interviews, expectations, assumptions, frustrations, concerns, and areas of strife originating from differing approaches, philosophies, and priorities are identified. Documenting the results of an interview allows identification of conflicting points of view raised by those involved in the interview process. Conflicting views regarding raised issues are noted in step  208  and are subsequently used to draft alternatives statements in step  210 . Alternatives statements are then paired, and conflicting statements are negotiated in view of a right-versus-right spectrum. In step  212  conflicting alternatives statements are paired and placed on a right-versus-right spectrum. Subsequently, in steps  214  and  216  right-versus-right spectrums are validated, then consolidated and categorized, respectively. Additionally, in validating right-versus-right spectrums in step  214 , an approach to prioritize validated right-versus-right spectrums is also identified. Lastly, in step  218 , right-versus-right spectrums are reconciled. 
     Alternatives statements in contrast with one another are regarded in view of separate ends of a right-versus-right spectrum wherein both ends of such a spectrum are plausible and realistic, although not necessarily equally plausible and realistic, given a specific circumstance. Shown in Table 1 are examples of differing or conflicting alternatives statements. 
                     TABLE 1               illustrates examples of different alternatives statements                                        On projects, adherence to schedule is more   On projects, adherence to project budget is       important than adherence to project budget   more important than adherence to schedule       Innovation is equally important to finding   Cost savings are more important than       cost savings   innovation       Adherence to established quality standards   Cost or schedule issues can be reasons to       will be top priority, even if it means   make appropriate near-term trade-offs in       creating cost or schedule issues   the established quality standards, but only           to the extent that customer requirements           are not compromised       Process requirements can be bypassed only   Process requirements can be bypassed if       with approval of the next level of   justifiably deemed to be an inhibitor to       management   customer satisfaction in a given           circumstance                    
Right-Versus-Right Spectrums
 
     Right-versus-right spectrums are displayed to members of an entity or entities participating in synchronization, wherein such members or entities review the displayed right-versus-right spectrums to ensure that listed alternatives pairs represent plausible, realistic, and reasonable solutions to conflicts and issues that may arise. As an output of the process shown in  FIG. 2 , paired alternatives statements on right-versus-right spectrums illustrating detailed, contrasting, yet plausible approaches are listed. Right-versus-right spectrums are consolidated into categories, such as decision making and process execution, to facilitate organization and communication of decisions. Facilitating reconciliation of determined right-versus-right spectrums additionally occurs through dialogue where trade-offs, considerations, and context are explored and established. 
     To reconcile alternatives statements in view of a right-versus-right spectrum; alternatives statements are positioned on a five-point scale; wherein the leftmost area represents a totality of points toward one alternatives statement in a pair and the rightmost area represents a totality of points (i.e., 100%) toward an opposing alternatives statement in a pair. An area directly in between both alternatives represents a fifty-fifty split in points (i.e., 50/50%), and the remaining areas are designated as a majority of points (i.e., 51-99%) with regards to a proximate alternatives statement. A rightmost or leftmost area representing a totality of points is an indication of a particular alternatives statement being applicable in all situations. A fifty-fifty split area indicates both alternatives statements are equally applicable, albeit in different situations. Lastly, remaining majority areas indicate that a solution “leans” toward a particular alternatives statement—a particular alternatives statement is more applicable than an opposing alternatives statement in a majority of situations. Shown in Table 2 is an example of alternatives statements on a right-versus-right spectrum that is displayed to members of an entity or entities participating in synchronization. 
     
       
         
           
               
             
               
                 TABLE 2 
               
             
            
               
                   
               
               
                 Examples of alternatives statement on a right-versus-right spectrum 
               
            
           
           
               
               
               
            
               
                   
                 Right vs. Right Spectrums 
                   
               
            
           
           
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
            
               
                 Alternatives 
                 100% 
                 99-51% 
                 50/50% 
                 51-99% 
                 100% 
                 Alternatives 
               
               
                   
               
               
                 On projects, 
                   
                   
                   
                   
                   
                 On projects, adherence 
               
               
                 adherence to 
                   
                   
                   
                   
                   
                 to project budget is 
               
               
                 schedule is more 
                   
                   
                   
                   
                   
                 more important than 
               
               
                 important than 
                   
                   
                   
                   
                   
                 adherence to schedule 
               
               
                 adherence to project 
               
               
                 budget 
               
               
                 Innovation is 
                   
                   
                   
                   
                   
                 Cost savings are more 
               
               
                 equally important to 
                   
                   
                   
                   
                   
                 important than 
               
               
                 finding cost savings 
                   
                   
                   
                   
                   
                 innovation 
               
               
                 Adherence to 
                   
                   
                   
                   
                   
                 Cost or schedule issues 
               
               
                 established quality 
                   
                   
                   
                   
                   
                 can be reasons to make 
               
               
                 standards will be 
                   
                   
                   
                   
                   
                 appropriate near-term 
               
               
                 top priority, even if 
                   
                   
                   
                   
                   
                 trade-offs in the 
               
               
                 it means creating 
                   
                   
                   
                   
                   
                 established quality 
               
               
                 cost or schedule 
                   
                   
                   
                   
                   
                 standards, but only to 
               
               
                 issues 
                   
                   
                   
                   
                   
                 the extent that customer 
               
               
                   
                   
                   
                   
                   
                   
                 requirements are not 
               
               
                   
                   
                   
                   
                   
                   
                 compromised 
               
               
                 Process 
                   
                   
                   
                   
                   
                 Process requirements 
               
               
                 requirements can be 
                   
                   
                   
                   
                   
                 can be bypassed if 
               
               
                 bypassed only with 
                   
                   
                   
                   
                   
                 justifiably deemed to be 
               
               
                 approval of the next 
                   
                   
                   
                   
                   
                 an inhibitor to customer 
               
               
                 level of 
                   
                   
                   
                   
                   
                 satisfaction in a given 
               
               
                 management 
                   
                   
                   
                   
                   
                 circumstance 
               
               
                   
               
            
           
         
       
     
     In reconciliation of a right-versus-right spectrum, key leaders needed to discuss, decide, and approve alternatives statements included in a right-versus-right spectrum are identified. Once identified, individual perspectives are obtained from key leaders by asking them to provide one choice in each right-versus-right spectrum. The opportunity to designate further granularity is offered as needed. In one embodiment, granularity is refined by wording changes or the creation of additional right-versus-right spectrums. 
     Input provided by key leaders is consolidated and distributed to decision-makers for review and consideration. To aid in this endeavor, right-versus-right spectrums are prioritized with respect to degree of reconcilability. Right-versus-right spectrums deemed most agreeable to a majority of key leaders are assigned a higher priority than those spectrums having a lesser degree of agreement between key leaders. Subsequent to prioritization, working sessions are scheduled to discuss and reconcile decisions among paired alternatives statements on right-versus-right spectrums, seeking to identify the answer best reflecting consensus or democratic decision among key leaders. Key points of discussions are collected along with details augmenting and clarifying decisions made during working sessions. Decisions and discussion are consolidated into a practices charter that is used to communicate decisions to remaining, implementing parties in an entity or entities and is also used as basis for the creation of outcome narratives. 
     As output of this phase, right-versus-right spectrums, decisions on right-versus-right spectrums, documented discussion, and a practices charter are produced. 
     Outcome Narratives 
     In a third phase of the method of the present invention, a practices charter developed from the reconciliation of right-versus-right spectrums is applied to situations and dilemmas to assist in the subsequent creation of outcome narratives. As a preliminary step, currently existing issues or issues likely to exist in the future are identified. Issue statements are developed into situation and dilemma statements discrete enough to be actionable. Situations are definitions of issues where a desired outcome is generally agreed upon even though a common method for reaching a desired outcome is not agreed upon and dilemmas are definitions of issues in which there is disagreement as to a desired outcome as well as to a method of achieving a desired outcome. Next, it is determined whether each hypothetical issue represents a situation or dilemma. Lastly, a realistic, yet fictionalized, statement of each prioritized situation or dilemma that briefly represents the circumstances to an adequate level to be ready for decisions and actions is created. Shown in table 3 are examples of adequately defined and inadequately defined situation and dilemma statements. 
     
       
         
           
               
             
               
                 TABLE 3 
               
               
                   
               
               
                 shows examples of adequate and inadequate situation and dilemma statements. 
               
               
                   
               
             
            
               
                   
               
            
           
           
               
               
            
               
                 Adequate situation statement 
                 Inadequate situation statement 
               
               
                   
               
               
                 An employee has escalated an important, 
                 An employee has failed to follow the 
               
               
                 time-sensitive project issue to a high level 
                 escalation processes 
               
               
                 of management without following the 
               
               
                 prescribed escalation processes 
               
               
                   
               
               
                 Adequate dilemma statements 
                 Inadequate dilemma statements 
               
               
                   
               
               
                 A disagreement exists between a 
                 A disagreement exists between a 
               
               
                 relationship manager who wants to get 
                 relationship manager and a Finance 
               
               
                 approval for a proposed customer contract 
                 manager 
               
               
                 and the Finance manager that needs to 
               
               
                 approve that contract. The disagreement 
               
               
                 centers around the relationship manager&#39;s 
               
               
                 level of authority since the contract value is 
               
               
                 above official authority levels 
               
               
                 A resource assigned to a project previously 
                 A resource requests to take a vacation at a 
               
               
                 communicated a scheduled vacation at a 
                 difficult time on a project 
               
               
                 time that is now deemed to require her 
               
               
                 presence for successful roll-out 
               
               
                   
               
            
           
         
       
     
     As an output of this phase, realistic situation and dilemma statements representing current or anticipated issues associated with a business synchronization effort are determined. Situation and dilemma statements are prioritized and a practices charter developed in phase one of the method of the present invention is applied to each situation or dilemma statement to create outcome narratives. Outcome narratives are comprised of a desired outcome, in-scope roles, role behaviors and actions, and a preferred mode of performing actionable decisions. As part of an outcome narrative, a form comprising a situation or dilemma statement, applicable categories, a desired outcome, in-scope roles, role behaviors and actions, and applicable considerations is created. 
     Shown in  FIG. 3  is a process for developing, validating and communicating outcome narratives. In step  300 , a situation or dilemma statement is regarded in view of a practices charter to identify and document which previously determined right-versus-right spectrum decisions are applicable. A practices charter is also used to develop a desired outcome for each situation or dilemma indicating a preferred mode of handling and indicating primary factual aspects of a decision in step  302 . Emphasis is placed on clarifying information such as: actions that are taken to review and understand a situation or dilemma, actions that are taken, and with whom, to discuss and determine a resolution, exceptions that may exist, roles making decisions and how decisions are communicated, actions taken to mitigate negative implications, and actions taken to avoid a given situation or dilemma in the future. 
     For each identified and prioritized situation and dilemma, in-scope roles are identified in step  304 . Using a desired outcome statement to identify in-scope roles, a statement is prepared that defines role behaviors and actions—activities and definitions of a desired way for each in-scope role to perform work on a particular situation or dilemma. Focus is maintained on clarifying information that ensures a desired outcome will be produced in a desired manner, for example:
         a mindset for handling that situation or dilemma,   in-scope role interactions with each other (e.g., collaboratively, prioritizing the request),   in-scope roles method of addressing relationship and interpersonal aspects of a situation or dilemma, and   activities and definitions of work methods performed by those holding in-scope roles to rectify negative implications resulting from a desired outcome.
 
Shown in table 4 is a consolidated outcome narratives form.
       

     
       
         
           
               
             
               
                 TABLE 4 
               
               
                   
               
               
                 shows an Outcome Narratives Form 
               
               
                   
               
             
            
               
                   
               
            
           
           
               
               
            
               
                 Situation/Dilemma Statement: 
                 Desired Outcome: The relationship executive is 
               
               
                 A disagreement exists between a 
                 responsible for the ultimate decision. The 
               
               
                 relationship manager who wants to 
                 exceptions would be for financial implications that 
               
               
                 get approval for a proposed client 
                 fall more than 2% outside the established levels of 
               
               
                 contract and the Finance manager 
                 authority for that client relationship position. The 
               
               
                 that needs to approve that contract. 
                 identified escalation process should be used for the 
               
               
                 The disagreement centers around 
                 exceptions and other unusual circumstances, and 
               
               
                 the relationship manager&#39;s level of 
                 an answer needs to be communicated within 48 
               
               
                 authority since the contract value is 
                 business hours 
               
               
                 above official authority levels 
               
               
                 In-Scope Roles: 
                 Role Actions and Behaviors: 
               
               
                 Client- 
                 Client-facing Leader: Needs to work actively, and with the 
               
               
                 facing 
                 intent of true resolution, to understand the reasons behind the 
               
               
                 leaders 
                 objections and what is best for the client and company overall. 
               
               
                 (Relationship 
                 Needs to seek ways to mitigate the risks and impacts by working 
               
               
                 Manager) 
                 collaboratively with Finance. Needs to seek others to help 
               
               
                 Business 
                 resolve and “mediate” the issues before escalation. Should 
               
               
                 advisors 
                 ensure the next higher level client-facing leader concurs with the 
               
               
                 (Finance 
                 decision before implementation if mediation has not resolved the 
               
               
                 Manager) 
                 issues. If appropriate, needs to support the escalation process 
               
               
                   
                 and constructively implement the decision from the escalation 
               
               
                   
                 process. Should work actively to restore any relationships that 
               
               
                   
                 suffered during the situation. 
               
               
                   
                 Business Advisor: Needs to be objective about the concerns 
               
               
                   
                 and ensure that the risk/issue is serious enough to warrant 
               
               
                   
                 continued work vs. implementing the relationship leader&#39;s 
               
               
                   
                 preferred course of action. Needs to work collaboratively to 
               
               
                   
                 mitigate the risks/issues while meeting the client and company 
               
               
                   
                 requirements. Should engage in “mediation” if an adequate 
               
               
                   
                 resolution cannot be found. If appropriate, needs to support the 
               
               
                   
                 escalation process. Should support and enact the final decision, 
               
               
                   
                 whether it is made by the relationship manager or the escalation 
               
               
                   
                 process. Should work actively to restore any relationships that 
               
               
                   
                 suffered during the situation. 
               
               
                 Applicable Categories: 
                 Other Considerations: Size of the overall 
               
               
                     Decision Making 
                 client relationship; history of financial dealings 
               
               
                     Processes 
                 with that client; track record for decision making 
               
               
                     Communications 
                 by the relationship manager; criticality of the 
               
               
                     Execution 
                 project for the business (to meet revenue targets, 
               
               
                 □ Leadership Approach 
                 to gain an important qualification for this type of 
               
               
                 □ People and Development 
                 work) 
               
               
                   
               
            
           
         
       
     
     These roles are further specified in terms of behaviors drafted in step  306 . Applicable considerations are identified in step  308 . As an output of this phase, in step  310 , a series of outcome narratives for prioritized situation and dilemma statements are produced and consolidated in outcome narratives forms. In step  312 , these outcome narratives are reviewed, revised, and validated by key leaders to ensure proper application of a practices charter. Finally in step  314 , validated outcome narratives are communicated to impacted personnel (e.g., individuals performing actionable items). 
     Gap Assessment and Progress Evaluation 
     Shown in  FIG. 4  is a process flow diagram illustrating how gap assessment is performed. As a fourth phase of the method of the present invention, discrepancies between outcome narratives and a current state of business practice are identified. A prioritized action program is developed to address identified barriers; it is first determined if further research into or definition of a current state handling of situations and dilemmas is needed. If so, discussions regarding current business practice state for handling situations and dilemmas are facilitated. Consequently, barriers inherent in identified gaps and implications are identified. 
     As preliminary steps to the process, an approach necessary to determine current state handling of situations and dilemmas is determined and members capable of identifying current state handling of situations and dilemmas are identified in steps  400  and  402 , respectively. In step  404 , outcome narratives are compared to a current state of handling situations and dilemmas to determine discrepancies by members selected in step  402  and an approach determined in step  400 . Thus, gaps are identified and implications of identified gaps are determined. Shown in table 5 is an example of an assessment of gaps occurring between current state of handling situations and dilemmas and an outcome narrative. 
     
       
         
           
               
             
               
                 TABLE 5 
               
               
                   
               
               
                 illustrates Gap Assessment between Outcome Narratives 
               
               
                 Outcome Narrative #1: Gap Assessment 
               
               
                   
               
             
            
               
                   
               
            
           
           
               
            
               
                 Finance roles are currently decision-making and audit oriented, rather than 
               
               
                 decision-support and advice oriented 
               
               
                 Relationship managers and Finance tend to do their decision making in 
               
               
                 isolation, and do not always respect the charter of each 
               
               
                 other&#39;s organizations 
               
               
                 Finance processes contain narrow decision-making authorities for 
               
               
                 relationship managers 
               
               
                 Relationship managers are not currently assigned with accountability and 
               
               
                 responsibility for all transactions within an account 
               
               
                 Escalation processes are too slow and do not produce swift answers for 
               
               
                 issues that fall out of the authority levels 
               
               
                   
               
            
           
         
       
     
     In step  406 , these discrepancies are identified in detail. These discrepancies, known as gaps, are used to develop a prioritized action program. Before such a program is developed, implications of gaps are determined in step  408 . Subsequently, in step  410 , gap assessment leads to a consolidation and prioritization of gaps and implications across outcome narratives. Gap assessment serves to identify barriers inherent to identified gaps and implications and to determine whether a validation of the gaps and implications is required in step  412 . A gap assessment additionally serves as a basis to design and implement a prioritized action program of improvements to address identified barriers. Additionally, periodic timeframes in which progress is evaluated are identified. 
     Progress is evaluated using outcome narratives to identify achievements and target areas needing further improvement and additional actions. Shown in  FIG. 5  is an evaluation process flow diagram. In a progress evaluation phase, occurrences of issues that map to prioritized situations and dilemmas contained in outcome narratives are identified in step  500 . Actual results and business practices are researched and compared to an outcome narrative description of a desired outcome in step  502  along with role behaviors and actions; thus, identification of gaps, barriers, root causes of gaps is facilitated for steps  504  and  506 , respectively. 
     
       
         
           
               
             
               
                 TABLE 6 
               
               
                   
               
               
                 Prioritized Action Plan 
               
               
                 Prioritized Action Program 
               
               
                   
               
             
            
               
                   
               
            
           
           
               
               
            
               
                 1. 
                   
               
               
                 2. 
               
               
                 3. 
               
               
                 4. 
                 Change the levels of authority by role and add defined guidelines, ranges, and 
               
               
                   
                 exception guidance 
               
               
                 5. 
                 Clarify the type, degree and timing for involvement of Business Advisors, with a 
               
               
                   
                 focus on communicating their role as advisors and decision support 
               
               
                 6. 
                 Develop mechanisms for tracking the ultimate outcome of relationship manager 
               
               
                   
                 decisions and design associated action processes for coaching, correcting and 
               
               
                   
                 recognizing those outcomes, as appropriate 
               
               
                 7. 
               
               
                 8. 
                 Communicate to client-facing leaders and Business Advisors the need for more 
               
               
                   
                 acceptance of risk associated with individual decision making 
               
               
                 9. 
               
               
                 10. 
               
               
                 11. 
               
               
                 12. 
                 Build mechanisms to identify and openly recognize leaders across the 
               
               
                   
                 organization who focus on building consensus for decisions 
               
               
                 13. 
               
               
                   
               
            
           
         
       
     
     
       
         
           
               
             
               
                 TABLE 7 
               
               
                   
               
               
                 Evaluation Phase of Outcome Narratives and Prioritization Action Plan 
               
               
                   
               
             
            
               
                   
               
            
           
           
               
            
               
                 Situation/Dilemma Statement: A disagreement exists between a relationship manager 
               
               
                 who wants to get approval for a proposed customer contract and the Finance manager 
               
               
                 that needs to approve that contract. The disagreement centers around the relationship 
               
               
                 manager&#39;s level of authority since the contract value is above official authority levels 
               
               
                   
               
            
           
           
               
               
            
               
                 Outcome Narrative 
                 Actual Results and Practices 
               
               
                   
               
               
                 Desired Outcome: The relationship 
                 The desired outcome is generally 
               
               
                 executive is responsible for the ultimate 
                 happening. A few difficult situations arose 
               
               
                 decision. The exceptions would be for 
                 where Finance knew about client issues 
               
               
                 financial implications that fall more than 
                 unknown to the relationship manager, and 
               
               
                 2% outside the established levels of 
                 these issues were not adequately 
               
               
                 authority for that client relationship 
                 communicated before escalation. 
               
               
                 position. The escalation process for 
                 However, when escalated, it consistently 
               
               
                 financial issues should be used for the 
                 took longer than 48 business hours to make 
               
               
                 exceptions and other unusual 
                 and communicate the decision. 
               
               
                 circumstances, and an answer needs to be 
               
               
                 communicated within 48 business hours 
               
               
                 In-Scope Roles: 
                 The right people were involved in the 
               
               
                 Client-facing leaders (Relationship 
                 actual situations that were reviewed. 
               
               
                 Manager) 
               
               
                 Business advisors (Finance 
               
               
                 Manager) 
               
               
                 Role Actions and Behaviors: 
               
               
                 Client-facing Leader: Needs to 
                 Some of the relationship managers 
               
               
                 work actively, and with the intent of 
                 waited until the last minute to 
               
               
                 true resolution, to understand the 
                 communicate potential issues to 
               
               
                 reasons behind the objections and 
                 Finance, which seems to be 
               
               
                 what is best for the client and 
                 exacerbating some of the relationship 
               
               
                 company overall. Needs to seek 
                 issues 
               
               
                 ways to mitigate the risks and impacts 
                 The relationship managers who had 
               
               
                 by working collaboratively with 
                 to work through the escalation process 
               
               
                 Finance. Needs to seek others to help 
                 were especially frustrated that the 
               
               
                 resolve and “mediate” the issues 
                 decisions took longer than 48 business 
               
               
                 before escalation. Should ensure the 
                 hours 
               
               
                 next higher level client-facing leader 
                 Some members of Finance are still 
               
               
                 concurs with the decision before 
                 trying to make decisions, rather than 
               
               
                 implementation if mediation has not 
                 advise, in these types of situations 
               
               
                 resolved the issues. If appropriate, 
                 The longer and more difficult the 
               
               
                 needs to support the escalation 
                 situation was, the less likely the people 
               
               
                 process and constructively implement 
                 involved worked actively to restore 
               
               
                 the decision from the escalation 
                 relationships 
               
               
                 process. Should work actively to 
               
               
                 restore any relationships that suffered 
               
               
                 during the situation. 
               
               
                 Business Advisor: Needs to be 
               
               
                 objective about the concerns and 
               
               
                 ensure that the risk/issue is serious 
               
               
                 enough to warrant continued work vs. 
               
               
                 implementing the relationship 
               
               
                 leader&#39;s preferred course of action. 
               
               
                 Needs to work collaboratively to 
               
               
                 mitigate the risks/issues while 
               
               
                 meeting the client and company 
               
               
                 requirements. Should engage in 
               
               
                 “mediation” if an adequate resolution 
               
               
                 cannot be found. If appropriate, 
               
               
                 needs to support the escalation 
               
               
                 process. Should support and enact 
               
               
                 the final decision, whether it is made 
               
               
                 by the relationship manager or the 
               
               
                 escalation process. Should work 
               
               
                 actively to restore any relationships 
               
               
                 that suffered during the situation. 
               
               
                   
               
            
           
           
               
            
               
                 Additional Actions Needed 
               
               
                   
               
            
           
           
               
            
               
                 Analyze the reasons that the escalation process is not producing the needed 
               
               
                 decisions in 48 business hours and develop an action plan to resolve the issues 
               
               
                 Communicate the known issues in the escalation process to the relationship 
               
               
                 managers to reset expectations in the near-term and motivate earlier 
               
               
                 communication of potential issues to Finance 
               
               
                 Coach the members of Finance who are still trying to make decisions in these 
               
               
                 types of instances 
               
               
                   
               
            
           
         
       
     
     In a progress evaluation phase, the need to review and revise a practices charter or associated right-versus-right spectrums is considered, subsequent to identification, in step  508 . Actions addressing identified barriers and root causes are identified in step  510 , and are prioritized and have plans prepared in step  512 . Actions are subsequently designed and implemented in step  514 , thus addressing identified gaps, implications, root causes, and barriers. Lastly, in step  516 , it is determined whether next prioritized actions should be implemented and whether further outcome narratives are to be developed. 
     Such a consideration is made to continue the synchronization process into previously-unaddressed areas and to address any new realities or unforeseen changes in an environment or business practices. Evaluation continues until adequate assurance is made that actual issue handling occurs as identified in the outcome narratives. Evaluation allows an entity or entities to determine whether further identified actions are to be designed and implemented and whether further outcome narratives are to be developed. The following questions are considered in an evaluation:
         Were there inconsistencies between actual occurrences? If so, do those differences point to different units in an entity, different points in time, in-scope roles under different leadership, etc.?   Were barriers encountered while attempting to take an appropriate action?   Did unanticipated circumstances arise?   If a desired outcome occurred as defined in an outcome narrative, were in-scope role behaviors performed as defined? If not, why not?   Were certain in-scope actions and behaviors performed, but others neglected?   Did in-scope role behaviors performed by a specified group or unit fail in achieving a desired outcome more frequently than others?
 
Reconciliation of right-versus-right conflicts and application of decisions to hypothetical issues, gap assessment between outcome narratives and current state of handling, and targeted progress evaluation admits the following benefits:
   fewer episodes of strife-producing disagreement between people on what to do and how to do it,   increased productivity as people are able to focus on doing the work, rather than deciding what to do and how to do it,   reduction of frustration, confusion and resistance due to increased clarity of expectations,   enhanced understanding and awareness of detailed expectations that need to be fulfilled,   enhanced ability to evaluate and measure progress with respect to targeted changes,   decreased risk of failure and delay of targeted business results, and   greater empowerment as lower-level personnel understand and readily apply right-versus-right decisions to a specified work context.       

     CONCLUSION 
     A system and method has been shown in the above embodiments for the effective implementation of a business practices alignment method. While various preferred embodiments have been shown and described, it will be understood that there is no intent to limit the invention by such disclosure, but rather, it is intended to cover all modifications falling within the spirit and scope of the invention, as defined in the appended claims. For example, the present invention should not be limited by software/program, computing environment, or specific computing hardware.