Abstract:
A proposition ( 100 ) is obtained from a source ( 102 ). The process steps ( 104, 106, 108, 110 ) are then conducted and the results therefrom are stored in a storage unit ( 112 ). Information about a proposition is retrieved from the source in order to specify the proposition into non-ambiguous causal statements that are easy to agree on. Ultimately, this information is transferred into a logic map that graphically represents the initiative and serves as a guide to the management and evaluation of the project. Particularly, the logic map ( 12 ) has a context ( 14 ). An input ( 16 ) is linked to an effect ( 20 ) and a goal or goals ( 24, 25 ).

Description:
BACKGROUND OF INVENTION  
       [0001]     Many projects fail because they are built on implicit assumptions, the project goals are inadequately defined, or significant elements, which ultimately determine the level of success, are not properly negotiated between the persons involved. One reason why certain initiatives do not succeed is that certain information is not properly communicated that, in turn, often leads to misunderstanding and unreasonable expectations.  
         [0002]     Effective management of a new initiative, before it becomes a project, often leads to significant improvements regarding goal fulfillment, project outcomes and profit.  
         [0003]     The realization of an idea or a new initiative involves efforts to establish a change from one state or condition to another. There is a need for a system that provides a method to explore how change can manifest and lead to success in an envisioned project. There is also a need for a system that helps users explore how a new initiative can be feasible. It is also desirable to develop a method to determine if an envisioned project is important and desirable before the project is started.  
       SUMMARY OF INVENTION  
       [0004]     The present method and system provide a solution to the above-outlined problems. The disadvantages and problems associated with conventional systems and methods for designing, managing and evaluating projects have been substantially reduced or eliminated. More particularly, the method of the present invention is for design, management and evaluation of complex initiatives. A person using the system may answer questions from a human facilitator who is skilled and versed in the method. The system could also be fully automated and computerized.  
         [0005]     One purpose of the method of the present innovation is to retrieve all information about a proposition from a person or a group of stakeholders (the source) in order to specify the proposition into non-ambiguous causal statements that are easy to agree on. Ultimately, this information is transferred into a special diagram, called a logic map that graphically represents the initiative and serves as a guide to the management and evaluation of the project. Particularly, the system of the present invention has a logic map that includes a context unit and an initiative segment.  
         [0006]     A proposition may consist of all reasoning made by a source on an assumption, statement or fact about how a change of state, condition or status can be accomplished within the framework of an initiative. The source may include individuals such as sole individuals, teams, organizational units, companies etc., and documents such as project proposals, project descriptions, evaluation reports, digital media etc.  
         [0007]     The method of the present invention provides stakeholders with a specific understanding of how likely it is that the stakeholders&#39; plan for the initiative will lead to goal attainment. By doing this, the stakeholders gain insight and a higher level of understanding of the initiative and may act to reduce obstacles for becoming productive, such as vagueness and multiple meanings, and enhance chances of becoming more effective by building the initiative on non-ambiguous activities and resources directly and logically linked to the intended goals.  
         [0008]     With this in place, a complete and coherent logical description of the initiative can be presented to all stakeholders who can then arrive at a shared understanding about how the initiative should work. Continued updates during the implementation phase serves as a tool for the stakeholders to manage and maintain the initiative relative to external and internal factors of change.  
         [0009]     Preferably, the logic model is not syntax dependent, but instead relies on semantic evidence (mode of expression or rhetoric) presented by the stakeholders. Example application areas include innovation management, management of new initiatives, initiatives of a certain complexity, multiple-stakeholder initiatives and initiatives that aim at co-dependently developing and implementing new knowledge. 
     
    
     BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DRAWINGS  
       [0010]      FIG. 1  is a schematic description of solicitation of the proposition, process steps, knowledge storage and logic mapping; and  
         [0011]      FIG. 2  is a schematic diagram of an illustrative example of an information flow of a portion of the method of the present invention. 
     
    
     DETAILED DESCRIPTION  
       [0012]     With reference to  FIG. 1 , the process steps of the present invention aim at examining a proposition  100  from a source  102  through interviews and/or document reviews in order to find and make explicit strings of logical reasoning which compose the proposition  100  and to develop these strings into non-ambiguous elements expressing causal statements. The process steps  104 ,  106 ,  108 ,  110  are continued until the strings of logical reasoning are exhausted.  
         [0013]     The result of the process steps may be stored in a knowledge storage unit (KSU)  112 , as described below. The process steps can be facilitated by an external facilitator or pursued independently by source individuals or groups. The envisioned audience for the outcome of the process steps may be called a target group. The source, the facilitator and the target group could, theoretically, be the same. The facilitation can be provided by one or several individuals or be performed by a computer-assisted facilitation (CAF) unit.  
         [0014]     In the first process step  104 , the facilitator solicits the context unit from the source  102 . The source is asked to specify what motivates the initiative. In the second process step  106 , the facilitator solicits explicit strings of logical reasoning from the source. The source may be asked to formulate what the initiative seeks to attain. Each item of information, referred to as an element, must be expressed non-ambiguously.  
         [0015]     In the third process step  108 , the source defines elements such as X and Y elements etc., respectively, by stating their method of measurement and at what level the element measure is fulfilled, which is called an indicator. In the fourth process step  110 , the source states whether the X and Y elements, respectively, are an act or the result of an act, which produces a change of state. A result produced within the initiative may be referred to as an effect. A core effort and important feature of the present innovation is to make explicit the source&#39;s assumptions on how an effect is expected to appear.  
         [0016]     All elements stored compose the storage unit  112  or KSU of the context unit and the non-ambiguous causal units such as an X→Y unit. The storage space can be a database, documents or human memory. When an indicator or indicators  113 , such as indicators of the X and Y elements, are established it may be concluded that a set of goals  25  is measurable. The X or Y elements  113  may be stated as an act or result  119  and become an input  16  in the logic map  114 . The X or Y element  113  that is stated as a result of an act that produces a change of a state  119  may become an effect  20  or goal  24  in the logic map  114 . The context description  115  may become a context  14  in the logic map  114 .  
         [0017]     Simultaneously with process steps  104 - 110  or, after the process steps are completed, the elements in the KSU can be transformed into a logic map  114 . The logic map visualizes the context and the relationship between all X elements and all Y elements and describes the structure of logic reasoning of the proposition. Each element in the logic map may have a graphic representation and are connected into a web of causal influences according to the principles described below.  
         [0018]     The map&#39;s context unit may be created from the retrieved information and may be represented by a cloud sign. The map&#39;s initiative segment may be created from the non-ambiguous “X influences Y” -units in the following way: 
        1. Identify all identical Xs and Ys elements, i.e. X and Y elements defined by the same indicator, and bundle these according to the principle:     2. Place or draw all X and Y elements on a surface including influence arrows in accordance with the process results     X 1 →Y 1 , X 2 →Y 2 , where X 1  and X 2  correspond gives X 1 →Y 1  and Y 2       X 1 →Y 1 , X 2 →Y 2 , where X 1  and Y 2  correspond gives X 2 →X 1 →Y 1       X 1 →Y 1 , X 2 →Y 2 , where Y 1  and X 2  correspond gives X 1 →Y 1 →Y 2       X 1 →Y 1 , X 2 →Y 2 , where Y 1  and Y 2  correspond gives X 1 →Y 1  and X 2 →Y 1       3. The source or the target group identifies X and Y elements as input (activity or resource), effect (change of state resulting from an input or other effect) or goal (ultimate change or changes of state of the initiative).        
 
         [0026]     With reference to  FIG. 2 , the method and system  10  of the present invention has, as indicated above, a logic map  12  that includes a context unit  14  and an initiative segment  28 . The map  12  may be used for one or many initiatives and for one or many users  11 .  
         [0027]     The system  10  may be in face-to-face communication and be supported by suitable software. In general, the method has both graphically-visualized and text-based components that describe what stakeholders believe must be achieved, and how, in order to reach the goal. The method relates, in logical fashion, components of the initiative to its stakeholder interests, needs and requirements. The method describes how likely an innovation will lead to its intended results. It helps all stakeholders to arrive at a shared view and to determine if and why the initiative is important.  
         [0028]     The initiative  28  may include an input unit  16 , an effect unit  20  and a goal unit  24 . As described below, the unit  16  is associated with the effect unit  20 , via a link or influence arrow  22  that in turn is associated with a goal unit  24 , via a link or influence arrow  26 . The system  10  of the present invention is particularly useful for establishing what it is the user would like to accomplish and how the user can achieve the goals set out for complex initiatives.  
         [0029]     As indicated above, the system  10  may be used to decode or clarify the complexity of tasks. In the logic map  12 , the context  14  may be illustrated as a cloud, the input unit  16  as a rectangle, the effect unit  20  as a rectangle with rounded corners and the goal unit  24  may be illustrated as an oval. Of course, other symbols may be used, as desired. Also, the elements  14 - 24  could be performed in any suitable order and the order described herein is only an illustrative example.  
         [0030]     A user  11  of the system  10  may set out a perceived goal  23  that may be a goal that the user believes is the correct goal for the initiative  28 . At this point, any goal  23  is acceptable even if the goal is not reachable or measurable. The system  10  may then ask the user  11  to specify the problems or needs  68  that are satisfied or motivated by the goal  23 . The problems that require a solution or the needs  68  may be included in the context unit  14  and could be any suitable needs such as perceived and assumed needs, political or ideological assertions and/or proven problems, opportunities, requirements or desired changes of existing conditions. For example, the needs could be higher economic growth, better teaching of the children or cleaner air.  
         [0031]     The initiative  28  may be the name of a project or a program that includes a description of how a number of stakeholders may accomplish certain effects and goals. When the issues are complex and there are many stakeholders or interested parties, the system  10  may be a useful tool to organize the issues and to simplify the negotiations between the stakeholders.  
         [0032]     When the needs and the goals have been outlined, the user  11  may then be asked to list or define the input  16  of the initiative  28 . The input  16  could be activities  30  or resources  32  that are made available to the initiative  28  and are expected to contribute to the fulfillment of the goals.  
         [0033]     An important aspect of the system  10  is to develop logical connections or links between the activities of input unit  16  and their effects that eventually lead to the perceived goals  23 . Typically, in many initiatives that fail, there is often no direct logical connection between the needs of the context  14  and the elements of the initiative  28 . For example, the context  14  is often merely the reason for the activities  30  of the input unit  16 . The integration of the initiative  28  of the input unit  16 , the effect unit  20 , the goal unit  24  together with influence arrows  22 ,  26  should correspond to the needs of the context  14 . As described in detail below, the activities  30  of the input unit  16  produce effects that are listed in the effect unit  20  and the resulting goals listed in the goal unit  24 . The needs or the problems of the context  14  themselves usually do not directly influence the linking of the elements of the initiative  28 . However, the context  14  may be seen to govern or justify the entire initiative  28 .  
         [0034]     Once the goals  23  and the context  14  have been established by the user  11 , it may be necessary to break down the goal  23  into components to determine what is required to accomplish the goals  23 . For example, the goals  23  may be used to govern the type of activities  30  and resources  32  that should be listed in the input unit  16 .  
         [0035]     Once the activities  30  and the resources  32  have been identified, the user may establish the expected effect or effects  20  that may occur as a result of influences from the activities and resources of the input unit  16 . The influences or connections between the activities of the input unit  16  and the effects of the effect unit  20  may be illustrated with the influence arrow or arrows  22 . During the process of setting up the elements of the initiative  28 , the user  11  often realizes that the perceived or preplanned activities that are necessary to reach the goals  23  actually do not lead to the perceived goals  23 . Another problem is that the user may define something as a goal when it is really an activity or effect. The actual goals  25 , as a result of the analysis of the items in the input unit  16  and the effect unit  20 , may be different from the perceived goals  23 .  
         [0036]     One aspect of the system  10  is a computerized tool  40  that is set up to follow certain rules of the logic map  12 . For example, the tool  40  may not permit the user  11  to draw influence arrows from the goal unit to the effect, in-put or context units. The tool  40  may initially only show the items of the context  14  and the list of goals  23  of the goal unit  24  so that the user  11  can see if there seems to be an apparent match between the context information and the goals. At this point, it is not necessary or desirable to involve the input and effect units including the influence arrows therebetween. Also, it is not necessary to match a certain item in the context unit with a certain goal of the perceived goals  23 . The user may simply realize that many context items may correspond to one goal and vice versa without drawing lines therebetween.  
         [0037]     When using the tool  40 , the user  11  may click on the elements  14 ,  16 ,  20  and  24  to see attributes  42 ,  44 ,  46  and  48  of the elements  14 ,  16 ,  20 ,  24 , respectively. Each element may have the same or different attributes. The attributes may be data with which the elements are specified. More particularly, each element  14 ,  16 ,  20 ,  24  of the system  10  has many standard attributes such as definition attributes  68 , rationale attributes  70 , external influencing factor attributes  72 , measuring point attributes  74 , reference attributes  76 , introducing party attributes  78  and stakeholder attributes  80 . In general, all elements of the initiative must meet the requirements of the definition attributes  68  before the elements are accepted in the logic map  12 .  
         [0038]     The definition attributes  68  of an element describe or define the element to clarify abstract and undefined statements so that the statements include quantitative indicators. Instead of using a vague statement such as “good service” the element may be made more specific such as “respond to customer requirements within five hours” so that all the stakeholders can understand what is meant and so that the element may be measured.  
         [0039]     The rationale attributes  70  show how an element contributes to the fulfillment of the goal. It shows why the element is important to achieve the goal so that the parties can analyze, negotiate and prioritize the importance of the element.  
         [0040]     The external factor attributes  72  are success and risk factors that affect the ability of the element to fulfill the goal. The external factor attributes  72  are often factors beyond the control of the initiative  28 . For example, a stock exchange crash may be an uncontrollable factor that may significantly affect the success of the initiative. One purpose of the factor attributes  72  is to make the stakeholders aware of the external factors. The failure of the initiative may be due to the external factors and not due to faulty assumptions or poor implementation of the initiative.  
         [0041]     The measuring point attributes  74  relate to the issue whether the input, effect or goal should be measured or not. It may not be necessary to measure all the elements due to limited resources. Certain elements may be critical and should therefore be measured while other elements seem particularly weak or strong for the initiative and should therefore be measured so that it is possible to mark the elements that seem more critical to the fulfillment of the goal or seem to be of a particular interest to one of the stakeholders.  
         [0042]     The reference attributes  76  are used to describe the source references, such as documents, experts, web pages etc., to all the stakeholders so that a knowledge database may be built up.  
         [0043]     The introducing party attributes  78  show that suggested the element so that proposed element can be properly analyized and prioritized during the negotiation between the stakeholders. Stakeholder attributes  80  may be the name of the parties who are interested in the element.  
         [0044]     The actual goals  25  should have quantitative and qualitative characteristics. The goals  25  should correspond and satisfy one or many of the items in the context unit  14 . The goals  25  should be measurable. The formulation of the goals  25  should indicate which indicators are used to determine if the goals are satisfied. If it is not possible to use measurable indicators, the goal should be reformulated. The goals  25  should be reachable and contribute something to the initiative  28  such as a change, a new condition or a new status. The goals  25  should be concrete and clear so that all the stakeholders can understand what is meant by the goal and what should be satisfied and how the fulfillment of the goals can be determined.  
         [0045]     If the goal  25  does not satisfy or correspond to the needs of the context  14 , then a new goal  52  must be established with the help of the input activities and how the activities influence the effects  50  of the effect unit  20 . If the goal  25  is not measurable then a new measurable goal  53  must be established or reformulated. The user may be more suitable to determine whether the qualitative aspects of the goal  25  are satisfied. The user may determine if the goal is achievable and whether the goal contributes to a useful change according to the view of the user. The goals could later be used for meaningful discussions and negotiations between the stakeholders.  
         [0046]     For example, each stakeholder is likely to identify different input activities that are required to achieve the goals. The more difficult step is to determine how the activities affect the effects that are linked by influence arrows. The arrows may be used to identify the effects  50  of the effect unit  20  that the input activities influence. Eventually the effects should lead to the goal  25  or to a different goal.  
         [0047]     Once the initiative  28  has been completed, the initiative may be evaluated such as by analyzing whether the activities were carried out or not and whether the required resources were allocated or not. A common reason for not reaching the goal is that the initiative did not receive sufficient resources.  
         [0048]     While the initiative is under way, or after the completion of the initiative, it may be possible to add an activity to strengthen the initiative so that the new activity and the old activities are used together to increase the chances of achieving the goal.  
         [0049]     The effects are also evaluated to determine if the effect happened or not. If the effects were not accomplished, the input activities and resources may be investigated to determine why the particular effect did not occur.  
         [0050]     When the tool  40  is used, the elements  14 ,  16 ,  20 ,  24  may be saved in an element database  54  and the links between the elements, as shown by the influence arrows  22 ,  26  may saved in a linking database  56 . The attributes or metadata may be saved in an attribute database  58 .  
         [0051]     The databases  54 ,  56 ,  58  of the tool  40  may be used to produce a design question report  60 , a change proposition report  62 , an element link table  64  and an attribute report  66 . The report  60  may show the questions that were used to develop the logic map  12  so that the user can both see and hear the questions to further reflect and think about the questions. The report  62  is a complete logic map that may be used to propose a change. Because the report  62  has all the logical reasoning behind the goal it may be a complete and fully developed and persuasive initiative. The table  64  presents all the linked elements in a table format. The attribute report  66  shows all the attributes for each element  14 ,  16 ,  20 ,  24 .  
         [0052]     By requiring all information in the input unit  16 , the effect unit  20  and the goal unit  24  to be measurable, it is easier to evaluate later whether the activity elements were carried out or not, whether the effects occurred or not and whether the goals were fulfilled or not.  
         [0053]     While the present invention has been described in accordance with preferred compositions and embodiments, it is to be understood that certain substitutions and alterations may be made thereto without departing from the spirit and scope of the following claims.