Solicit a proposal out of your common marketing consultant and also you’re more likely to unearth within the ensuing PowerPoint a slide that extols the virtues of the consulting agency’s “frameworks and methodologies.”
You — and, for that matter, the consultants as nicely — most likely chalked up the phrase to the realm of redundancy-driven idea amplification, the place saying the identical factor twice utilizing totally different phrases lends a sure profundity to the proceedings.
However frameworks and methodologies aren’t the identical factor. They’re each vital whenever you’re attempting to arrange a change effort, however they’re basically totally different.
A framework exhibits how the related bits and items match collectively. A technical structure framework, for instance, explains how functions, platforms, infrastructure, and so forth will be assembled right into a functioning technical atmosphere.
A methodology describes the work that should get finished to assemble the frameworks’ varied parts right into a working entire.
Fail to choose a framework and also you’ll have the equal of a pile of lumber and different building stuff. Lack a strategy and no person is aware of which 2×4 to select up and nail into place, and when to select it up.
A rational strategy to IT choices
Which takes us to your want to include evidence-based decision-making into your group’s enterprise tradition, and the necessity you didn’t know you had for a framework to facilitate it.
Fortuitously for you, your tax {dollars} (okay, my tax {dollars}) have led Minnesota Administration and Price range to develop a framework for defining proof in a sensible manner.
Whereas developed to assist Minnesota authorities businesses make evidence-based coverage and service-design choices, you and your group would possibly discover it helpful, too. To get you began, right here’s a fast abstract of MMB’s six-level framework:
- Confirmed efficient: A service or follow that’s been Confirmed Efficient affords a excessive stage of analysis on effectiveness for no less than one final result of curiosity. Qualifying evaluations use rigorously applied experimental or quasi-experimental designs.
- Promising: A Promising service or follow has some analysis demonstrating effectiveness for no less than one final result of curiosity. Qualifying evaluations use rigorously applied experimental or quasi-experimental designs.
- Idea Primarily based: A Idea Primarily based service or follow has both no analysis on effectiveness or analysis designs that don’t meet requirements. These companies and practices might have a well-constructed logic mannequin or principle of change however, on the threat of being redundant, aren’t supported by proof.
- Blended Results: A Blended Results service or follow affords a excessive stage of analysis on the effectiveness of a number of outcomes. Nonetheless, the outcomes have contradictory results.
- No impact: A service or follow rated No Impact has no affect on the measured final result or outcomes of curiosity.
- Confirmed Dangerous: A service or follow that’s Confirmed Dangerous affords a excessive stage of analysis that exhibits program participation adversely impacts outcomes of curiosity.
Weighing threat vs. reward
A framework like MMB’s will be immensely helpful, particularly when contrasted with meaningless catch-phrases like “greatest follow” or advocacy primarily based on a key decision-maker “trusting their intestine.”
Nevertheless it does have a critical limitation: Whereas decision-makers will be assured that approaches rated confirmed or promising will lead to a optimistic final result, that doesn’t imply they’ll ship nearly as good an final result as you would possibly get from a number of untried alternate options.
And actually, MMB’s framework may, as a consequence of its chicken-and-egg-ish nature, stifle promising alternate options which have by no means been tried.
So in case your objective is to reduce the chance of failure, restrict your decisions to what has been confirmed efficient or are promising. And positively, keep away from these which can be confirmed dangerous.
However limiting your decisions like this additionally means filtering out alternate options which may change into spectacular successes — when, that’s, there’s motive to assume the worth returned from an untried, theory-based strategy exceeds the chance of failure.
As a result of (okay, name me Captain Apparent) till you and a bunch of others have tried a bunch of stuff that hasn’t but been proved efficient, it could by no means be proved efficient.
A theory-based conclusion
The ethical of this story is that selecting a plan of action primarily based on evidence-based decision-making ought to, for many enterprise managers, be the default manner of constructing choices. However that doesn’t imply you shouldn’t ever strive alternate options which may not work out.
Particularly, in the event you discover the idea supporting a plan of action to be convincing and you may handle the chance that comes with one thing untried.
And that’s the place progress comes from.
P.S. I do know you’re questioning if MMB’s framework is, in actual fact, confirmed, and even promising.
Me too. So I’m counting it as a Idea-Primarily based strategy, which most likely makes it nearly as good as any various you’re more likely to encounter.
See additionally:
