DICE Framework - Revision history

Tkokotas at 18:46, 17 November 2018

2018-11-17T18:46:06Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:46, 17 November 2018
Line 1:		Line 1:
			''Developed by Thomas Engelhart''


	==Abstract==		==Abstract==
	This wiki article presents the DICE Framework and goes into its details and how to use it. Creating successful change is increasingly becoming a factor in the competitive landscape. However, a survey conducted by McKinsey shows that 70% of the transformation efforts fails to reach the intended results <ref name=McKinsey>Aiken, c., Keller, S.. [https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our-insights/the-irrational-side-of-change-management "The irrational side of change management"], '[[McKinsey]]'', 2009. Accessed on 02 October 2017.'''</ref>. The DICE Framework is a tool that greatly can help an organization to realise a successful change project and to assessing and managing risks. In 1992, Boston Consulting Group (BCG) studied an initial 225 different companies and found a distinct connection on the outcome, regardless of success or failure <ref name=Sirkin>Sirkin, H.L., Keenan, P., Jackson, A. [http://findit.dtu.dk/en/catalog/20844430 "The Hard Side of Change Management"], ''[[Harvard Business Review]]'', 2005. Retrieved on 02 October 2017.</ref>. The connection lies in the four elements; Duration, Integrity, Commitment and Effort, also called hard factors. The four elements in DICE makes up a framework, which is a formula for managers to calculate the chance of success for a change project. To use the DICE Framework, the different elements has be be accessed and evaluated according to a set of questions. Based on numerical answers, a DICE score can be calculated, which states how likely a project or change is to be successful. The DICE Framework can be used throughout a project to identify areas that needs attention, but can also be used to administer a portfolio of different projects to determine where managers need to put their focus. The framework gives the managers the opportunity to worry about the right things, instead of issues that are less important. If managers have scored differently on the same DICE framework, dialogue is triggered and the framework provides a common platform for discussion. The article provides a real-life case example, and will discuss the limitations of the DICE framework. Lastly, two other methods will be mentioned, whereas one is an alternative method for assessing a change project’s chance of success, where the other one is a risk evaluation tool.		This wiki article presents the DICE Framework and goes into its details and how to use it. Creating successful change is increasingly becoming a factor in the competitive landscape. However, a survey conducted by McKinsey shows that 70% of the transformation efforts fails to reach the intended results <ref name=McKinsey>Aiken, c., Keller, S.. [https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our-insights/the-irrational-side-of-change-management "The irrational side of change management"], '[[McKinsey]]'', 2009. Accessed on 02 October 2017.'''</ref>. The DICE Framework is a tool that greatly can help an organization to realise a successful change project and to assessing and managing risks. In 1992, Boston Consulting Group (BCG) studied an initial 225 different companies and found a distinct connection on the outcome, regardless of success or failure <ref name=Sirkin>Sirkin, H.L., Keenan, P., Jackson, A. [http://findit.dtu.dk/en/catalog/20844430 "The Hard Side of Change Management"], ''[[Harvard Business Review]]'', 2005. Retrieved on 02 October 2017.</ref>. The connection lies in the four elements; Duration, Integrity, Commitment and Effort, also called hard factors. The four elements in DICE makes up a framework, which is a formula for managers to calculate the chance of success for a change project. To use the DICE Framework, the different elements has be be accessed and evaluated according to a set of questions. Based on numerical answers, a DICE score can be calculated, which states how likely a project or change is to be successful. The DICE Framework can be used throughout a project to identify areas that needs attention, but can also be used to administer a portfolio of different projects to determine where managers need to put their focus. The framework gives the managers the opportunity to worry about the right things, instead of issues that are less important. If managers have scored differently on the same DICE framework, dialogue is triggered and the framework provides a common platform for discussion. The article provides a real-life case example, and will discuss the limitations of the DICE framework. Lastly, two other methods will be mentioned, whereas one is an alternative method for assessing a change project’s chance of success, where the other one is a risk evaluation tool.

Engelhart: /* Application */

2017-10-02T21:49:17Z

Application

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:49, 2 October 2017
Line 64:		Line 64:
	Especially during large change programs, companies tend to initiate many projects to reach the overarching objectives. Senior management have to be careful when managing the portfolio of projects to avoid projects taking away attention and resources from other projects. For example might senior management allocate the best employees for sponsored projects or give high attention for personal favored projects. By using the DICE Framework on the portfolio of projects, before initiation, they can identify the projects that can become problems later.		Especially during large change programs, companies tend to initiate many projects to reach the overarching objectives. Senior management have to be careful when managing the portfolio of projects to avoid projects taking away attention and resources from other projects. For example might senior management allocate the best employees for sponsored projects or give high attention for personal favored projects. By using the DICE Framework on the portfolio of projects, before initiation, they can identify the projects that can become problems later.

	A case example about an Australian manufacturer highlights the importance of a good portfolio management. They had 40 different change projects ongoing to increase profitability in their company, where some of the project had greater financial implications that others. The general manager called for a a meeting, using the DICE Framework with both project leaders and senior management to identify the different scores. They identified five projects to be the most promising, well into the Win Zone, and highlighted that they should wait initiating those projects before some of the less promising projects, in the Worry Zone, had gained the necessary attention and resources so they as well could be moved into the Win Zone. Before the initiation of any projects, the company had now the opportunity of correctly address the team configurations, resource allocations and where the senior management should put their attention. Some projects happened to remain in the Worry Zone, but closely monitored for improved score.		A case example about an Australian manufacturer highlights the importance of a good portfolio management <ref name=Sirkin />. They had 40 different change projects ongoing to increase profitability in their company, where some of the project had greater financial implications that others. The general manager called for a a meeting, using the DICE Framework with both project leaders and senior management to identify the different scores. They identified five projects to be the most promising, well into the Win Zone, and highlighted that they should wait initiating those projects before some of the less promising projects, in the Worry Zone, had gained the necessary attention and resources so they as well could be moved into the Win Zone. Before the initiation of any projects, the company had now the opportunity of correctly address the team configurations, resource allocations and where the senior management should put their attention. Some projects happened to remain in the Worry Zone, but closely monitored for improved score.

Engelhart: /* Limitations */

2017-10-02T21:42:30Z

Limitations

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:42, 2 October 2017
Line 91:		Line 91:


	The subjective ~~scoring~~ can ~~and will often make~~ different managers score differently on the DICE Framework, even the same manager could in principle score differently depending on the time of day or if they have been influenced by external personal ~~stuff~~, both good and bad. The reproducibility is therefore hard to create between different managers.		The scoring is subjective, and therefore can different managers score differently on the DICE Framework, even the same manager could in principle score differently depending on the time of day or if they have been influenced by external personal influence, both good and bad. The reproducibility is therefore hard to create between different managers.

Engelhart: /* Annotated Bibliography */

2017-10-02T21:37:10Z

Annotated Bibliography

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:37, 2 October 2017
Line 166:		Line 166:


	'''2. Uspenskiy, Dmitry. [http://findit.dtu.dk/en/catalog/258451486 "Change Management Approach for Enterprise Transformation and Improvement"], '[[Massachusetts Institute of Technologyogy]]~~'', 2013. Retrieved on 02 October 2017.~~'''		'''2. Uspenskiy, Dmitry. [http://findit.dtu.dk/en/catalog/258451486 "Change Management Approach for Enterprise Transformation and Improvement"], '[[Massachusetts Institute of Technologyogy]]'''

	Organizations strives to achieve competitive advantage by using more advanced processes, systems and practices. Academics, industries and consulting firms have developed a variety of models, framework and roadmaps to aid company improvement activities and initiatives. However, the change management landscape remains vague. An analysis of the leading change models is conducted and common theme is identified. At last an alternative organizational model is proposed, called “BLUE-over-RED”, using parts of the DICE framework as inspiration and other change management tools and methods.		Organizations strives to achieve competitive advantage by using more advanced processes, systems and practices. Academics, industries and consulting firms have developed a variety of models, framework and roadmaps to aid company improvement activities and initiatives. However, the change management landscape remains vague. An analysis of the leading change models is conducted and common theme is identified. At last an alternative organizational model is proposed, called “BLUE-over-RED”, using parts of the DICE framework as inspiration and other change management tools and methods.
Line 176:		Line 176:


	'''4. Fry, Ronald. [http://findit.dtu.dk/en/catalog/2372590332 "Richard Beckhard: The Formulator of Organization Change"], '[[Palgrave Handbook of Organizational Change Thinkers]]~~'', 2017. Retrieved on 02 October 2017.~~'''		'''4. Fry, Ronald. [http://findit.dtu.dk/en/catalog/2372590332 "Richard Beckhard: The Formulator of Organization Change"], '[[Palgrave Handbook of Organizational Change Thinkers]]'''

	Richard Beckhard, recognized as one of the founders and pioneers in organization development. As an educator, he teamed up with Douglas McGregor, Warren Bennis, and Edgar Schein to develop MIT’s department of organization studies. Beckhard is known for his contribution with ‘the change formula’, which is also known as ‘Beckhard's formula’. The article talks about how Beckhard came to be known, and describes his contributions to change management, herein Beckhard’s formula.		Richard Beckhard, recognized as one of the founders and pioneers in organization development. As an educator, he teamed up with Douglas McGregor, Warren Bennis, and Edgar Schein to develop MIT’s department of organization studies. Beckhard is known for his contribution with ‘the change formula’, which is also known as ‘Beckhard's formula’. The article talks about how Beckhard came to be known, and describes his contributions to change management, herein Beckhard’s formula.


	'''5. Madeyski, L., Biela, W. [http://findit.dtu.dk/en/catalog/2342207536 "Agile Processes in Software Engineering and Extreme Programming"], '[[Springer]]'', pp 141-144, 2017. ISBN 3540731008~~. Retrieved on 02 October 2017.~~'''		'''5. Madeyski, L., Biela, W. [http://findit.dtu.dk/en/catalog/2342207536 "Agile Processes in Software Engineering and Extreme Programming"], '[[Springer]]'', pp 141-144, 2017. ISBN 3540731008'''

	Change to software processes in an organization is a challenge. The author have carried out a process change and then reflected on its results. The reflections shows a need for principles and practices that would help in establishing an agile structure. One of the methods is by using the DICE framework and Joint Engagement of managers and developers. The cases provided are real-world change processes happened in Poland.		Change to software processes in an organization is a challenge. The author have carried out a process change and then reflected on its results. The reflections shows a need for principles and practices that would help in establishing an agile structure. One of the methods is by using the DICE framework and Joint Engagement of managers and developers. The cases provided are real-world change processes happened in Poland.


	'''6. Keenan, P., Mingardon, S., Bickford, J., Schrey, T., Clancy, T., Doust, Annabel. [https://www.bcg.com/capabilities/change-management/how-ensure-change-efforts-stay-on-track-rigor-test-roadmap.aspx "How to Ensure Your Change Efforts Stay on Track"], '[[Boston Consulting Group]]'', ~~2017. Accessed on 02 October~~ 2017.'''		'''6. Keenan, P., Mingardon, S., Bickford, J., Schrey, T., Clancy, T., Doust, Annabel. [https://www.bcg.com/capabilities/change-management/how-ensure-change-efforts-stay-on-track-rigor-test-roadmap.aspx "How to Ensure Your Change Efforts Stay on Track"], '[[Boston Consulting Group]]'', 2017.'''

	“No battle plan ever survives contact with the enemy”, a claim by Helmuth von Moltke in the 19th century. The same holds true for change management. There is however a solution, by applying three tools, roadmap, DICE framework and a rigor test, companies can develop capabilities and confidence to manage risk and interdependencies. The article will mainly focus on the roadmap and the rigor test. The roadmap will tell the story of each initiative, where the rigor test will ensure that the company have included all necessary components into the roadmap.		“No battle plan ever survives contact with the enemy”, a claim by Helmuth von Moltke in the 19th century. The same holds true for change management. There is however a solution, by applying three tools, roadmap, DICE framework and a rigor test, companies can develop capabilities and confidence to manage risk and interdependencies. The article will mainly focus on the roadmap and the rigor test. The roadmap will tell the story of each initiative, where the rigor test will ensure that the company have included all necessary components into the roadmap.

Engelhart: /* Annotated Bibliography */

2017-10-02T21:36:28Z

Annotated Bibliography

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:36, 2 October 2017
Line 161:		Line 161:

	==Annotated Bibliography==		==Annotated Bibliography==
	'''1. Sirkin, H.L., Keenan, P., Jackson, A. [http://findit.dtu.dk/en/catalog/20844430 "The Hard Side of Change Management"], ''[[Harvard Business Review]]~~'', 2005. Retrieved on 02 October 2017.~~'''		'''1. Sirkin, H.L., Keenan, P., Jackson, A. [http://findit.dtu.dk/en/catalog/20844430 "The Hard Side of Change Management"], ''[[Harvard Business Review]]'''

	Managing change is rough, and few agrees on how to do it. Most experts are focused on the “soft” issues, but focusing on those will not bring change. Companies also need to consider the “hard” factors. The authors studied 225 companies and found a correlation between successful versus failure in four hard factors, which they called DICE: Duration, Integrity, Commitment and Effort. The framework is a formula for calculating a change projects chance of success. A set of questions helps to calculate a score for each of the four factors. The framework can be used to track projects, manage portfolios and force conversations.		Managing change is rough, and few agrees on how to do it. Most experts are focused on the “soft” issues, but focusing on those will not bring change. Companies also need to consider the “hard” factors. The authors studied 225 companies and found a correlation between successful versus failure in four hard factors, which they called DICE: Duration, Integrity, Commitment and Effort. The framework is a formula for calculating a change projects chance of success. A set of questions helps to calculate a score for each of the four factors. The framework can be used to track projects, manage portfolios and force conversations.

Engelhart: /* Annotated Bibliography */

2017-10-02T21:35:45Z

Annotated Bibliography

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:35, 2 October 2017
Line 171:		Line 171:


	'''3. Maurer, Rick. ["Beyond the Wall of Resistance: Why 70% of All Changes Still Fail--and What you Can Do About It"], '[[Bard Press]]'', 2010. ISBN 1885167725'''		'''3. Maurer, Rick. "Beyond the Wall of Resistance: Why 70% of All Changes Still Fail--and What you Can Do About It", '[[Bard Press]]'', 2010. ISBN 1885167725'''

	Companies with resistance to change dies. Change is part of the daily life in a company, plans for cutting costs, restructuring, new technologies, quality improvements, new products or services. Resistance have shown over and over again to cripple companies. Beyond the Wall of Resistance provides real-world guidelines for frustrated managers, on how stay competitive by building support for change. Cases studies provides practical approaches, to show how to deal with resistance, while retaining strong working relationships.		Companies with resistance to change dies. Change is part of the daily life in a company, plans for cutting costs, restructuring, new technologies, quality improvements, new products or services. Resistance have shown over and over again to cripple companies. Beyond the Wall of Resistance provides real-world guidelines for frustrated managers, on how stay competitive by building support for change. Cases studies provides practical approaches, to show how to deal with resistance, while retaining strong working relationships.

Engelhart: /* Understanding the framework */

2017-10-02T21:35:00Z

Understanding the framework

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:35, 2 October 2017
Line 43:		Line 43:
	'''Combining the score'''		'''Combining the score'''

	After the different elements with their questions have been answered, senior management can calculate a DICE score. The formula follows:		After the different elements with their questions have been answered, senior management can calculate a DICE score. The formula follows <ref name=Sirkin />:

Engelhart: /* Case Example */

2017-10-02T21:33:55Z

Case Example

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:33, 2 October 2017
Line 72:		Line 72:

	==Case Example==		==Case Example==
	A medium sized company in Poland were running a software project, consisting of 8 team members. The task was to change a B2C platform to make it up to date <ref>Madeyski, L., Biela, W. [http://findit.dtu.dk/en/catalog/2342207536 "Agile Processes in Software Engineering and Extreme Programming"], pp. 141-144 '[[Springer]]', 2017. ISBN 3540731008. Retrieved on 02 October 2017.</ref>. Underway in the 2 years timeframe the company shifted to a more agile structure. By using the DICE framework they wanted to confirm whether changing to a more agile structure actually increases the project's chance for success. Before the change, ('''D''') the team lacked rhythm and there were no notion of iterations. ('''I''') The team leader assigned was a sound programmer who showed lack of social skills and a will to innovate. ('''C1''') Management assigned too few resources because they felt that some changes could be done faster despite what the programmers had said. ('''C2''') Likewise, the team usually would be resistant over changes to their project, because it often would result in something to break in the B2C platform. ('''E''') The effort the team had to provide was that of a normal project, upfront design followed up by coding, testing and bug-fixing. The ~~resulted~~ DICE ~~score was~~:		A medium sized company in Poland were running a software project, consisting of 8 team members. The task was to change a B2C platform to make it up to date <ref>Madeyski, L., Biela, W. [http://findit.dtu.dk/en/catalog/2342207536 "Agile Processes in Software Engineering and Extreme Programming"], pp. 141-144 '[[Springer]]', 2017. ISBN 3540731008. Retrieved on 02 October 2017.</ref>. Underway in the 2 years timeframe the company shifted to a more agile structure. By using the DICE framework they wanted to confirm whether changing to a more agile structure actually increases the project's chance for success. Before the change, ('''D''') the team lacked rhythm and there were no notion of iterations. ('''I''') The team leader assigned was a sound programmer who showed lack of social skills and a will to innovate. ('''C1''') Management assigned too few resources because they felt that some changes could be done faster despite what the programmers had said. ('''C2''') Likewise, the team usually would be resistant over changes to their project, because it often would result in something to break in the B2C platform. ('''E''') The effort the team had to provide was that of a normal project, upfront design followed up by coding, testing and bug-fixing. The different scores where put into the DICE formula and calculated:

	<math>DICEscore = D + (2 * I) + (2 * C1) + C2 + E = 2 + (23) + (23) + 3 + 3 = 20</math>		<math>DICEscore = D + (2 * I) + (2 * C1) + C2 + E = 2 + (23) + (23) + 3 + 3 = 20</math>

Engelhart: /* Case Example */

2017-10-02T21:33:06Z

Case Example

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:33, 2 October 2017
Line 74:		Line 74:
	A medium sized company in Poland were running a software project, consisting of 8 team members. The task was to change a B2C platform to make it up to date <ref>Madeyski, L., Biela, W. [http://findit.dtu.dk/en/catalog/2342207536 "Agile Processes in Software Engineering and Extreme Programming"], pp. 141-144 '[[Springer]]', 2017. ISBN 3540731008. Retrieved on 02 October 2017.</ref>. Underway in the 2 years timeframe the company shifted to a more agile structure. By using the DICE framework they wanted to confirm whether changing to a more agile structure actually increases the project's chance for success. Before the change, ('''D''') the team lacked rhythm and there were no notion of iterations. ('''I''') The team leader assigned was a sound programmer who showed lack of social skills and a will to innovate. ('''C1''') Management assigned too few resources because they felt that some changes could be done faster despite what the programmers had said. ('''C2''') Likewise, the team usually would be resistant over changes to their project, because it often would result in something to break in the B2C platform. ('''E''') The effort the team had to provide was that of a normal project, upfront design followed up by coding, testing and bug-fixing. The resulted DICE score was:		A medium sized company in Poland were running a software project, consisting of 8 team members. The task was to change a B2C platform to make it up to date <ref>Madeyski, L., Biela, W. [http://findit.dtu.dk/en/catalog/2342207536 "Agile Processes in Software Engineering and Extreme Programming"], pp. 141-144 '[[Springer]]', 2017. ISBN 3540731008. Retrieved on 02 October 2017.</ref>. Underway in the 2 years timeframe the company shifted to a more agile structure. By using the DICE framework they wanted to confirm whether changing to a more agile structure actually increases the project's chance for success. Before the change, ('''D''') the team lacked rhythm and there were no notion of iterations. ('''I''') The team leader assigned was a sound programmer who showed lack of social skills and a will to innovate. ('''C1''') Management assigned too few resources because they felt that some changes could be done faster despite what the programmers had said. ('''C2''') Likewise, the team usually would be resistant over changes to their project, because it often would result in something to break in the B2C platform. ('''E''') The effort the team had to provide was that of a normal project, upfront design followed up by coding, testing and bug-fixing. The resulted DICE score was:

	<math>DICEscore = 2 + (23) + (23) + 3 + 3 = 20</math>		<math>DICEscore = D + (2 * I) + (2 * C1) + C2 + E = 2 + (23) + (23) + 3 + 3 = 20</math>

	Before the change to a more agile structure, the change project of the B2C platform had an extreme risk of failure with a total score of 20 putting it in the Woe Zone. If the change to a more agile structure had not had happened, it was very likely that the project would have failed.		Before the change to a more agile structure, the change project of the B2C platform had an extreme risk of failure with a total score of 20 putting it in the Woe Zone. If the change to a more agile structure had not had happened, it was very likely that the project would have failed.
Line 80:		Line 80:
	After the agile change, ('''D''') the team had 1-2 weeks iterations with reviews. ('''I''') A new team leader was assigned who was capable and eager to implement ideas. The team also got better at self-organising. ('''C1''') Changes to the B2C platform could be done faster and with fewer bugs. Management were therefore more supportive to provide resources. ('''C2''') Changes was also met with less resistance since refactoring became easier. ('''E''') The team's workload decreased thus freeing up time. The agile structure also decreased the time of bug fixing. The resulted DICE score was:		After the agile change, ('''D''') the team had 1-2 weeks iterations with reviews. ('''I''') A new team leader was assigned who was capable and eager to implement ideas. The team also got better at self-organising. ('''C1''') Changes to the B2C platform could be done faster and with fewer bugs. Management were therefore more supportive to provide resources. ('''C2''') Changes was also met with less resistance since refactoring became easier. ('''E''') The team's workload decreased thus freeing up time. The agile structure also decreased the time of bug fixing. The resulted DICE score was:

	<math>DICEscore = 1 + (22) + (22) + 1 + 2 = 12</math>		<math>DICEscore = D + (2 * I) + (2 * C1) + C2 + E = 1 + (22) + (22) + 1 + 2 = 12</math>

	After the change, the project moved to the Win Zone and the likelihood of success highly increased. Since the project was a success in the end, the framework is now used as a method to convince the top management to create further changes inside the company.		After the change, the project moved to the Win Zone and the likelihood of success highly increased. Since the project was a success in the end, the framework is now used as a method to convince the top management to create further changes inside the company.

Engelhart: /* Understanding the framework */

2017-10-02T21:31:46Z

Understanding the framework

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:31, 2 October 2017
Line 33:		Line 33:
	'''Calculating the score'''		'''Calculating the score'''

	By asking executives and managers about the four elements of the DICE Framework (Table 1.), companies can determine if a project or change will be successful. Each element has to be graded numerically from a scale from 1 to 4 where fractions can be used. The score of 1 suggests that the element will contribute highly to the success of the project or change, where the score of 4 suggests that it is very unlikely to contribute positively.		By asking executives and managers about the four elements of the DICE Framework (Table 1.), companies can determine if a project or change will be successful <ref name=Sirkin />. Each element has to be graded numerically from a scale from 1 to 4 where fractions can be used. The score of 1 suggests that the element will contribute highly to the success of the project or change, where the score of 4 suggests that it is very unlikely to contribute positively.