Estándar de pentesting

Change and Implementation requirements

- The CIP contributes effectively and efficiently to the objective of the PDPMA model

- The CIP must focus on implementation of the OSP output (a process structuring solution) in the specific context of the product developing company

- The CIP creates its output from an input domain that entails all possible OSP outputs

- The CIP provides insights in the differences between the current process structuring situation and the aspired process structuring situation as presented by the OSP

- The CIP validates the possibility of changing context aspects in the future of a company

- The CIP provides insights in priorities for change to assure effective change

- The CIP provides insights in efficiency of specific change strategies for certain contexts

- The CIP provides a structured approach for developing the advice and creating the insights which can be performed efficiently and effectively in different PD contexts

- The CIP design is future-proof and information can be adapted or complemented as required in the future

Advice communication requirements

- The CIP provides a transparent and underpinned description of the current situation

- The CIP provides a transparent and underpinned description of the aspired situation as resulted from the OSP

- The CIP provides a transparent and underpinned description of the insights behind the designed aspired situation

- The CIP provides a transparent and underpinned description of the priorities for effective change in the specific context

- The CIP provides a transparent and underpinned description of identified required activities and tasks for the specific company to efficiently achieve the aspired situation ‘Nice-to-haves’ of the CIP design solution(s)

- The CIP provides the option to guide the implementation process in a specific company until the aspired situation is achieved

- The CIP offers different levels of end results which can be addressed dependent on the budget of the company

- The CIP provides a measurement tool that is able to indicate success levels of implemented changes

- The CIP provides a transparent and underpinned description of the Maturity vision

125

124

Indications for useful methods

Many existing methods can be useful for fulfilling these requirements and do not need to be fully developed from scratch. These form indications and illustrations of opportunities for the solution domain of the CIP and inclusion is no requirement.

- Methods for comparing current to aspired situations

For example, by using gap analysis methods

- Methods for validating feasibility of changing contexts

For example, by validating change feasibility of identified context aspects from Nieberding (2009)

- Methods for prioritizing change activities

For example, through cost-benefit analysis or with Activity-Based-Costing methods

- Methods for separating levels of results

For example, with use of selected Work Packages

- Methods for communicating insights

For example, with visualization tools, management letters or cause-effect statements

- Methods for Capability-based planning

For example, with use of the later stages of Capability Development Plans

- Methods for Implementation plan and Change Management Strategy development For example, by evaluating existing implementation plans and change management criteria

- Methods for building strategic plans

For example, with use of Key Component Comparison or Barriers and Enablers Identification

- Methods for communicating advice to companies

For example, with Management Letters or Task Specifications and Planning frameworks

Indications for useful CIP steps

Existing models for change execution can be used as inspiration for the steps performed within the CIP design(s). R.T. By (2005) evaluated three often used models for executing change (Appendix 8.4: Change and implementation theory). Herein he compares model parts to form a more complete list of required steps for effectively and efficiently executing change. Possibly, for specific context certain steps have are more valuable than others. Selecting steps to perform in a specific context must be done with effectiveness and efficiency of performing the CIP in mind. Provided steps can form an inspiration for the steps that the CIP design includes.

4.5 PDPMA model design: CIP

Notes for developing change activity plans

Decisions on prioritizing and selecting specific change activities need to be made in collaboration with practical experts in the context. The effectiveness and efficiency of a change and implementation strategy depend on the specific context it is applied to. Uncertainties and sensitivities make impacts of change on the real situation unpredictable. Furthermore, the company strategy provides an indication of the contribution of specific change activities for achieving the company objective. With that in mind, detailed decisions on budgeting and prioritizing activities for change require the practical insights of the stakeholders and interpretation of the company strategy. For doing so, visualization and communication of the small, selected change activities is required to include the stakeholder and company strategy in that decision making process. Priorities and activity sequences can be suggested for the company by experts, but need to be validated by stakeholders. This can be performed with use of a simple analogue tool of which a representation is provided by Figure 37. Filling this in allows stakeholders to provide the practical knowledge and validate suggested change activity plans.

4.5 PDPMA model design: CIP

In

tr

oduction

Ma

tur

ity vision

PDMO model design

PDPMA model design

Conc

epts s

ummar

y

Fut

ur

e pr

ospects

Concluding r

emar

ks

Appendic

es

Chapter content

5

Concepts

summary

C

oncepts summar

y

This far, the report used a top-down structure for explaining the designs. The resulting detail in the report is beneficial for the academical reasoning and allows inclusion of underlying theory and reasons behind the designs. However, providing the details can be detriment of the understanding of the main ideas. Therefore, this chapter shortly summarizes the designed PDMO model and PDPMA model oncepts to explain them from a more abstract perspective, rather than repeating previous detailed design explanations. The author includes this chapter with the intention to contribute to interpretation of the designs by the reader while guiding all detailed puzzle pieces into place to show the complete image before continuing with the future prospectives and concluding chapters.

129

128

The Maturity Landscape component (MLC) identifies all maturity dimensions relevant in a company context. A topology of maturity dimensions is used in a visualized network, of which company success (company maturity) forms the core (the ‘trunk’ of the maturity context ‘tree’ in Figure 38). Supporting maturity dimensions contribute to achieving company success and maturity factors contribute to the maturity dimensions. Many levels and locations of maturity can be identified with the maturity topology network, representing the maturity context in a company. The MLC is represented in Figure 38 as the green block, with the tree as illustration of the maturity topology network.

The Maturity Route component (MRC) supports the user in selecting a specific process for optimization. The highest objective is company success and the maturity dimensions related to the context are copied from the MLC. These form possible targets for optimization. However, success of a maturity factor is a required but insufficient condition for success of a maturity dimension. Therefore, deliberate decisions are required for selecting one dimension to focus on for optimization, effectively and efficiently leading to increased company success. This is achieved by comparing the maturity levels of maturity dimensions by using radar chart visualizations. With interpretations of the company strategy – which represents and describes company success – an aspired maturity level per maturity factor can be indicated objectively. Combined with the current maturity level of the factor, the gap indicates the need to improve that specific maturity factor. Figure 38 represents the MRC in the blue block, with the stacked radar chart visualizations representing multiple locations and levels of maturity dimensions with their contributing factors.

Subsequently, the identified maturity factor requires optimization. This step is guided by the Maturity Optimization component (MOC). The function of optimizing a specific maturity factor can be fulfilled with any suitable maturity audit model, since that factor represents a specific process within the company. Many maturity audit models exist for optimizing processes, but they primarily target production (or manufacturing) processes and sustainability, software and Information Technology (IT) related processes. Maturity audit models that target PD process optimization effectively and efficiently are limited. After the maturity factor for optimization is identified, selection and execution of an appropriate maturity audit model is required and executed in the MOC. A representation of the MOC is provided in Figure 38 by the brown block.