Outcome-Driven Governance: An Approach to the Use of Standards on Complex System-Product Development Projects

Derek W. Wade, John Metcalf
{"title":"Outcome-Driven Governance: An Approach to the Use of Standards on Complex System-Product Development Projects","authors":"Derek W. Wade,&nbsp;John Metcalf","doi":"10.1002/iis2.70107","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Not all complexities are equal: Complex system-product development <i>projects</i> are more complex than the complex <i>system-products</i> they are developing. This is due to the interaction of the social and technical elements of the project's enabling system along with those of the system-product under development. Standards are often applied in an approach that obscures the risk of the project's total complexity by overemphasizing governance of the development work activities. While effective for many projects, the application of standards to a complex project using an “activity-driven” approach can result in increased waste. Excessive up-front documentation, unnecessary revision, project delays, project inflation, or other disruptions of the project's purpose are all possible forms of waste. We propose an “outcome-driven” approach that addresses the total complexity of a complex project; where project outcomes drive the application of standards by comparing the evolving state of the project's work products vs. the desired outcomes. We define key characteristics of activity-driven and outcome-driven project approaches; the effect on project inputs, processes, and outputs; identify key differences between activity-driven and outcome-driven project approaches; and disambiguate relevant supporting terms within their sources from their respective standards bodies. We present examples of both activity-driven and outcome-driven approaches in illustrative scenarios for development of a simple hardware system-product item, a complicated software system-product item, and a complex software-intensive system-product item.</p>","PeriodicalId":100663,"journal":{"name":"INCOSE International Symposium","volume":"35 1","pages":"1043-1067"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"INCOSE International Symposium","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://incose.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/iis2.70107","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Not all complexities are equal: Complex system-product development projects are more complex than the complex system-products they are developing. This is due to the interaction of the social and technical elements of the project's enabling system along with those of the system-product under development. Standards are often applied in an approach that obscures the risk of the project's total complexity by overemphasizing governance of the development work activities. While effective for many projects, the application of standards to a complex project using an “activity-driven” approach can result in increased waste. Excessive up-front documentation, unnecessary revision, project delays, project inflation, or other disruptions of the project's purpose are all possible forms of waste. We propose an “outcome-driven” approach that addresses the total complexity of a complex project; where project outcomes drive the application of standards by comparing the evolving state of the project's work products vs. the desired outcomes. We define key characteristics of activity-driven and outcome-driven project approaches; the effect on project inputs, processes, and outputs; identify key differences between activity-driven and outcome-driven project approaches; and disambiguate relevant supporting terms within their sources from their respective standards bodies. We present examples of both activity-driven and outcome-driven approaches in illustrative scenarios for development of a simple hardware system-product item, a complicated software system-product item, and a complex software-intensive system-product item.

结果驱动的治理:在复杂系统产品开发项目中使用标准的方法
并不是所有的复杂性都是相等的:复杂的系统产品开发项目比他们正在开发的复杂系统产品更复杂。这是由于项目启用系统的社会和技术要素与正在开发的系统产品的社会和技术要素之间的相互作用。标准通常应用于通过过分强调开发工作活动的治理来模糊项目总体复杂性风险的方法中。虽然对许多项目都是有效的,但是使用“活动驱动”方法将标准应用于复杂的项目可能会导致浪费的增加。过多的前期文档、不必要的修订、项目延迟、项目膨胀或其他对项目目的的破坏都是可能的浪费形式。我们提出了一种“结果驱动”的方法来处理复杂项目的总复杂性;项目结果通过比较项目工作产品的发展状态和期望的结果来驱动标准的应用。我们定义了活动驱动和结果驱动项目方法的关键特征;对项目投入、过程和产出的影响;确定活动驱动和结果驱动的项目方法之间的主要区别;并从各自的标准机构中消除来源中的相关支持术语的歧义。我们在一个简单的硬件系统产品项目、一个复杂的软件系统产品项目和一个复杂的软件密集型系统产品项目的开发的说明性场景中,展示了活动驱动和结果驱动方法的例子。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书