Strategic Equalizer
Real-time decision support system. There was nothing cooler in the world.
Today is a purely practical tool for those who have many tasks and have the opportunity to choose the order in which to solve them.
If you are in a situation where the order of tasks is not determined by you, and nothing depends on your opinion, then you are a happy person, and then you can read only for entertainment.
If you have the opportunity to choose, and you want to make this choice scientifically justified, then the strategic equalizer is for you.
I have always had a choice. Even when they set tight deadlines for all tasks, the order of their execution remained with me.
And I was always tormented by the same question - what first, what next, and most importantly - on what to base my choice? At least for myself.
I tried different ways. The first, the easiest - to do what is burning. It quickly became clear that if you do what is burning and do nothing with it, then it will burn forever. Therefore, I took some action, and ceased to burn. Even the terms have been moved to call.
The second way is simpler, and more honest is to do the tasks in the order in which they arrive. Honesty rolls over, but the work begins to give a sad hopelessness - you constantly do tons of shit, which was invented a long time, but from its implementation in this world does not change anything.
I wrote a system for planning the work of programmers, which, up to a second, described to whom, what to do and when, but she did not answer the main question - why do we need to do the tasks in that order?
The problem was aggravated by the number of projects and tasks. There were 30-50 projects, some were in work, some were only in the plans, some were decomposed, some were without tasks at all. As a result, it was necessary to operate with hundreds of items.
And okay, they would all be homogeneous in their degree of influence on the result. You know, it happens that the project consists of 50 tasks, and the key ones are 1-2, after solving which you can begin trial operation, leaving little things for later.
As a result, I, as I often recommend, went to read science. And I came across a doctoral thesis from one of the local professors who came up with an amusing method for choosing projects based on the strategic goals of the enterprise’s development. In fact, there was a whole range of methods for constructing a model of enterprise development, forming a portfolio of innovative projects, choosing priorities, etc., but one simple enough method suited my task. There was no name for this method in the thesis, so I came up with it myself, based on my implementation - a strategic equalizer.
To begin with - a couple of short videos about how it works:
1. Strategic equalizer programmer ;
2. Strategic equalizer system administrator .
The essence of the selection method is extremely simple.
You personally, your department, your enterprise have goals. Ideally, if you can write all your goals into one, but this happens rarely. Or you are deceiving yourself, driving several meanings into one formulation, sometimes contradicting each other.
It makes no sense for us to deceive ourselves, so we will assume that our goal consists of several points, each of which the professor proposed to consider as a vector. The vector, as you remember, has a length and a direction.
For example, take vectors from a video about a programmer:
Theoretically, you can sit down and spend a lot of effort on the reduction of all small goals into one, big, whole and unbreakable. But this is an illusion.
The final vector, which is the sum of six, is always different, and depends on the context, on the environment at this particular moment.
If you did a hard joint yesterday, and I apologize, you are perturbed, then the worst thing you can do now is to lose sight of the task for which you have not been ripped off again. It is imperative to follow the predicted shoals, so that in the wake of the failure not to swim into the gutter.
If you haven’t had shoals for a long time, and the time is calm, and you are in good standing with the management, then why not make it the defining goal of increasing competences? To go to courses, and it is better to fly, at the expense of the employer. Isn't it lovely?
And so you can continue indefinitely. But how is it that if all six targets are vectors? Their sum should be a constant - the main vector, the very Path that you have to go all your life?
A simpler than steamed turnip - you can adjust the length of the vector without touching its direction. If it is absolutely indifferent for you right now, whether the native enterprise develops from your work, you turn this vector into zero (whose beginning and end coincide).
If we add the zero and non-zero vector, what will be the result? That's right, it will be completely equal to a non-zero vector. If you leave only one of the six vectors non-zero, then it will determine the general direction of your movement.
Farther. Each task from the portfolio, in one way or another, helps or hinders each vector, each of the sub-goals. Well and, accordingly, it helps or interferes with a common goal. To make this clearer, imagine that each project is also a vector.
How to compare two vectors? There seems to be a lot of methods, but we need something simpler, so we won’t be wise - we compare codirectionality. If the vector of the goal and the vector of the project look in one direction, then they are aligned, and if they are different, then they are multidirectional.
But this is not enough - we will only know the sign, plus or minus. Still need some numerical assessment. Formally, the angle is suitable, but with the corners we have long lost the habit of working, so it is easier to express it as a percentage. The author of the methodology gave such a scale so as not to bathe:
Yes, as you can see, the impact of the project on the target vector can be negative. Here, due to the presence of minuses, it is possible to take into account the directionality of the vectors. Plus means that they look in one direction, and the figure specifies - how much in one. Minus, respectively, on the contrary.
Well, then everything is simple. Each project receives an estimate for each vector, or, as they are called in the method - factor. These estimates are almost constant, given once, rarely adjusted.
But the resulting goal vector is adjusted as often as the situation requires. Of course, you can not touch it, and together stomp into the abyss of inflexibility and lack of understanding of the real situation.
The resulting vector is compiled as a trivial polynomial with coefficients of the influence of each variable. In the video, this is done with the help of equalizer adjustments - some vectors are reset, some vice versa, they increase to the limit. And in each combination of factors, you can see which projects are best suited for this situation.
Separately, it is worth noting such adjustments as "functionality" and "cost", because they are not included in the polynomial in the form of individual factors, but always participate in the calculations.
"Functionality" is the overall assessment of the project for all vectors, i.e. actually what we calculated on the floor above.
"Cost" is the relative cost of the project, given in arbitrary units (rubles, hours, man-days - it does not matter).
So, the functionality and cost give the adjustment of the zero top level, the most approximate, when it is necessary to determine based on the balance of resources and the benefits obtained.
Specifically, my metadata is not decisive, it is just an implementation. But you can push off from them. Configuration and demobaza lie in the repository . These are not ready-made solutions, these are tools for the developer. And yes, they are on 1C. But it does not matter - you can easily redo it on your platform. On 1C left a couple of hours. On your platform, for sure, less.
A stream is a directory that separates tasks or projects on the first level. Theoretically, the threads do not intersect. For example, tasks of programmers, tasks of system administrators, strategic projects of a company, etc. In my metadata, the stream is the project's prop.
The project is a reference book in my case, it is the main carrier of the task. In your case, this may be a general “Task” type metadata object (if you are working for the DO).
A set of factors are the same vectors combined into a group. Formally, this is a reference book with a tabular part “Factors”, for each of which the degree of significance for this set is specified, from 0 to 100%.
Factors - just a directory of factors. You can use the same factors in different sets, because degree of significance they may have different in different situations.
Estimates by factors - a register of information containing the values of the estimates of factors for an object. Values of estimates - this is the degree of co-directionality, from -100 to +100%.
Strategic Equalizer - a report in which all calculations are performed and the result is displayed. Now, for clarity and at least some optimization, calculations are made in the request, which lies in the report object module, and a table with final priorities is transmitted to KFOR. If you do not need this beauty with an equalizer, you can simply take a query, insert it into the ACS, and replace the table-parameter “Factors” with the tabular part “Factors” of the directory “Sets of factors”. So it was originally.
The figures that the report displays do not make much sense - this is a result of some kind of multiplication of certain matrices. Only the relative difference between these figures between the projects is important; it determines the priorities.
What do you want.
You can just play around and forget, as is usually the case with such tools.
You can make the tool a basis for choosing priorities for you or your department. I conducted such a practice, it is fun, especially when you demonstrate tools to sensible managers, you explain the theoretical basis, and you clearly demonstrate the interdependence of factors and projects.
The only thing worth noting is that the system, in fact, will never allow you to solve openly meaningless tasks, they will hang out at the end of the list. See that there are no tasks from important people in this trash - they need to explain that the task is nonsense and ask them to reformulate. And if it does not work out, and people are important, then we can start a separate factor like “Crap, but we must do it”, and allocate for the implementation of this vector, for example, one day in two weeks.
Well, you can use the tool and methodology as it was intended by the author - to select projects for the innovative development of the enterprise, from the general portfolio, in accordance with the company's development strategy. So I did, too.
Well, as without shit something. You will never use the strategic equalizer. It will never benefit you, your department, or your business. You will live as you lived. Although knowledge, of course, a little rich.
The reason is simple - neither you, nor me, no one else can 100% submit to himself.
The strategic equalizer is “I decided that it’s better to do this.” But "do not care what I decided there, I will be different." Well, choose a problem for the soul, and not the one that really needs to be addressed.
I am not mistaken, you can not persuade. Since you are sitting and reading this text, you are definitely, absolutely not doing what you have decided.
Although, can the strategic equalizer bring the “what is necessary” and “what am I doing” vectors a bit closer? This is possible if you suffer from youthful absolutism, like "all or nothing." Learn how to follow your own developed strategy by at least 5% more correct this year - it will be an incredible victory.
I now can not, even though I want. 100% can not, a maximum of 30-50% is obtained. I live with this equalizer, then in anger I throw it into the furnace. But he, the dog, does not burn - I take it out again, set it up, and start another attempt.
Maybe you get better?
Today is a purely practical tool for those who have many tasks and have the opportunity to choose the order in which to solve them.
If you are in a situation where the order of tasks is not determined by you, and nothing depends on your opinion, then you are a happy person, and then you can read only for entertainment.
If you have the opportunity to choose, and you want to make this choice scientifically justified, then the strategic equalizer is for you.
Prerequisites
I have always had a choice. Even when they set tight deadlines for all tasks, the order of their execution remained with me.
And I was always tormented by the same question - what first, what next, and most importantly - on what to base my choice? At least for myself.
I tried different ways. The first, the easiest - to do what is burning. It quickly became clear that if you do what is burning and do nothing with it, then it will burn forever. Therefore, I took some action, and ceased to burn. Even the terms have been moved to call.
The second way is simpler, and more honest is to do the tasks in the order in which they arrive. Honesty rolls over, but the work begins to give a sad hopelessness - you constantly do tons of shit, which was invented a long time, but from its implementation in this world does not change anything.
I wrote a system for planning the work of programmers, which, up to a second, described to whom, what to do and when, but she did not answer the main question - why do we need to do the tasks in that order?
The problem was aggravated by the number of projects and tasks. There were 30-50 projects, some were in work, some were only in the plans, some were decomposed, some were without tasks at all. As a result, it was necessary to operate with hundreds of items.
And okay, they would all be homogeneous in their degree of influence on the result. You know, it happens that the project consists of 50 tasks, and the key ones are 1-2, after solving which you can begin trial operation, leaving little things for later.
As a result, I, as I often recommend, went to read science. And I came across a doctoral thesis from one of the local professors who came up with an amusing method for choosing projects based on the strategic goals of the enterprise’s development. In fact, there was a whole range of methods for constructing a model of enterprise development, forming a portfolio of innovative projects, choosing priorities, etc., but one simple enough method suited my task. There was no name for this method in the thesis, so I came up with it myself, based on my implementation - a strategic equalizer.
To begin with - a couple of short videos about how it works:
1. Strategic equalizer programmer ;
2. Strategic equalizer system administrator .
The essence
The essence of the selection method is extremely simple.
You personally, your department, your enterprise have goals. Ideally, if you can write all your goals into one, but this happens rarely. Or you are deceiving yourself, driving several meanings into one formulation, sometimes contradicting each other.
It makes no sense for us to deceive ourselves, so we will assume that our goal consists of several points, each of which the professor proposed to consider as a vector. The vector, as you remember, has a length and a direction.
For example, take vectors from a video about a programmer:
- Avoid shoals, for which flies;
- Get new competencies;
- Try to work for the award;
- Do what is done is easy, but noticeable to users;
- Perform calm and stupid work;
- Really develop the enterprise.
Theoretically, you can sit down and spend a lot of effort on the reduction of all small goals into one, big, whole and unbreakable. But this is an illusion.
The final vector, which is the sum of six, is always different, and depends on the context, on the environment at this particular moment.
If you did a hard joint yesterday, and I apologize, you are perturbed, then the worst thing you can do now is to lose sight of the task for which you have not been ripped off again. It is imperative to follow the predicted shoals, so that in the wake of the failure not to swim into the gutter.
If you haven’t had shoals for a long time, and the time is calm, and you are in good standing with the management, then why not make it the defining goal of increasing competences? To go to courses, and it is better to fly, at the expense of the employer. Isn't it lovely?
And so you can continue indefinitely. But how is it that if all six targets are vectors? Their sum should be a constant - the main vector, the very Path that you have to go all your life?
A simpler than steamed turnip - you can adjust the length of the vector without touching its direction. If it is absolutely indifferent for you right now, whether the native enterprise develops from your work, you turn this vector into zero (whose beginning and end coincide).
If we add the zero and non-zero vector, what will be the result? That's right, it will be completely equal to a non-zero vector. If you leave only one of the six vectors non-zero, then it will determine the general direction of your movement.
Farther. Each task from the portfolio, in one way or another, helps or hinders each vector, each of the sub-goals. Well and, accordingly, it helps or interferes with a common goal. To make this clearer, imagine that each project is also a vector.
How to compare two vectors? There seems to be a lot of methods, but we need something simpler, so we won’t be wise - we compare codirectionality. If the vector of the goal and the vector of the project look in one direction, then they are aligned, and if they are different, then they are multidirectional.
But this is not enough - we will only know the sign, plus or minus. Still need some numerical assessment. Formally, the angle is suitable, but with the corners we have long lost the habit of working, so it is easier to express it as a percentage. The author of the methodology gave such a scale so as not to bathe:
- 100% - the project greatly helps in the implementation of the vector;
- 70% - the project normally helps in the implementation of the vector;
- 50% - the project poorly helps in the implementation of the vector;
- 0% - the project does not help in the implementation of the vector;
- -50% - the project slightly interferes with the implementation of the vector;
- -70% - the project normally interferes with the implementation of the vector;
- -100% - the project greatly hinders the implementation of the vector.
Yes, as you can see, the impact of the project on the target vector can be negative. Here, due to the presence of minuses, it is possible to take into account the directionality of the vectors. Plus means that they look in one direction, and the figure specifies - how much in one. Minus, respectively, on the contrary.
Well, then everything is simple. Each project receives an estimate for each vector, or, as they are called in the method - factor. These estimates are almost constant, given once, rarely adjusted.
But the resulting goal vector is adjusted as often as the situation requires. Of course, you can not touch it, and together stomp into the abyss of inflexibility and lack of understanding of the real situation.
The resulting vector is compiled as a trivial polynomial with coefficients of the influence of each variable. In the video, this is done with the help of equalizer adjustments - some vectors are reset, some vice versa, they increase to the limit. And in each combination of factors, you can see which projects are best suited for this situation.
Separately, it is worth noting such adjustments as "functionality" and "cost", because they are not included in the polynomial in the form of individual factors, but always participate in the calculations.
"Functionality" is the overall assessment of the project for all vectors, i.e. actually what we calculated on the floor above.
"Cost" is the relative cost of the project, given in arbitrary units (rubles, hours, man-days - it does not matter).
So, the functionality and cost give the adjustment of the zero top level, the most approximate, when it is necessary to determine based on the balance of resources and the benefits obtained.
Example Metadata
Specifically, my metadata is not decisive, it is just an implementation. But you can push off from them. Configuration and demobaza lie in the repository . These are not ready-made solutions, these are tools for the developer. And yes, they are on 1C. But it does not matter - you can easily redo it on your platform. On 1C left a couple of hours. On your platform, for sure, less.
A stream is a directory that separates tasks or projects on the first level. Theoretically, the threads do not intersect. For example, tasks of programmers, tasks of system administrators, strategic projects of a company, etc. In my metadata, the stream is the project's prop.
The project is a reference book in my case, it is the main carrier of the task. In your case, this may be a general “Task” type metadata object (if you are working for the DO).
A set of factors are the same vectors combined into a group. Formally, this is a reference book with a tabular part “Factors”, for each of which the degree of significance for this set is specified, from 0 to 100%.
Factors - just a directory of factors. You can use the same factors in different sets, because degree of significance they may have different in different situations.
Estimates by factors - a register of information containing the values of the estimates of factors for an object. Values of estimates - this is the degree of co-directionality, from -100 to +100%.
Strategic Equalizer - a report in which all calculations are performed and the result is displayed. Now, for clarity and at least some optimization, calculations are made in the request, which lies in the report object module, and a table with final priorities is transmitted to KFOR. If you do not need this beauty with an equalizer, you can simply take a query, insert it into the ACS, and replace the table-parameter “Factors” with the tabular part “Factors” of the directory “Sets of factors”. So it was originally.
The figures that the report displays do not make much sense - this is a result of some kind of multiplication of certain matrices. Only the relative difference between these figures between the projects is important; it determines the priorities.
What to do with it?
What do you want.
You can just play around and forget, as is usually the case with such tools.
You can make the tool a basis for choosing priorities for you or your department. I conducted such a practice, it is fun, especially when you demonstrate tools to sensible managers, you explain the theoretical basis, and you clearly demonstrate the interdependence of factors and projects.
The only thing worth noting is that the system, in fact, will never allow you to solve openly meaningless tasks, they will hang out at the end of the list. See that there are no tasks from important people in this trash - they need to explain that the task is nonsense and ask them to reformulate. And if it does not work out, and people are important, then we can start a separate factor like “Crap, but we must do it”, and allocate for the implementation of this vector, for example, one day in two weeks.
Well, you can use the tool and methodology as it was intended by the author - to select projects for the innovative development of the enterprise, from the general portfolio, in accordance with the company's development strategy. So I did, too.
Muck
Well, as without shit something. You will never use the strategic equalizer. It will never benefit you, your department, or your business. You will live as you lived. Although knowledge, of course, a little rich.
The reason is simple - neither you, nor me, no one else can 100% submit to himself.
The strategic equalizer is “I decided that it’s better to do this.” But "do not care what I decided there, I will be different." Well, choose a problem for the soul, and not the one that really needs to be addressed.
I am not mistaken, you can not persuade. Since you are sitting and reading this text, you are definitely, absolutely not doing what you have decided.
Although, can the strategic equalizer bring the “what is necessary” and “what am I doing” vectors a bit closer? This is possible if you suffer from youthful absolutism, like "all or nothing." Learn how to follow your own developed strategy by at least 5% more correct this year - it will be an incredible victory.
I now can not, even though I want. 100% can not, a maximum of 30-50% is obtained. I live with this equalizer, then in anger I throw it into the furnace. But he, the dog, does not burn - I take it out again, set it up, and start another attempt.
Maybe you get better?
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/438522/