Review

In the Review Phase, opportunities are generated by comparing capabilities and project priorities for the attributes.  The resulting opportunities to transform the attributes into projects are ranked by an Opportunity Index.  The Opportunity Index is discussed in detail in the ROADMAP Process.

Essentially, the higher the index, the better the opportunity for a beneficial collaboration based on the preliminary data.  The opportunities are then reviewed and placed (by each organization only) into one of three categories:

• Collaborative Project Opportunity (CPO):  the attribute is selected by any manager interested to go to discussion with the potential collaborators at other organizations invited to the ROADMAP Process. (Note that the attribute is selected based on its potential to derive projects from the attribute in the next phase.)
• Not Collaborative Project (NCP): the attribute is selected to go to discussion to discover the merits of potential projects derived from the attribute. However, the discussion and subsequent projects will be internal to the organization and not part of a collaborative effort.
• Dead Opportunity on Arrival (DOA): the attribute is rejected in terms of even being discussed for potential improvement projects.  A DOA happens by not selecting the attribute to as a CPO or NCP.  So by default, all attributes are DOA at the start or the Review Phase.

Collaborative Robust Roadmaps
By definition, for an organization to create Robust Roadmaps™, the roadmaps must have collaborative projects with alliances.  Opportunities for collaborative projects with alliance members and enterprise members are treated in a similar way for both the ROADMAP and ROBUST Processes.  Therefore, the term Collaborative Project Opportunity (CPO) is used in the ROBUST Process in the same way as it was used in the ROADMAP Process.   In addition, the need for each organization to maintain its own roadmap remains.  Each organization creates their own roadmap that includes the organization’s internal and collaborative projects. 

In the following figure, Organization 1 has 150 NCP and 25 CPO projects.  Organization 1 will maintain all of the projects in their proprietary information technology system.  The project leaders will maintain the 25 CPO projects in a centralized Collaborative Roadmap location that will require updating.  The same approach is required for all other organizations in the following figure.  Looking at the figure, there are 115 alliance projects in the Alliance Roadmap.

Collaborative versus Not Collaborative Projects in the Alliance Roadmap

Projects in the collaborative area can be seen by participating Alliance Organizations.  Information available on these projects will include expected duration, project manager or lead, predecessor and successor relationships, and project charter information.  As with ROADMAP, Placeholder Milestones may be used to link NCP and CPO projects to protect each organization’s proprietary information.

Selecting Attributes
The figure below illustrates how the selection process to send attributes to the Opportunity Phase discussions might look.  The attributes are ranked from the highest Opportunity Index to the lowest.  Of these top opportunities, Organization 1’s management has decided to reveal its Attribute Scores for three of the top four opportunities as identified by the “X” mark in the CPO (Collaborative Project Opportunity) column.  The activity of deciding which opportunities organizations would like to discuss can be accomplished online or with a Roadmaps Institute™ Master serving as the intermediary between the organizations.  Either method protects attribute score information as much as possible until the parties have agreed to consider collaboration on the specific attribute.

Template for Agreeing to Discuss Collaboration Opportunities

Once an organization agrees to discuss an attribute with potential collaborators, their Attribute Score is visible to the other organizations which also agree to discussion.  While in discussion, the discussants can set-up project proposals related to the attribute.  The proposals are then sent to the Broker Phase.

The Opportunity Index in the ROBUST Process is calculated exactly the same as in the ROADMAP Process.  The only difference is that the organizations involved are external to one another.  For an understanding of how the Opportunity Index is calculated, please refer to discussion in the ROADMAP Process White Paper. 

Review Protocol
Any manager with access to the Review Phase can change the category selection of CPO, NCP or DOA for a given attribute (for their organization only).  This can create confusion without a Review Phase Protocol Agreement.  The following rules are suggested as a Review Protocol for how designations in the Review Phase may be changed by individual managers if a centralized database is used:

• If neither CPO nor NCP are selected, then it is okay to select either.
• If CPO is already selected, then do not change the setting and let the project go forward for discussion in the next phase.
• If NCP is already selected, then it is okay for a manager to change the designation to CPO if the manager believes there is a need.

The protocol shows preference for moving an opportunity to the Opportunity Phase for discussion with potential collaborators.  The point of developing roadmaps is to discover collaborative opportunities between organizations.  Collaboration removes constraints when discovering opportunities.  The protocol for discussion should favor collaboration.

Opportunity

Attributes selected by checking CPO or NCP in the Review Phase become discussions in the Opportunity Phase.  In an online format, the discussions take the form of forums that need very little facilitation.  In contrast, a moderator that serves as the intermediary between the organizations facilitates discussions conducted offline.  Regardless of how discussions are facilitated, a ranking of the discussions is helpful to focus efforts on the highest potential impact discussions.  The Collaborative Opportunity Index (COI) addresses this need.  Please refer to the ROADMAP Process White Paper for calculation of the COI. 
 

Discussion Requirements
The pre-defined discussion topics in ROBUST remain the same as in the ROADMAP Process.  Opportunity discussion steps to develop project ideas from attributes are as follow:

1. Discovery: Discuss the opportunities to find either a:
        - Match between another organization’s capability and your need
        - Match between common need (articulated as a project)
        - Match of a common capability to be further improved
2. Breakdown: Transform the opportunities into actual project proposals. One attribute can break into many project proposals at this point.  If more than one project proposal is to be created, then it is done through setting up another project, but all projects remain related to the attribute that spawned the projects.  The reason for maintaining each project’s association to the attribute is to facilitate updating the organization’s Attribute Score the next time the organization is assessed.
3. Leadership: Assign one manager from each organization to each project proposal.  Decide which manager will lead the project and where the project will be hosted.
4. Value: Estimate the value of the project to each participating organization and then discuss how it can be made beneficial to all through sharing the rewards.  Guidelines for sharing the rewards of collaborative projects were set in the DESIGN Process through the Engagement Charter.  The Guidelines were set early on to remove them as a point of contention later in this phase.
5. Hours:  A major input to the value estimation in the previous discussion should be the number of management hours required for the project.  A good estimate of management hours is needed because management hours are generally considered the key constraint (behind cost) in determining how many projects an organization can accept in a given period of time.
6. Dependencies: Identify the relationships between projects in terms of both resource constraints and standard predecessor-successor dependencies.  Some projects must be completed before others can begin, others can be started independently.  Dependencies must be available to create the Robust Roadmap in the Unite Phase.
7. Placeholders: Create a Placeholder Milestone if a predecessor dependency exists outside the scope of collaborative projects.  Placeholders may be used if a known predecessor project is occurring outside of the collaboration, or if a constraint exists that must be removed before the project can begin.  Placeholder information must be available to link the Collaborative Roadmap to the proprietary roadmap within the collaborative organizations. (Placeholder Milestones are added in Unite Phase).
8. Agree: The lead manager develops a Project Charter using all of the information from the discussion points above.  The Project Charter, which is currently still just a proposal, is available in the Agree Phase to all organizations that are participating in the project.  Then, if participants so choose, discussion continues in the Opportunity Phase to ensure participants are truly in agreement regarding the contents of the Project Charter.

Project Proposal
A project proposal may be set-up at any time during a discussion. By default, the project proposal is set-up by a manager in the organization that will provide the leadership.  As with ROADMAP, the Project Proposal is usually a two-page charter that summarizes information provided in the eight-point list from the discussion.  Proposed projects must move to the Broker Phase for negotiation and approval of the charter.

Project Value Index (PVI)
Both the ROADMAP and ROBUST Processes use the Project Value Index  (PVI) to estimate returns from collaborative projects.  Note that each organization calculates its own PVI for each project.  Independent calculations are needed because each organization must view and consider the project in light of that project’s value to their organization.  Value to the alliance can be factored into the PVI for each organization, but ultimately each organization fosters development of alliances for improving their organization’s competitive capability, not helping for the sake of helping.

When considering the PVI, the comparison of projects should include all projects available to the portfolio, not just those generated through the ROBUST Process.  The goal of organizations engaging in the ROBUST Process is to maximize the organization’s Robust Frontier.   Each project proposed must be accepted or rejected on its merits in comparison to all projects, including those resulting from the SCORE and ROADMAP Processes at the organization and enterprise levels.

Since the ROADMAP and ROBUST Processes are almost identical up to this point, readers are encouraged to refer to discussions in the ROADMAP Process White Paper to learn more about the Review and Opportunity Phases.

Broker

Brokering an agreement in the Broker Phase is the most challenging aspect of developing an Alliance Roadmap.  Essentially, what each organization undergoes in the Broker Phase is a negotiation.  A mediator (i.e. broker) may be used to help in the Broker Phase; however, use of a mediator should not be necessary if the guidelines for sharing the returns of the projects were outlined properly in the DESIGN Process.  That said --- a mediator may be useful to speed the Broker Phase so management time is minimized and the organizations involved can quickly start their Alliance Roadmaps.  The Roadmaps Institute™ can provide Roadmaps Institute™ Certified Masters who can serve as guides in the ROBUST Process and specifically Brokers for this critical phase.

Webster's dictionary defines negotiation broadly as "conferring, discussing, or bargaining to reach agreement in business transactions."   A negotiation implies both shared interests and issues of conflict.  The key issues in Broker Phase negotiations center on resource consumption of each organization and sharing the returns.   Negotiation is a process of planning, reviewing, and analyzing to reach acceptable agreements or compromises.

Collaborative Focus
Negotiations in the ROBUST Process should not result in a single winner or loser.  Successful ROBUST Process negotiations result in both sides winning. Popular usage calls this approach "win-win” negotiation. The "winnings," however, are rarely divided equally; invariably, one side gains more than the other side.  However, in the “long run” of multiple negotiations between the same principals, the “winnings” should balance.

Unlike traditional negotiations where only one contract or charter is in question, the ROBUST Process presents the probable situation that several collaborative projects may be under consideration by the same organizations.  Such situations can and should be leveraged as opportunities to share resources without having to rely on purely financial transactions.

Establishing trust is a key ingredient in effectively brokered agreements.  Activities that can facilitate the development of trust are presented in the following list.

• Agree on a common goal or shared vision
• Expand the pie (i.e. opportunities so greater gains can be shared)
• Use fairness criteria that everyone can buy into
• Capitalize on network connections
• Find a shared problem or shared adversary (perhaps another group of organizations in a competing alliance)
• Focus on the future (instead of the past)
• Use shared procedures 

In most cases, cross-functional teams representing each organization should conduct brokering agreements in the Broker Phase. These teams must be well coordinated in order to function as an integrated entity.  One person should represent each organization as the leader for the negotiation.  Usually this is the Project Lead for the organization that was assigned in the Opportunity Phase.  Please refer to the ROBUST Process White Paper for a complete discussion of negotiation in he Broker Phase.

Experience demonstrates that applying the above techniques to collaborative negotiations will result in win-win agreements and the basis of success for the long-term relationships desired as a by-product of the ROBUST Process.

Agreement Report
An Agreement Report is available to managers engaged in the ROBUST Process while negotiations are ongoing.  The Agreement Report provides a centralized document where each     organization can formally either accept or reject each project proposal.

Both “Collaborative” and “Not Collaborative” projects selected in the Opportunity Phase are transferred to the Agreement Report.  Projects that are “Not Collaborative” still need to be agreed upon internally to move on to the next phase, but the threshold to move on is certainly lower than with collaborative projects where two or more organizations must negotiate to move a project forward.

A snapshot of an Agreement Report view is provided in the next figure.  The view given is from the perspective of Alliance Organization 1.  The view is essentially the same as that in the ROADMAP Process.  Note that the center column shows “Project and Charter.”  The snapshot given is of an online Agreement Report where each project shown has a hyperlink to the project’s proposal or charter.

Template for Agreeing on Projects

Managers from Organization 1 can methodically go through the list and change the red stoplight icon to yellow or green to indicate that they have approved or agreed to the contents of the project charter or proposal for each project listed.  Other organizations that have access to the project proposal will do the same with their views.  Once Organization 1 has changed a project to a green and one or more of the other organizations has changed the same project to a green, then the project is approved to move forward to the Unite Phase.

The next figure presents a continuation of the previous figure.  In this figure, Organization 1 has reviewed the project charters and approved all of the projects listed.  One or more of the organizations that collaborated in the Opportunity and Broker Phases to develop the project charters have approved six of the projects.  We can see the approvals for projects 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, by looking at the green circles for Organizations 2 – 5.

Template for Agreeing on Projects, Completed View

Projects 3 and 6 have requests to return to the discussion and revise the charter.  The request to revise a project will not stop Project 6 from moving forward to the Unite Phase since at least one organization (in this case three have done so) has already agreed to the charter with Organization 1.

Organization 3 thus far rejects the two projects shown with red circles in the figure.  There are many possible reasons for the rejection.  For example, Organization 3 may have not yet reviewed the charters (or proposals).  If Organization 1 really wants the rejected projects to be approved, then a manager from Organization 1 should contact the manager that represented Organization 3 in the discussion of the project in the Opportunity Phase.  Projects agreed upon in the Broker Phase are transferred to the Unite Phase.

Unite

In the Unite Phase, project proposals that have been set-up in charters and approved in the Broker Phase are now loaded into two locations.  The first is each organization’s Project Portfolio Management (PPM) system where collaborative projects integrate with each organization’s Not Collaborative Projects.   The second location is a neutral location to house the Alliance Roadmap.

The neutral location is where dependency relationships, resources allocated, project durations and other data needed to develop, maintain and update the Collaborative Roadmap can be input. (The term Collaborative Roadmap is used here as a more generic term for Alliance Roadmap and Robust Roadmap™.)  There are essentially two choices to have a functioning centralized Collaborative Roadmap system as described.

1. The first is a system where projects in the Collaborative Roadmaps are electronically linked to projects in the proprietary systems of each organization. Such a system requires a large investment in information technology systems and infallible firewall protections.
2. The other alternative is to set up a centralized location to temporarily house the projects so roadmaps can be jointly developed.  Linkages to the PPM systems of the participating organizations are modeled, but they are manually managed using Placeholder Milestones (see the description in the Milestone Phase of the ROADMAP Process).

Projects are loaded for each organization as either Collaborative Projects or Not Collaborative Projects.  Within the two categories, the projects may be subcategorized by the step chart and attribute from which the projects originated.  The reason for this is that the likelihood of a dependency between two projects is higher if both came derived by attributes in the same chart.  Beyond the information on the organizations involved and value estimation, only the most fundamental information is loaded for each project into Collaborative Roadmap projects.  Details should be managed within each organization’s own proprietary systems.

Placeholder Milestones handle proprietary data in projects that are immediate predecessors of collaborative projects. As discussed in the ROADMAP Process White Paper, Placeholder Milestones alleviate concerns about sharing information between organizations.  Placeholder Milestones work very well in protecting privacy regarding internal programs by revealing only information required for the proper sequencing of projects.

Stabilize

Prior to the Stabilize Phase, approved projects have been added to the Alliance Roadmap.  In addition, Organization Roadmaps and Enterprise Roadmaps have been formally linked with the Alliance Roadmap.  The linkages between the Organization, Enterprise and Alliance Roadmaps may be direct links or managed through Placeholder Milestones.  The composition of all three roadmaps forms what is called a Robust Roadmap™.

At this point, the Robust Roadmap™ is unstable due to the complexity of combined resources, collaborative leadership, merged technologies, information system incompatibilities and other uncertainties.  Management teams working on the projects must continue to collaborate to ensure that the Robust Roadmaps™ are executed to target durations, costs and goals.

Track

In the Track Phase, Alliance Roadmaps are placed under the direction of the Roadmaps Council.  The Roadmaps Council is composed of at least one upper management representative from each of the organizations in the alliance.  It is the responsibility of this group to ensure that projects in the roadmaps are kept on track to ensure target parameters, such as deadlines and budgets, are met.