Derive
Program
Goals
from
the
Value
Loop
Analysis


Finally, the results from the value loop analysis can be used to derive high-level goals and requirements for the program. Program goals can be derived from the highest-scoring value loops in the model. The program goal should address the output from the Enterprise as well as the subsequent value flows created by the output, which represent the intent of the Enterprise’s output. Figure 113 shows an example of top-scoring value loops that begin with NASA’s output of space- acquired data to Scientists. The template shown in Figure 119 can be used to structure the program goals. These value loops yield the following program goal:

• NASA shall produce Earth science data of interest to the scientific community with the

intent of:

o Fulfilling NASA’s science program objectives

o Fulfilling the recommendations of Science & Technology Advisory Bodies o Providing the Government with policy-relevant science knowledge

o Providing Educators with inspirational science content to promote student interest in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics careers

Using this approach produces specific program goals that address the actual ways in which the Enterprise’s outputs deliver the highest value to the stakeholder network and ultimately return value back to the Enterprise. Program goals should be prioritized based on the degree to which the

corresponding output helps the Enterprise derive the inputs it needs. The goal statements can often be separated into goals that influence what the Enterprise does and how it does business.

The information from the qualitative stakeholder model and the value loop analysis can also be used to provide insights and suggest recommendations for the project. The following are common insights yielded from the value loop analysis:

• Identification of the most important stakeholders to the project

• Identification of the most important value flows within the stakeholder network • Identification of the most important value loops produced by the project’s outputs • Identification of each stakeholder’s most valuable contributions to the project • Identification of potential “weak links” in the value loops

• Prioritization of the project’s outputs

After developing the program goals, metrics should be identified for measuring the progress towards achieving the goals. Each metric should have a target value so that an unambiguous assessment of progress can be made. Finally, the list of program goals should satisfy the following criteria:

• Representative: A representative goal is one that ensures that value will be delivered to meet the stakeholders’ needs. Metrics flow from goals and help ensure success of the project.

• Complete: The list of goals should be checked for completeness to ensure that all the relevant needs of the Enterprise and other stakeholders have been captured or rationally excluded.

• Consistent: The list of goals should be checked to ensure that none of the performance goals are internally contradictory.

• Attainable: All program goals should attainable with the project’s allocated resources • Humanly solvable: The goals of the program should be humanly solvable; that is, goals

should be as clear and concise as possible. They should be written in solution-neutral form and stated using functional goals rather than suggesting particular solutions. Program goals should support all problem-solving strategies that may be needed, including: allowing for multiple users; allowing the shedding of mental workload by shifting strategies during problem solving; and accommodating of different problem-solving styles.

6.12 Conclusion


This handbook describes a sophisticated technique for performing a rigorous stakeholder analysis that transforms stakeholder needs into program goals and requirements. By creating a rigorous qualitative and quantitative stakeholder model, a value loop analysis can be conducted

that yields useful insights and recommendations for the project. The methods presented in this handbook are sufficiently general to apply to nearly any Enterprise and any project involving numerous stakeholders. Using these techniques to derive program goals will help ensure a successful project that satisfies stakeholders’ needs, delivers value to the entire stakeholder network, and returns maximum value to the Enterprise.

Figures:

Figure 102. Template for articulating the role, specific objectives, needs, and value flow inputs of each stakeholder. The template enables easy and direct traceability of stakeholder inputs to the satisfaction of specific needs and objectives. This template has been populated with information

for the Scientists stakeholder group in the NASA satellite Earth Observations Program.

Figure 103. Baseline stakeholder map for NASA’s satellite Earth observations program, showing the 13 stakeholders arranged according to their function in the network. The upper left quadrant

contains policy makers and funding providers; the upper right quadrant contains data providers; the lower right quadrant contains data users; and the lower left quadrant contains the public,

Figure 104. Higher-level, or “one-up,” stakeholder map for NASA’s satellite Earth observations program. This map shows the four main classes of stakeholders and the general clockwise flow of value through the network. Analyzing the stakeholder model at this level would capture too little

information to provide useful results. However, the map illustrates the higher-level context within which the Earth Observations Program operates.

Figure 105. More detailed, or “one-down,” map for NASA’s satellite Earth observations program. This map illustrates the aggregation and hierarchy inside some of the stakeholders in Figure 103.

This map helps provides a better understanding of the inner workings of the stakeholder network. Analyzing the stakeholder model at this level would result in too many value flows and

Figure 106. Complete stakeholder value flow map for the NASA Earth Observations Program, containing 13 stakeholders and 190 value flows. The value flows are grouped into five categories: policy/opinion, monetary, knowledge/information, goods & services, and public

Figure 107. Five types of value flows:

(Top left) Policy & opinion; (Top right) Monetary; (Center left) Knowledge & information; (Center right) Goods & services; (Bottom) Public benefits

Figure 108. Scales for measuring the attributes of each value flow. A five-point scale seems to work best for evaluating value flow attributes. Using an alphabetic scale for one attribute and a numeric scale for the other helps prevent the scorer from confusing the two attributes during the

scoring process.

Figure 109. Coupled (top) and uncoupled (bottom) responses to value flow scoring questionnaires. If the satisfaction/regret and source importance scores are assigned simultaneously, the scorer tends to couple the two responses together, as indicated in the top figure. Equally valid, however, are uncoupled scores, indicated in the bottom figure. Coupled responses produce less variation among the value flow scores, which removes some of the useful

texture in the final results of the value network analysis. Scales for Measuring Attributes of Value Flows

How would you characterize the presence/absence of fulfillment of this need?

A. I would be satisfied by its presence, but I would not regret its absence

B. I would be satisfied by its presence, and I would somewhat regret its absence C. I would be satisfied by its presence, and I would regret its absence

D. Its presence is necessary, and I would regret its absence

E. Its presence is absolutely essential, and I would regret its absence

If this need were to be fulfilled, how important would this source be in fulfilling the need?

1. Not important – I do not need this source to fulfill this need

2. Somewhat important – It is acceptable that this source fulfills this need 3. Important – It is desirable that this source fulfills this need

4. Very important – It is strongly desirable that this source fulfills this need 5. Extremely important – It is indispensible that this source fulfills this need

Satisfaction/Regret score translation Source importance score translation A 0.11 1 0.11 B 0.19 2 0.33 C 0.33 3 0.55 D 0.57 4 0.78 E 0.98 5 0.98

Figure 110. Conversions for translating attribute responses into numeric scores for the NASA Earth Observations Program value flows. The satisfaction/regret scores use a ratio, or log, scale

to increase the relative importance of “absolutely essential” needs (choice E) over less-critical needs (choice D or lower). The source importance scores are based on a linear scale.

Satisfaction/Regret Score A = 0.11 0.19 B = 0.33 C = 0.57 D = 0.98 E = 1 = 0. 11 _{0.01 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.11} 2 = 0. 33 _{0.04 0.06 0.11 0.19 0.32} 3 = 0. 55 _{0.06 0.10 0.18 0.31 0.54} 4 = 0. 78 0.09 0.15 0.26 0.44 0.76 So ur ce Im po rt an ce S co re 5 = 0. 98 _{0.11 0.19 0.32 0.56 0.96}

Figure 111. Matrix for calculating value flow scores based on attribute scores. The value flow scores are obtained by multiplying the two attribute scores together.

Figure 112. Calculating value loop scores by multiplying the scores of the individual flows comprising each value loop. This example shows a value loop containing five value flows.

Figure 113. Example of high-scoring value loops for NASA satellite Earth Observations Program

Figure 114. Weighted stakeholder occurrence, showing the most important stakeholders for the NASA Earth Observations Program. The weighted occurrence score is calculated as the sum of all value loops containing the stakeholder, normalized by the sum of all value loops in the model.

Figure 115. Weighted value flow occurrence, showing the most important value flows in the stakeholder network. The weighted occurrence score is calculated as the sum of all value loops

Figure 116. Weighted output occurrence, showing the most important outputs from the Enterprise. The weighted output occurrence is calculated as the sum of all value loops beginning

with the particular output of the Enterprise.

Figure 117. Weighted input occurrence, showing the most “affectable” inputs to the Enterprise. The weighted input occurrence is calculated as the sum of all value loops ending with the

Figure 118. Simplified stakeholder value flow map for the NASA Earth Observations Program. This stakeholder map includes 13 stakeholders and the 30 most important value flows. The stakeholders have been grouped into four first-tier stakeholders (solid boxes), five second-tier stakeholders (dashed boxes), and four third-tier stakeholders (grey boxes). The thickness of the

Figure 119. Template for translating value loops into high-level program requirements. Program goals can be derived from the highest-scoring value loops in the model as well as the most important outputs from the Enterprise. The program goal for this set of value loops is as follows:

Goal: NASA shall provide space-acquired data of interest to the Scientific Community, as well as funding and access to its space systems with the intent of:

• Generating Earth science knowledge consistent with NASA’s science program

objectives

• Fulfilling the recommendations of relevant Science & Technology Advisory Bodies • Providing the Government with policy-relevant science knowledge

• Providing Educators with inspirational science content to promote student interest in