11 Case study DJI
11.5 Evaluation and conclusions
In this chapter, we discussed a real world case study involving the use of the GEA method. In an evaluation session, the participants in the workshop shared what they found positive about the GEA approach, and what could be improved.
Positive aspects:
with the DJI-framework, and the right people involved, it only took one day to achieve remarkable results. It even produced quick wins that could lead to short term improvements.
the most relevant guiding statements were quickly addressed, while also offering guidance during the elaboration of the business issue at hand. the insights and sub-solutions were identified swiftly using the coherence
framework.
the GEA approach stimulates considerations about impacts and ap- proaches, while not forcing/inviting thinking in terms of specific solutions too early.
the DJI framework is a good testing framework, it provides immediately useful results. The discussions aid in making the framework come to ‘life’. a separate project with all the additional costs was avoided because the
GEA method was used. What could be improved:
relevant relationships were not explicitly named. Having these available would have made it easier to detect the full impact on the perspectives. in future more input is needed from the line organization. In the current
situation, DJI’s, GEA based, coherence framework was too much the in- strument of corporate staff.
because of scheduling problems it was not possible to involve all the repre- sentatives of the perspectives on a single day. To complete a comprehen- sive picture, this is additionally required, and should bring further, impor- tant, new insights and recommendations.
At the end of the synthesis process the members of the core team of the research programme for this thesis evaluated the GEA approach based on the criteria as set up in chapter 3.2.3 Design data collection protocol for level 1 and level 2. See Ta- ble 39.
The overall conclusion of this evaluation led to the following insight: the required documents at the level the purpose were not easy to obtain and setting up the ECF was a lengthy and time-consuming task, but after creating the ECF the representa- tives of the perspectives were perfectly capable of performing the analysis proc- esses. The long time it took to set up the ECF was mainly a result of the culture of
DJI, every detail and every decision had to be discussed and decided by the full group. In addition, not all the necessary representatives of the perspectives could participate in the analyses due to scheduling problems. This aspect in particular, explained most of the average scores for the questions.
Evaluation of the GEA approach at DJI Levels of
questions Nr. Question High Average Score Low Remarks
Level 1 1 Are the guiding statements valid and up to date? *
2 Do the representatives of the perspectives agree
with the identified perspectives, the identified core concepts within it and the related guiding statements?
*
3 Do the causes, triggers, sub problems, risks,
implications, et cetera of the business issue lead to change initiatives?
*
4 Do the (existing) guiding statements result in
additional change initiatives or restrictions, the solution space?
*
Level 2 1 Are the documents at the level of purpose
present and accessible? *
2 Does the definition of the level or purpose
result in a clear understanding of the sense of purpose and design of the enterprise? Do we get all the desired cohesive elements of GEA?
*
3 Is one capable of identifying, and engaging, the
right representatives for each of the perspec- tives? This engagement should cover both the identification and validation of the cohesive GEA elements (ECF), and the GEA analysis processes to solve the business issue.
*
4 Are the representatives of the perspectives able
to validate the ECF? *
5 Are the representatives of the perspectives,
using the validated ECF, able to execute the analysis processes to solve major business issues?
*
6 Does the development of the ECF lead to
increase coherence? *
7 Does the use of GEA lead to an integral solu-
tion that contributes to the coherence of the enterprise?
*
8 Is the enterprise able to, independently, specify
a business issue that can serve as input to a GEA based analysis?
*
9 Did the owners of the business issue succeed in
specifying the business issue in such a way that the representatives of the prospects could perform the complete GEA analysis and de- velop an integral solution?
*
156
11.5 Evaluation and conclusions
In this chapter, we discussed a real world case study involving the use of the GEA method. In an evaluation session, the participants in the workshop shared what they found positive about the GEA approach, and what could be improved.
Positive aspects:
with the DJI-framework, and the right people involved, it only took one day to achieve remarkable results. It even produced quick wins that could lead to short term improvements.
the most relevant guiding statements were quickly addressed, while also offering guidance during the elaboration of the business issue at hand. the insights and sub-solutions were identified swiftly using the coherence
framework.
the GEA approach stimulates considerations about impacts and ap- proaches, while not forcing/inviting thinking in terms of specific solutions too early.
the DJI framework is a good testing framework, it provides immediately useful results. The discussions aid in making the framework come to ‘life’. a separate project with all the additional costs was avoided because the
GEA method was used. What could be improved:
relevant relationships were not explicitly named. Having these available would have made it easier to detect the full impact on the perspectives. in future more input is needed from the line organization. In the current
situation, DJI’s, GEA based, coherence framework was too much the in- strument of corporate staff.
because of scheduling problems it was not possible to involve all the repre- sentatives of the perspectives on a single day. To complete a comprehen- sive picture, this is additionally required, and should bring further, impor- tant, new insights and recommendations.
At the end of the synthesis process the members of the core team of the research programme for this thesis evaluated the GEA approach based on the criteria as set up in chapter 3.2.3 Design data collection protocol for level 1 and level 2. See Ta- ble 39.
The overall conclusion of this evaluation led to the following insight: the required documents at the level the purpose were not easy to obtain and setting up the ECF was a lengthy and time-consuming task, but after creating the ECF the representa- tives of the perspectives were perfectly capable of performing the analysis proc- esses. The long time it took to set up the ECF was mainly a result of the culture of
157 DJI, every detail and every decision had to be discussed and decided by the full group. In addition, not all the necessary representatives of the perspectives could participate in the analyses due to scheduling problems. This aspect in particular, explained most of the average scores for the questions.
Evaluation of the GEA approach at DJI Levels of
questions Nr. Question High Average Score Low Remarks
Level 1 1 Are the guiding statements valid and up to date? *
2 Do the representatives of the perspectives agree
with the identified perspectives, the identified core concepts within it and the related guiding statements?
*
3 Do the causes, triggers, sub problems, risks,
implications, et cetera of the business issue lead to change initiatives?
*
4 Do the (existing) guiding statements result in
additional change initiatives or restrictions, the solution space?
*
Level 2 1 Are the documents at the level of purpose
present and accessible? *
2 Does the definition of the level or purpose
result in a clear understanding of the sense of purpose and design of the enterprise? Do we get all the desired cohesive elements of GEA?
*
3 Is one capable of identifying, and engaging, the
right representatives for each of the perspec- tives? This engagement should cover both the identification and validation of the cohesive GEA elements (ECF), and the GEA analysis processes to solve the business issue.
*
4 Are the representatives of the perspectives able
to validate the ECF? *
5 Are the representatives of the perspectives,
using the validated ECF, able to execute the analysis processes to solve major business issues?
*
6 Does the development of the ECF lead to
increase coherence? *
7 Does the use of GEA lead to an integral solu-
tion that contributes to the coherence of the enterprise?
*
8 Is the enterprise able to, independently, specify
a business issue that can serve as input to a GEA based analysis?
*
9 Did the owners of the business issue succeed in
specifying the business issue in such a way that the representatives of the prospects could perform the complete GEA analysis and de- velop an integral solution?
*
Table 39. Evaluation of the GEA approach DJI level 1 and level 2 questions
We were not involved in the follow up of this case, however immediately follow- ing this case the recommendations led to the start of an improvement project for the architecture function at DJI.
11.6 Experiences and insights for improving GEA