Draft:DAWM Methodology Workshop
Submission declined on 17 August 2024 by Greenman (talk). This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.
Where to get help
How to improve a draft
You can also browse Wikipedia:Featured articles and Wikipedia:Good articles to find examples of Wikipedia's best writing on topics similar to your proposed article. Improving your odds of a speedy review To improve your odds of a faster review, tag your draft with relevant WikiProject tags using the button below. This will let reviewers know a new draft has been submitted in their area of interest. For instance, if you wrote about a female astronomer, you would want to add the Biography, Astronomy, and Women scientists tags. Editor resources
| ![]() |
Submission declined on 7 August 2024 by CFA (talk). This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject. Declined by CFA 27 days ago. | ![]() |
Integrated Deliverable Approach Workshop Methodology with Idea Evaluation
Facilitated workshops are a recognised method for developing growth strategies. These workshops are frequently employed as part of scenario planning or future growth strategies.[1] Their objectives include providing insights into future scenarios, encouraging strategic planning, promoting growth opportunities, enhancing team collaboration, improving skills and understanding, sharing research findings, and addressing conflicts.[2] A major challenge for enterprises and startups is the lack of stakeholder engagement. Workshops are an approach to mitigating this issue by creating a collaborative process for engaging stakeholders during growth phases.[3]
The Deliverable Approach Workshop Methodology (DAWM) provides a structured framework for organising business processes. It is designed to guide teams through complex situations by promoting collaboration—reaching for a shared vision. In any dynamic business environment.
Workshop Overview?
DAWM Workshops are collaborative meetings involving technical staff, stakeholders, and management, concentrating on tasks related to business growth, project management, planning, requirement specification, and user experience design. The role of the facilitator is crucial in these settings, as they guide communication and collaboration among participants, thereby enhancing the overall productivity and effectiveness of the workshop.
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ac/Three_cycles_from_DAWM_Methodology.png/220px-Three_cycles_from_DAWM_Methodology.png)
Success of Facilitated Workshops
The DAWM workshop methodology consists of three distinct cycles, each playing a unique role in business strategy.[4]
1. "What it is?": Addressing current circumstances.
2. "What it might be?": Exploring potential future scenarios.
3. "Strategy": Focussing on the overall corporate approach and risk management.
DAWM Workshops
The Deliverable Approach Workshop Methodology (DAWM) is a structured format for workshops that integrates both qualitative and quantitative methods, typically accommodates up to twelve participants, including one facilitator and an assistant.[5]
The DAWM workshop utilises the BRIDGE and CRUX approaches to support verbal presentation with a one-page handout and a forum for questions. [6] The facilitator allocates time for participants to share their thoughts and suggestions, prompts passive attendees, and disseminates key points to colleagues. Following the workshop, the facilitator instructs the group to document additional input in a survey report and utilises the box-to-box methodology for analysis.[5]
Workshop Crux Analysis Approach
The Crux methodology is a structured framework to ensure that the most critical issues are central to strategic decision-making. A systematic approach to identifying, prioritising, and addressing challenges is essential for navigating the complexities of modern business environments.[7] By involving all stakeholders and methodically breaking down and prioritising challenges by importance, companies can develop more effective strategies that align with their core values and long-term goals.[8] The implementation of the Crux methodology is analysed in seven steps, which will be detailed in the following paragraphs. The accompanying graph provides the Entroopia templates for Crux business cases.[9]
1. Identifying Challenges: Gathering input from stakeholders to list challenges.
2. Decomposing Challenges: Breaking down challenges into manageable components.
3. Clustering Related Challenges: Group related challenges to identify common themes.
4. Filtering Challenges: Eliminating less critical issues.
5. Prioritising Challenges: Sequencing challenges based on importance and urgency.
6. Rating the Importance of Challenges: Assessing the potential impact of each challenge.
7. Identifying Crux Challenges: Focusing on significant, difficult-to-solve challenges.
CRUX Results for Deliverables
Implementing this structured approach enables companies to transform various challenges into a prioritized list of actionable items. By focussing on the most critical issues—those representing significant threats or opportunities—organizations can better align their strategic initiatives. This methodology ensures that immediate concerns are promptly addressed while also supporting long-term strategic objectives.[10]
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0a/Crux_ideation.png/880px-Crux_ideation.png)
Evaluation Key
MCDA Processing
Businesses increasingly prioritise evaluation to manage resources efficiently and make timely decisions. The Consensual Assessment Technique (CAT)[11] is employed for assessing product creativity, despite potential challenges related to time and subjectivity. Contextualization aids in concept selection during creative workshops through Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA), assisting decision-makers in finding optimal compromises where no single perfect solution exists.[12]
The evaluation process involves defining the context, assessing ideas, processing with MCDA, and debating outcomes, addressing various contextual aspects and criteria such as originality and feasibility. Successful ideas must meet criteria such as applicability, value, feasibility, and innovation, which are selected or customised by decision-makers.[13]
Various approaches to weight elicitation ensure balanced evaluations. These methods include individual assessment, expertise-based criteria assessment, and consensus evaluation.[14]
These methods facilitate comprehensive idea assessment through individual, aggregated, or consensus-based evaluations, culminating in prioritised action on urgent challenges and organised clustering of issues. Initial stakeholder input is crucial for comprehensively identifying and addressing organisational challenges.[14]
Similar to existing systems designed to assist in decision-making based on multiple criteria, we consider a collection of m alternatives that need to be ranked, and a set of n criteria to be optimised. The outcome of the multi-criteria decision problem can be represented as a decision matrix where each element indicates the assessment or value of the alternative ai according to the criterion . [15] The approach is succinctly described as follows:
Each criterion is used to evaluate alternatives by comparing them pairwise. The preference is expressed as a numerical value on a scale from 0 to 1, where 0 denotes no preference or indifference and 1 indicates a strong preference.[15]
The decision-maker determines the generalised criterion, which quantifies the difference in performance or preference. represents a generalised preference function where:
- A weighting vector quantifies the relative significance of each condition:
- The preference relation π for all the alternatives is given by:
- To calculate the uni-criterion flows, we analyze the valued outranking graph and determine the flow leaving each node α, as described by:
- And the flow that is coming in is:
- Calculation of business flow:
Integrating MCDA with DAWM
The Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) approach aims to recommend outcomes that closely align with the expectations of the decision-maker[12]. These results are derived through deductive reasoning and mathematical computations using a template matrix intended for consultation purposes.[13]
The ultimate responsibility for deciding which ideas and activities to pursue lies with the individual tasked with making the decision.[13] The outcomes serve as a foundation for integrated discussions within the Deliverable Approach Workshop Methodology (DAWM) among decision-makers, specialists, and stakeholders during the implementation phase. This approach facilitates a balanced integration of intellectual processes and instinctual decision-making, taking into account validated considerations of business risks and competitors.[12]
The table below presents a study of the risk matrix for a startup. The company's risk management department can adjust the ratings in the matrix to ensure they align with the organization's overall structure and strategic objectives. This adaptability allows for a tailored approach to risk management, addressing the specific needs and priorities of the startup.[16]
Rating | Probability | Impact scale |
---|---|---|
0.2 | Low | No real impact |
0.4 | Medium | Smal to medium reduction cost or time |
0.6 | Medium-High | Medium to large reduction the cost or time |
0.8 | High | Unacceptable over budget or behind schedule <20% |
1 | Fact | Unacceptable over budget or behind schedule ≥20% |
- Insert risk impact weight in the MCDA:
- Performed the DAWM:
- The Deliverable Approach Workshop Methodology (DAWM) has been finalized by incorporating competitor analyses using a matrix approach that ranges from low to high, or 0% to 100%.
- In this context, the alternative with the highest score is preferred, irrespective of minor differences between alternatives.
- Rankings were determined by sequentially evaluating ideas proposed by each participant group and calculating averages to ascertain net flows.
- Subsequently, rankings were established by computing combined scores based on specified preferences and weights, resulting in overall flows.
- Business growth is associated with risk reduction and the avoidance of less critical areas of growth.
Deliverables and Goals
In developing the Deliverable Approach Workshop Methodology (DAWM) workshop, the goals were continually refined throughout the project. Through engagement in workshops and thoughtful reflection on participant interactions, the key objectives were established:[17]
- Express a wide range of values: The workshop aims to uncover diverse values, address ethical considerations, and foster a nuanced growth environment. It recognises the influence of personal experiences on values, thus emphasizing the importance of a diverse participant group with varied life experiences and expertise levels.
- Engage team spirit: One of the primary goals involves facilitating workflow activities that enable participants to express their values derived from personal experiences, thereby enhancing overall business value.
- Navigate conflicting values: Participants are encouraged to collaboratively address value tensions beyond surface-level recognition. This approach supports decision-making on conflicting values and design trade-offs, considering power dynamics to ensure equitable participation.
- Utilise hidden resources: Utilize hidden resources**: Optimization efforts aim to uncover underutilized company resources. Participants contribute novel ideas and insights that may not typically surface in daily operations, potentially increasing productivity without additional investments.
- Stakeholder engagement: The workshop's stakeholder identification process focuses on ownership, knowledge, rights, and contributions, all integral to the company's strategic growth.
- Minimise specialist involvement: Facilitation in strategic workshops prioritizes creating an inclusive environment over extensive facilitator expertise. This approach aims to democratise workshop participation and applicability across diverse settings, supporting startups by leveraging existing team strengths and bridging knowledge gaps.
References
- ^ Hodgkinson, Gerard P.; Whittington, Richard; Johnson, Gerry; Schwarz, Mirela (October 2006). "The Role of Strategy Workshops in Strategy Development Processes: Formality, Communication, Co-ordination and Inclusion". Long Range Planning. 39 (5): 479–496. doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2006.07.003.
- ^ Gandrita, Daniel Mandel (2023-09-22). "Improving Strategic Planning: The Crucial Role of Enhancing Relationships between Management Levels". Administrative Sciences. 13 (10): 211. doi:10.3390/admsci13100211. ISSN 2076-3387.
- ^ "Stakeholder Engagement: A Road Map to Meaningful Engagement" (PDF). July 2009.
- ^ Schalken, J. (2004). "Assessing the effects of facilitated workshops in requirements engineering". "8th Internation Conference on Empirical Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE 2004)" Workshop - 26th International Conference on Software Engineering. Vol. 2004. IEE. pp. 135–143. doi:10.1049/ic:20040406. ISBN 978-0-86341-435-0.
- ^ a b Marriott, Brigid R.; Rodriguez, Allison L.; Landes, Sara J.; Lewis, Cara C.; Comtois, Katherine A. (December 2015). "A methodology for enhancing implementation science proposals: comparison of face-to-face versus virtual workshops". Implementation Science. 11 (1): 62. doi:10.1186/s13012-016-0429-z. ISSN 1748-5908. PMC 4859972. PMID 27154000.
- ^ Faggion Jr, Clovis Mariano (2023-09-22). "The need for clear criteria for the selection of participants in scientific workshops". British Dental Journal. 235 (6): 379–382. doi:10.1038/s41415-023-6325-4. ISSN 0007-0610. PMID 37737403.
- ^ Govier, Eloise (December 2020). "Power and all its guises. Environmental determinism and locating 'the crux of the matter'". Archaeological Dialogues. 27 (2): 173–176. doi:10.1017/S1380203820000215. ISSN 1380-2038.
- ^ MacDonald, Erin Faith; Gonzalez, Richard; Papalambros, Panos (December 2009). "The construction of preferences for crux and sentinel product attributes". Journal of Engineering Design. 20 (6): 609–626. doi:10.1080/09544820802132428. ISSN 0954-4828.
- ^ Rekatsinas, Theodoros; Deshpande, Amol; Parameswaran, Aditya (2019-11-03). "CRUX: Adaptive Querying for Efficient Crowdsourced Data Extraction". Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. ACM. pp. 841–850. doi:10.1145/3357384.3357976. ISBN 978-1-4503-6976-3.
- ^ Dikert, Kim; Paasivaara, Maria; Lassenius, Casper (September 2016). "Challenges and success factors for large-scale agile transformations: A systematic literature review". Journal of Systems and Software. 119: 87–108. doi:10.1016/j.jss.2016.06.013.
- ^ Baer, John (2017-01-01), Karwowski, Maciej; Kaufman, James C. (eds.), "Chapter 14 - Why You are Probably More Creative (and Less Creative) Than You Think", The Creative Self, Explorations in Creativity Research, San Diego: Academic Press, pp. 259–273, doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-809790-8.00014-5, ISBN 978-0-12-809790-8, retrieved 2024-06-27
- ^ a b c Shaw, D (July 2003). "Evaluating electronic workshops through analysing the 'brainstormed' ideas". Journal of the Operational Research Society. 54 (7): 692–705. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jors.2601568. ISSN 0160-5682.
- ^ a b c Shaw, D (July 2006). "Journey Making group workshops as a research tool". Journal of the Operational Research Society. 57 (7): 830–841. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602155. ISSN 0160-5682.
- ^ a b Schulte, Jesko; Hallstedt, Sophie I. (2018). "Workshop Method for Early Sustainable Product Development". Proceedings of the DESIGN 2018 15th International Design Conference. Vol. 15. pp. 2751–2762. doi:10.21278/idc.2018.0209. ISBN 978-953-7738-59-4.
- ^ a b Gabriel, A.; Camargo, M.; Monticolo, D.; Boly, V.; Bourgault, M. (November 2016). "Improving the idea selection process in creative workshops through contextualisation". Journal of Cleaner Production. 135: 1503–1513. Bibcode:2016JCPro.135.1503G. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.039.
- ^ "Risk Assessment Matrix: Overview and Guide". AuditBoard. Retrieved 2024-08-08.
- ^ Haghighi, Nava; Jörke, Matthew; Mohsen, Yousif; Cuadra, Andrea; Landay, James A. (2023-07-10). A Workshop-Based Method for Navigating Value Tensions in Collectively Speculated Worlds. ACM. pp. 1676–1692. doi:10.1145/3563657.3595992. ISBN 978-1-4503-9893-0.