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. If you would like to continue working on the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window. If you have not resolved the issues listed above, your draft will be declined again and potentially deleted. If you need extra help, please ask us a question at the AfC Help Desk or get live help from experienced editors. Please do not remove reviewer comments or this notice until the submission is accepted. Where to get help If you need help editing or submitting your draft, please ask us a question at the AfC Help Desk or get live help from experienced editors. These venues are only for help with editing and the submission process, not to get reviews. If you need feedback on your draft, or if the review is taking a lot of time, you can try asking for help on the talk page of a relevant WikiProject. Some WikiProjects are more active than others so a speedy reply is not guaranteed. How to improve a draft Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia – a basic overview on how to edit Wikipedia. Help:Wikitext – how to use the markup Help:Referencing for beginners – how to include references Wikipedia:Article development – how to develop your article Wikipedia:Writing better articles – how to improve your article Wikipedia:Verifiability – make sure your article includes reliable third-party sources 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. Add tags to your draft Editor resources Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Easy tools: Citation bot (help) | Advanced: Fix bare URLs Declined by Greenman 17 days ago. Last edited by Nazmi Katsani 2 days ago. Reviewer: Inform author. Resubmit Please note that if the issues are not fixed, the draft will be declined again.

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: in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject) reliable secondary independent of the subject Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia. 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.

• Comment: See WP:COI. Greenman (talk) 08:43, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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]

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${\displaystyle A=\{a_{1}\ldots a_{m}\}}$ of m alternatives that need to be ranked, and a set ${\displaystyle F=\{f_{1}\ldots f_{n}\}}$of n criteria to be optimised. The outcome of the multi-criteria decision problem can be represented as a decision matrix ${\displaystyle (m\times n)}$ where each element indicates the assessment or value of the alternative ai according to the criterion ${\displaystyle f_{j}}$. ^[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. ${\displaystyle f_{j}}$ represents a generalised preference function ${\displaystyle P_{j}(d)}$ where: ${\displaystyle d=\{f_{j}(a_{i})-f_{j}(a_{k})\}}$

• A weighting vector quantifies the relative significance of each condition:

${\displaystyle W=\{W_{1}\ldots W_{2}\}}$

• The preference relation π for all the alternatives is given by:

${\displaystyle \pi ={\begin{cases}&\mathrm {A} \times \mathrm {A} \rightarrow [0,1]\\\pi (a_{i},a_{k})&\textstyle \sum _{j=1}^{n}W_{j}P_{j}[f_{j}(a_{i})-f_{j}(a_{k})]\displaystyle \end{cases}}}$

• To calculate the uni-criterion flows, we analyze the valued outranking graph and determine the flow leaving each node α, as described by:

${\displaystyle \phi ^{+}(a_{i})={\tfrac {1}{n}}\textstyle \sum _{i=({\mathit {\neq \mathrm {K} }})}^{n}\displaystyle \pi (a_{i},a_{k})}$

• And the flow that is coming in is:

${\displaystyle \phi ^{-}(a_{i})={\tfrac {1}{n}}\textstyle \sum _{i=({\mathit {\neq \mathrm {K} }})}^{n}\displaystyle \pi (a_{i},a_{k})}$

• Calculation of business flow:

${\displaystyle \phi (a_{i})=\phi ^{+}(a_{i})-\phi ^{-}(a_{i})}$

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]

• Insert risk impact weight in the MCDA:

${\displaystyle R(a_{i})=\phi (a_{i})*r}$

• Performed the DAWM:
  1. 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%.
  2. In this context, the alternative with the highest score is preferred, irrespective of minor differences between alternatives.
  3. Rankings were determined by sequentially evaluating ideas proposed by each participant group and calculating averages to ascertain net flows.
  4. Subsequently, rankings were established by computing combined scores based on specified preferences and weights, resulting in overall flows.
  5. Business growth is associated with risk reduction and the avoidance of less critical areas of growth.

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]

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Stakeholder engagement: The workshop's stakeholder identification process focuses on ownership, knowledge, rights, and contributions, all integral to the company's strategic growth.
6. 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.