ble of Contents
Building A Sustainable, In-house System Dynamics C apability
How an internal System Dynamics group can develop a distinctive service and become an
enduring component of the company’s operations
Adolfo Canovi, Sharon Els, Alan Graham, Alexander Voigt
PA Consulting Group
One Memorial Drive, Cambridge, MA 02142 USA
+1 617 225-2700
ladolfo.canovi@ paconsulting.com]
fharon.els@ paconsulting.com]
alan.graham@ paconsulting.com
flex.voigt@ paconsulting.com]
Abstract
As consultants we have worked with our clients over many years to develop their in-house
System Dynamics capabilities. Clearly, there are many advantages for our clients to continue
the work with internal resources that we have often started.
Despite strong agreement by both consultants and clients on the benefits of developing an in
house capability, these efforts generally last for only a few years. In only a small number of
cases have they become self-sustained. Through review of our successes and failures we can
draw some conclusions on what is necessary to create a sustainable in-house capability.
The four key forces that we have found influencing the long term sustainability of an in-house
capability are: A) creating, maintaining and "advertising" the internal center of excellence; B)
using specific value-added analyses in the regular business planning cycle or as part of the
standard business processes; C) developing and maintaining an executive sponsor; and D) using
external consultants to jump-start the process and periodically refresh the in-house capability.
Key Words
System Dynamics, in-house capability, case example, executive sponsorship, organizational
dynamics
Introduction
This paper looks at the creation and evolution of centralized groups that use SD to provide
strategic advice. The evolution of these groups is subject to complex dynamics, including:
staffing changes, long learning curves, corporate perception of benefits realized from the work,
struggle for resources, and competition with other internal analysts.
©PA Consulting Group 2002
It is not uncommon that, after an excellent start, a decrease in executive and consulting support
deteriorates the perception of the internal SD group and they start to lose visibility in the
organization. Once this happens they are no longer included in the evaluation of key decisions
by internal clients, instead division analysts take this role. The group then starts to lose talented
people, and it becomes more difficult to find good talent in those uncertain circumstances. At
this point the SD group either has an insignificant role in the organization, or is eliminated
entirely.
However, our experience demonstrates it is possible to generate a high-quality, highly visible in-
house SD group. Here we evaluate a few case studies while analyzing the supply and demand of
a centralized SD capability, its enabling executive sponsorship, and the role of external
consultants.
A. Building the Supply Side of an In-house SD Capability: creating, maintaining and
"advertising" the internal center of excellence
Generating a center of excellence takes a lot of good work, but it is at least as important to
project an image of excellence (see relevant dynamics in Figure 1). During the initial phase of
deploying SD in house, it is relatively easy to develop positive perceptions from corporate
commitment levels and the significant executive and consulting support. However, the typical
reduction of executive and consulting support, after a highly visible initial phase of work, can
generate significant deterioration of perception and send the group into a death spiral.
A, Initially. Relative Acceptance of the SD Group is likely to be fair due to the inital Perceived Executive Sponsorship,
* in spite of a weak Perceived Excellence. This initial Acceptance will generate demand for analyses, which will
make the group start working and learning on the job. Assuming good Quality of Analyses (see B), the group will
generate Good Results, which will generate a Perception of Excellence and help sustain Executive Sponsorship,
maintaining or even increasing the level of Relative Acceptance.
Relative
Acceptance
{FS Group bemand
for sD
‘Analyses
SD Training
er Capita,
NY
Excellence
Consutant
‘bilty Focus
to Communicate) on Training
with interna
Cents External
Consulting
Work
Perceived
Erect... hetehed ual $0. The quality of Analyses
spomureip SD Eketance «God on Ruth irate quality of Analys
needs to be high in order for
B sthe feedback loop described
in (A) to generate Relative
Acceptance. Although rare, itis
possible to have an internal group
that, from day one, has excellent SD capability, the necessary infrastructure and the ability to effectively
communicate methodology and results. In most cases, however, internal groups cannot deliver that level of quality
from day one. External professional advisors (called consultants for simplicity) are needed. They can participate in
performing and delivering the inital analyses and producing high quality results while the group goes through the
learning curve, and at the same time they can provide SD training and build the group's infrastructure
4
Results
Executive
Sponsorship
Figure 1: Cause and Effect Relationships that Impact the Center of Excellence
©PA Consulting Group 2002
It is important to have a clear capability development plan that establishes milestones and
focuses the effort to quickly acquire the necessary skills for the group to start to generate good
analyses that result in ‘wins’ for the sponsoring executives. Consultants are important to jump
start the process by building the infrastructure (an example is shown in Figure 2), explaining
basic concepts, and providing on the job training to develop technical and consulting skills.
‘Summarize results
View results) =m)
diagnose | Tig
Select model
arameters to
change Make
parameter
changes
Run
simulations
Figure 2: Example of Infrastructure (models, interfaces, help/instructions, frameworks) for
an In-house Group
If this initial capability is effectively put in place through systematic training programs and
technology transfer (see example in Figure 3), the image of center of excellence activates another
self-reinforcing dynamic, that of acquiring talented staff. One example of this occurs at GE Jet
Engine in their Office of the Chief Engineer (OCE). The OCE is staffed by the most capable
engineers in the company. They are called in to projects for the most serious (and interesting)
technical challenges. While other engineers learn something while working with the OCE
(indeed, this is a primary purpose of the institution), OCE members learn much more. Engineers
compete to be transferred into the OCE and only the best are accepted. OCE staff talent is
developed faster in this group because they are working on the most challenging projects. When
projects draw these talented OCE people into new challenges a virtuous cycle develops.
©PA Consulting Group 2002
Overall technology transfer architecture
“Top Gun”
Training
3. Analytical
Capability:
‘What's right?
What's wrong?”
2. Planning and
gement Process ,
Training
1. “Best of Breed’,
council & mentoring] 2°
prerequisites
Supervision Training
Process Definition & Improvement
Day to Day Management & Risk Management
Figure 3: Example Architecture for a Center of Excellence
From the GE example, we can infer at least three ways competency can be lost: 1) through staff
tumover; 2) by not attracting the best staff; and 3) by not focusing good people on challenging
issues. We have seen examples of each of these in our work. Typically, a company will assign
people to work with us to take the analytical capability in-house. It is risky to entrust this
expertise to only one or two individuals because losing one of them can have a tremendous
impact. However, it is not good to settle for “middle-of-the-road” staff because development
potential is limited and they often cannot operate effectively without the supervision of external
consultants. By contrast, at two of our specific clients, Airbus and Northrop Grumman,
modeling was seized upon by highly competent individuals who made it a major part of their
professional activity, for many years (Lyneis, 1998). Whoever works with the models must
combine:
1. atechnical capability for using, and diagnosing model behavior; and
2. a consulting capability for identifying critical business problems, seeing that they are
solved, and taking the solutions back into the business.
These capabilities can either reside in one person, or in different members of the team (see talent
dynamics in Figure 4). It is ideal, but not necessary for success, for the group to develop the
capability to also calibrate models, add new model structure, and ultimately, create their own
models.
©PA Consulting Group 2002
C.. The Ability to Attract Talent is a key requirement for the group to keep up with growing demand.
This ability is driven by the perception of executive sponsorship and SD excellence and will impact
(after a delay) the Ability to Communicate with Internal Clients and the Actual SD Excellence.
Relative
Acceptance
at$8 Creu —— ean
‘orsd
Internal SD eo.
‘Capacity fer
SD Training
perCapita,
Consultant
‘Ability Focus
to Communicat on Training
Group
‘utlization
Clients Exernal
Consulting
Repository jo
of Best ae
Practices
Perceived so
secutive Perceived ual
Sponsorship sp Excellence Good of Analyaef—lnostctire A Repository of Best
Results / D, Practices is a
potentiating factor in
the generation of
Good Results
‘As Good Results are generated they can be
structured in a way to make it possible for them to
be stored and then easily retrieved to be used in
generating more high quality analyses.
Figure 4: Talent Dynamics and Creating a Repository of Best Practices
Executive
Sponsorship
At Hughes (now Raytheon) we achieved recognition for developing a best-practices repository
(see impact of best-practices repository in Figure 4). Beyond the value of the immediate lessons
from the cross-program simulation analyses, the focus of the work was to develop a system that
would continue to support rigorous management improvement and lesson transfer (Els, 1997).
At the project’s inception, we envisioned a system that would help managers leam not only by
analyzing past program performance, but also by testing strategies on current and upcoming
programs. Figure 5 describes this continuous process of: 1) analyzing what has worked on past
programs, 2) learning from this and disseminating the knowledge, 3) using these lessons on
ongoing programs, and 4) finding new practices and approaches that will help future program
performance.
©PA Consulting Group 2002
An ever-improving learning system
een 4 Employ high-
catalogue an . leverage lessons
disseminate best L@a ming isamned on
policies and practices H ongoin
through manager Using programs
training & use
Plan improved
What worked? A na lys is practices into
; new programs
What's off-track? and find future
What-if. . .? Improving improvements
Figure 5: The Key Component of Hughes’ Program Management Learning System
Past programs were integrated into a single computer-based system accessible to all program
managers. This system was linked to a data base of the “best practice” observations that could
be searched by the users when considering what actions to take. Each manager could conduct a
wide variety of “what if” analyses as new conditions emerged on a program. This interface drew
upon one’s own experience, the tested ideas from the other programs’ managers, the “best
practice” data base, and the extensive explanatory diagnostics from the simulation models.
In-house SD groups will frequently face internal competition for strategic analyses. The
competition comes from other internal analysts who are associated with the specific operation or
business unit (see other analysts dynamics in Figure 6). If the SD group is perceived as a center
of excellence, other analysts will be eager to help the SD team and collectively offer better
analysis capability. Other analysts can even join the central SD team, often improving the
performance of the group, because these analysts have more business-specific knowledge.
However, as there is always limited demand for analysis capability of any type, lacking the
perception as a Center of Excellence quickly results in the team losing key pieces of work to the
other analysts.
©PA Consulting Group 2002
The group will have to compete with other internal analysts. Relative Acceptance is driven by the
E
"Perceived SD Excellence, relative to the Perceived Capability of Other Analysts, and by the
Perceived Executive Support. a
sand ——— =
accep for Other Perceived
FSD COP aman Analyses Capability
Internal SD for SD of Other
i ‘analyse Analysts
Capacity
SD Training
perCapita,
Actual
Internal SD
Excellence
Consultant
‘Ability Focus
te communicate on Training
Clients Exernal
Consulting
Repository 0
ofBest hoe
Prachces
Perceived
Perceived i so
of NY gH nrastctire
Executive
Sponsorship sp Excellence «|.
Results
F, Relative Acceptance of
"SD Group determines
what fraction of demand is
allocated to the SD
Analyses vs. Other
Analyses.
Executive
Sponsorship
Figure 6: Interactions with Other Analysts
B. Creating Demand for SD by using specific value-added analyses as part of the standard
business process
Typical internal SD groups suffer from a lack of demand for their services even while supply is
ample. The major reason is organizational awareness acceptance, which can only be built in
steps and with significant executive support (see Figure 7). At a major automotive manufacturer,
System Dynamics started off with the issues of one vehicle development project and
demonstrated the capability and its benefits to the project. Then the modelers worked with a few
more projects, demonstrating consistent usefulness. Next they analyzed a portfolio of projects,
even while single-project analysis became a virtually required part of the development process.
Customer knowledge and acceptance grew with each step.
©PA Consulting Group 2002
G,, Uimet 50 Demand accumulates when Internal SO
* Capacity is lower than Demand for SD Analyses. A
generate short term SD capacity shortfalls and
require external help to
process the additional oe gmat sD Sk
analyses. acceprance, yeman jeman
use
for Other Berceived
Analyses Capability
‘of Omer
Internal SD gt ober
Capacity
SD Training
perCapita,
‘Demand
for Analyses
Internal SD
Excellence
Consultant pemnand fo
‘Abi Focus in
ty
te communicate on Training
Clients Exernal
Consulting
Work
Bertelves
Perceived
‘Company
Capability
Executive Perceived
Sponsorship sp Excellence «_\cody
Results
sD
Quality f
of Reale lofrastucture
Executive
sponsorship
The business Demand
"for Analyses is driven
by the inherent business need (Potential Demand for Analyses) tuned down by the
perception of valuable analytical capability (Perceived Company Capability)
Figure 7: Drivers of Demand for Analyses
The “customers” for analysis are both down in the operations of the organization and up in the
executive ranks. The analyses help solve the problems of individual stakeholders, which are
usually also problems of the corporate management as well. For example, at Bath Iron Works,
model analyses are now part of the corporate management process. Management meets to
review the programs in the shipyard, which generates requests for model analyses. The results
are then reported in the next management meeting and additional analysis demand is generated.
We can speculate that regular to model use during periodic management meetings at Bath Iron
Works has much to do with its acceptance. There are no longer questions about what the models
do, when they can or should be used, and at this point, what sorts of questions they are well
suited to answer. Therefore, it is important to start with a reduced scope and a lot of focus. This
creates stakeholders, familiar with the process and pleased by the results. This nascent
reputation allows the purse strings to loosen for somewhat broader application, addressing the
issues for a wider group of stakeholders. Throughout this process it is key to clearly
communicate what the group does and what problems it can analyze. An additional way to
develop demand, described in Figure 8, is for the group to be an integral part of the company
operations (e.g. adding consistency to the yearly planning process, or providing feedback on each
major project milestone).
©PA Consulting Group 2002
J, Integration of SD into Core Processes, mostly achieved by
* visionary Executive Sponsorship, produces an immediate
increase in the level of Relative Acceptance and Demand for
SD, thus making it easier to achieve sustainability
————
Sarees emi Bae Eeetied
emai Analysis
SD Training
perCapita,
‘Demand
for Analyses
Excellence Potential
¢ 3 Demand fr
Processes 7: Consutant Analyses
" ‘Abi Focus us
ty
te communicate on Training
Clients Exernal
Consulting
Work
Bertelves
so bereived
oat estuctre ec
peu
Perceived
D Excellence < loca
Executve
Sponsorship 5
Figure 8: Integration of SD into C ore Business Processes
Another way to generate demand is to continually deliver value; continuously producing
analyses and extensively communicating their results do this. This generates other beneficial
effects like improving the SD capability (i.e., speeding up the learning curve), reinforcing
executive support, and spreading the image of the group as a valuable resource and center of
excellence.
C. Executive Sponsorship: developing and maintaining an executive sponsor
Initially, the executive sponsor is the driver for the success of the initiative (see Figure 9). They
provide the budget for the SD group, hire the consultants, and promote the capability throughout
the organization making it possible to recruit high quality individuals and to find opportunities
and collaboration for initial analyses. The executive sponsor should also drive the integration of
the SD capability into the business processes of the company. Without the continuous
enthusiastic support of the sponsoring executive, the group is unlikely to survive.
©PA Consulting Group 2002
J . Executive Sponsorship tend to fade over time due to a shift of
"focus, reassignment, and short term pressures on the
executive. The group needs to balance the SD Cost with the
Good Results and the Relative Acceptance of SD.
vices
pee
Fer
iat Bee NS ca
carats oom Bae Eeetied
‘of Omer
Analysis
Internal SD
Capacity
SD Training
perCapita,
Actual
Internal SD
Excellence
Consultant
‘Demand
for Analyses
Potential
Demand fr
‘Analyses
‘Ability Focus us
te communicate on Training
Clients External
consulting
‘Work
Perceived
Perceived
Company
Capabiity
Perceived
D Excellence < loca
Results
ality
Execut Q sD
Sponsorship s of SnatyeeF— Infrastructure
Sponsorship
SD Cost
Figure 9: Importance of Executive Sponsorship
After this initial phase, the internal group should not lose touch with the executive sponsor, in
fact the group must sometimes guide the executive sponsor's participation and role. The added
value of the group’s services must clearly outweigh the group’s costs while providing personal
wins for the sponsor. This needs to happen before the sponsor's attention is driven away by new,
more pressing issues, or before they step into a new role altogether.
D. Consulting services: using external consultants to jump-start the process and, when
necessary, refresh the in-house capability
Extemal consultants are key to jump-starting the in-house capability by providing necessary
infrastructure and training. However, it is important to plan for the group to be self-sufficient
after the initial development phase. Even if there is a commitment for long term use of external
consulting services, there is always a risk that cost pressure will delay or cancel the request for
consultants (see Figure 10).
©PA Consulting Group 2002
Internal SO,
Capacity
$0 Training
per Cpa
sD Wor NX
inwayse ‘tual
intemal SO
Excelence
Group
Usization
‘Demand
for Analyses
Integration
OFS into
Potential
Demand fr
Analyses
Core
Processes Consutant
Focus
on Training
wit internal
Clients
Repository
ofBest
Pracices|
Perceived
Executive ~Perceives
Sponsorship SO Excellence {oda
Results
Qual sp
of Reale iirastructure
SD Cost K., Due 2 its cost, External Consulting
"Work should be managed carefully.
Consultants can be a good way to start a group (infrastructure, training, initial
analyses) and can help with unmet demand and new capabilities. However, long
term dependence on consultants is likely to reduce the sustainability of a SD group.
Figure 10: Role of External Consultants
In addition, it is often useful to keep consultants “on-call” and bring them in when help is needed
with complex analyses, to process a large backlog of analysis requests, and to re-energize the
group periodically through further training and reviewing of best practices.
Conclusions
Once all the individual dynamics at work are well understood, there remains one key question:
Which loop is dominant? And, taking it one step further, What can we do to accelerate
virtuous cycles and prevent potential dead ends?
At the highest level, the problem can be characterized as a race against time: Can a company
embed SD into its core decision-making processes before losing executive sponsorship? In
today’s corporate world, executives rotate in and out of their jobs nearly every two years, and
more often than not, the disruption caused by the transition will deal a mortal blow to any non-
self-supporting initiative the executive was sponsoring.
In System Dynamics terms, several reinforcing feedback loops are competing for dominance: the
slow reinforcing process of building a perception of excellence and building value delivered,
supported by initial executive sponsorship is fighting against organizational inertia (or outright
resistance) and also fighting against the perennial corporate pressures to dedicate precious
resources to the most worthwhile endeavors (see Figure 11).
©PA Consulting Group 2002
Relative
‘Acceptance
SSeS can
an
a
SD Work ‘Demand
neat it
ct
a era 0
simy perelse
Integration
OFS into
Bertelved
Executve Percenved Qua so
Sponsorship SD Excellence ux Good of Real Infrastructure
Results
Executive
Sponsorship
Figure 11: Interrelations
In the short term, the high, perceived cost of using external consultants to build a new internal
capability is offset by the enormous potential of the capability and by the high value of the
analyses being delivered. In the early stages, consultants “open the executives’ eyes” to a new
methodology, to new possibilities, and to new counter-intuitive answers. The “low-hanging
fruit” is harvested, the most egregious policy errors are pointed out, and there is generally a
perception that a lot of value is being discovered. The sponsoring executives are enthusiastic
about the results, and they pressure the organization to make good use of the developing SD
capability.
Because of the enormous structural inertia of corporations, initial acceptance of SD among
middle and lower management is typically low. The new capability is seen as unproven (risky!),
or even threatening. Thus, executive sponsorship is crucial in the early stages to overcome
corporate inertia and generate demand for SD analyses, thus fostering the virtuous cycle of
developing a strong internal SD capability.
Likewise, this perception of riskiness makes it difficult to attract the best talent, and only a
perception of strong executive sponsorship can overcome this resistance.
After the initial push, the focus of the sponsoring executives often shifts from finding answers to
fixing the problem. Their attention on doing further analyses sometimes dwindles while more
and more effort is focused on using analysis insights to change the organization. In one
sentence: the focus shifts from insight to implementation; from potential to money in the bank.
©PA Consulting Group 2002
The likelihood of losing direct executive sponsorship is very high in this financial climate. The
only guarantee for success now is to have achieved a significant acceptance of SD among
management ranks. Producing a steady demand for analyses and ensuring that they are acted
upon can facilitate this. Thus, the key lies in drastically accelerating the virtuous cycle of
developing excellence and achieving acceptance, and we have one leverage point to do this:
embedding SD into company processes. (Lyneis, 1999)
This has probably been the most neglected aspect of System Dynamics consulting, and yet it is
the one critical for the long-term survival of System Dynamics as a valued analysis tool within
client organizations. Too much group effort is typically spent on developing the staff capability,
and not enough is spent on building the infrastructure that will ensure that the rest of the
organization has quick and easy access to the group’s work.
In conclusion, making System Dynamics a permanent in-house capability is difficult but can be
improved through:
* Managing and fostering both the internal supply and demand for the capability
* Generating enough value to satisfy the internal clients, while providing personal wins for
the sponsoring executive.
¢ Integrating the capability in the broader company processes
¢ Using external consultants to ensure the quality of the analyses (e.g., due to high demand
or complexity), or to re-energize the group and reactivate the positive dynamics of
attraction of talent and perception of excellence.
©PA Consulting Group 2002
References
Els, S.A., and Cooper, K.G. 1997, Failure to leam = learning to fail. Informs Conference
Paper
Forrester, J. W. 1965. A new corporate design. Industrial Management Review 7(1):5-17.
Graham, A. K. and Walker, R. J. 1998. Strategy modeling for top management: going beyond
modeling orthodoxy at Bell Canada. Proceedings of the 1998 International System
Dynamics Conference, Quebec, Canada.
Hines, J. H. and D. W. Johnson. 1994. Launching system dynamics. Proceedings of the 1994
International System Dynamics Conference, Business Decision-Making, Stirling,
Scotland.
Keough, M. and A. Doman. 1992. The CEO as organization designer. An interview with
Professor Jay W. Forrester, the founder of system dynamics. The McKinsey Quarterly 2:
3-30.
Lyneis, James M. 1980. Corporate Planning and Policy Design: A System Dynamics
Approach. Cambridge, MA. The M.1.T. Press [now distributed by PA Consulting Group,
One Memorial Drive, Suite 1700, Cambridge, MA 02142].
Lyneis, J. M. 1981. Increasing the effectiveness of corporate policy models. Proceedings of
the 1981 System Dynamics Research Conference, Rensselaerville, NY.
Lyneis, J. M. 1998. System dynamics in business forecasting: a case study of the commercial
jet aircraft industry. Proceedings of the 1998 International System Dynamics Conference,
Quebec, Canada.
Lyneis, James M. 1999. System Dynamics for Business Strategy: A Phased Approach.
System Dynamics Review 15(1):1-34.
Lyneis, James M. and Glucksman, Maurice A. 1989. "Market Analysis and Forecasting as a
Strategic Business Tool," in Milling, Peter M. and Zahn, Erich O.K. (eds.), Computer-
Based Management of Complex Systems, Heidelberg, Germany.
Morecroft, J. D. W. 1984. Strategy support models. Strategic Management Journal 5:215-229.
Morecroft, J. D. W. 1985. The feedback view of business policy and strategy. System
Dynamics Review 1(1): 4-19.
Roberts, E. B. 1977. Strategies for the effective implementation of complex corporate models.
Interfaces 8(1): 26-33.
©PA Consulting Group 2002
Senge, P. M. 1990. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of The Learning Organization.
New Y ork: Doubleday.
Sterman, J. D. 2000. Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex
World. Chicago: Irwin/McGraw-Hill.
Weil, H. B. andJ. M. Lyneis. 1980. Strategy Management Using System Dynamics.
International Conference on Cybernetics and Society, Cambridge, MA.
Weil, H. B. 1980. The evolution of an approach for achieving implemented results from
system dynamics projects. Elements of the System Dynamics Method, ed. J. Randers.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
©PA Consulting Group 2002
Appendix A: Potential threats to a long term in-house team and their mitigation
Threat
Effects of along learning curve
Low competency System Dynamics
individuals in team roles
Rapid chum / tumover
(star-like quality individuals move
relatively quickly to new opportunities)
Paralysis
Unwillingness to present results until
every model/scenario assumption is
verified (i.e. never) due to increased
responsibility in a new role which
includes suggesting solutions to critical
problems embedded in a significant
amount of uncertainty
Perceived as expendable initiative
Easy-to-reduce cost / not necessary when
management changes
Mitigation
Should be factored in for
training/turover management
Avoid by always making sure that being
part of the team offers an opportunity for
having significant visibility working on
high profile activities and building
valuable personal knowledge,
relationships and awareness of top
business issues
This should be planned for by identifying
potential replacement internal consultants
and developing a few technical users
Address this problem directly through
training and selection of individuals
If the use of a SD application has
delivered clear value, helped prior
participants with their career goals and
was part of an important company
process (not just driven by individuals),
this risk should not be present
©PA Consulting Group 2002
Appendix B: Complete causal loop diagram
for Other Berceived
ofsp Group Demafa Analyses Capabiity
‘of Ofer
forsD
Internal SD
Capacity ‘analyses: Analysts
$0 Traneg
Cones
ante N for Analyses
Al
inert $0
Pclence ten!
Copsutat Demand fr
‘Ability Focus
te communicate on Training
wit Internal
‘Siem Exernal
Consulting
Repository ‘a
ofBest Mok
Practices
Perceived
Executve Perceived ul sD Perceived
sponsorship sD Excellence «oh of Braye Inastctire Company
ests
Appendix C: Typical Timeline of Support and Technology Transfer
Months
12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
External Experts
Initial Assignment fF
Second Assignment fF
Multi-User System Dev. |
On-going Support BHHEH
Internal SD Group
Lead user training ee
Group Expansion fe
Production of Analyses Hi
Org. Training |
©PA Consulting Group 2002
Funding Oe
Back to the Top
