Flexible Framework Adoption

This paper presents a comprehensive, TOP framework-based checklist for digital leaders to guide the adoption of AI in organizations by integrating technological, organizational, and people-focused considerations. 1️⃣ The TOP framework is a socio-technical model used to guide the adoption of AI in organizations by addressing three critical dimensions: Technology, Organization, and People. 2️⃣ AI enhances decision-making by reducing human bias, improving transparency, and enabling data-driven management. Explainable AI builds trust and accountability in decisions. 3️⃣ A culture of trust is crucial for AI adoption, with transparency in AI processes increasing acceptance. Concerns about bias, fairness, and privacy are significant barriers. 4️⃣ Many employees lack the necessary digital, cognitive, and AI-specific skills for adoption. Targeted training programs are essential to address these gaps. 5️⃣ Employee motivation can both support and hinder AI adoption. While automation can boost engagement, it may also create insecurity and alter work dynamics. 6️⃣ Digital leaders play a key role in AI adoption by fostering collaboration, setting clear goals, and encouraging innovation while addressing resistance and fears. 7️⃣ Employees often prefer human advisors over AI for novel or complex tasks, reflecting skepticism about AI's capabilities and emphasizing the need for human-AI collaboration models. 8️⃣ Successful AI implementation requires alignment of technical capabilities, organizational processes, and human capital. Pilot projects and incremental approaches help manage risks during transitions. 9️⃣ AI adoption impacts individuals, teams, and organizations differently, with team dynamics often shifting in collaborative human-AI work environments. ✍🏻 Aizhan Tursunbayeva, PhD, GRP, Hila Chalutz-Ben Gal. Adoption of artificial intelligence: A TOP framework-based checklist for digital leaders. Business Horizons. 2024. DOI: 10.1016/j.bushor.2024.04.006

I was thinking about a framework that helps prioritize cybersecurity products based on a combination of factors critical for business success. Business Impact: Likelihood of Attack: Evaluate the probability of a specific attack vector being exploited. Consider industry trends, threat actor motivations, and existing vulnerabilities. Impact of a Breach: Quantify the potential financial loss, reputational damage, and regulatory fines associated with a successful attack on the targeted assets or systems. Product Characteristics: Security Effectiveness: Assess the product's ability to mitigate the identified threats and vulnerabilities. Ease of Integration: Consider the complexity of integrating the product with existing security infrastructure and workflows. Cost of Implementation and Maintenance: Evaluate the initial investment and ongoing costs associated with deploying and maintaining the product. Strategic Alignment: Alignment with Overall Security Strategy: Does the product address a critical security gap identified in the organization's overall cybersecurity strategy? Compliance Requirements: Does the product address specific regulatory compliance requirements? Prioritization Process: Assign Scores: Use a scoring system (e.g., 1-5) to rate each factor based on its importance to your organization. Weight the Factors: Assign weights to each category (Business Impact, Product Characteristics, Strategic Alignment) reflecting their relative importance to your organization's priorities. Calculate a Score: Multiply the score for each factor by its weight, then sum the products for each cybersecurity product. Prioritization: Products with the highest scores represent the most critical security needs. Additional Considerations: Urgency: Factor in the urgency of addressing a specific threat or vulnerability. Vendor Reputation: Consider the vendor's track record, customer support, and overall product stability. Proof of Concept (POC): Conduct POCs for high-scoring products to validate their effectiveness in your specific environment. Benefits: This framework provides a structured approach for making informed decisions about cybersecurity product investments. It balances technical considerations with business needs and strategic alignment. It fosters communication and collaboration among security professionals and business stakeholders. Remember: This is a flexible framework. You can adjust the factors, weights, and scoring system to fit your organization's specific needs and risk profile. #cybersecurity #productmanegement #ankurencore

More For Power BI Dashboard Adoption Initiatives 🔄 Kotter’s 8-Step Change Model Kotter’s framework is highly effective for driving engagement and momentum throughout the dashboard adoption process: - Create Urgency – Show why a dashboard is needed (manual reporting pain, data inconsistencies). - Build a Guiding Coalition – Recruit sponsors, data champions, and early adopters. - Form a Strategic Vision – Align the dashboard’s purpose with business outcomes. - Enlist a Volunteer Army – Encourage stakeholders to be advocates for using it. - Enable Action by Removing Barriers – Provide training, address data trust issues, simplify access. - Generate Short-Term Wins – Share quick insights found through the dashboard to show value. - Sustain Acceleration – Continue refining visualizations and adding features based on feedback. - Institute Change – Embed dashboard use into workflows, leadership reporting, and performance metrics. 🌀 Lewin’s Change Model (Unfreeze–Change–Refreeze) This simple but powerful model works well for tool adoption: - Unfreeze: Break reliance on old reports by showing gaps and limitations. - Change: Introduce the dashboard, train users, and create space for experimentation. - Refreeze: Reinforce by making dashboard usage part of standard operating procedures, leadership reviews, and success measures. 📊 McKinsey 7-S Framework Useful for ensuring organizational alignment around the dashboard rollout: - Looks at Strategy, Structure, Systems, Shared Values, Skills, Style, and Staff — so adoption isn’t just a tech rollout but a cultural shift toward data-driven decision-making. 🏃 Agile Change Management Perfect if your Power BI solution is being developed iteratively: - Delivers incremental dashboard features in sprints. - Uses feedback loops to adjust based on user needs. - Keeps stakeholders engaged with demos and retrospective meetings, making adoption feel collaborative. 💡 Design Thinking Integrating Design Thinking ensures the dashboard truly meets end-user needs: - Empathize with users (what questions do they really need answered?) - Define the problem (what decisions does this dashboard support?) - Ideate (brainstorm views and metrics with users). - Prototype (release early, test quickly). - Test (gather feedback, refine, iterate). ✨ Putting It Together For a Power BI adoption initiative, you might use Prosci ADKAR for the individual change journey, Kotter’s model for organizational momentum, and Agile + Design Thinking for the iterative build and feedback process. Together, these ensure: - Users know the why (Awareness). - They feel involved (Desire). - They learn in small, digestible chunks (Knowledge). - They can practice safely (Ability). - And dashboard usage becomes a habit (Reinforcement).

🚀 The Importance of #BPM_Project_Management: Tailoring PMBOK@ with BPM CBOK@ 🚀 In today’s fast-paced business environment, Business Process Management (BPM) has become a cornerstone of organizational success. But managing BPM projects effectively requires more than just traditional project management skills—it demands a tailored approach that integrates the best of both worlds: PMBOK® (Project Management Body of Knowledge) and BPM CBOK® (Common Body of Knowledge). At the heart of this integration is the importance of tailoring. Every organization is unique, and so are its processes. By tailoring PMBOK® to align with BPM CBOK®, we create a hybrid framework that is both flexible and robust, ensuring that BPM projects deliver real value. Here’s how we’ve done it: 1) Fusing Two Bodies of Knowledge: We’ve combined the structured approach of PMBOK with the process-centric focus of BPM CBOK. This #fusion ensures that BPM projects are not only well-managed but also aligned with the broader goals of process excellence. 2) Introducing the Transformation Knowledge Area: A new knowledge area called #Transformation has emerged, reflecting the critical role of change in BPM projects. This area focuses on driving organizational change, fostering a culture of process excellence, and ensuring sustainable adoption of new processes. 3) Combining Stakeholders and Communications: Recognizing the interconnected nature of these areas, we’ve merged Stakeholder Management and Communications Management. This combined approach ensures that stakeholders are engaged, informed, and aligned throughout the project lifecycle. 4) Updating Procurement Management with COTS: The Procurement Management knowledge area has been updated to focus on Commercial Off-The-Shelf (#COTS) solutions. This shift reflects the growing reliance on ready-made tools and technologies to accelerate #BPM initiatives. Why #Tailoring Matters: Flexibility: Tailoring allows us to adapt project management practices to the specific needs of BPM projects. Relevance: By integrating BPM CBOK®, we ensure that project management practices are relevant to the challenges of process improvement and transformation. Scalability: This #hybrid framework supports both small-scale process improvements and large-scale enterprise transformations. Based on the revised table that integrates PMBOK® and BPM CBOK®, we have identified 36 processes that can be used as #ITTO (Inputs, Tools, Techniques, and Outputs) for managing BPM projects. These processes are tailored to align with the unique requirements of BPM initiatives while retaining the structure and rigor of PMBOK®. In effect, the fusion of #PMBOK® and #BPM_CBOK® has created a new method for BPM project management—one that is both practical and powerful. As BPM professionals, it’s our responsibility to embrace this evolution and drive meaningful change in our organizations.

There is no definitive "better" framework, as COSO ERM and ISO 31000 both offer valuable approaches to risk management, and the best choice depends on the specific needs and context of the organization. COSO ERM is a comprehensive framework that integrates risk management with strategic goals and internal controls, making it suitable for organizations seeking to embed risk into their core operations and comply with regulations. ISO 31000 provides a more flexible and adaptable framework, suitable for a wider range of organizations and industries, emphasizing principles and guidelines for managing risk across all organizational processes. COSO ERM (Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission Enterprise Risk Management): Focus: Emphasizes integrating risk management with strategic planning, governance, and internal controls. Strengths: Provides a structured approach, particularly useful for organizations needing to demonstrate robust internal controls and compliance with regulations (e.g., financial institutions). Considerations: Can be more complex and resource-intensive to implement than ISO 31000. Best for: Organizations seeking a comprehensive, integrated approach to risk management, especially those with strong regulatory requirements. ISO 31000: Focus: Provides principles and guidelines for risk management applicable to any organization and industry. Strengths: Flexible and adaptable, allowing organizations to tailor the framework to their specific needs and context. Considerations: May require a greater emphasis on developing risk management expertise and fostering a risk-aware culture. Best for: Organizations seeking a flexible, adaptable framework that can be applied across different industries and risk types. Factors to consider choosing the right riskmanagement framework: Organization size and complexity: Smaller organizations may find ISO 31000's flexibility more appealing, while larger, more complex organizations may benefit from COSO's structured approach. Industry and regulatory environment: Highly regulated industries (like finance) may find COSO's emphasis on internal controls advantageous, while other industries (like technology) may find ISO 31000's flexibility more suitable. Organizational culture: Organizations with a strong risk-aware culture may be able to implement either framework successfully, but those needing to cultivate such a culture might find ISO 31000's emphasis on principles and communication more helpful. Ultimately, the best approach may involve combining elements of both frameworks to create a tailored solution that meets the specific needs and context of the organization.