Difference between revisions of "Template talk:Proposal"
| (19 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
I had a proposal on some changes on the logic model concept to look more as a project-oriented terminology (https://www.pkc.pub/index.php/Template:Proposal#PKC_Project_page_structure) | I had a proposal on some changes on the logic model concept to look more as a project-oriented terminology (https://www.pkc.pub/index.php/Template:Proposal#PKC_Project_page_structure) | ||
: | |||
:'''The logic model is (somehow) what we call in project management as the “project charter”''' | |||
| Line 16: | Line 17: | ||
'''Define:''' | '''Define:''' | ||
:Internal (PKC engine, Apollo implementation, DocAPI, etc…) | :''Internal'' (PKC engine, Apollo implementation, DocAPI, etc…) | ||
or | or | ||
:External (service or a client e.g. LKPP KeyCloack or CpL) | :''External'' (service or a client e.g. LKPP KeyCloack or CpL) | ||
br Product description defines the user side (like “stories” or Business needs), Project defines the operating team, or the execution point of view (like Work packages) | |||
'''Goals''' - (Product approval requirements) | |||
'''Success Criteria''' - (Boundaries definition/quality define tolerance and control limits specification) | |||
===Concrete implementation=== | |||
'''Output''' | |||
'''Process (execution mode)''' | |||
'''Input''' | |||
model should also include: | ===model should also include:=== | ||
:'''Stakeholders identification''' | |||
:'''Budget''' | |||
:'''timing''' | |||
Create a template with proper UI like this | ===Proposals for internal products=== | ||
Create a template with proper UI like this: | |||
https://trackonperformance.com/charter/62b0e6796f0213005c71606e | https://trackonperformance.com/charter/62b0e6796f0213005c71606e | ||
that fills up (create, update, delete) the values on logic model | |||
===NOTES=== | |||
Note1: I understand that if we unite later with TOP DB we can update fields like budget and stakeholders | Note1: I understand that if we unite later with TOP DB we can update fields like budget and stakeholders | ||
Note2: Link timing to the project packages plan (TOP and/or future in Apollo or other) where the ordering defines time and eventually the budget | Note2: Link timing to the project packages plan (TOP and/or future in Apollo or other) where the ordering defines time and eventually the budget | ||
==Organization structure== | |||
{{#widget:Google Presentation|docid=1Weg4d7JA_i54c2ag-j5BAt44kNtcvXUZRcycbCfmKSk|size=medium}} | |||
Latest revision as of 23:10, 28 June 2022
About shaping planning terminology
This could be inserted in current Logic model
I had a proposal on some changes on the logic model concept to look more as a project-oriented terminology (https://www.pkc.pub/index.php/Template:Proposal#PKC_Project_page_structure)
- The logic model is (somehow) what we call in project management as the “project charter”
Abstract spec
Define: Product and project separately
Define:
- Internal (PKC engine, Apollo implementation, DocAPI, etc…)
or
- External (service or a client e.g. LKPP KeyCloack or CpL)
br Product description defines the user side (like “stories” or Business needs), Project defines the operating team, or the execution point of view (like Work packages)
Goals - (Product approval requirements)
Success Criteria - (Boundaries definition/quality define tolerance and control limits specification)
Concrete implementation
Output Process (execution mode) Input
model should also include:
- Stakeholders identification
- Budget
- timing
Proposals for internal products
Create a template with proper UI like this: https://trackonperformance.com/charter/62b0e6796f0213005c71606e that fills up (create, update, delete) the values on logic model
NOTES
Note1: I understand that if we unite later with TOP DB we can update fields like budget and stakeholders
Note2: Link timing to the project packages plan (TOP and/or future in Apollo or other) where the ordering defines time and eventually the budget
Organization structure