Difference between revisions of "Template talk:Proposal"

From PKC
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(18 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”
 
:'''The logic model is (somehow) what we call in project management as the “project charter”'''




Line 20: Line 21:
:''External'' (service or a client e.g. LKPP KeyCloack or CpL)
:''External'' (service or a client e.g. LKPP KeyCloack or CpL)


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)
‎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)


Goals - (Product approval requirements)
Success Criteria - (Boundaries definition/quality define tolerance and control limits specification)


===Concrete implementation===
'''Output'''
'''Process (execution mode)'''
'''Input'''


Concrete implementation
Output
Process (execution mode)
Input


model should also include:
===model should also include:===
Stakeholders identification
:'''Stakeholders identification'''
Budget
:'''Budget'''
timing  
:'''timing'''


Create a template with proper UI like this that fills up your logic model:
===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