Breaking a Plan: Creating a Decision Support System

1. What happens when you break a plan: Chaos, distaste.
2. What happens when you look at past decisions and crib at them: You lose the taste of enjoyment of present and look towards future with disdain.
3. What happens when your patience level needs to be more: Get back to planning with a future date in mind.
4. What happens when you experience a positive turnaround: A fresh perspective, with young energy and a sense of accomplishment and purpose to live through current
   

Plan, Calibrate, Action are the 3 ways to keep the path of positive reinforcement training. This is how, I would prefer Decision Support Systems Training to focus than treat it as a glorified multiple choice assessment sequence.

Typical methods are to provide a scenario, give few options, provide feedback or a changed scenario and showcase the end results. But they just live in realm of education and once out in the world, more forces, more people, and more variations, do not equip the trainees any further than they were before the training...

Instead could a Decision Support System,
1. Provide a Case

2. Ask the users to write a plan
3. Make them navigate the plan through various choices they have in the support world
4. Help them revisit it at a point and ask them to Calibrate it for better future.
5. Make them navigate the revised plan through various choices in support world
6. and continue the cycle for the number of times, they would like to see how a break in plan forces them down the alley of darkness and hence make a plan to stay on course.

In essence, to me, a good decision support system training is one that enforces the fact that I should Plan and Action it according to the plan. If I break a plan, I should have learnt my lessons not to shove it off, but to calibrate it as a revised plan.

Possible? Searching for good references on above... Can you help, please?

Low Budgets, Less Time introduces stereotypes and constraints

Isn't it ?

When you are looking for quick solutions "NOW", you tend to ask and see what majority people use and buy. You seem to think that if it works for them, it will work for you as well. Further, such instances lead to dire needs, that you intend to cut the "desired" features and go for the basic stuff "that works", a compromise.

Thus you make the purchase, lest allow the sales person earn his "incentive" (I was told to use this word, instead of commission) through his skills on selling. A "bad" situation indeed.

In other instances, you understand the need and desire for a solution that eases some time off you. You have been doing the job and now, with a little automation for a small fee, try to do more with earlier constraints removed. The catch is this. For a better budget, you get to free "all" your time for better and productive tasks. But inflicting self constraints and not opening up, leads to desired vs accepted level gap.

What do sellers and vendors do.

1. Do what is accepted by majority, that is create stereotypes, thereby innovating a solution at bottom pyramid.
2. Put limitations/constraints on the solution, as to what is delivered and leave what is possible, for better times, thus manage time.
   

See what has happened? When both consumer and producer should work and concentrate on the "solution", both are now looking at "cost and time" and fitting the solution inside the slot machine.

Hence, please give sufficient time to allow for work, iterations, discussions, wider feedback to get the best bang for your buck. Instead of going down a range, try moving within a range judiciously, to accept/tweak feature/functionality that are desirable and useful.

Any alternate line of thoughts, welcome.

Never enough time to get it right - the first time

I found this quote as a gmail custom message put up by my colleague. In her own words, it is "inspired by reality".

" Why do we always have time for rework… but never enough to get it right the first time?"- Richa

As said in one of my earlier post, focus, discipline and course correction are the key execution attributes. Where does it go wrong then ?

When ever, a deadline is set, all team members race to the finish line. There is no one left in the pit stop to

1. check,
2. prevent,
3. advice,
4. correct and
5. fine tune the system according to circumstances and senses.

When the discipline to stick to stated efforts and schedule is missed, the focus gets lost from "quality" to "just get it out" model, which then leads to multiple rounds of iteration.

Had only some one stopped at pitstop and course corrected the entire execution...