Stephen Smoogen asked me to go over the logic model with him a bit today, which
we did in #fedora-server. Since it may be useful to others, here's a log of our
conversation. I hope it helps disambiguate things.
(12:01:08 PM) sgallagh: OK, so let me start from a fairly high-level view.
(12:01:45 PM) sgallagh: We originally developed the Server PRD shortly after
Flock Charleston with a bunch of ideas we had for what the Server Edition should
(12:02:23 PM) sgallagh: It's been a couple years since then and the world has
changed, so instead of the small tweaks we made to the PRD last year, we decided
it might be time to take the design back to brass tacks
(12:02:50 PM) smooge: that is good. I am looking at using this process on EPEL
also (since it doesn't even have a PRD)
(12:03:03 PM) sgallagh: As part of that effort, I latched on to the Kellogg
Logic Model as a means to accomplish two things:
(12:03:18 PM) sgallagh: 1) Provide a structured brainstorming model for what we
want to get done
(12:03:30 PM) sgallagh: 2) Provide an organized, step-by-step guide for how to
(12:04:12 PM) sgallagh: Essentially, we will use this model to provide a
high-level view of what we want to achieve over the next couple years
(12:04:44 PM) sgallagh: The KLM is broken up into five main categories: three
that we can affect directly and two that are results or consequences from those.
(12:05:32 PM) sgallagh: Normally, planning is done from right to left; in
essence we start by describing what we want the end-state to look like and then
work backwards from there, ensuring that every step along the way ties itself
directly to those goals
(12:06:04 PM) sgallagh: Execution goes left to right.
(12:07:17 PM) sgallagh: I should mention the five categories (from left to
right): "Inputs", "Activities", "Outputs" and then
"Outcomes" and "Impact"
(12:07:55 PM) sgallagh: So planning begins with "Impact". In other words, what
is the grand change that we want to see in the world/industry as a result of our
(12:08:32 PM) sgallagh: smooge: With me so far?
(12:09:01 PM) smooge: trying
(12:09:32 PM) sgallagh: smooge: OK, what can I do to make it clearer?
(12:10:08 PM) smooge: I don't understand how we can plan for stuff we don't have
(12:10:46 PM) smooge: So if we can work on Impacts, Activities and Outputs but
Outcomes and Impact are not ours to actually say about.. why do we start with
(12:11:02 PM) smooge: does that make sense?
(12:11:11 PM) sgallagh: I didn't say we had no affect over them
(12:11:22 PM) sgallagh: I said that we don't have *direct* affect.
(12:11:45 PM) sgallagh: For a simple example: I want my employees to be healthier.
(12:11:59 PM) sgallagh: So I build a gymnasium in the office.
(12:12:13 PM) sgallagh: I can't *directly* make my employees healthy, but I can
provide a path to it.
(12:13:03 PM) sgallagh: Actually, let's take that as an example to work through
(12:13:19 PM) smooge: ok sounds good
(12:13:58 PM) sgallagh: The Impact I want to have is "Improved employee
(12:14:19 PM) sgallagh: An Outcome that I might seek is "Employees spend their
PTO on vacation instead of sick leave"
(12:15:04 PM) sgallagh: So one of many Outputs I might include would be building
a gym for them to exercise before/after work.
(12:15:24 PM) sgallagh: smooge: Is that a little easier to follow?
(12:15:37 PM) smooge: yes
(12:16:18 PM) smooge: though my pedantic brain tries to rebel at connecting the
(12:16:24 PM) sgallagh: So then we'd go down to Activities which would be things
like "Purchase gym equipment" and then futher to Inputs which would be capital
(12:16:40 PM) sgallagh: Well, that's actually the most important part
(12:16:48 PM) sgallagh: And yes, this is a contrived example
(12:17:20 PM) sgallagh: The most important aspect of this is that nothing
appears to the left in the model without directly serving at least one element
to the right (except Impact, of course)
(12:18:06 PM) sgallagh: Among other things, this helps trim down on work that
doesn't directly advance the mission
(12:19:30 PM) sgallagh: So my first goal for this process is to get everyone in
the WG on the same page wrt our "mission"
(12:19:47 PM) sgallagh: *How* do we want to change the world
(12:20:13 PM) sgallagh: And then break it down until we have a path there
(12:20:56 PM) ***sgallagh leaves room for comments
(12:21:18 PM) smooge: ok that makes a lot more sense than the web pages I was
(12:22:03 PM) sgallagh: Oh, good
(12:22:56 PM) sgallagh: It's really not anything that there aren't a hundred
other frameworks for, but since we weren't using *any* of them, going with the
one that other parts of the Fedora Project latched on to seemed sensible
(12:23:01 PM) smooge: so when I looked at the taiga board I felt the impacts
were too large to be achievable. I see "Improved employee retention" as
something that is achievable because it can be measured against
(12:23:58 PM) sgallagh: Well, this model differentiates between "capable of
being measured" and "we have a way to measure it".
(12:24:19 PM) smooge: I am trying to figure out how much of that inability to
see due to inbuilt blinders
(12:24:21 PM) sgallagh: But when we get to that phase, we may indeed change
what's there to make it more possible
(12:24:48 PM) smooge: since I have a ton of inbuilt blinders :)
(12:25:38 PM) sgallagh: Please also be aware that the Taiga board is the result
of 20 minutes of brainstorming at Flock. They're a guidepost
(12:25:39 PM) smooge: the other part that didn't come up in the articles I read
was how we move left to right in the KLM.
(12:25:49 PM) sgallagh: I expect them to change markedly once the whole WG is
hacking at it
(12:26:41 PM) sgallagh: smooge: Sorry, could you rephrase that? I'm not sure
what statement you are making.
(12:26:58 PM) smooge: as in if the Impact was "End World Hunger" but all the
items on the left were unable to make that happen.. how do you go with "Ok I
have N inputs, what can I do with that to and how do I change End World Hunger
to End Hunger on my street"
(12:27:39 PM) sgallagh: I'm still not quite following.
(12:27:49 PM) sgallagh: Inputs isn't "what I have". It's "what I
(12:28:51 PM) smooge: ok. so I normally deal with "what I have" because I never
have "what I need"
(12:28:52 PM) sgallagh: If you don't have what you need when you get down to
that point, then it's time to consider new Outputs, probably.
(12:29:28 PM) sgallagh: Right, and that's probably the easiest place to get
(12:30:12 PM) sgallagh: in this model, planning always moves right to left. If
you get to the end and discover that "what I need" doesn't match "what
you either need to acquire what you don't have, reconsider what you need, or
change what you plan to deliver.
(12:30:22 PM) sgallagh: The model will iterate in that case
(12:32:37 PM) sgallagh: smooge: Do you understand, or am I being obtuse?
(12:32:53 PM) smooge: no I believe I understand.
(12:33:32 PM) smooge: I am mostly writing and then rewriting responses because
my brain is picking apart the framework for not covering all the counterpoints
it keeps coming up with
(12:33:48 PM) smooge: and I am telling myself that a response isn't needed to do
(12:34:18 PM) smooge: it is just a framework to get discussion going not a
framework like ruby on rails that I am depending my website on
(12:34:45 PM) sgallagh: yes, exactly.
(12:35:02 PM) sgallagh: It's something we can point to later every time someone
says "What if we did X?"
(12:35:18 PM) smooge: so my silence is me typing stuff and then going and saying
that sentence was not going to be helpful.. retype, retype
(12:35:56 PM) smooge: versus me not paying attention.
(12:36:26 PM) sgallagh: I wasn't making any accusations. I was mostly just
hoping I wasn't talking over you :)
(12:36:54 PM) smooge: soryr I didn't feel like you were... I was being quiet a
lot when you were waiting for things
(12:37:10 PM) sgallagh: What responses were you thinking, though?
(12:37:34 PM) menantea is now known as menantea_away
(12:37:42 PM) sgallagh: I mean, your last point is correct; it's meant for
framing the discussion, not for deciding specific technical actions.
(12:38:13 PM) sgallagh: smooge: For another example, mattdm used this one at
(12:39:01 PM) smooge: well most of problems with it are the lack of feeding
stuff you find from the left back into the right. You waterfall into the top and
work down to the bottom over and over again
(12:40:11 PM) sgallagh: Right, but that's very intentional.
(12:40:30 PM) sgallagh: If the stuff you find in the left doesn't already match
something that you're trying to achieve, it's *probably* noise
(12:40:57 PM) sgallagh: And if it's revealing something you *should* be trying
to achieve, then it makes sense to go through the revision process to include it
(12:41:00 PM) sgallagh: (IMHO)
(12:43:47 PM) smooge: school calling. i am on phone
(12:44:47 PM) sgallagh: smooge: Unless you have other questions, I think we're
done for now.
(12:45:00 PM) sgallagh: Do you mind if I post this discussion to the server@
list for anyone else who is interested?
(12:45:19 PM) smooge: no problems on my part
(12:45:35 PM) sgallagh: OK, thanks