Background

“Innovate with C.A.R.E” is skills/roles and task approach to teamwork project management.
http://www.inscapebaltic.lv/en/inimeste_arendamine/analyses/innovate_with_car/
http://www.communicateinstitute.com/innovatewithcare.shtml

C.A.R.E. facilitates ideas through to successful execution using a system of handoffs and a division of roles. All team members take ownership and become stakeholders in the outcome.
The CREATOR develops and promotes an idea. He/she documents the big picture. He/she then hands off the concept to the ADVANCERS, who take ownership.
The ADVANCERS develop the idea further and document all to an executable form. The thoughts may come down directly, or may weave an flow a bit--it's their job to make an executable plan. Sometimes ADVANCERS work plans in stages (perhaps from big picture to tiny details), sometimes not. They know their work plan will be turned over to the REFINERS.
It’s the job of the REFINERS to challenge the plan and document issues that could prevent successful implementation (a bit like a gatekeeper). The plan, with the REFINERS documented issues, is handed back are handed off to the CREATOR and/or ADVANCERS. (The flow between Advancers and Refiners can be one or many.) If the REFINERS find no issues, the plan is ready to go. The REFINER hands-off the final plan (from the ADVANCERS) to the EXECUTORS.
The EXECUTORS implemented the plan in accordance with the terms set out by the ADVANCERS.
The FACILITATOR is an overseer—he/she makes sure tasks are handed off in good order so the idea moves forward; keeps the effort from getting bogged down in bureaucracy.

BetterGEDCOM_Care.png


Practical thoughts and possible benefits:

C.A.R.E. fosters healthy conflict and expects success in an ordinary process. Who doesn’t like that? In another life, groups I worked with used this consistently on project teams where there was no voting (all the responsibility and none of the authority). Much like the BetterGEDCOM effort, we needed to deliver a top notch product with absolute confidence it would work as designed. Our group found this to be scalable for day to day purpose and mega new ideas--but it is simple. (Is it too simple?) In practices, we rarely used the formal terms, but the roles were always understood.

The process forces conflict to its best use. Those advancing a project are given the latitude to develop the idea as they see best--they have the space to resolve conflicts between each other by taking the idea to a higher level. Those involved in refining the may not agree with each other all the time, either—but it’s not their job to agree—it’s their job to discover all the potential problems.
Shared ownership is a challenge for any idea based team effort, yet with each handoff, CARE sets out to accomplish just that.
This might be good way to foster more involvement on the Wiki and in BetterGEDCOM. Folks can participate in one phase or another of a project, as their talent permits. The team wants the very best personnel to be assigned to each phase.
Each handoff is accompanied by documentation—the process seems well suited to a wiki system.
Thoughts about customizing for BetterGEDCOM.
  1. I’d like to see Geir act as the facilitator for all proposals, including that he be permitted to assign that role, for any given project, to any other party as he sees fit.
  2. Allocate part of the Requirements Catalog for “Proposals.” The Creator links from the Requirements Catalog to their Proposal Page (and cross links to any appropriate wiki section)
  3. Part of that “Proposal” would show links to the different phases of the process.
  4. “Execute” for BetterGEDCOM = VOTE.
  5. It’s the value of the process/roles that we want to respect. There isn’t any need to advance/refine/vote in order to change a light bulb. Perhaps when Geir views an the articulated proposal as straight forward, he simply request … “are there any objections.” The proposal would remain on the wiki, with a comment that it was “advanced” directly to the requirements catalog. The discussion tab to that proposal page would remain open for others to comment as necessary (OR … comments could be redirected to a tab on the appropriate Requirements Catalog page.

What did I miss? Anyone wanna advance this one?


Comments

GeneJ 2011-05-02T17:51:38-07:00
Proposal: Proposal for BetterGEDCOM to C.A.R.E.
C.A.R.E. facilitates ideas through to successful execution using a system of handoffs and a division of roles. All team members take ownership and become stakeholders in the outcome.

http://bettergedcom.wikispaces.com/Proposal+for+BetterGEDCOM+to+C.A.R.E

Thoughts about customizing for BetterGEDCOM.
1. I’d like to see Geir being the facilitator for all proposals, including that he assign that role for any given project to to any other party as he sees fit.
2. Assign part of the Requirements Catalog for “Proposals.” The Creator link from the Requirements Catalog to their Proposal Page (and cross link to any wiki section)
3. Part of that the “Proposal” would show links to the different phases of the process.
4. “Execute” for BetterGEDCOM = VOTE.
5. It’s the value of the process/roles that we want to respect. There isn’t any need to advance/refine/vote in order to change a light bulb. Perhaps when Geir views an the articulated proposal as straight forward, he simply request … “are there any objections.” The proposal would remain on the wiki, with a comment that it was “advanced” directly to the requirements catalog. The discussion tab to that proposal page would remain open for others to comment as necessary (OR … comments could be redirected to a tab on the appropriate Requirements Catalog page.
mmartineau 2011-05-02T21:31:53-07:00
Advancing CARE
This looks good. It still needs to be formalized to remove ambiguities. A major concern I have is strictly assigning roles of refiners and advancers.

"He/she [creator] then hands off the concept to the ADVANCERS, who take ownership... They [advancers] know their work plan will be turned over to the REFINERS."

I don't see this working very well because participants (especially the creator) will want to work on the problem in all stages.

I see it working this way:
Someone has an idea to solve a problem (from requirements catalog or elsewhere). He/She is the creator who works out the initial draft. Interested and like minded participants (advancers) join in and help with moving the draft along. At some point those involved decide it is done and ready for adoption. They propose the draft be adopted as official by starting a PROPOSAL discussion. They also send a message (email) to all wiki members with a link to the proposal. This mass email message brings in others who previously may or may not have known about the work being done. This body of people informally become the refiners and pick apart the proposed draft. The process continues until the idea is refined, at which point a vote is taken to adopt the draft. If the vote fails, refinement continues or perhaps someone else comes up with another way and follows the same process.

It seems this would be a good approach for the initial creation of an "official" page. I would like less "rigorous" process for making modifications to already adopted pages.
GeneJ 2011-05-03T05:32:20-07:00
C.A.R.E. may not be the right teamwork approach. In use, I didn't find it to be rigorous. It's less about approvals/votes and more about better outcomes via common respect for the roles/tasks.

We used it in an entrepreneurial (actually "opportunistic," environment). This isn't how we used it, but say BetterGEDCOM is setting out to develop a house plan.

BetterGEDCOM would want all the best ideas for laying out electrical, plumbing, fixtures, etc. At the end of the day, however, no one "wins" by getting their way on the bathtub vote. If the bathtub doesn't fit in the bathroom and the bathroom doesn't fit in the house and the house doesn't fit on the lot, the plan fails. Likewise, if the house fits on the lot, but the bathtub was an afterthought, that plan fails too.
AdrianB38 2011-05-03T12:37:22-07:00
I think Mike's more informal view of the world is more likely to be acceptable to Wiki members, particularly the Creators. I can imagine the typical Wiki member switching off at the 3rd box in the diagram. And let's be honest - I seriously don't think we have enough active members to take on separate roles like that. It's only my personal opinion but every time we say "Can we hold work on X while we all work on Y?", all that happens is we hold work on X and just the same people work on Y!

If this post sounds tired, cynical, whatever, please accept my apologies. CARE is an interesting concept and worth considering but - I think we have to bear in mind this is a Wiki for people's hobby and there are strict limitations arising from that.
testuser42 2011-05-03T15:06:24-07:00
Interesting concept... I too think we're not enough people to have fixed roles. We really should have more people voicing their opinion. How many of the ~100 registered people are really visiting this wiki regularly? We could need your help, guys and gals :) Please join the debate and don't just keep lurking :)
mmartineau 2011-05-03T17:16:33-07:00
I do like some of the concepts of CARE. In the developers meeting louiskessler said something to the effect that he is concerned about the potential for the amount of voting to go through the roof because of every little change (at least I think that's what he meant). I agree. I think the solution I outlined above for creating an initial official page, will help reduce the needed voting because people can work out their ideas first and get the whole thing ready for approval before calling in everyone for a review and vote. In many ways, that is already how work is being done on the wiki already. testuser42, AdrianB38 and gthorud have been working out ideas on E&C. Eventually they will start solidifying their ideas into a well written document that then can be presented for a vote to adopt.

Now if we just add a little more structure to other parts of the wiki, we can start channeling other ideas in the same way.
gthorud 2011-05-04T18:22:54-07:00
As has been said, at the moment we simply do not have enough people to adopt CARE formally. We need everybody everywhere.

We will just have to use the left side of the brain as creator and the right as refiner - it has been my modus operandi all the time althoug I tend to be more of a creator until the possibilities/options are on the table - with the better understanding gained during that phase I go back to check if it would really work.

If more people join in the future, we may reconsidder.