Strategy Markup Language (StratML) Part 3
Issues and Additional Elements for Potential Inclusion
In Schema/Form Order
 
April 12, 2012


1.  Enable version numbering at the plan/report level.

This extension was discussed on the StratML Committee's March 1 teleconference and there seemed to be consensus to include it as an optional-use element.

2.  Make the optional <OtherInformation> element repeatable at the plan/report level and allow each additional type of information to be named and sequenced -- to enable the inclusion of as many additional types and sections of information as desired.

This extension was discussed on the StratML Committee's March 1 teleconference.  No conclusion was drawn but one suggestion was to limit the number of instances that may be included if the element is made repeatable.  In the example below, three instances are displayed.



3. Expand the list of special organization types and enable other types to be named as well.  The GPRA Modernization Act (GPRAMA) requires the identification of "program activities" contributing to Federal goals.  One way to address that requirement would be to treat programs (and projects) as special types of organizations.  Doing so would make all of the elements of the schema available for documenting programs, and the <Relationship> element could be used to associate <TargetResult>s and <ActualResult>s to the goals they support, thereby meeting the requirement of GPRAMA.  If programs (and projects) are addressed in this way, the question is whether other special types of organizations should be referenced in the StratML standard as well and, if so, how long or short the list should be (i.e., what other special types of organizations to name).  Another question is whether to allow additional types of organizations to be named.

This extension was discussed on the StratML Committee's March 1 teleconference.  There seemed to be agreement on including it and the suggestion was made to include the terms "Committee" and "Board of Directors" in the list of special types of organizations, as shown below.  To the degree the "Other Type" element may be used to name other types of organizations, AIIM could assume the role of determining whether to include those types in the controlled vocabulary included in the standard.





4.  Enable association of a <WebAddress> (URL) with each <Stakeholder> and <Role>.

This extension was discussed on the StratML Committee's March 1 teleconference and there seemed to be consensus to include it.

5.  Enable the identification of a point of contact for each <Stakeholder>.

This extension was discussed on the StratML Committee's March 1 teleconference and there seemed to be consensus to include it.  After an hour of good discussion, this was as far as the Committee got during its March 1 teleconference.  Discussion will resume on the Committee's next teleconference, scheduled for Thursday, March 15.




6.  Enable the naming and description of organizational competencies, with attribution of being of the following types:  Core, Supporting, Ancillary.

This extension was discussed on the March 15 teleconference and there seemed to be consensus to include it.

7.  Enable the naming and description of organizational value propositions.  Wikipedia defines "value proposition" as: " ... a promise of value to be delivered and a belief from the customer of value that will be experienced."

This extension was discussed on the March 15 teleconference and there seemed to be consensus to include it.




8.  Listing of Functions under Mission -- GPRAMA requires each agency to publish "a comprehensive mission statement covering the major functions and operations of the agency."  Making <Function> a repeatable child of <Mission> would enable the naming of as many functions as desired, while preserving the <Mission><Description> element for a concise statement, as intended in StratML Parts 1 & 2.  [Note: At this point, no changes have been proposed to the <Vision> statement but it is displayed to show the full context of the form.]

This extension was discussed on the March 15 teleconference and no changes were proposed.




9.  Enable the use of "strategic frameworks" -- particularly SWOT & PEST -- to provide background on the reasons that goals and objectives have been selected and framed as they appear in the plan.  [Note:  The <Value>s elements are display to show the full context of the form.]

This extension was discussed on the March 15 teleconference and there seemed to be consensus to include it.






10.  Enable <Goal>s to be designated (attributed) as being of High, Medium, or Low priority.

This extension was discussed on the March 15 teleconference and there seemed to be consensus to include it.  The possibility of applying the categorization elements to the <Goal> element was discussed, as a means of addressing OMB's desire to type goals as being applicable only to a single agency, to multiple agencies, or to all agencies.  However, no conclusion was reached in that regard.  Since the categorization elements are already proposed for application to the <Objective> element, use of those elements could be imputed upward to <Goal>s, thereby addressing the type of categorization OMB has in mind. 

11.  Enable place names to be associated with <Goal>s.

This extension was discussed on the March 15 teleconference and there seemed to be consensus to include it.

12.  Enable the identification of authorities under which <Goal>s are being pursued.

This extension was discussed on the March 29 teleconference and there seemed to be consensus to include it.

13.  Enable the identification of success factors associated with attainment of the <Goal>, with attribution of those factors as being critical or contributory and internal or external to the organization.

This extension was discussed on the March 29 teleconference and there seemed to be consensus to include it.  Phil Harris noted that it could be useful to understand which success factors are internal and which are external.




14.  Make the optional <OtherInformation> element repeatable at the <Goal> level and allow each additional type of information to be named and sequenced -- to enable the inclusion of as many additional types and sections of information as desired.

This extension was discussed on the March 29 teleconference.  As with the same element at the Plan/Report level, the committee seemed uncertain as to whether it warrants inclusion.  Sylvia Webb expressed a preference for use of the <WebAddress> element in lieu of the <OtherInformation> element.  However, William Glascoe raised the issue of records retention about the need for permanency of the information, and Betsy Fanning pointed out the unreliability of URLs.  So this item may warrant re-visitation at a subsequent meeting.




15.  Enable categorization of <Stakeholder>s under any number of taxonomies.

This extension was discussed on the March 29 teleconference and there seemed to be consensus to include it.




16.  Enable the association of a publication date with <Objective>s in order to make it easier to update and keep track of revisions to objectives (as minor changes) without requiring re-clearance and re-issuance of entire plans.

This extension was discussed on the March 29 teleconference and questions were raised about its meaning.  Sylvia Webb expressed a preference for use of a term like "Effective Date" rather than "Publication Date."  However, that raises the issue of whether a new element is justified for this purpose.  (The strawman draft schema for Part 3 reuses the <PublicationDate> element already included in Parts 1 & 2 at the plan/report level.)

17.  Enable the identification of management challenges and/or risks associated with achievement of an <Objective>, with attribution as being of High, Medium, or Low probability and impact.  GPRAMA requires agencies to identify "major management challenges". 

This extension was discussed on the March 29 teleconference and there seemed to be consensus to include it.






18.  Enable the categorization of <Objective>s and <PerformanceIndicator>s under as many taxonomies as desired.  Categorizations applied at the lower levels of the schema can be imputed upward to the <Goal>, <Organization>, and plan levels.  At the <PerformanceIndicator> level, categorization can be used, for example, to document the facets of a Balanced Scorecard.

This extension was discussed on the March 29 teleconference and there seemed to be consensus to include it.

On the April 12 teleconference apparent consensus was reached on enabling the designation of performance indicators as being Key, Secondary, or Ancillary, as shown in the revised screen shot below.



19.  Enable the weighting of <PerformanceIndicator>s in terms of percentage of an overall performance appraisal rating.

This extension was discussed on the March 29 teleconference and there seemed to be consensus to include it.

20.  Enable the use of three-, five-, or seven-level ratings for qualitative <PerformanceIndicator>s.  If performance goals (objectives) cannot be expressed in "objective, quantifiable, and measurable form," GPRAMA allows for the use of "alternative" (qualitative) performance indicators comprised of three levels.  OPM's SES Performance Appraisal System provides for a five-level rating.  Both could be accommodated by enabling the choice of different rating level ranges.

This extension was discussed on the March 29 teleconference and there seemed to be consensus to include it.  However, William Glascoe suggested that it might be worthwhile to enable usage of the <WebAddress> element as a child of both <TargetResult>s and <ActualResult>s to point to additional background or explanatory information external to the plan/report itself.  Consideration could also be given to enabling usage of the <OtherInformation> element at this level of the schema.

On the April 12 teleconference apparent consensus was reached to include the <OtherInformation> element set, including the <WebAddress> element, as an optional, repeatable set of elements -- thereby enabling users and applications to provide as many types of additional information about target and actual results as desired.  For example, GPRAMA requires agencies to provide "a description of how the agency will ensure the accuracy and reliability of the data used to measure progress towards its performance goals..."











21.  Enable each <PerformanceIndicator>, which is nested under a single <Goal> and <Objective>, to be related to (associated with) any number of other goals and objectives, as well as other performance indicators (or any other element having an <Identifier>). 

Note: Other than making <WebAddress> a child of <Relationship>, this is no change from StratML Part 2.  However, it is highlighted here because GPRAMA requires the identification of "... agencies, organizations, program activities, regulations, tax expenditures, policies, and other activities contributing to each Federal Government performance goal ..." 

The <Relationship> element can be used to meet that requirement.  Since the <PerformanceIndicator> element is a child of <Objective>, <Goal> and plan/report and since each plan/report is associated with organization(s), any relationship documented at the <PerformanceIndicator> level can be imputed upward to any of the other elements of the schema.

This extension was discussed on the March 29 teleconference and there seemed to be consensus to include it.  However, it is also clear that this is a complex topic that warrants further consideration at subsequent meetings.