Tuesday, November 3, 2009
SDP implementation comments
This week I was asked to analyze and comment on a Structured Design Process (SDP) process example. I choose the XY234 drug development example. The author really spends much time discussing the front end work and its benefits regarding the SDP process. I believe I can agree with the claim that the front end process was of benefit to the participants and stockholders. The conclusions seem to indicate successful implementation of the SDP process, however, it appears that either the process has not been concluded yet. Early claim was that the drug process may take 12 to 15 years to get to market, so this process may not be completed yet. But this example remains an example of the front end process but not to the whole process, because there is no over all completion to say that the SDP process is better than the conventional process, at least in this example. I might also make a minor observation in that the author has chosen the Structured Design Process as the name of his democratic process. The adoption of this name implies that other or previous design processes, such as the discovery of the laws governing planets, such as gravity, or the design process of sending men to the moon, were not structured. I am sure that the author did not mean this, but it strikes me in this manner.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
That is funny the obersvation you make. It strikes me funny that the process is 15 years out but not completed yet. I bring this up because it seems that we were curing all sorts of diseases back in the 1940s and 1950s. We cured malira, polio, and all sorts of nastys. Yet today we only seem to produce drugs that get us by and not a full on cure. Why is this? Do you think it is because of the SDP. Were we following other processes in the past?
ReplyDeleteYour thoughts?
Dennis, one observation I made is that, without computers, SDP actually uses a much slower consensus process than the commonly accepted Delphi. It deliberately uses the Nominal Group Technique (NGT) to slow things down so that, the whole exercise is setup as a thoughtful and reflective process. The increased speed witnessed from this process is more of a direct result of the software used to consolidate and present it all as the session unfolds.
ReplyDeleteChristakis makes a big deal out of the time saved by having the interactive software, and, how it helps keep authenticity of each participant’s contributions. In addition, it relieves the participants from having to deal with “the deep logic involved in complex social design”. The software does this without delay or difficulty. Once again, automation of tedious tasks afforded by technology is particularly visible, especially today. This would not have been the case when the initial software tool was released in the early 1970s. I find that quite relevant. It helps me understand, to some degree, why such a process has yet to “break loose” in the wild world of social collaboration.
I think there might even be application for this method on a smaller scale. Just because a projects do not involve a slough of departments, doesn’t mean that a project is less complex.
There is a mention of this on page 19 of his book in reference to group dialogue work as being done either between organizations or within one. I see the three key roles identified in chapter 6 as something that could be scaled down to a team project and be quite helpful to the PM!
I wanted to make a comment about Mark's post. I feel he brought up a few important points that merit a reply. Forgive my boldness for posting to that effect Dennis.
ReplyDeleteI believe SDP may have something to do with poorly effective drugs we now find on the market. But, I don’t think that’s the crooks of it.
One of my theories is that the mighty dollar is still the biggest trump card in the game of pharmaceuticals and medical care. I can’t get over the funding provided those companies. There might be a strong argument against social medicine but, there is also quite an argument for the opposing camp. I find it interesting that this is not covered more in detail in the news lately. Freedom of choice is one thing. Providing accessible care and medicines to all is quite another. I personally have an ethical issue with not affording everyone with some level of care. But that’s another story.
I also know for a fact that, some drugs deemed inappropriate for over-the-counter consumption here in the United States are sold in your regular pharmacy in Canada. Why would this be? I can attest that the verification process is no less stringent up north.
Another theory as to why curing diseases today is a less successful endeavor is that we live in a world of processed foods. I remember an Australian lady I met about 8 years ago or so. She was visiting family in the USA. She could not get over the numerous processed food products on our grocers’ shelves. There’s a lot to be said for the chemicals added to our food and all those substitutes. Like it or not, our anatomy isn’t designed to process that mess, right down to the smallest genes. I’ll contribute more thoughts about this on the “Delicious, nutritious food w/low calories & no side-effects (increase metabolism)” blog post by Yang.
Thanks Dennis. Great blog!