DICE framework
![]() | This article's tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia. (August 2020) |
The DICE framework, or Duration, Integrity, Commitment, and Effort framework is a tool for evaluating projects,[1] predicting project outcomes, and allocating resources strategically to maximize delivery of a program or portfolio of initiatives, aiming for consistency in evaluating projects with subjective inputs. The framework produces the DICE score, an indicator of the likely success of a project based on various measures.[2] DICE was originally developed by Perry Keenan, Kathleen Conlon, and Alan Jackson, all current or former partners at the Boston Consulting Group.[3] It was first published in the Harvard Business Review[4] in 2005. The DICE framework was awarded a patent in 2014.[5] Although originally developed at the Boston Consulting Group (BCG),[6] this framework has become widely adopted[7] and is used by companies and professionals alike.
DICE acronym
[edit]The acronym DICE stands for:
- Duration (D):
- either the total duration of short projects, or the time between two milestones on longer projects
- Team performance integrity (I)
- the project team's ability to execute successfully, with specific emphasis on the ability of the project leader
- Commitment (C)
- levels of support, composed of two factors:
- C1 visible backing from the sponsor and senior executives for the change
- C2 support from those who are impacted by the change
- Effort (E)
- how much effort will it require to implement (above and beyond business as usual)
Calculation
[edit]Based on the statistical analysis from the outcome of change projects, success can be determined by assessing four factors (duration, team performance integrity, commitment, and effort). A DICE score between 7 and 14 is in the "Win" Zone (very likely to succeed), while a DICE score between 14 and 17 falls in the "Worry" Zone (hard to predict success), and a DICE score higher than 17 falls in the "Woe" Zone (indicating high unpredictability or likely to not succeed).[8] The DICE score is calculated according to the following formula:[9]
- D + (2 x I) + (2 x C1) + C2 + E
- Duration
- < 2 months = 1
- 2-4 months = 2
- 4-8 months = 3
- > 8 months = 4
- Team performance integrity
- Very good = 1
- Good = 2
- Average = 3
- Poor = 4
- Commitment (senior management)
- Clearly and strongly communicate the need = 1
- Seem to want success = 2
- Neutral = 3
- Reluctant = 4
- Commitment (local)
- Eager = 1
- Willing = 2
- Reluctant = 3
- Strongly Reluctant = 4
- Effort
- < 10% additional = 1
- 10-20% additional = 2
- 20-40% additional = 3
- > 40 % additional = 4
References
[edit]- ^ Sirkin, Harold; Keenan, Perry; Jackson, Alan (2005). "The Hard Side of Change Management". Harvard Business Review. 83 (10): 108–18, 158. PMID 16250629.
- ^ Concas, Giulio; Giulio Concas; Ernesto Damiani; Marco Scotto (June 2007). Agile Processes in Software Engineering and Extreme Programming. Springer. p. 144. ISBN 978-3-540-73100-9.
- ^ Banhegyi, Stephen George and Eugenie May (April 2007). The Art and Science of Change. STS Trust. p. 97. ISBN 978-0-9802550-3-4.
- ^ Sirkin, Harold; Keenan, Perry; Jackson, Alan (2005). "The Hard Side of Change Management". Harvard Business Review. 83 (10): 108–18, 158. PMID 16250629.
- ^ "DICE Patent". United States Patent and Trademark Office, USPTO.[permanent dead link]
- ^ Banhegyi, Stephen George and Eugenie May (April 2007). The Art and Science of Change. STS Trust. p. 97. ISBN 978-0-9802550-3-4.
- ^ Extreme Programming and Agile Processes in Software Engineering. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Vol. 4044. Springer. July 26, 2006. pp. 116–121. doi:10.1007/11774129. ISBN 3540350942.
- ^ Sirkin, Harold; Keenan, Perry; Jackson, Alan (2005). "The Hard Side of Change Management". Harvard Business Review. 83 (10): 108–18, 158. PMID 16250629.
- ^ Sirkin, Harold; Keenan, Perry; Jackson, Alan (2005). "The Hard Side of Change Management". Harvard Business Review. 83 (10). The Boston Consulting Group: 108–18, 158. PMID 16250629.