Expand my Community achievements bar.

What are your Workfront "rules of engagement"?

Avatar

Level 10
hi there, does anyone's governance team have any documentation around the rules of engagement for launching new teams or work processes within their Workfront instance? I'm looking to crib information that helps direct worker culture around expectations that when new workflows/teams are launched in your instance, there's a "soft handoff" where everyone involved understands how the workflow they used to follow outside of Workfront has transitioned into Workfront, has agreed to follow it, and understands how to find and manage the work. If you have anything pertaining to how it's determined whether a workflow is appropriate for transition into Workfront I would love to see that as well. Just trying not to recreate the wheel here. Thank you! -skye
4 Replies

Avatar

Level 2
I would also be interested in hearing about any success stories regarding governance. Thanks! Amanda Levine Liberty Mutual Insurance Company

Avatar

Level 10
I'm not sure on the success rate we have on this, but I can tell you what we ended up doing. I ended up putting this responsibility on the people requesting the Team or Workflow. I would train them of course and set up the process, but I put the task of communicating and enforcing on them because then they have "skin in the game" as they say. And it forces them to be more focused and understand the process. It also, let's me know if they truly want this process. If they're not willing to spend the time understanding it, they're not willing to spend the time making it work and it usually just slowly fades away and then they've wasted everyone's time. The reason we got here, is because outside of IT (who are all forced to use WF – it's our product of choice for work management) other business teams heard about WF and want to use it. But they tend to think it'll read their mind and magically work the way they imagined. Obviously like any tool, it needs care and feeding. So they need to understand it and the new Team/Workflow as well as possible. In addition, by making them responsible it holds more weight when the message comes from their supervisor (who's usually the requestor). As opposed to the message coming from someone outside their department, whom they don't even know (me �� ). So typically I: Inform them it'll take a little care and feeding Walk them through the process If they're no longer interested or waffling at this point it usually dies (which is actually a good thing as it saves us both a lot of time) I ask them to take a couple of basic WF training modules to get familiar with the product (again this tests their desire) I personally train them on some WF basics (as a refresher) and the new workflow and if they wish I train their team as well I'll also follow up with the supervisor occasionally just to check in. This is a good practice as they usually have questions but never find the time to ask. So they get a lot of "a ha" moments during these follow ups. Hope that helps. Vic Alejandro, PMP, CSM | IT | Sr. IT Project Manager Denver Water | t: (303-628-7262) | c: (303-319-6473) "http://www.denverwater.org/"> http://www.denverwater.org INTEGRITY | VISION | PASSION | EXCELLENCE | RESPECT

Avatar

Level 10
hey y'all, I wanted to update you to let you know that I launched a first draft of our rules of engagement to my core team to review, earlier this week. Obviously I cannot share the file, but I can generally talk through my solution: I ended up creating the rules of engagement as an interpretation of our company values, so that our users would quickly align themselves with familiar expectations. My company's core values are [paraphrased] service, teamwork, education, excellence and responsibility. I was able to use these values to tie in required reporting/auditing, ownership / documentation of their process, cooperation and agreement, training each other, and work resolution. Users are divided into one of two roles: those doing work and those requesting work. Everything is then described in those terms. As a quick example: speedy work resolution directly aligns with our "service" value and we define Workfront as a place where we put work so that it can be completed and audited. Once a user understands this, then they will be more inclined to close out projects so that they can remain in compliance, and they will be unsurprised to hear that we've cancelled all inactive projects. This kind of cooperation lessens the burden currently being placed on the system admins to enforce how we work. Per the Leap session given by the two Steves, I talked more towards the intention rather than giving specific rules. The intention of our rules of engagement are to be a guide for those users who feel a little lost ("why am I doing things the way I am") as well as a way to align our new additions to our Workfront area. -skye

Avatar

Level 10
Thanks Skye for sharing this. It's a brilliant way to present it and I'm going to adapt it!