Information handling/Structure/Quality

Get Started. It's Free
or sign up with your email address
Information handling/Structure/Quality by Mind Map: Information handling/Structure/Quality

1. Information handling

1.1. Scope

1.1.1. We will suggest a structure for handling information

1.1.1.1. We will propose file formats to use for different information/data

1.1.2. We will propose a method for storing files/data

1.1.2.1. Version handling must be included

1.1.3. We will propose a method for naming files

1.1.3.1. So data is searchable

1.2. Requirements

1.2.1. All groups must commit to the same methods (and structure) so data and information can be processed and accessed by all team members and groups. This is important in order to be able to handle and present relevant and comparable data in the report.

1.2.2. Each team member is responsible for providing references for added content

1.3. Results

1.3.1. Formats

1.3.1.1. Formats for written documents

1.3.1.1.1. Word

1.3.1.1.2. Google Documents

1.3.1.2. Formats for spreadsheets

1.3.1.2.1. Excel

1.3.1.2.2. Google Spreadsheet

1.3.1.3. Formats for presentations

1.3.1.3.1. PowerPoint

1.3.1.3.2. Google Presentations

1.3.1.4. Non editable formats

1.3.1.4.1. Documents

1.3.1.4.2. Images

1.3.1.4.3. Audio/Video

1.3.1.5. Requirements

1.3.1.5.1. Material to be used in the final reports must be converted to a format that can be edited and handled by Google Drive.

1.3.1.5.2. All collectors of data are responsible for naming files correct, uploading them in correct folder and converting them to correct format for further usage

1.3.2. Storing files

1.3.2.1. All files used for the project must be located in the Google Drive folder "Future of Banking" created for the project

1.3.2.2. The files must be located in the correct country/function folder

1.3.2.3. Proposal

1.3.2.3.1. Within each group there must be 1 folder for documents related to the final report and 1 folder for data collection.

1.3.2.3.2. Example

1.3.2.4. Requirements

1.3.2.4.1. Mandatory folders must be kept updated with only the latest versions to avoid confusion

1.3.3. Naming structure

1.3.3.1. [Descriptive name] - [Groupname]

1.3.3.2. Use existing groups

1.3.3.2.1. Steering group

1.3.3.2.2. Country groups

1.3.3.2.3. Functional groups

1.3.3.3. Example

1.3.3.3.1. Porters 5 Forces - Kenya

1.3.3.4. Information

1.3.3.4.1. Dates and version are generated by Google Drive

2. Introduction

2.1. Assignment

2.1.1. Information handling/Structure/Quality Present a plan for Information handling and set the quality and standard - An enormous amount of data will soon be created by all country groups how to handle the data and make it searchable? - Models from the books to use? And standard forms to make sure we use the same base models?

2.2. Our Principle

2.2.1. Our approach is to define the simplest and clearest structure that all team members can understand and buy in to so creativity can flow without complications and micromanagement

2.3. Status

2.3.1. All requirements needs to be passed on to Steering Group after they have been reviewed by the functional teams

2.4. Quetstions

2.4.1. Will the functional groups remain during the entire project?

3. Structure

3.1. Scope

3.1.1. We will propose an approach for the structure of the reports

3.1.2. We will present a method how to syncronize the work between country/focusgroups

3.1.3. We will propose a method of how to create transparency regarding activitiy and responsibility across country groups

3.1.4. Note

3.1.4.1. Final presentation structure is not within the scope

3.2. Requirements

3.2.1. Approval from Steering group is required

3.2.2. Each team member is responsible for providing sources/references for all content submitted

3.3. Results

3.3.1. Report Structure

3.3.1.1. Principle

3.3.1.1.1. We recommend that Ngozis and KPMGs structure from the project brief is used until there is need for change based on actual findings and results

3.3.1.2. General Structure

3.3.1.2.1. Overall business environment, market conditions and characteristics

3.3.1.2.2. Key business sectors/drivers of growth for banking sector

3.3.1.2.3. Overall banking competitive landscape

3.3.1.2.4. Banking Delivery channels

3.3.1.2.5. Perspectives on the requirements/factors (based on the detailed assessment above)

3.3.1.3. Additional topics

3.3.1.3.1. Key market trends and developments

3.3.1.3.2. Detailed current state assessment of the banking industry in the target markets

3.3.2. Method for syncronizing the work between country/focusgroups

3.3.2.1. One individual from each country group is responsible for handling coordination between groups when checking in/out task and content that can be of interest for other groups

3.3.2.1.1. Trello can be used to clarify functional responsibility and progress

3.3.2.1.2. Slack channels can be used for notification

3.3.2.1.3. Ongoing and and in sync with milestones

3.3.2.2. Break down a commonly agreed structure (deliverable) into action lists (as we know of today)

3.3.2.2.1. Check with steering group

3.3.2.2.2. Check with project plan group

3.3.3. Method for transparency regarding activitiy and responsibility across country groups

3.3.3.1. Activity progress can be tracked in Trello

3.3.3.2. Group coordinator has a responsibility to notify about activity with a cross group relevance

3.3.3.3. Slack is used for communication between and within groups

3.3.3.4. Google Drive is the hub for all content related to the project

3.3.3.5. Project progress is communicated to KPMG through the milestone plan

3.3.3.5.1. Steering group is responsible for presentation

4. Quality

4.1. Description

4.1.1. By setting clear structures and methods we can avoid fragmented results and make sure that we can operate at our highest possible level but it will not ensure high quality. For that to happen we need review processes,(internal and external), whistleblowing functions and also a clearly set quality/evaluation strategy.

4.2. Scope

4.2.1. We will propose a review process based on milestones

4.2.1.1. Internal and external

4.2.2. We will propose a method for evaluating the project

4.2.3. We will propose a whistle blowing function for handling clogs

4.3. Requirements

4.3.1. A new functional group should be formed for review and evaluation tasks

4.3.1.1. This group?

4.3.2. An external review group needs to be formed

4.3.3. Tools

4.3.3.1. Agreed on by steering group

4.3.3.2. Communicated to all team members

4.3.3.3. Accessible to all team members

4.4. Results

4.4.1. Review process

4.4.1.1. Internal review

4.4.1.1.1. The review process must be synchronized with the project plan milestones

4.4.1.1.2. Review for each phase should be at least one week prior to delivery/status report with KPMG and

4.4.1.1.3. Internal review will be conducted by a functional group of no more than 3 individuals

4.4.1.2. External review

4.4.1.2.1. External review should be performed at least twice during the project

4.4.1.2.2. A group of experts must be formed for the external review

4.4.2. Method for evaluation

4.4.2.1. A web based form is produced with questions covering the topics below

4.4.2.2. The form is being sent out after each milestone

4.4.2.2.1. Synchronize with PM-group

4.4.2.3. The results will be distributed to each group

4.4.2.3.1. Can also be used for external evaluation

4.4.2.4. Questions/Dimensions

4.4.2.4.1. Deliverables

4.4.2.4.2. Clogs

4.4.2.4.3. Feedback

4.4.2.4.4. Communication

4.4.2.4.5. Tools

4.4.2.4.6. Learning

4.4.2.4.7. Processes

4.4.3. Whistle blowing function

4.4.3.1. Whistle blowing is communicated to any member of the quality team

4.4.3.2. Whistle blowing can be anonymus if requested

4.4.3.3. Suggestions?