IT Management Reference Guide

Last week I discussed that no matter how robust your processes may be, they can be seriously undermined by lack of proper documentation; I then showed how to evaluate the quality and value of any documentation. This week I build on that method of evaluation by describing the benefits you can realize from practical documentation, and explaining the use of a simple but effective quality-value matrix.

There are three major benefits to using the method of documentation evaluation that I describe in the previous section. The first is that this method gives a snapshot of the quality of existing documentation at that point in time, particularly documentation of high value. If improvements are made to the material that result in new ratings, then they can be compared to the current rating.

The second benefit is that this method gives us the ability to customize the criteria for quality and value of documentation to reflect changes in priority, strategy, or direction. In this way the methodology remains applicable regardless of the specific criteria used. The third benefit of this method is that it allows comparisons between different types of processes within an infrastructure using the same standard of measure

A client at a satellite broadcasting company recently asked me to evaluate a variety of their infrastructure process documentation. Their list of documents to evaluate numbered no less than 32 pieces to evaluate. The specific documents are itemized in Table 1 and show the wide diversity of material involved in the review.

Table 1 Types of Infrastructure Documentation Evaluated for Quality and Value

Developing a Quality/Value Matrix

Once both the quality and value characteristics are evaluated, the two sets of attributes can be mapped on to a quality/value matrix (see Figure 1). Quality ratings can be shown along the horizontal axis increasing to the right. Value ratings can be shown along the vertical axis increasing as it ascends. Each axis is scaled from the lowest quality and value ratings up to the maximum possible. The benefit of such a matrix is that it depicts both the value and quality of each piece of documentation on a single chart, and provides an effective picture of where efforts may need to be placed to improve the quality or value of a particular piece of documentation.

Figure 1 Quality/Value Matrix

The matrix is then divided into four quadrants. Points in the upper-right quadrant (1) represent documentation that is both high in value and high in quality. This is the desired place to be and constitutes excellent documentation that requires little or no improvements and only periodic reviews to ensure continued high quality. Points in the lower-right quadrant (2) signify material that is high in quality but of a lower value to a particular infrastructure. Documentation in this area is generally rated as good but could be improved.

The lower-left quadrant (3) represents documentation that is relatively low in both value and quality. Material in this area is designated as only fair and needs to be improved in quality. Since the value is low, improvements are suggested on a time-permitting basis. Points in the upper-left quadrant (4) indicate documentation that is high in value but low in quality. Documentation in this area is considered to be at the greatest risk since it represents material that is of particular importance to this organization but is of poor quality. Documentation in this quarter of the matrix should be improved as soon as possible to prevent adverse impact to processes, procedures, and services.

This concludes the two-part series on evaluating process documentation. Evaluating the quality and value of any piece of documentation, and mapping the results on a quality/value matrix, can pinpoint where your documentation is effective and where it needs improvement. The overall result is the providing of processes that are not only well-designed, but understandable and usable to users in the future.

References

Schiesser, Rich, IT Systems Management, Prentice Hall, 2002