PDM - Building Blocks vs Technology Practices - Data model and Governance update

Hi Team,

Based on recent updates for Operational Engineering building block, we faced strong negative impact on current pilots scoping as new content was release and fully outdated current WBS that we are sharing with pilot projects teams for smooth scoping process. Moreover, this issue will be not resolved by offerings solution as building blocks updates has downstream impact on technology practices content without any control from Technology practices side or at least prevention mechanism of full reshape of the content.

Recent Issue [short recap]: Operational Engineering building block has recent massive content update starting from level L3 [including L4 as well] - new content added, multiple new L3 and L4, some L4 were moved from their original L3 to new L3, etc. - we do not have full list of changes. As a result - we cannot do proper Salesforce scoping as our material are outdated. Moreover, we were previously told that L3 and L4 levels are locked [as all territories and technology practices have already agreed on them and decided what should be included into the scoping for particular technology and relevant content and assets were added as L5/L6 created under those elements].

Additional analysis is provided in attached document [for similar or other issues].

Proposed changes:
1. Organizational / Governance: in case if any changes to be applied for L3/L4 used by technology practices relevant Global Technology Drivers should be at least informed about upcoming changes to prepare their stakeholders for the change. Otherwise, people will be lost again and again as something is changing without any communication and it will drop all previously adoption efforts [as we are starting with new content again and content change in 1 day without any preps]. Moreover, if there are some destructive changes - moving content, deleting content - Technology practices should be consulted as it can cause that some content can be lost and all our efforts will be useless.

2. Data model update:

Current approach of linking building blocks and technology practices is slightly in efficients. E.g. all content L4 for selected building blocks [excluding mandatory 2] for Salesforce Project by default is tagged as Salesforce relevant. Actually it is not true: I believe we are not using even 1 building block [from non-mandatory] in 100%. Moreover, we are trending to reduce and optimize amount of L4 used to ensure that we are increasing efficiency and reducing amount of elements [at the same time recent changes in Operational Engineering building block are contr-productive as 1 testing activity received around 5 new L3+L4 under the same substage. Moreover, each building block can has their own approach for content updates].

Proposed solution: we should have all content from building block tagged as building block recommended. In addition, some part of building block content can be tagged as e.g. Salesforce Recommended based on the decision from Salesforce PDM Working group about L4s to be recommended for usage.

At the same time:
1. If new content created: it should be provided for the stakeholders for the review [e.g. PDM Salesforce Global Driver to consult with his stakeholders] to allow them do decide if that content should be tagged e.g. as Salesforce Recommended or not. It will not block any work from the Building Block content team and will improve the communication / transparency about changes and allow technology practices make proper decisions.

2. If some content to be updated [naming, description, etc.] and if it is already tagged as technology practice recommended - such changes should be informed but no rework will be needed as all elements and linked content L5-L6 / assets will remain under the updated workitem.

3. If moving or deletion of L4s are planned and technology practices have those items tagged as technology relevant / recommended - such changes will require discussions and consultations. Otherwise, building block teams can strongly and negatively impact the work of downstream teams.

I am happy to explain that approach during some meeting and refinement session as currently we are facing adoption issues as scoping process is unpredicted and applied changes from building blocks' teams causing negative impact on our work that we have done or doing now.

Kind regards
Olek