Click for next page ( 4

The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement

Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 3
The guide focuses on these substantial (nontechnical) institutional elements that describe whether, how, and with whom an agency pursues SO&M. Therefore, it is important to distinguish between business and technical processes (such as planning, programming, systems and technology, performance measurement) and the program (consisting of strategies to address NRC, as listed above). RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TECHNICAL AND BUSINESS PROCESSES AND INSTITUTIONAL ARCHITECTURE The guide is based on the premise that the effectiveness of SO&M strategy applica- tions is dependent on business and technical processes that are, in turn, substantially dependent on the degree of support provided by the institutional elements listed above. The configurations, relationships, and arrangements that relate the four elements are called the "institutional architecture." As determined in the research, there are some architectures that appear to be supportive of a higher level of institutional capability maturity. Figure 1.1 diagrams this basic concept of the model, showing the relation- ships between process and institutional characteristics. The figure also illustrates in- creasing levels of institutional capability maturity in support of SO&M programs of increasing comprehensiveness and effectiveness. Performance- driven, integrated program and processes Planned, standardized program Informal Formal opportunistic Target processes program architecture (Mainstreamed) Transitioning processes Improved architecture (Rationalized) Current architecture (Ad hoc) Figure 1.1. Relationship between more effective processes and supportive institutional architecture. 3 GUIDE TO IMPROVING CAPABILITY FOR SYSTEMS OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT