The DVF(E)

DVFE.pdf

Download PDF • 368KB

A while ago, I was introduced to Alexandra Almond's post on DVFE (Desirability, Viability, Feasibility, Ethicality), a framework that is really useful in prioritisation, especially in teams with diverse experiences/expectations. I've been playing with this quite a bit, particularly in the Te Whainga stage of Hautū Waka, as a way to make decisions based on the tohu that have been sighted. The worksheet above has the image on one side, and the questions we ask ourselves at each stage on the other.

This has been really useful when working with a team, to get a robust conversation about what to prioritise. Given a list of possibilities or ideas, I get them to score each on a 5-point scale, using questions to push their thinking. For example, in the Viable section, I ask "What is the cost of NOT doing this?". They score each idea, and then we look at the scores. For example,

Idea 1: 5D, 4V, 3F, 2E, total=14

Idea 2: 4D, 5V, 5F, 4E, total=18

You get the idea.

They then speak to their scores, including why they have scored them that way. This then brings in a discussion around why they have chosen as they have. People are then offered the option to change their scores, and I take the final scores, using that to create a prioritisation list. There are three things I love about this way of doing things:

1. The conversation often unearths deep(er) values than is always obvious. Values are deep, and complex, and often conflict with each other. The conversation around the table tends to allow for subtlety and nuance, and helps team members understand each other better–a key focus of the Te Whare Tapa Whā approach to designing experiences.

2. There is a framework to hold the disagreements. It is less "I think that is a bad idea" and more "I think the idea is desirable, however in the current organisational climate it seems unfeasible." This then allows for people who have different opinions, and to discuss the parts they disagree about, often finding potential solutions, rather than just trying to convince each other.

3. There is a decision point. Once everyone has had their say, they get a chance to re-score each idea. Once the final scores have been recorded, it is usually quite clear what the top options are. This doesn't necessarily bind the team –they can well look at the top choices and decide that it is not workable. Even that, though, is a decision point, and they by then are well aware of the consequences of NOT following through.

Complex contexts demand better ways to prioritise. That's why I keep coming back to frameworks like DVFE—not because they make decisions for us, but because they help us make decisions together. Prioritisation can feel overwhelming. But just as we'd use pliers to pull out a stubborn nail, having the right framework makes the work both possible and collaborative.