Rico has some similarities to templates, but is fundamentally different
Most planners currently use templates for producing planning reports. As a result, many first think of Rico as a faster report template. This isn’t totally wrong either, but the approach is fundamentally different.
Planning decisions don't start with a template
If we zooming out and look at the wider process for producing planning assessments and decisions, this typically looks something like:
Analysing a proposal for considerations relevant to the application process.
Working out the process laid out by the planning framework for making a decision on a given application (e.g. whether to grant or refuse).
Assessing how a specific proposal performs or responds to the requirements of the application process.
Communicating this clearly in a report (for others to read or as a record of process follow).
While templates focus on the latter stages, Rico looks to cover the entire process from start to finish.
Where templates fall short
Many planners set up templates to handle various types of proposals and these can be adapted and completed for the specific job at hand. Where these fall short is the fact that every proposal / application is different to some degree.
Different proposals require a different assessment process
As proposals change, relevant considerations change, the process for making a decision changes and ultimately the final report changes to suit this. Essentially the underlying decision-making process changes.
Templates adapt poorly to differences across proposals
As fixed walls of text, templates adapt poorly to these changes. Specifically issues arise because:
Planning frameworks are typically large and have many different ‘assessment pathways’ that different proposals need to follow.
It’s difficult to make templates for each of these different assessment pathways.
Using fewer templates can save setup time, but this results in a more broad-brush approach. Relevant considerations can be missed, resulting in a lack of information, while irrelevant considerations can be left in, bloating reports.
Large amounts of time must be spent manually adapting reports to the specifics of each proposal at hand (e.g. copying in relevant information, reformatting, removing irrelevant content etc.)
Adapting templates is prone to error given a large number of considerations and moving parts in more complex assessment processes.
A faster template is not the answer
At Rico, we initially looked at speeding up templates. Looking deeper though, we discovered that simply automating more of the template process wouldn’t solve a good deal of the problems above which were actually related to quality.
Quality starts with a good underlying understanding
We found that the quality issues, such as missing information, bloated reports, difficult to follow decisions etc. were often due to a lack of, or error in, the underlying
understanding of the decision-making process for a given proposal.
Templates cover initial steps that develop understanding poorly
Templates address the underlying assessment steps of the process poorly as they struggle to adapt to different assessment pathways. As a result, they often exacerbate these problems.
Rico is designed to deliver better quality through better process
Rico targets gaps and errors in underlying understanding by:
Incorporating the underlying assessment process into a comprehensive workflow that covers the full process identified at the start of the article.
Making the process adaptable to different proposals so the assessment pathway adjusts as you feed it information about a given proposal and how it interacts with the planning framework.
This enables Rico’s workflow to stay focused on the relevant assessment pathway while being methodical and making sure nothing is missed. Work done at this stage then feeds into report sections to ensure these changes trickle down the process into the final report.
Better quality also results in better efficiency
We found that improving the underlying assessment process also made it easier to communicate decisions more concisely in reports. This reduced the length of reports by making them more precise. In this way, improving quality actually improves efficiency too as opposed to this often having the opposite effect of slowing things down.
Comments