Welcome
This is a tool for teams who want to see change – who want to make a transformative step-change – in the way cities are run. You know the world is changing, becoming more complex, with resources becoming more scarce. We simply have to work in new ways. This is a tool that will help you identify ways to develop new capacities to deliver transformative outcomes for your city. We hope you find this useful!
Sign in
Sign in
User account benefits
Signing up and becoming a registered user offers you a number of advantages.
Register
TRUE Concept
Context
Those involved in city governance face a perfect storm: complex and interconnected challenges along with reduced capacity and in many cases fiscal austerity.
A step-change is required in the ways that current urban systems are arranged.
This involves assisting city teams to manage increasing complexity and enhance their capacity so they can deliver improved city-wide solutions.
Terms of reference
This is a tool developed by the TRUE partnership in Leeds. It allows users to assess, diagnose and plan.
It is intended to support city teams working towards collaborative and transformative outcomes.
By enhancing capabilities required to manage complex environments, the TRUE tool supports the delivery of citywide solutions that can meet future challenges.
Project Description
Project
Vision for project
Sector
How long in process?
Partners
Is funding in place?
To edit the project description contact project leader.
Complexity Assessment
In order to better understand the challenges involved in delivering any project, it is important to understand the complexity of the project and its environment. By complexity we mean something that is complex has many interconnected parts, often intricately arranged and hard to understand or tease apart.
Listed below are twelve aspects of projects with descriptions of LOW and HIGH complexity. For each of them please select the description that most closely matches your project and/or challenge. If you decide the complexity of your project is neither LOW nor HIGH but somewhere in the middle please select MEDIUM (2).
Listed below are twelve aspects of projects with descriptions of LOW and HIGH complexity. For each of them please select the description that most closely matches your project and/or challenge. If you decide the complexity of your project is neither LOW nor HIGH but somewhere in the middle please select MEDIUM (2).
1) Strategic Importance
LOW complexity is when the project priority, value of expected benefits external interest (political, public, media) is low; HIGH complexity is when the project is critical to delivery of policy, expectations for benefits are high and there is keen external interest (political, public, media); failure would have major negative consequences.Low
Medium
High
2) Stakeholders/Influencers
LOW complexity is when there is a small, unchanging group of stakeholders who agree with the project objectives and outcomes; HIGH complexity is when there is a large number of influential stakeholders with diverging objectives or expectations; membership of stakeholder groups may change over time.
Low
Medium
High
3) Requirements and benefit articulation
LOW complexity is when the requirements, benefits and measures of success in a project are easily understood and clearly linked to project goals, vision and values with certainty about their impacts; HIGH complexity is when the requirements and benefits are ambiguous and their relationship to goals, vision and values is unclear; the impact(s) of the project may be uncertain.
Low
Medium
High
4) Stability of overall context
LOW complexity is when the project scope, structure, and external requirements and circumstances are unchanging with high certainty about planning, costs, governance and/or necessary buy-in; HIGH complexity is when there is a high risk of changes to project scope, structure, and/or external requirements and circumstances with a low level of certainty about planning, costs, governance and/or necessary buy-in.
Low
Medium
High
5) Financial impact and value for money
LOW complexity is when the costs are not subject to change, funding required is small compared to organisational budget and benefits are not essential to overall organisational goals.; HIGH complexity is when the costs are subject to change, funding required is organisationally significant and benefits are crucial to organisational goals.
Low
Medium
High
6) Execution complexity (including technology)
LOW complexity is when the practices, methods and technologies are well-known within the organisation and thoroughly tested and implementation is clearly structured; HIGH complexity is when new and/or untested practices, methods and/or technologies are required and objectives are challenging with limited risk management possible due to immovable deadlines or project demands.
Low
Medium
High
7) Interfaces/Relationships
LOW complexity is when the project is localised organisationally, politically and/or geographically and success is does not depend on relationships or external factors; governance structure is simple and supports decision-making; HIGH complexity is when the project crosses many boundaries (organisational, political, geographic); success depends on relationships with partners and factors outside organisational control; governance is complex.
Low
Medium
High
8) Range of disciplines and skills
LOW complexity is when the project delivery requires few special skills or knowledge, those required are readily available or easily acquired; HIGH complexity is when a large number of skills and high level of knowledge are required that are not readily available and/or easily and quickly acquired.Low
Medium
High
9) Dependencies
LOW complexity is when delivery of other projects does not depend on this project's success; HIGH is when other projects heavily depend on the success of this project.
Low
Medium
High
10) Extent of change
LOW complexity is when business as usual can continue; HIGH is when significant and fundamental organisational change is required to deliver project outcomes and benefits.
Low
Medium
High
11) Organisational capability: performance to date
LOW complexity is when similar projects have been successfully delivered in the past; organisational culture promotes change responsive to external requirements and good practices; HIGH is when there is no history of successfully delivering similar projects; organisational culture is rigid/unresponsive to external changes and unconcerned with adopting good practices.
Low
Medium
High
12) Interconnectedness
LOW complexity is when the necessary alignment of policy, culture, practices, technology, people, processes and procedures is in place with decision-making and risk management based on multiple perspectives; HIGH is when the relationships between policy, culture, practices, technology, people, processes and procedures are unexplored and lack documentation.
Low
Medium
High
Thank you for completing the Complexity Assessment
You still have unanswered questions in the Complexity section.
Capability Assessment
In addition to understanding the complexity of the project and delivery environment, it is important to understand the capability and capacity of the team assigned to deliver the project. Capability means do we know how to do it? Capacity refers to whether or not we have the resources to do it. Resources may be financial, time, staffing numbers, etc.
We have divided capability and capacity into barriers, those factors standing in the way of achieving team goals, and enablers, those factors that make achievement easier. Both barriers and enablers are grouped into types (Vision and Value, Leadership and Governance, Integrated Working, and Outcomes and Accountability).
Barriers
For each barrier factor in this section, please indicate whether it represents a challenge to delivery (yes) or not (no).
A. Vision and Value
Vision and value relates to the organisation, team and/or project concept of what outcome is intended and why it is important.
1) Reactive or short-term perspective.
Yes
No
2) Political priorities compromise good practice.
Yes
No
3) Poor planning (inadequate, uncoordinated or insufficient).
Yes
No
4) Lack of agreed outcomes.
Yes
No
5) Inability to articulate a clear vision.
Yes
No
6) Vision is not part of wider transformation agenda.
Yes
No
7) Poor management of risks or contingencies.
Yes
No
8) Overemphasis on creating a bespoke solution.
Yes
No
B. Leadership and Governance
Leadership refers to the structure of team/organisational leadership, the people in leadership positions while governance addresses the structure of the decision-making and responsibilities.
1) Insufficient leadership of change.
Yes
No
2) Tokenistic or limited consultation on objectives.
Yes
No
3) Funding arrangements do not align with programme/project requirements.
Yes
No
4) Unnecessary constraints imposed.
Yes
No
5) Insufficient or unclear governance structures.
Yes
No
6) Lack of resilience and/or adaptability to circumstances.
Yes
No
7) Insufficient visibility and engagement with communities/stakeholders.
Yes
No
8) Lack of investment in organisation/team capability.
Yes
No
9) Visible difference in assumptions, styles and working languages.
Yes
No
C. Integrated Working
By integrated working we mean how well working practices and relationships are aligned and coordinated and how you manage risks.
1) Programmes/projects managed as discrete entities without regard to links to other programmes/ projects.
Yes
No
2) Practice or focus limitations compromise the delivery of outcomes.
Yes
No
3) Culture is suspicious or not transparent.
Yes
No
4) Poor strategic awareness of partner(s)' capacity or capability.
Yes
No
5) Reluctance to learn from experiences or external stakeholders.
Yes
No
6) Partnerships do not result in expected benefit(s).
Yes
No
7) Highly risk averse regardless of real risk levels.
Yes
No
D. Outcomes and Accountability
This topic focuses on the clarity of your outcomes and the processes and structures for accountability within the team and project.
1) Inappropriate transfer of risks.
Yes
No
2) Lack of clear accountability for outcomes (unclear pathways).
Yes
No
3) Technology viewed as a panacea.
Yes
No
Thank you for completing the Capability Barriers Assessment
You still have unanswered questions in the Capability Barriers section.
Enablers
For each enabling factor, please indicate which description best fits the need for, or presence of, the factor within your team and for this project.
A. Vision and Value
Vision and value relates to the organisation, team and/or project concept of what outcome is intended and why it is important.
1) Clear strategy and agreed purpose.
We are good at this
We are good at this already but need to do it even better
We aren't good at this but need to be
We don't need this
2) Decision-making and prioritisation are supported by appropriate approaches.
We are good at this
We are good at this already but need to do it even better
We aren't good at this but need to be
We don't need this
3) Demonstrated need, affordability and value for money.
We are good at this
We are good at this already but need to do it even better
We aren't good at this but need to be
We don't need this
4) Clear and consistent narrative/messaging.
We are good at this
We are good at this already but need to do it even better
We aren't good at this but need to be
We don't need this
5) Funding arrangements and agreements align to the long term project/programme needs.
We are good at this
We are good at this already but need to do it even better
We aren't good at this but need to be
We don't need this
6) Validated and achievable objectives.
We are good at this
We are good at this already but need to do it even better
We aren't good at this but need to be
We don't need this
7) Recognises and leverages interdependencies.
We are good at this
We are good at this already but need to do it even better
We aren't good at this but need to be
We don't need this
8) Strategy considers long term benefits.
We are good at this
We are good at this already but need to do it even better
We aren't good at this but need to be
We don't need this
B. Leadership and Governance
Leadership refers to the structure of team/organisational leadership, the people in leadership positions while governance addresses the structure of the decision-making and responsibilities.
1) Requirements and issues identified, understood and agreed.
We are good at this
We are good at this already but need to do it even better
We aren't good at this but need to be
We don't need this
2) Investment in programme/project preparation.
We are good at this
We are good at this already but need to do it even better
We aren't good at this but need to be
We don't need this
3) Active and broadly inclusive stakeholder engagement.
We are good at this
We are good at this already but need to do it even better
We aren't good at this but need to be
We don't need this
4) Costs and benefits evaluated as part of preferred option selection.
We are good at this
We are good at this already but need to do it even better
We aren't good at this but need to be
We don't need this
5) Clear governance arrangements.
We are good at this
We are good at this already but need to do it even better
We aren't good at this but need to be
We don't need this
6) Risk to project/programme identified and mitigation plans in place.
We are good at this
We are good at this already but need to do it even better
We aren't good at this but need to be
We don't need this
7) Clear and prioritised framework for delivery (principles, roles, tasks).
We are good at this
We are good at this already but need to do it even better
We aren't good at this but need to be
We don't need this
8) Constructively challenges requirements and changes from partners and stakeholders.
We are good at this
We are good at this already but need to do it even better
We aren't good at this but need to be
We don't need this
9) Effective strategy in place to ensure service levels/project delivery.
We are good at this
We are good at this already but need to do it even better
We aren't good at this but need to be
We don't need this
10) Sufficient autonomy for effective initiation and delivery.
We are good at this
We are good at this already but need to do it even better
We aren't good at this but need to be
We don't need this
11) Collective problem ownership.
We are good at this
We are good at this already but need to do it even better
We aren't good at this but need to be
We don't need this
12) Effective management of stakeholder support.
We are good at this
We are good at this already but need to do it even better
We aren't good at this but need to be
We don't need this
13) Vision is clearly owned and broadly supported.
We are good at this
We are good at this already but need to do it even better
We aren't good at this but need to be
We don't need this
14) Realistic appreciation of barriers to delivery.
We are good at this
We are good at this already but need to do it even better
We aren't good at this but need to be
We don't need this
15) Assumptions subject to appropriate challenge.
We are good at this
We are good at this already but need to do it even better
We aren't good at this but need to be
We don't need this
16) Clear operational plan agreed.
We are good at this
We are good at this already but need to do it even better
We aren't good at this but need to be
We don't need this
C. Integrated Working
By integrated working we mean how well working practices and relationships are aligned and coordinated and how you manage risks.
1) Good practice management of the political relationships.
We are good at this
We are good at this already but need to do it even better
We aren't good at this but need to be
We don't need this
2) Integrated working practices/common framework.
We are good at this
We are good at this already but need to do it even better
We aren't good at this but need to be
We don't need this
3) Integration of appropriate management processes (project, risk and change management, conflict resolution, etc.)
We are good at this
We are good at this already but need to do it even better
We aren't good at this but need to be
We don't need this
4) Information management applies good practice and learning.
We are good at this
We are good at this already but need to do it even better
We aren't good at this but need to be
We don't need this
5) Balances risk and reward appropriately.
We are good at this
We are good at this already but need to do it even better
We aren't good at this but need to be
We don't need this
6) Consistent constructive engagement with others.
We are good at this
We are good at this already but need to do it even better
We aren't good at this but need to be
We don't need this
7) Adaptive culture evident.
We are good at this
We are good at this already but need to do it even better
We aren't good at this but need to be
We don't need this
8) Sufficient capability to deliver.
We are good at this
We are good at this already but need to do it even better
We aren't good at this but need to be
We don't need this
9) Effectively manages relationships with other organisations.
We are good at this
We are good at this already but need to do it even better
We aren't good at this but need to be
We don't need this
10) Team identity is valued and nurtured.
We are good at this
We are good at this already but need to do it even better
We aren't good at this but need to be
We don't need this
11) Takes systemic view instead of focusing on a single-issue or requirement.
We are good at this
We are good at this already but need to do it even better
We aren't good at this but need to be
We don't need this
12) Strategic use of partnering.
We are good at this
We are good at this already but need to do it even better
We aren't good at this but need to be
We don't need this
13) Builds a collaborative, no-blame culture.
We are good at this
We are good at this already but need to do it even better
We aren't good at this but need to be
We don't need this
14) Culture of continuous improvement.
We are good at this
We are good at this already but need to do it even better
We aren't good at this but need to be
We don't need this
15) Implementation of innovative and appropriate operating models.
We are good at this
We are good at this already but need to do it even better
We aren't good at this but need to be
We don't need this
D. Outcomes and Accountability
This topic focuses on the clarity of your outcomes and the processes and structures for accountability within the team and project.
1) Outcomes clearly defined.
We are good at this
We are good at this already but need to do it even better
We aren't good at this but need to be
We don't need this
2) Establishes appropriate measurements, metrics and targets for success.
We are good at this
We are good at this already but need to do it even better
We aren't good at this but need to be
We don't need this
3) Identifies benchmarks using appropriate good practice from similar programmes/projects.
We are good at this
We are good at this already but need to do it even better
We aren't good at this but need to be
We don't need this
4) Active risk management focused on outcome delivery.
We are good at this
We are good at this already but need to do it even better
We aren't good at this but need to be
We don't need this
5) Learning and evaluation embedded in all aspects of practice (feedback loops in place).
We are good at this
We are good at this already but need to do it even better
We aren't good at this but need to be
We don't need this
6) Smart use of data.
We are good at this
We are good at this already but need to do it even better
We aren't good at this but need to be
We don't need this
7) Clear plan for capture and use of performance data.
We are good at this
We are good at this already but need to do it even better
We aren't good at this but need to be
We don't need this
Thank you for completing the Capability Enablers Assessment
See your results by clicking below
You still have unanswered questions in the Capability Enablers section.
Results
Your results will appear on this page once you have answered all the questions in the Complexity and Capability sections.
Your results
Print resultsComplexity profile
| Factor | Assessment Data | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Low | Med. | High | |
| Strategic Importance | |||
| Stakeholders/Influencers | |||
| Requirements and benefit articulation | |||
| Stability of overall context | |||
| Financial impact and value for money | |||
| Execution complexity (including technology) | |||
| Interfaces/Relationships | |||
| Range of disciplines and skills | |||
| Dependencies | |||
| Extent of change | |||
| Organisational capability: performance to date | |||
| Interconnectedness | |||
Capability profile
Four capability assessments are used to assess the characteristics that are required and in evidence across the 'project delivery' organisation(s).
Barriers
Good Practice
Required Practice
Gap analysis matrix
| Complexity | High |
A Vision and Value
B Leadership and Governance
C Integrated Working
D Outcomes and Accountability
|
|||||||||||
| Medium | |||||||||||||
| Low | |||||||||||||
| Low | Medium | High | |||||||||||
| Capability | |||||||||||||
Reference Guides
There are four reference guides for the TRUE tool. Reference guides contain key background information, considerations and examples to shape how you can plan improvement activities. Download each guide below.
Action Plan
Capability-complexity correlations for TRUEOnce your team has completed the complexity and capability assessments you can begin to identify the most important barriers to address. Depending on the number of barriers, this may seem a daunting task. However, just because a barrier exists doesn’t mean it is highly significant to any particular project. Unimportant barriers can be de-prioritised for action so the team can focus on more important ones.
To separate priority from non-priority barriers, use the capability-complexity correlations table, checking which barriers correlate most highly with your high complexity factors. These would be a good set of high priority barriers to focus on. If you are lucky enough not to have many barriers that correlate highly with complexity factors, the table also identifies moderate correlations.
Once you have a list of priority barriers, as a team, start by identifying the most important barriers to your particular project’s success. For each one, explore why they are relevant to the project. It is important for the team to use its collective understanding and judgement in evaluating the importance of the identified barriers. Sometimes, an identified barrier may not be highly significant to a particular project due to particular circumstances.
Once you have agreed on the significant barriers to your particular project, review the Reference Guides, working on understanding and identifying potential solutions to the barriers and gaps identified by the TRUE tool. You may choose to do this:
- Collectively,
- Individually followed by sharing,
- By one or more committee(s) reporting back to the group, or
- By the team leader making the decisions.
The specific method depends on your team preferences and requirements for working; however, experience shows the best outcomes are likely to be achieved through some form of group working rather than an executive decision.
After your team has completed the review of the guides and identified solutions to pursue, the next step is identifying recommendations - specific actions - that will address your existing complexity-capability/capacity gaps and barriers. One way to do this is to divide the gaps into the themes identified in the assessment (Vision and Values, Leadership and Governance, Integrated Working, Outcomes and Assessment) and break out into four groups to brainstorm the steps required to complete each action within the themes.
It may be helpful to reframe the gaps into their corresponding good practice (“Reactive or short-term perspective” could become “We match our timeframe/perspective to the needs of the overall problem”, for example) then backcast the steps required to achieve that goal. To do this, using the example of reactive perspective transformed to matched timeframe, you might identify actions such as 1) agreeing the relationships/dependencies of the steps in time sequence and assigning responsibility for each, 2) identifying the relationships, and 3) brainstorming what a matched timeframe might look like. These steps can then be reversed into a recommended action sequence:
- Brainstorm what a matched timeframe might look like
- Identify the relationships between activities in the sequence, including dependencies
- Agree the relationships and dependencies in the time sequence and assign responsibility for each
Download workstream actions table
Download enhancement plan diagram
That sequence can then be associated with specific workstream(s) and entered in your actions table. Some actions may cross workstream boundaries or depend on, or feed into, actions in other workstreams. The exact relationships between actions and workstreams can be negotiated amongst team member to achieve a consensus on their sequence, timing, and responsible party.
Once you have completed your actions table and enhancement plan, you should be ready to start filling the gaps effectively and efficiently. If desired, especially if your gaps were large, you may wish to return to the TRUE tool and reassess your team capability and capacity to ensure you have achieved what you need to better address your delivery environment complexities.
Should you have any questions about the stages of action planning, or any other aspect of the TRUE tool, please contact the TRUE team leader, Paul Chatterton p.chatterton@leeds.ac.uk.