Group

Initially Core Practice is focusing solely on small business. At some time someone is going to expand the CP to cover medium and large organisations, and public bodies. Now CP for say Change Management will be quite different for a small business and a large business. Not only will there be many more practices in the large, there will be more processes too. We call each of these sets, the Small Business one and the large enterprise one, the GROUP of the practice or process. So do we add an attribute to processes and attributes to say which groups they exist in? Or do we have an entirely distinct process model and set of CPs for each group? Put another way, is there one big bucket of practices which we draw a subset from depending on the group (and maybe the type and the industry vertical and ...), or are there many buckets, one for each group? If there is one big bucket then practices have to be worded to work for more than one group, potentially. We chose to create CP for Small Business as one set of CP, then start again for large, and again for public etc... It does mean some redundancy, but each group plays to a different constituency and we don't want small business users disagreeing with large government users over the wording of a practice. So the high-level digit on the numbering system indicates Group. We can COPY any amount of content when we embark on a new group but let's create whole new entities and let each group go their own way. The alternative is to try to maintain one set that is all things to all people, which is part of the problem with some other methodologies.