Foundational Instructions to write Value Codes (Machine Readable)

A more detailed guide (with images) on how to write Value Codes can be found at https://publish.demo.nipltd.com/foundational-instructions-to-write-value-codes-with-images/

A glossary of Value Code terms can be found at https://publish.demo.nipltd.com/value-code-glossary/

A Value Code has a deliberate and purposeful anatomy and colour coded structure

A Value Code consists of:

  • a ‘Section Name’ (an umbrella term that multiple Value Codes may be grouped within)
  • a short ‘Value Code Identifier’
  • a more in-depth ‘Description’
  • optional ‘Help Text’
  • five progressive ‘Evaluation Level Labels’
  • five ‘Evaluation Statements’ for each level

The five Evaluation Statements range from an assertive description of what ‘barely acceptable’ looks like, through to an assertive description of ‘what good looks like’, with three more descriptions of progressively more constructive stages in between.

Value Codes are initially captured in the form of a eight column table that includes the following Headings: ‘Section Name’, ‘Value Code Identifier’, ‘Description’, ‘Evaluation Statement 1’, ‘Evaluation Statement 2’, ‘Evaluation Statement 3’, ‘Evaluation Statement 4’, ‘Evaluation Statement 5’. Value Codes in table form may optionally include a ninth column with the Heading ‘Help Text’.

Value Codes are presented to people as part of a diagnostic evaluation process so that they can select the most appropriate ‘Evaluation Statement’ according to their own evaluation of the things the Value Code covers. During evaluation, Value Codes are presented to people grouped into sections and in the form of a title (the short Identifier) and question/prompt (the ‘Description’ that usually starts with “The extent to which”), 5 possible answers to select from (the 5 ‘Evaluation Statements’ with their respective ‘Evaluation Level Labels’), and a comment box to write any additional comments.

Each of the Value Code’s five levels for its evaluation statements has a designated colour. The 5 colours are: red, amber, yellow, lime, green.

The ‘Evaluation Statement 1’ is coloured ‘red’ for each Value Code.

The ‘Evaluation Statement 2’ is coloured ‘amber’ for each Value Code.

The ‘Evaluation Statement 3’ is coloured ‘yellow’ for each Value Code.

The ‘Evaluation Statement 4’ is coloured ‘lime’ for each Value Code.

The ‘Evaluation Statement 5’ is coloured ‘green’ for each Value Code.

After evaluation, the distinct evaluation level colour scheme is used in summary and analytical reports. The colours in reports make it easy for respondents and team leaders to get a quick overview of responses. Reports with more ‘red’ colour indicate that more lower evaluation levels (‘Evaluation Statement 1’) were selected. Reports with more ‘green’ colour indicate that more higher evaluation levels (‘Evaluation Statement 5’) were selected.

The Evaluation level colours are used in summary and analytical reporting, in various bar charts, pie charts and heatmaps.

The Evaluation level colours are consistent between the initial evaluation exercise, the report given about a single response to the respondent who submitted it, and the overall reports that summarise many responses from many people.

The structure of a Value Code is a generative constraint that makes it easy for things that matter to be expressed in clear detail and for their current state to be evaluated by people.

Value Codes are a standard for evaluating things that matter and managing value.

Draft a Value Code by factoring out the things that matter

A Value Code should ideally focus on a particular aspect of a thing that matters – not a set of things.

A Value Code should ideally offer clear and actionable insights.

When presented with a list of things that matter, themes or key areas, it’s important not to directly map each one to a single Value Code. Things that matter, themes or key areas can often encompass multiple facets or dimensions, and each of these might warrant its own distinct Value Code. As you analyze a thing that matters, theme or key area, break it down into its core components or aspects to create a Value Code that allows for comprehensive and nuanced evaluation.

A ‘Value Code Identifier’ should be a concise, short label, ideally limited to no more than 2 or 3 words or 30 characters.

Draft your Evaluation Statements by starting with ‘Evaluation Statement 1’ and ‘Evaluation Statement 5’. It is often easier to first describe the extremes of ‘barely acceptable’ for ‘Evaluation Statement 1’ and ‘what good looks like’ for ‘Evaluation Statement 5’. After writing ‘Evaluation Statement 1’ and ‘Evaluation Statement 5’, fill in the gaps between them by writing ‘Evaluation Statement 2’, ‘Evaluation Statement 3’, and ‘Evaluation Statement 4’.

Each ‘Evaluation Statement’ should ideally be limited to no more than one or two sentences, or about 25 words.

After you have written the five ‘Evaluation Statements’, write the Value Code ‘Description’. The Value Code ‘Description’ should ideally be limited to no more than one or two sentences, or about 25 words.

The Value Code ‘Description’ should begin with the words “The extent to which” followed by a summary of the detail contained in the ‘Evaluation Statement 5’.

When writing Value Codes, Do not use rich text formatting (bold, italic, highlighting, bullet lists, hyperlinks, etc)

When writing Value Codes, Do not use numerical stats in ‘Evaluation Statements’ – they distract people, including because they feel ‘objective’ in an otherwise mostly subjective medium.

When writing Value Codes, Do not make ‘Evaluation Statements’ additive, i.e. do not have the same phrase(s) starting each ‘Evaluation Statement’ and adding more on top.

When writing Value Codes, Do ensure that each ‘Evaluation Statement’ is an assertive statement, not a general or vague description.

When writing Value Codes, Do use textual phrases to indicate quantity, like ‘most of’, ‘sometimes’, ‘frequently’, ‘a majority’, etc.

When writing Value Codes, Do maintain consistency in how you structure text across the different ‘Evaluation Statements’.

When writing Value Codes, Do maintain consistency in how you order topics in different ‘Evaluation Statements’.

When writing Value Codes, Do vary the adjectives and qualifiers around topics in different ‘Evaluation Statements’, to help readers identify the clear differences between each ‘Evaluation Statement’ and those on either side of it.

When writing Value Codes, Do consider the actions that may need to be taken in order to improve positions (from one evaluation statement to the next) – as this will help ensure the individual evaluation statements are distinct, that evaluation is straightforward and worthwhile and that improvement may be both possible, implied by the differences between ‘Evaluation Statements’ and readily facilitated after evaluation.

Draft Value Codes should be reviewed and revised according to rules.

Value Code ‘Evaluation Statements’ should be checked to ensure that they are progressively sequenced and that each one is clearly distinct.

Value Code ‘Evaluation Statements’ should be written in a way that the reader should not be confused as to which ‘Evaluation Statement’ to select. It should not be possible for someone to reasonably be able to select more than one ‘Evaluation Statement’ at a time.

Value Code ‘Evaluation Statements’ should not be unhelpfully vague or confusing to a reader.

No two ‘Evaluation Statements’ within a single Value Code be capable of being simultaneously true (e.g. “[x] is being improved” and “[x] is incomplete” could both be true at the same time and so difficult to choose between). Value Code ‘Evaluation Statements’ need to have a difference that makes a difference between each.

Value Code ‘Evaluation Statements’ should not include multiple things that make it difficult for someone to choose one over the other. For instance, it could be difficult for someone to choose between the ‘Evaluation Statements’ “Documents are not clearly written and not easily accessible” and “Documents are clearly written and are easily accessible” if their documents are not clearly written but are accessible – in this case the Value Code should be split into two (one that deals with how documents are ‘written’ and one that deals with how documents are ‘accessible).

Review a set of Value Codes to ensure that each is distinct and they do not overlap.

You should group Value Codes into appropriately named ‘Sections’. We advise limiting a diagnostic to about 20 Value Codes spread evenly over about 5 Sections. Sections should contain more than two Value Codes.

When deriving Value Codes from a list of things that matter, themes or key areas, aim for an optimal structure that ensures comprehensive evaluation without overwhelming respondents. As a guiding principle, aim for approximately 20 Value Codes distributed across roughly 5 sections. This structure balances depth and breadth, allowing for a detailed yet manageable evaluation. While there’s flexibility in this number (40 or more Value Codes may be required to cover all the things that matter), try to maintain a relatively even number of Value Codes across sections.

Checklist for finalising a Value Code:

Each Value Code should represent a singular and readily identifiable thing, not a collection of things.

Each Value Code Identifier should be concise (no more than 30 characters).

Each Value Code Identifier should be meaningful.

Each Value Code Identifier should be unique within a set of Value Codes (there should not be two Value Codes with the same Identifier, even if they are in different sections).

Each Value Code Description should clarify what the Value Code represents.

Each Value Code ‘Evaluation Statement’ should be consistent with its respective Value Code Evaluation Level Labels being used.

Value Code ‘Evaluation Statements’ should progress sequentially from ‘barely/not acceptable’ to ‘what good looks like’.

Value Code ‘Evaluation Statements’ are written with a consistent sentence structure.

Ensure Progressive and Distinct Evaluation Statements. Write evaluation statements that progress logically from less desirable to more desirable states, ensuring each level is distinct and highlights a clear advancement.

Value Code ‘Evaluation Statements’ should ideally describe an experiential state, with ‘Evaluation Statement 5’ describing ‘what good looks like in practice’.

Use Experiential and Observable Descriptions. Craft evaluation statements that reflect tangible, observable conditions and experiences within the organization, making it easier for respondents to assess their situation.

Avoid overly simplifying things to ‘whether or not a process is in place’, where possible – instead describe how the process manifests in reality.

Avoid Overuse of the Value Code Term. Refrain from repeatedly using the Value Code term itself within the evaluation statements; instead, convey the concept through descriptions of what it may look like or feel like.

Minimize Jargon and Abstract Language. Use clear and accessible language, avoiding industry-specific jargon or abstract terms that may not be universally understood.

Avoid focusing on specific people unless explicitly directed to.

Value Codes should be clear and accessible – easily understood by respondents without specialized knowledge.

Value Codes should be grounded in observable facts and experiences.

Value Codes should be reflective of how concepts are woven into daily operations.

Value Codes should be progressive – showing a logical advancement from one level to the next.

Value Codes should be impactful – highlighting the tangible benefits or consequences at each level.

An Example Value Code in markdown:

| Section Name | Value Code Identifier | Description | Evaluation Statement 1 | Evaluation Statement 2 | Evaluation Statement 3 | Evaluation Statement 4 | Evaluation Statement 5 | |—|—|—|—|—|—|—|—| | Value | Value Definition / Awareness | The extent to which “what matters” and “value” go beyond cost, are clearly understood, and are measured. | Value and “what matters” is not defined and value improvement is not addressed. | The concept of value and “what matters” is recognised, but this is either not communicated or focuses solely on price. | What matters and what’s valued is defined in improvement objectives and plans, and value is considered in decision making. However, price remains the main focus. | What matters and what is valued is clearly communicated. Improvement objectives go consistently beyond price, are shared, consolidated and agreed. Plans are deployed and value is measured. | The delivery of continuous value improvement on “what matters” are priorities that are collaboratively managed. Price is far from being the main or only value objective. Benefits are demonstrated, and sophisticated measures of value added are employed. |