Stranger ways to fail

February 29, 2012

In the last article, I gave three reasons for IT project failure.  These are not the only ways to fail!  In this article I describe failure modes I’ve seen that are much less conventional – and harder to overcome without serious dedication at the top.

Here are the three reasons from last time:

  1. They’re not defined well
  2. The people doing the work are not a team
  3. They don’t have enough resources or the right resources

And here are the new ones:

4.    Management is fighting over who controls the project

There’s nothing nastier in corporate politics than a turf battle.  All the best-intentioned platitudes about teamwork and customer-centricity are forgotten when there is a fight for power.  If these are happening in an organization near you, then you’re probably hunkered down, waiting for the chips to fall.  The project work is also probably way behind schedule and no one is willing to take any risks while the battles are fought.

These projects usually falter when the funding becomes uncertain because of the battles.  That of course leads to failure reason #3 above.

5.    The project has been chartered in order to show off a capability, rather than to accomplish a real, customer-oriented goal

A U.S.-based company I was working in asked me to manage a development project that was being done on the other side of the Atlantic.  Why?  I found out later it was simply because the former VP of Software was now in Europe and he wanted to show off the capability of the European software development team.  Although we managed to deliver the product and the team performed well, the product was not well received.  It was really unnecessary.

6.    Middle management is truly incompetent

A client company started development on a system that was way outside the company’s traditional area of expertise.  When the managers realized they needed an essential software component and asked for it, the development team showed them the component that they had already developed, because it made no sense to proceed without it.

This company’s first and second level managers were in over their heads with regard to the technology.  What made it worse is that the two levels of managers protected each other from showing their weakness to anyone above the second level.  Both the system and the company folded within a few years.

7.    The CEO and the executive staff don’t support the project because they don’t understand its significance.

A company I worked for was the first disruptor of markets for the big players in computer systems.  It offered systems that were an order of magnitude less costly than the competitors, and this not only opened up markets and applications that were new, it began to eat into the margins and the market share of the big players.

Twenty years later, other new companies began offering systems that were an order of magnitude less costly than this company’s systems.  The company couldn’t respond adequately because the top management did not understand how these “cheap” systems could do what the more costly ones did.  They also failed to grasp the significance of software as a business, separate from the “iron” of computer hardware.  The company ended by being acquired by one of the upstart disruptors.

If you can find your way to a safe place to proceed with your project, keep on trying to establish good practices and excellent communication.  And if you’re depending on successful completion of the project?  Then get clear about what’s going wrong, and get help.

Filed Under: Agile Management Tagged With: , , , , ,

Complexity is good – or is it bad?

December 6, 2011

I grew up in a family of engineers.  My father studied electrical engineering in college, but never practiced it because he graduated from college during the Great Depression.  Two of my uncles are engineers, and my older brother preceded me in going to Cornell as an engineering student.

I have always felt that engineering is not only an honorable profession, it also leads to a practical lifestyle that values inquiry, problem-solving and efficient solutions to the challenges in life.  So you may not be surprised to learn that I am a fully qualified lifelong nerd.  I love examining things to discover how they work.  And the more complex the mechanisms, the more interesting they are.

This is where it gets to be a problem.  When I invent something new, like a part of a computer, I revel in the complexity of the thing I’m building.  As long as the complexity serves a purpose, such as actually making the thing do what it’s supposed to do, my brain is tweaked in pleasurable ways when I contemplate the complexity.

If you’ve been reading any of the recent pieces about Steve Jobs, you’ll have understood that part of his brilliance was being able to conceive of simple and easy-to-use products that “just work.”  I worked with Steve in the early days of Apple, and I can verify that it was a challenge being an engineer in a place where the visionary boss kept revising the product based on his latest concept of simple.  Yet even engineers have a principle they repeat to each other to counterbalance their tendency towards complexity – the KISS principle: “Keep it simple, stupid”.

A quote attributed to Einstein says “Make it as simple as possible, but no simpler.”  This teaching admonishes us to simplify our theories, but not so far that they no longer apply to the real world.  Jobs’ vision was to make products that contained complex technology but worked well and intuitively for the common person.  And from that basis, he led the creation of products that have changed the way the world works.

So does this mean that I’m giving up on complex ideas and mechanisms?  Not at all.  The mental contortions I need to undertake to understand complicated things still give me pleasure.  And I believe they keep my mind alive in important ways.  The key to living with such an engineering mind is to keep it from running my life.  I still listen to J.S. Bach’s music with satisfaction at the complexity of the counterpoint and harmonies.  But I also meditate on emptiness to keep the logical brain in check.

The next time you hold a complicated piece of consumer electronics in your hand – such as your mobile phone – take a moment to reflect on its complexity and its simplicity.  Encapsulating one of these in the other is an art.  And to accomplish that encapsulation, you need both engineers and artists.  Long may the engineers and artists work together.

John Levy works with Finance and Operations executives who are sponsors for new IT-based business capabilities.  He helps them to succeed with their projects and to transform their relationship with IT.

Getting business value from every dollar spent in IT is not easy.  You need a guide who is knowledgeable about technology and also speaks the language of business.  John specializes in rapidly getting IT to align with business strategy and to contribute efficiently to the success of the enterprise.

John has been consulting in industry for over 20 years.  His book on management for technology executives, Get Out of the Way, was published in May 2010. 

For more information, please visit https://johnlevyconsulting.com , email him at info@johnlevyconsulting.com , or call 415 663-1818.

 

Filed Under: Painless IT Tagged With: , , , ,

Business, Academia, Government – do we have the same problems?

August 10, 2010

Every one of us is dealing in one way or another with high technology. Whether it is by trying to develop a product, trying to deliver a service, or just preparing our slides for a presentation, we all deal with the high-tech world.  This usually means that we must communicate with high-tech people, and typically the results we get are dependent to some extent on how well the high-tech people do their work.

Communicating with high-tech people is a challenge. Not only do they speak their own brand of jargon, they also tend to be very literal.  Like the literalness of the computer itself, high-tech people seem to think that if you ask for a three-pronged left-handed widget (or a thingumbob, if you like), then if they deliver a three-pronged left-handed widget to you, you should be happy.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way. With software, for example, the requirements are never completely known.  Typically, when the first working model of a new software system is shown to the people who asked for it, their reaction is: “Oh.  I see what you have here, but what I really want is something different.”

This can be frustrating for the technologists who worked for a long time on the development.  One of their countermeasures now is using Agile development practices, in which a working prototype is shown to the “customer” early and often.  This allows the developers to correct their course early and gain confidence that they are building something that will actually be useful.

But why is it so hard to specify what we want in advance? Is it because we don’t speak the same language as the techies?  Or is there something inherent in high-tech that obscures the simple outcomes that we know we want and we think we have asked for?

I believe it is both. Not knowing how high-tech stuff is constructed, we don’t know which jobs are hard to do and which are easy.  We also don’t know how elaborate the underlying structure has to be in order to get what looks like a simple result.  So we ask for things that we want and find ourselves puzzled by the groans from the technologists who see years of work ahead of them to satisfy the request.

We also don’t really know what we want when it comes to interactions with a computer-based system, because the possibilities are endless and the examples we’ve seen in the past color our view of what we think the interactions should be.  For example, if you’ve used Word Perfect for years to do your word processing work, you will not find it easy to switch to Microsoft Word, because the interactions and functions are different.

There’s a new discipline in computer systems development called user interaction (UX) design.  It calls on specialized skills ranging from graphical design, human perception and interaction protocol design, to database design and web programming.  But even as this new discipline is helping to make systems easier to interact with, no one can substitute for you, the user or customer, in defining what the system should do.

Sometimes you have to say, “I want it to be easier to use than this,” when you see how a system works, even when you don’t know how to make it easier.  If you challenge the development team to try different ways to make it easier, you will usually get something better.

But this poses a problem. If they are experimenting with various ways to make the system easier to use, how long will it take to get to the finish line?  How much will it cost?  The fact is that doing engineering and design requires creativity and experimentation.  And you can’t schedule a breakthrough.

So you have to settle for setting a limit on how long or how costly the project is to be.  An entrepreneur may run out of money before delivering a satisfactory system. But if you are constrained to actually get a working system, you want the best you can get within the constraints.

This comes back to the Agile approach. If you ask to be shown a working prototype often, you can do course-corrections frequently while you also gain confidence that the developers are meeting the most important criteria for your project, because you make them show you how the system meets those criteria first.

The Agile Management Bottom Line

Give up trying to specify everything at the start.  Begin by prioritizing the key features or results you need, and ask for frequent demonstrations of a working system.  You’ll end up with a lot more confidence in your high-tech developers, and they will be less frustrated with you.

—–

John Levy helps business managers who are frustrated by the lack of results they are getting from IT or Engineering.  He specializes in rapidly getting high-tech teams to align with business strategy and to contribute to business success of the enterprise.

John has been consulting for managers in industry for over 20 years.  John’s book on management for technology executives, Get Out of the Way, was published in May 2010.

For more information, please visit his website at https://johnlevyconsulting.com ,

Email him at info@johnlevyconsulting.com , or call 415 663-1818.

Filed Under: Agile Management, Painless IT Tagged With: , , , ,

Metrics of success in development – Part 2

January 26, 2008

Last time we listed the first three questions of a self-assessment questionnaire for Development managers. Those first three related to project completion, staff turnover, and how well the initial functional or feature list was met. If you are having problems delivering products, most likely you will experience problems in one or more of these initial three areas.

There is a less tangible measure that relates to suitability of the product to the customer. But I’m still trying to figure out how to ask about that in a way that leads to a consistent and useful measure. If you have any suggestions, please make a comment on this blog.

Here are the next three questions:

4. How many hours per week are put in by your project or program staff? This is to be answered in two parts: first for the average over the life of the project, and then for the peak of the project or program. Answer this for each of the most recent 3 projects or programs.

4a. Average over the project or program:
Over 60 hours/week (add 0 points per project)
50 to 60 hours / week (add 1 point per project)
40 to 50 hours / week (add 2 points per project)
less than 40 hours / week (add 0 points per project)

4b. Peak week during the project or program:
Over 80 hours / week (add 0 points per project)
70 to 80 hours / week (add 1 point per project)
60 to 70 hours / week (add 2 points per project)
40 to 60 hours / week (add 3 points per project)

5. How many direct reports do you have? (Direct reports include staff assistants, administrators, secretaries, project leaders, managers and interns)
Over 12 (add 0 points)
10 to 12 (add 1 point)
8 to 9 (add 2 points)
3 to 7 (add 3 points)
0 to 2 (add 0 points)

6. Of your direct reports, how many do you regards as “problem” employees (people you will replace when there is an opportunity)?
0 (add 3 points)
1 (add 1 points)
2 (add 0 points)

Questions 4 and 5 are searching for sustainability in your project loading. It’s OK to have peak weeks in which people are working 10 to 20 more hours than is typical during the project. But if you are driving everyone to work more than 60 hours per week on a long-term basis, you are not getting output that is sustainable. It may be time for you to institute metrics that measure results rather than inputs. Then you can experiment with different work schedules to see which ones result in the greatest output.

Sustainability applies to you and your management time, too. If you have more than 9 direct reports, the odds are that you are (a) not managing all of them as well as they could be managed, or (b) overloading yourself with management tasks that give you little time for planning and strategic analysis.

Next time we’ll complete the question list and tally the points for a complete score.

Filed Under: Painless IT Tagged With: , , , ,

Metrics of success in development – Part 1

January 26, 2008

How do you find out if your development organization is functioning well? Naturally, if you are getting products out on time, consistently, and the world around you is happy with the results, you have nothing to worry about.

But what if there ARE complaints? Can you determine whether you’re hearing gripes that have little to do with you? Or whether there really is room for improvement?

I’m working on a self-assessment tool, probably containing about 10 questions, that will help you evaluate whether you are on track. The way to use the tool is to answer the questions and then count the points at the end.

Here are the first three questions in my current working draft:

1. Counting only the past 3 projects and products under your management, how many have been completed on time? For each project/product not completed on time, how much later were they completed?

[4 points] for each project completed on or before the originally scheduled completion date
[3 points] for each project completed within 120% of the originally scheduled duration
[2 points] for each project completed within 150% of the originally scheduled duration
[1 point ] for each project completed after more than 150% of the originally scheduled duration
[0 points] for each project which is never completed

2. During the time that those 3 projects or products were being developed, how much turnover did you experience among your technical staff, including first-level supervisors and managers? Turnover means departed or transferred out from project teams or management without being invited to do so by you or your managers.

[3 points] less than 5%
[2 points] between 5% and 15%
[1 points] between 15% and 30%
[0 points] over 30%

3. In those 3 projects or products, how much of the planned functionality was delivered (at the completion date you used for question 1)?

[add 3 points] for each project in which you delivered all of the planned functionality, plus additional functionality defined after the start of the project.
[add 2 points] for each project in which you delivered all of the planned functionality
[add 1 point] for each project in which you delivered at least half of the planned functionality
[add 0 points] for each project in which you delivered less than half of the planned functionality

If your total points add up to 24, you have a perfectly-performing development organization and have no need for improvement. For the rest of us, the points are probably in the following ranges:
Excellent: 18 to 24 points
Good: 12 to 17 points
Fair: 6 to 11 points
Poor: 5 points or fewer

Shipping products on time is the key result that most of your stakeholders want. Shipping the product with the features and functions that they asked for — or expect — is next in line as a measure of your success. But if you are burning out your development crew — and causing turnover as a result — you won’t be able to sustain the results. Therefore, these are the first few measures that tell you whether the organization is successful and sustainable.

Next time we’ll begin looking at other measures that can tell you whether your management practices are helping you build a development organization that is consistent and successful for the long run.

Filed Under: Painless IT Tagged With: , , , , , , ,

Constant Reinvention = Survival

January 26, 2008
Nothing lasts forever. Even the best-conceived business strategies eventually become constraints on growth.

Consider Dell. “Dell succumbed to complacency in the belief that its business model would always keep it far ahead of the pack.” But the competitors got better while Dell failed “to invest in new business lines, talent, or innovation that could provide another competitive edge.” * [see Business Week citation below]

As a leader in technology or product development, you may think that your entire job is to execute well on the development plans laid out by Marketing or a strategic planning group. But you can do more. You can help the executive staff recognize that the business has other opportunities.

Consider what the Business Week authors went on to say: “Long-term success demands constant reinvention.” This means that while you’re turning out products that meet the current set of goals for functions, price and quality, the viability of the company may depend on your pointing out where innovative products or services could come from, using the brains you already have on your staff. Reinvention means re-thinking the orthodoxies everyone has accepted as the characteristics of the company. Do you have some independent thinkers on your staff who keep coming up with off-the-wall ideas? Maybe some of those ideas are actually your ticket to survival.

“Nurture the next growth platform long before it’s needed.” This means you have to carve out the budget to support the radical ideas from the operating budget you’re supposed to use for mainstream development. If you can’t convince your executive staff to fund a skunkworks operation, then you should look at having some of your key contributors doing some off-the-record investigations. Is this risky in your company? Then maybe the company needs some shaking up.

“Most [companies] don’t [nurture the next ideas]. Distracted by the demands of their current success, they re lulled into a false sense of security.” It’s easy to focus only on the tasks that will satisfy the demands of current customers and current ways of doing business. And while it’s not easy to perform on those tasks at extraordinary levels, you can get lost in gunning for the immediate satisfactions of meeting this quarter’s goals. Can you be a VP or Director of Engineering and still make time for thinking about next year’s products and the businesses that you haven’t entered yet? Consider this: who else is better positioned to view what’s possible, who is out there needing better functions or services, and what can be combined to make a new business?

I suggest taking an advocate’s role as part of your commitment to the long term success of your company. You don’t have to be a marketer or business analyst to know what’s exciting and feasible in the next generation of products and services. Carve out a niche as a visionary and a keeper of the wild ideas that can open up new busineses for your company. Do it regularly, and you’ll be twice as valuable as the person who only meets the usual goals of Development. Besides, it may help your company survive.

———-
* “Where Dell Went Wrong” by Nanette Byrnes and Peter Burrows in Business Week, February 19, 2007, pages 62-63.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_08/b4022074.htm?chan=search

Filed Under: Painless IT Tagged With: , , , , , , , , ,