Why is software maintenance so expensive?

June 12, 2012

When we purchase a piece of software – even as a service – we tend to think that the major expense is finished with the purchase price.  But it’s not true.  Whether you buy, build your own, or rent software, it always costs more in ongoing expenses than the initial price.  Why?

Developing software is an expensive proposition.  Not only do the people cost a lot, but they use expensive tools, and they always seem to need more time than was estimated at the front end of the project.  So we should not be surprised that software sells for a lot of money, even when the vendor is selling a lot of copies.

But why does maintaining that software cost so much?  Here are some of the reasons:

Software by its nature is constantly evolving.  Not only do users ask for new and modified features, but the systems on which the software runs keep changing, so the software has to be modified to fit new environments.  These factors guarantee that updates have to be released several times a year to keep things current.

Just because you bought the software doesn’t mean you – or the rest of your staff – know how to use it well.  So you need people to study up on the software’s functions and then teach others how to make the best use of it.  If you don’t, you won’t realize the full benefit that the software offers.

The worst thing that can happen to a software user is to learn that the vendor has gone out of business.  So you want the vendor to do what it takes to keep making those updates and upgrades available.  This means that the vendor also has to keep a stable of specialists assigned to the software product, even if it is no longer the mainstay of the vendor’s business.  And those specialists have to aware of how customers are using the product, and what kind of support they need.  So you’re willing to pay for that support, if the product is of great value to you.

When things go wrong, you need someone to call.  If you’re a big enterprise and the software is integral to your operations, you’ll want that someone to be nearby – and on your own payroll.  Otherwise, the person will not feel the urgency that you do when there’s a failure.  So you, too, have to maintain a staff of specialists who keep up to date with the software’s features and failings, and know how to work around any problem that comes up.

Furthermore, when something fails, you typically don’t know whether it was caused by a software bug in the application, a system failure or something gone haywire in the infrastructure (such as the network).  So you need IT specialists who can diagnose failures and then pursue the solutions no matter where the failure originated.

Can you avoid all of these expenses by using software in the cloud?  Not so fast.  You may save money by renting software that runs in the cloud, but you have to be ready to accept a standardized version of the software that everyone else is running, too.  Or you’ll have to pay extra for customization, which leads you right back into the ongoing costs of maintenance.

You’ll also have to endure the changes that come when the cloud-based software vendor decides to upgrade the system – on the vendor’s timetable, not yours.  So maybe you need those specialists in IT after all?  And the cost savings of the cloud are not completely one-sided.

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

Why is it so hard to get good software?

May 29, 2012

Once we get over our wonder at the broad capabilities of software running on modern computers and devices, we begin to ask why so much of the software we use is of questionable quality.  Between vulnerabilities to malware and constant updates to correct problems, it seems that software is never stable and reliable.  Why?

Software is abstract, invisible and runs at very high speed.  This combination of features makes developing software the domain of a special kind of person who can deal with the abstractions and with the incredibly fine detail of software creation.  Managing a group of such people also requires a special kind of talent as well, because there are tradeoffs to be made between getting new features added and stabilizing the functions that are already built-in.

Usually, the pressures of commercial software development lead software marketers to place much more emphasis on new features than on stability, because features are what differentiate one software product from another.  However, the long-term stability of a product also contributes a lot to the product’s reputation.

Software testing is the usual way to verify proper functioning before shipment.  But since software development routinely takes longer than anticipated, it is the testing that gets short shrift in many cases.  The result is premature delivery of software that is not yet ready for commercial use.

A 2002 study commissioned by the National Institute of Standards and Technology found software bugs cost the U.S. economy about $59.5 billion annually. The same study found that more than a third of that cost — about $22.2 billion — could be eliminated by improving testing.     http://on.msnbc.com/Kae58w

In addition, the operating context of software is constantly changing.  As operating system upgrades are released, the software that works under that operating system often must be adapted to the upgrades.  This means that a lot of the work of keeping a software package current goes to merely maintain the capabilities that were already built.

Users continue to ask for new features.  And marketers want the software to be useful in more contexts – such as making an app useful on an Android phone in addition to an iPhone.  These demands guarantee that a software package will always have an endless backlog of potential changes in the “to-do” list.

As more contexts are supported and more features are added, the software inevitably becomes more complex.  And complexity multiplies the difficulty of testing, and also makes each change to the software riskier.  The more interactions that are possible with each part of the code, the more possibilities there are for mistakes.

What can I do to help make software better?

Purchasers of software don’t have very high expectations, because the track record of the software industry does not set a very high bar.  If users demanded better software and rejected poor software, software vendors would provide better packages – or go out of business.  Why don’t we demand better software?

One reason is that it is hard to switch.  Once we have adopted a piece of software for some function, we tend to stay with it.  First of all, it’s what we are familiar with.  This “makes us rather bear those ills we have than fly to others that we know not of.” [Shakespeare – Hamlet]  The cost of learning a new system is high, and we tend to stay with what is familiar, even if it is painful to use.

Second, the vendors of software don’t often make it easy for us to switch to another vendor.  Try taking an Access database and “porting” it to FileMaker Pro.  The conversion process is a barrier that most of us are unwilling to undertake.  In addition, there may be many people who need to be trained in the new system if we switch.  That adds to the cost.

In the future, we should look at the cost of switching before committing to a software vendor or cloud system.  The more “open” the system, the better for us in the long term.

And we should always insist on demonstrably high quality in software.  Keep this in mind the next time you’re making a purchase decision.

 

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

Success always looks easy

March 13, 2012

With all the news about IT projects that go bad, you would think that we’d hear more news about projects that go well.  Then we could just copy down the “best practices” that led to the success and – voilà – our projects would come out perfectly every time.

But life is not so simple.  While we can enumerate key problems that led to failure by analyzing projects, it is much harder to point to one factor and say “this is what made this project successful.”  Success depends not only on avoiding the pitfalls, but also on bringing together all of the essential project elements.  Sometimes those elements are not so easy to identify.

Example 1:  I once struggled for 7 months with a project team that couldn’t seem to get all the right pieces together.  In fact, what was needed was to remove two members of the team.  One of them was in a key contributor position, but was just not disciplined enough to produce his part of the code (this was a firmware team).  The other was simply not contributing to the team because he didn’t understand his role and was not capable of fulfilling it.  While I had recommended the removal of these two on my 3rd day on the project, I had not insisted, and the result was a long slog.

What happens when you remove non-contributors from the team?  First of all, someone else on the team steps up to do what needs to be done.  Second of all, the whole team becomes more productive (and happy) because they are no longer saddled with the unproductive members.

Example 2: A client company launched a transition to Agile development methods in the development of a major sales-support package.  They hired an experienced team of software people and an Agile coach.  The program went well.  I was asked to assess the team and the project during its first year.  My assessment:  this team will do well no matter what methodology they use – because they are experienced people who know how to work in a team.

There was also an invisible success factor, invisible to the remote business people who chartered my assessment.  Within the ranks of IT management was an individual Director-level manager who secretly supported the Agile transition.  I say “secretly,” because the CIO turned out to be opposed to any special treatment of software developers (compared with, say, treatment of call-center operators), let alone “Agile” teams.  This manager quietly encouraged the Agile team and provided me with insight into all of the IT department politics that could affect the team’s performance.

If you manage to identify and engage the key success factors in real projects, you’ll be regarded as a genius.  But don’t let it go to your head, because a lot of it is luck.  Luck that is aided by keeping your eyes and your mind open.

If you’re managing a major project, it’s best to call upon resources (not just people, but information or equipment or software) that help compensate for any shortfall. So it’s a good idea to continually build up your network of contacts, your access to information, and your knowledge of available equipment and software.  Then, when you run into a roadblock, you can call on your network to help find what you need.  And of course, it doesn’t hurt to have a secret ally in the management ranks.

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

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: , , , , ,

Three causes of IT project failure

February 13, 2012

IT projects often don’t get done.  Not just done late, but not done at all.  Industry statistics show that over 50% of major IT projects are not regarded as successful. They get abandoned because they’re too late or because they’re so far over budget that the sponsors give up.  Many more deliver something, but not what the sponsors really want, and not on time within budget.

Why do these projects fail to complete? Here are three major causes of IT project failure.

1. They’re not defined well

If the sponsors don’t define the project well, the people implementing it will apply their own ideas to define the outcomes.  This usually leads the project astray, because no matter how technically competent the implementers are, they are not mind-readers and they rarely have a clear idea of the business purpose of the project.

The best way to define an IT project is to start with the end – defining the measurable impact on business parameters that the project is intended to have.  From these, derive criteria for completion including demonstrations of the key capabilities and measurable test results.  If this seems hard to do, then you need to review why the project is being done.

2. The people doing the work are not a team

People implementing the project need to behave as a team.  If they don’t, the project is likely to fail.

You need good teamwork to get a project done.  What’s good teamwork?  It’s good communication with blaming; it’s clear acceptance of accountability for doing what each member said he or she would do;  it’s working cooperatively to solve the inevitable problems that come up.

If your implementation team is split across town or across continents, there needs to be active management of the communications so that the teamwork criteria are met.  Agile development, which relies a lot on self-directed teams, requires outstanding teamwork before any benefit from the Agile principles will pay off.

For example, a client company I worked with had parts of its web implementation team split between two facilities 750 miles apart.  When not enough results were coming through, the manager decided that Agile methods would solve the problem.  But the two parts of the “team” did not trust each other and each blamed the other part for the lack of results.  Only after bringing the top dozen people together in one room for two days per month did they begin to work out their common goals and start to solve the problems.

Leadership is also required in a self-directed team.  Leadership in this context means actively managing the team process and the management.

3. They don’t have enough resources or the right resources

The effort needed to complete an IT project is often underestimated.  A combination of implementer optimism and wishful thinking on the part of the sponsor conspires to make the budget for many projects inadequate.  This causes an unpleasant surprise when the project is nowhere near complete when the budget is spent.

You also need the right resources.  People who have the skill and competence to plan, design, code, test and deploy the program are necessary.  If any part of this sequence is weak, then a lot of time and effort can be lost during the project.

The implementers need the right tools, including software tools and a work environment in which they can use them properly.

Under-estimation of the scope of a project may lead it to grow too big for a single team to accomplish within the time required.  That can lead to further complications, because multiple-team projects require segmentation of the effort into coherent modules, and then the integration of the whole project has to be done by an integration team.  So when you discover the realistic effort needed to accomplish the project, you may also have to rework the whole management structures used to implement it.

If you want to insulate your company from IT project failures, you need to pay attention to project definition, team formation and adequate resources.  Then you have a chance to beat the odds and reap a successful conclusion to your IT project.

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

Software, software everywhere

January 23, 2012

Software is different from other technical stuff.  It’s abstract, invisible, and runs at extremely high speed.  So the people who are good at working with software tend to be different from “ordinary” engineers.  They have to be good at visualizing the abstract processes and the mathematical algorithms that make up the procedures implemented in software.

Software people are different, so their managers need to be able to deal with the difference.  Effective software managers know what’s critical to a well-functioning software team and those managers get good at providing it, even in the face of obstacles.

Obstacles come from upper management that doesn’t understand how software, and software people, is unique.  As a result, they assume that a manager who has skills in Operations can just as well manage software.

I’ve seen IT shops where the best software people left the company quickly after being treated as if they were call-center operators.  For example, the management assumed that the software people could be located anywhere in the building, that they didn’t need any special whiteboards to keep track of their project information.

Why should you care? After all, can’t you just hire the brains you need for software?  Well, not so fast.  You’re competing with every company in the world for the same kind of brains. Unless you’re in an entrepreneurial, fast growing, innovative company, software people will not prefer working for you over going to work in a more exciting environment.

IT is undergoing rapid change, primarily driven by the availability of cloud services.  But the cloud just moves the data centers to somewhere else. If you look closely at internal IT activities, you will realize that IT is itself a software-intensive activity.

This sounds self-evident, but it’s not a joke.  It’s a reality that many financial and operations executives fail to understand.  Everyone, from the business analysts to the website deployment people are not just software users – they have to understand software principles to do their work.

Business competition will come from new players, and from old players who master software tools and the business possibilities opened up by software.

As software becomes an integral part of business, there is a subtle shift in what management has to do and to know.  You now need staff – or consultants – who are knowledgeable about software and its workings.  And from them you need to learn what software means for the future of your business.

Is there something you’ve learned recently about software?  I welcome your comments.

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