Peace for Our Time



A phrase spoken on 30 September 1938 by
British Prime MinisterNeville Chamberlain in
his speech concerning the Munich Agreement and
the Anglo-German Declaration

An epic age-old battle is raging across the centuries, between good and evil, Microsoft/Windows users and Apple/OS X users, law enforcement and criminals, Java developers and .Net developers, blackhats and whitehats, emacs vs vi users, heavy metal fans and synth fans, orcs and humans, and so on and so forth ..

Fanatics on each side are entrenched in their legacy experience and convictions, preferences, tastes - making it impossible to see the other side of the argument, because it's of course just wrong.

In the project management context, this typically translates into choosing sides between methodology approach - waterfall, or agile - with the agile approach having lured throngs of followers to abandon the traditional waterfall methodologies for heretical beliefs in happier colleagues, Customers and outcomes working with Epics, Stories, Sprints and Stand-ups .. and securing Customer (or key stakeholder) involvement in reprioritization of requirements and scope.

Don't get me wrong - I sincerely believe that each method has its merits, it's just that the waterfall approach was better suited to the main bulk of projects I was involved in during my formative career years, thus making other approaches less comfortable.

I think most of you are familiar with the principles of the waterfall model, and perhaps even some of its origins going back to the very early days of software development, later to be adopted and refined by the US Department of Defense.

There's a plethora of sources online going into all kinds of variants, descriptions of the method etc - so this won't be a detailed walkthrough recapping such content.  Let's just agree that it typically outlines various stages in a sequential fashion where the completion of the preceding stages are prerequisites to starting the latter.

Example –

Preliminary Design, Detailed Design, Coding and Unit Testing, Integration, and Testing
 .. or ..
Requirements capture, Analysis, Design, Coding, Testing and Operations

With roots in the manufacturing and construction industries, the blueprint must be established before the assembly can begin etc.

A contrarian approach to the waterfall model, would be Scrum, considered to be one of the most successfully proclaimed and adopted agile methods.  It's iterative, incremental, and actually encourages the scope and prioritizations to change with time as the project moves along.  Quoting Wikipedia -"A key principle of Scrum is its recognition that during product development, the customers can change their minds about what they want and need .." This is quite different from the waterfall approach as e.g. changes to solution design discovered during testing would require replanning, re-"tooling", and reimplementation (you can tell already that it's costly) not to mention that it may trigger other changes due to dependencies in the solution.

We'll revisit the notion of actually involving the Customer continuously in the decision making- and planning process in a later post, but make no mistake - this is a key success factor regardless of methodology, it's more a matter of timing, setting expectations and communicating correctly.

With the peacekeeper hat on, one is obliged to say that both methods carry strengths, merit as well as weaknesses - so which one is the wiser choice?  None? - Both!

The "Pragmatic approach" in my view is to base the choice of method on the context at hand, and there's a simple perspective which can be applied to do it - "Goals and Methods matrix".  With roots in an academic paper from 1993 where Turner and Cochrane state that traditional definitions view a project as ..

- “a complex sequence of activities to deliver clearly defined objectives  ...  and the goals and the method of achieving them are well understood at the start of a project, or at least at the start of its execution stage”
(Turner & Cochrane, 1993: 93).

.. - and propose an alternative view; that a project should be categorized by the extent to which the goals are more or less clearly defined, together with the extent the method to achieve the identified outcomes (scope, deliverables) is known.

 

With such a categorization, it becomes a little easier to take a step out of the comfort zone and acknowledge that the favorite method may not be the tool best suited to the task.  Just imagine taking an agile approach to building a car for each new vehicle ordered (low production rate ..) or applying the waterfall model to exploratory research (let he who hasn't exceeded his budget cast the first stone ..)

Sometimes, even a mix between the two (usually described along the lines of a v-shaped spiral) might be the most productive strategy even though it may send chills down the spine of puritans.

At Enfo, we support our Customers with a similar approach when it comes to digitalization initiatives and capturing the value of innovation, which often take the shape of a technical solution implementation project in combination with an organizational change at the same time.  Changing the way you do business and interface with Your Customer can rarely be accomplished within the same organizational setup as the vehicle taking you to where you are today.  Hence the need to address both areas, which is likely to require slightly different choice of method.

The industry trend of viewing and categorizing investments through the "bi-modal lense" (fast/slow, marathon-runners – sprinters, ninja-samurai, innovation/operations) is also enabled through this method approach.

It's not a question of abandoning your faith, making a deal with Hitler, selling your soul to the Devil, or giving up on your principles - but - at the start of your next assignment, try to map out where your organization, project and goals fit in on the matrix and keep an open mind on how to approach the choice of project method thereafter.  Perhaps it’ll take us a step closer to peace for our time!

 

By Fredric Travaglia, Business Development Consultant @ Enfo

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnqAXuLZlaE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterfall_model
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrum_(software_development)
Turner, J.R. and Cochrane, R.A. (1993) “Goals-and-methods matrix: coping with projects ill-defined goals and/or methods of achieving them”, International Journal of Project Management, vol.11, no. 2.
http://www.enfo.se/
http://www.enfo.se/Den-Digitala-Dimensionen
http://www.travaglia.se/2016/06/id-like-two-scoops-of-change-please.html
http://www.travaglia.se/2015/10/who-is-your-customer.html
http://www.travaglia.se/2015/11/let-trend-be-your-friend_24.html
http://www.gartner.com/it-glossary/bimodal/
http://www.thedigitaldimension.com/Posts/Video-Logs/2016/Innovation/Create-and-capture-value-in-the-digital-dimension

It's a kind of Magic ..

(This post is also available in a Swedish version, from the Enfo blog @ enfo.se/om/media/blogg/)

 

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

(Arthur C. Clarke)

 

I have the pleasure and privilege of working with a few of those extremely talented and gifted individuals who possess not only the expertise and skillset to wield different technology stacks and software concepts to their will, but the versatility to be able to express and explain how it works to colleagues in other disciplines, as well as suggest innovative solutions of how such technologies can be used to solve challenges in Customer business scenarios.

I’m sure there are a number of examples of similar levels of mastery you can relate to even if your relationship with technology is dominated by the user perspective – Imagine watching your favorite sport, golf for example, where the player you root for confidently walks up to the tee, effortlessly drives the first shot down the fairway to the ideal location for an easy pitch onto green, and executes a single controlled put to score a comfortable birdie.  If you’re not a sports fan – I think we’ve all seen street artists sketch a portrait or caricature where at first, the few simple lines on the blank sheet of paper through a mesmerizing transformation move from a nonsensical shape to a beautifully detailed likeness which, if asked to explain or perform the task, the untrained layman would face poor odds.

Both circumstances require repetitive training, analysis, learning and experimenting over extended periods of time combined with the passion and curiosity to reach those extraordinary levels of mastery exhibited by our billboard athletes, artists, and top-tier professionals in different fields in business.

When we encounter these skills skillfully applied in a neat streamlined little package of seamlessly integrated technology, we get the impression of some intangible reality changing properties being imbued with the object – put more simply, it’s like magic!

Remember your first encounter with the iPhone, or Spotify, or having a video-chat with a loved one around the world, or perhaps the combination of internet and Google putting the knowledge of the world at your fingertips.  The inherent complexity of the multiple layers of technology, infrastructure and software making these experiences possible is practically incomprehensible for regular mortals – yet these wizards of technology conceive and realize the end-results, and possible next generation technologies which lie beyond.

In current cutting edge application of Big Data technologies, machine learning, efforts towards predictive algorithms and the beginnings of Artificial Intelligence visible in concepts like the IBM Watson – a whole new range of business models and value creation will take place, and any business with the ambition to remain competitive tomorrow needs to maintain a split vision between the day-to-day challenges in the business, and the opportunities brought into the industry by disruptive technologies.

Classic business examples of failing the challenge of the future upheld in classrooms around the world include Eastman-Kodak (film), Facit (calculators), Xerox (copier machines), Nokia (mobile handsets) and perhaps within a shorter timeframe than we realize – well-known hotel chains, taxi companies, network television and record companies.

What then, is the take-home insight we should derive from the connection between the individual effort, leading to mastery, leading to wonderful – practically magic – technological advances and solutions?  Here are my conclusions –

-          Focus on your goals, your reality, your ability to explain the challenges of your business to people who can help you resolve some of those problems with solutions you may not even have imagined were possible.  Sometimes, this opens up transformational possibilities which may expand business and create new revenue streams previously not available to the organization.

-          Start small, and build trust with a dedicated team of technology experts who share your vision of where the business should be heading, introducing technological solutions to create value for your end Customers.  Let the results speak for themselves, and iterate to progress forward.

-          The day-to-day, bread and butter, core-part of your business should run like clockwork and create as little “fuss” as possible, in order for you to enable a focus on innovation and expansion – regardless if it’s relating to technological improvements or not.

Recently, I’ve come across a few great examples of how this can work out in the real world.
 - ESAB
 - Ambea
.. and some bonus material -
http://www.esabna.com/us/en/weldcloud/index.cfm
http://youtu.be/R63DEWagbV8

– I hope you find them inspiring!

Fredric Travaglia, Business Development Consultant @ Enfo

Keep up to speed with new posts to The Project Manager Toolbox blog through RSS or join the discussion on Twitter @ FxTravaglia

Who is your Customer?

What the Customer really needed ..

(This post is also available in a Swedish version, from the Enfo blog @ enfo.se/om/media/blogg/)

Working with technology on a daily basis carries the risk of aligning ones thinking with the rather square and binary conditions applying to the way technological solutions are developed – does variable x equal value z (true/false), is version a compatible with platform z, do the stated conditions fulfil the requirements (Yes/No) etc.

When transferred to the realm of day to day business operations this perhaps accurate but somewhat two-dimensional perspective needs to be expanded to match the real-life requirements of the challenges of delivering value in our Customers’ business.

In the end, it’s the difference we can make for our Customers end-Customer – the end of the value chain - that really counts.  Better value, lower cost, improved quality, raised service levels – the classic hallmarks of successfully applying technology craftsmanship to business improvement.  With that as a starting point however, another level of complexity is added – it’s not enough to understand what our main counterpart – the purchaser, the requirement owner – say they need and want us to deliver.  We need to understand how our Customer works to fulfil their Customer expectations, to create and deliver value.

Our ever-increasingly complex world of tailor-made services, bespoke supply chains and specialized areas of expertise enable tremendous levels of flexibility, but tends to break up reality into individual frames of reference we understand individually, but carries a slight distortion through each layer when it comes to explaining what better Customer value – or business requirements – really means.  From the consumer, all throughout the value-chain, to – in this case – us, as the supplier.  Just like Chinese whispers ..

There’s a very striking – well- known and -circulated on the internet - illustration of the innate challenge in successfully communicating actual requirements between different roles and perspectives within a business, “What the Customer really wanted ..”.

Working with Process Innovation and Project Management, I believe in striving to take a holistic approach to help Customers cover an extra perspective or two, in their role as purchasers, requirement owners, or change leaders in IT implementation projects in their business.  We all have our own unique set of experiences and understanding for a particular situation – assets we can use to help each other understand and fill in the gaps of the picture we don’t see at first, and collaboratively identify what the Customer really needs.  At Enfo, our established framework for working with an EnterpriseArchitecture, or an Information Competency Center, are great examples of how this approach can be applied practically in real-life Customer projects.

As this rather infamous illustration of crossing human nature with the art of delivery vs expectations testifies, only attempting to circumvent such pitfalls does not always make it so – but the awareness of the inherent challenge we all face in the “Customer/supplier-relationships” around us, regardless of business type, can support us in avoiding a few more of them each time, and improving the business value delivered.

This helps us reaching further towards not only what the Customer wanted in the “one-to-one” customer-supplier relationship – but also in supporting our Customers in delivering what their own – colleagues as well as end-Customers – really wanted.  To draw an analogy from age-old wisdom, - the Customer of my Customer is .. my Customer!

Fredric Travaglia, Business Development Consultant @ Enfo

Keep up to speed with new posts to the blog through RSS or join the discussion on Twitter @ FxTravaglia