EA Voices

(skiplumley’s question refers to this post: What is Architecture)

There isn’t any strong reason to avoid using the word essence to describe something definitive. 

As long as we recognise that ‘essence’ is a philosophical term. It’s meaning depends on one’s ontological commitments.

Architecture intends structure. In the built world I think architecture is an appropriate term. In the video I posted the word architecture does the job very nicely. It is clear, to the point and does not invite too many digressions.

To quote a nineteenth-century american revivalist, “That is perfect that best suits the purpose for which it is intended.” As the purpose of the video is to get the viewer to think more deeply about what architecture is – I should think, by definition, architecture is a fine word to use in this context. 

Which is not to say it is the perfect term to use in every possible answer to the question “What makes a cup a cup?”

What is it?The project team is a group of people who are going to take up this improvement project. By choosing team participants wisely, you can create the right balance of fundamental knowledge. Besides, by involving users from the workfloor, you cr…

What is a zombie project? How do you know one when you see one? (you might even smell them before you’ve seen it)

1) It conforms to Sagey’s law of dysfunctional project reporting

2) People have tried to kill it previously, but it just keeps coming!

3) It has sucked the brains of some of your best people

4) It has been lurking in your change pipeline for too long distracting resource from other projects with its mindless flailing

5) It has eaten project managers (this isn’t necessarily always a bad thing)

6) It has just made no perceptible, meaningful progress and yet is consuming people, money and focus

7) It has delivered no tangible value to your org or your customers since its inception

A Zombie project looks like a normal project from a distance, it will shuffle along consuming brains making similar noises to other projects. Its only when you get close that you realise that those noises that you thought was distant talk is the mindless mumblings of the un-dead.

How do I avoid a Zombie Project?

Easy, there are only a couple of questions to ask yourself:

1) Is everyone clear on the objective(s) of the change?

2) Are you really sure everyone is clear on the objective(s) of the change?

3) Sure your are sure??

4) Does the change have a realistic amount of resource to achieve its objective?

To help answer this question answer this one first, was project resource assigned to the project before the scope and definition and the vision and initial requirements were defined? (if the answer is yes to this question then the answer is no to the first question). Change without the appropriate oxygen with which to exist will quickly become a zombie project.

5) Are the team members happy? This is a really f-ing simple question that is really f-ing simple to answer, it involves strange skills such as listening, empathy and talking to people

6) (important but less important than number 5) Are the stakeholders happy?

Answer ‘nope’ to any of the 6 questions above and the chances are if you don’t already have a zombie project you may well have one soon. Check for bite marks, drooling, distance stares and any mention of ‘brrraaaiiinzzzz’ in the project documentation.

Oh and if you do find one, do yourself a favour and shoot it in the head. it might resemble a project but its humanity departed long ago.

The Law is simple. When your change process is dysfunctional your project reporting will be like this:

Green = Amber
Amber = Red
Red = We are all f*cked! run!!

The thing is, when your project reporting is dysfunctional, everyone will know it, everyone will be doing this interpretation in their head.

Why does this happen?
It happens when:

– People are incentivised to operate the process rather than deliver value.

– People don’t let projects fail (or aren’t allowed to be seen to fail)

– People see project failure is seen as politically damaging

– People working within change Governance structures aren’t incentivised to govern, its too hard work, they might not like what they find

How can this be resolved?:

– Accept that failure is part of change

– Incentivise the reporting and killing or curing of sick projects

– Incentivise the accurate reporting of projects

– Change your change governance structure’s reporting (or maybe create some in the first place!) so its not focused on maximising ‘Greens’, but evidencing proper challenge.

– Remove the governance dead weight. Participation in change governance bodies is often a small part of a wider role. and yet often it can be the most significant part of the person’s role in terms of cost and value. Here are a couple of tests,

1) If attendance at the governances body isn’t the most important thing for that person that week, they are the wrong person and should be removed.

2) If the ‘govenor’ hasn’t read the material (this is usually very obvious and communicated through silence and nodding with others opinion’s or through asking questions that are clearly answered in the material), they are the wrong person and should be removed.

If Sagey’s Law of Dysfunctional Project Reporting applies to you then there are simple things you can do and they all have nothing to do with process and everything to do with people and the things that drive people’s behaviour.

Last time I discussed the Gartner Symposium ITxpo 2013 and what it meant for the future of EA. This week is a special Halloween edition.
Happy Halloween! 

Tonight is the night that we take our kids door to door asking for candy while holding out a b…