Your SDLC is your company's brain

I have recently been asked to review a large insurance company's delivery methodology, and found a state of affairs I have not witnessed for about 20 years. It’s a sad thing that major companies routinely neglect their lifecycles, methods and processes, presumably because they do not appreciate just how valuable the potentially area. It’s almost like they can’t see what good their brains do, so they neglect them in favour of other, more obviously useful organs (mainly the stomach, I think), and as a result their brains shrink and they become still less able to evaluate those same brains' purpose, effectiveness or value.

In fact the brain is very good analogue of the an organisation’s development lifecycles. not least because it is the reason why we are by far the most dominant organism the world as ever seen. From the point of view of development, I would say that an organisation’s formal processes represent about half its brain – a good deal of its memory, its practical skills, its controls for perception and behaviour, quite a lot of its capacity for reasoning about cause and effect, balance and coordination, and most of its basic language and social skills. Yet in many companies development lifecycles are organised and managed like the brain of a crocodile, not a human being, and while that continues it will never evolve into an intelligent being. (The analogy is more exact than you might imagine.)

But of course, the human consumes about 20% of the body’s energy, while most development lifecycles would be lucky to receive 1% of a company's attention. Which is odd, to say the least. Any improvement in process brought about by improving the local development lifecycle would surely need to change in performance by at least, say, 4-5%. In a £20 million programme, that means spending £1 million on their lifecycle would at least be covered - yet does anyone spend so much on this crucial part of development? As for a £100 million portfolio, how many companies pend £5 million a year on maintaining their development processes, let alone the central nervous system's budget of 20%?

On the other hand, the efficiencies that could be achieved by integrating the delivery process as a whole and making it a dynamic part of real delivery are vast. Some time ago Accenture published a paper showing that training had an ROI of more than 350%, and I suspect that the same would be true of improving most companies’ development lifecycles.

Here is a quick questionnaire of the most important issues, based on about 20 years of looking at (and occasionally helping to six) the problem. Note that it does not start with the details of the lifecycle documents and products – that is the least important fact! On the other hand, in more mature organisations the issue is often no more than obsolescence and missing items follow from the lack of sustained management focus, but in all too many cases there are major gaps.

1. Is there a global management approach to the delivery process itself?
• Clear unitary and controlled ownership, management & rules of delegation of the end-to-end development process.
• Is there a development strategy?
• Is there real expertise in methodology development? Just asking PMs what they think is like asking drivers how to design a far – you’ll get some of the user requirements but nothing useful about the design.
• Is there a coherent or proportionate rollout/update process?
2. Is there a simple, intelligible presentation & access?
• A single, integrated model of delivery as a whole, including:
• Governance, management technical tasks and support functions?
• All stages, including both work selection and initiation and solution deployment/transition and work closure?
• A single, user-friendly site for accessing the delivery process as a whole?
• Effective control over authoritative versions (and withdrawal of obsolete materials)?
3. Does it cover all of your most important delivery strategies?
• Outsourcing?
• Offshoring?
• Package procurement & implementation?
• SAAS (Software As A Service – thinks like Salesforce.com)?
• Does it have enough (or anything) to say about non-development activities?
• Procurement?
• Support and maintenance?
• Technology upgrades (Oracle, SWIFT, etc.)?
4. How mature is the lifecycle itself?
• Are there proper delivery and management processes - i.e., some components exist, but they do not operate as a complete, end-to-end, Prince2-like process?
• Is there a true programme management lifecycle (most organisations are dominated by programmes now)?
• Does it include a convincing model of change management as a whole, notably:
• Business design, development, readiness & transition?
• Operational design, development, readiness & transition?
• Does it handle very small projects (which can often be managed through a single artefact)?
5. How well does the lifecycle define basic management elements?
• Roles + responsibilities – are they current, consistent and complete?
• Are there explicit criteria, rules and authorities for adaptation, scaling & exemption?
• Does it include (or at least point to) integrated stage and task-level processes & tools?
• If it is a waterfall lifecycle, does it include a risk-driven iteration model for managing individual tasks and stages?
• Are there detailed procedures for basic management tasks (risks, issues, assumptions, dependencies, change/configuration control, product/document management, impact analysis, estimating, planning, resourcing…)?
• Have standard stage/task/product level risks, assumptions, dependencies, etc. been identified and articulated?
• Does it set credible gateways, including include stage-end consolidation & validation, evaluate full project content, review performance to date or readiness for next stage, etc.?
6. Are all individual products actually inadequate?
• Are products defined by independent product descriptions?
• Are there stage, product- and task-level procedures, advice & information?
• Are there samples of good practice, including instances for each major area of usage?
• Does each item have a supporting quality checklist?
7. Is alignment with other functions well defined?
• Clear & efficient access to supporting management functions & data (resourcing, MI, finance, architecture, etc.)
• Explicit alignment with and access to related standards + policies?
8. Is the lifecycle actively supported?
• Are there discipline or process owners, with clear roles & responsibilities, a proper management cycle and allocated time to do the job?
• Are there SMEs, with clear requirements and channels for feeding their experience into the organisation (e.g., a central lessons learned system or training/briefing programme)?
• Is there an R&D process (minimally to drive innovation, capture and socialise training and disseminate new joiners’ knowledge & experience)?
9. Is there a training programme covering all processes, roles, tools & techniques?
• Is there a specialised SDLC training function & system.
• Is there a training programme for staff, consultants, outsourcers, offshore & contractors?
• Are there self-training packages for key activities – individual products, reviews, testing, requirements management, etc. – so users can refresh their knowledge independently and as and when needed?

Without a Yes to at least most of these questions, you have the methodological equivalent of a crocodile's brain, and it will be all but impossible to make substantial and sustainable progress to real intelligence.

Professionals and practice

Interesting discussion at my current client, about what to call the change management organisation. At the moment they planning to call themselves 'the Change Practise', but the desired effect - of being compared with legal, medical an other sorts of professional 'practise' - is being undermined by a barrage of ribald jokes about 'still having to practice' - exactly the opposite of what was intended.

The difficulty, as far as I can see, is two-fold. On the one hand, the business and IT managers I work with aren't professionals. They are often quite good, but they have none of the attributes of doctors or lawyers. There are few qualifications and none of any real substance. In they UK a doctor trains for five years and be formally qualified to a very high standard before they are permitted to treat people independently, but how many weeks does it take a modestly experienced manager to master Prince2? Nor are they obliged to join professional bodies exercising legal powers to strike them off if they aren't competent or are guilty of malpractice.

As for the values to which a manager is subject, there aren't any. Their only obligation is to do the job well enough not to get fired. No professional values, and absolutely none that transcend the interests of their employers - who in turn are under no obligation whatsoever to respect their managers' professional standards or concerns.

And last but by no means least, the quality and performance standards to which real professionals - especially doctors and nurses - are held simply do no apply. Just imagine what sort of state we'd all be in if the average doctor had as many failures and complications as the average project or programme manager!

On the other hand, businesses seem to be under the impression that selling something vigorously enough will somehow make the 'message' true. The discussion this all started from included a very senior member of the executive insisting that we could not call ourselves change 'management' because they wanted the name to convey not just management but also professionalism and leadership. But are they doing anything to empower their managers to lead? No. Are they inculcating a real professionalism? No. They like the sound of these words but, having no real idea what they mean, think that simply reciting them enough will somehow make them true.

So managers are not professionals. Is there any prospect that they could be? In the public sector, perhaps, though the erosion of the independence of civil service under the influence of consultants of all kinds makes that harder to imagine. As for business, absolutely no prospect at all. Managers are too in thrall to the interests, priorities and outrageously anti-professional powers of the businesses they work for.

Management quotes

Well, everyone else seems to have a list of favourites, so ...

1. The way to secure success is to be more anxious about obtaining than about deserving it. William Hazlitt.


2. Some things that don't count are counted, many things that count aren't counted.


3. You can't rise unless you set goals that make you stretch. Tom Hopkins.


4. The greatest pleasure in life is achieving things that people say can't be done.


5. It is not enough to aim. You must hit. Italian proverb.


6. Activity is not achievement.


7. Nothing great was achieved without enthusiasm. Ralph Waldo Emerson.


8. Who begins too much accomplishes little. German proverb.


9. Quality is free, but it is not a gift. Philip Crosby, quality guru.


10. The best is the enemy of the good.


11. Either dance well or leave the ballroom. Greek proverb.


12. At the heart of every large project is a small project trying to get out.


13. Good project managers know when not to manage a project.


14. Failing to plan is planning to fail.


15. An individual without information cannot take responsibility; an individual with information cannot help but take responsibility. Jan Carlzon, CEO SAS Airlines.


16. A little risk management saves a lot of fan cleaning.


17. Do your duty in all things. You cannot do more. You should never wish to do less. Robert E Lee.


18. All successful men are men of purpose. They hold fast to an idea, a project, a plan, and will not let go. James Allen.


19. It's only common sense? Common sense is what you think when you're not thinking. RJ Robinson.


20. 'Begin at the beginning', the King said, very gravely, 'and go on till you come to the end: then stop'. Lewis Carroll.


21. No plan survives contact with the enemy.


22. Plans are nothing; planning is everything. Dwight D. Eisenhower.


23. Knowledge is no more to be found in data than a house can be found in a pile of bricks. RJ Robinson.


24. A good workman is known by his tools.


25. Nothing is impossible for the person who doesn't have to do it.


26. You can plan too much, but no one has ever been caught doing it.


27. A project without a critical path is like a ship without a rudder.


28. In NASA, we never punish error. We only punish the concealment of error.


29. You can only elevate individual performance by elevating that of the entire system. W. Edwards Deming, quality guru.


30. A badly planned project will take three times longer than expected - a well planned project only twice as long as expected.


31. Pareto’s Other Principle: The first 80% of the project will take the first 80% of the budget, and the remaining 20% of the project will take the remaining 80% of the budget. RJ Robinson.


32. Project management is like juggling three balls - time, cost and quality. Programme management is like a troupe of circus performers standing in a circle, each juggling three balls and swapping balls from time to time.


33. Of all the things I've done, the most vital is coordinating the talents of those who work for us and pointing them towards a certain goal. Walt Disney.


34. All successful men are men of purpose. They hold fast to an idea, a project, a plan, and will not let go.


35. Good estimators aren't modest: if it's huge they say so.


36. The sooner you begin coding the later you finish.


37. A verbal contract isn't worth the paper it's written on. Sam Goldwyn.


38. What is not on paper has not been said.


39. If you don’t know where you’re going, any road will take you there.


40. If you don't attack the risks, the risks will attack you.


41. The sooner you get behind schedule, the more time you have to make it up.


42. The more you plan the luckier you get.


43. A project is one small step for the project sponsor, one giant leap for the project manager.


44. Quantitative project management is for predicting cost and schedule overruns well in advance.


45. The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it. Karl Marx.


46. Good project managers know when not to manage a project.


47. Metrics are learned men's excuses.


48. Good project managers admit mistakes: that's why you so rarely meet a good project manager.


49. Fast - cheap - good: you can have any two.


50. The more ridiculous the deadline the more money will be wasted trying to meet it.


51. The project would not have been started if the truth had been told about the cost and timescale.


52. The most successful project managers have perfected the skill of being comfortable being uncomfortable.


53. If it wasn't for the 'last minute', nothing would get done.


54. Warning: dates in the calendar are closer than you think.


55. There is no such thing as scope creep, only scope gallop.


56. If project content is allowed to change freely the rate of change will exceed the rate of progress.


57. If you can interpret project status data in several different ways, only the most painful interpretation will be correct.


58. A project gets a year late one day at a time.


59. The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man. George Bernard Shaw.


60. When you describe your approach as ‘pragmatic’, do you mean ‘I’m devoid of principle’, ‘I’m completely lacking in insight’, ‘I would settle for second-best’ or ‘I’m making it up as I go along’? RJ Robinson.


61. I know that you believe that you understand what you think I said but I am not sure you realise that what you heard is not what I meant.


62. It must be considered that there is nothing more difficult to carry out nor more doubtful of success nor more dangerous to handle than to initiate a new order of things. Machiavelli.


63. I love deadlines, I especially like the swooshing sound they make as they fly past. Scott Adams (Dilbert).


64. Work expands to fill the time available for its completion. Northcote Parkinson.


65. Brevity is the soul of wit. Shakespeare (Hamlet).


66. Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat. Sun Tzu.


67. What you don’t know will hurt you.

Thoughts on thought leadership

If you go to http://thoughtsonthoughts.net/, you'll find Cole Sandau's interesting blog about thought leadership. Reading it started me thinking about why it is so hard to get companies engaged with the idea of thought leadership. I suspect that the issue relates very closely to other issues I am personally interested in, such as maturity management.

Here is the comment I added to Cole's latest post:

I have often thought about - and despaired over - how so many companies are content to just go along with short-term actions. But if they are going to achieve a genuinely strategic approach then they absolutely need thought leadership, even if they have to buy the damn stuff from people like you ad me. Because without a clearly and explicitly articulated conception of past, present and future, all linked together by clear analytics and an implementable proposition at every level, they literally don't know what they are doing.

Which is, I think, more than a little mysterious - who would even go on holiday or down to the shops without knowing exactly what they were about? Perhaps the routines (and sheer inertia) of business makes it a little too easy to just get on with stuff. Which suggests a strategy - to put managers and execs into a situation that radically disrupts their myopic situation and forces them into innovation.

Don't know how that can be done realistically, short of threatening to fire them all is they don't come up with the goods! But my experience certainly suggests that even C-level management is neither equipped nor inclined to think at all deeply about their situation.

The reason for this is I think a little too close to home for most organisations to accept. According to some research I read a while back, the managers who are most likely to be promoted are not the one who are best at getting their job done. In fact there is almost no correlation between execution and promotion.

So of course, the higher many successful managers rise, the less they are relying on substantive knowledge and the more they rely on networking ,salesmanship and so on.

Doesn't bode well for people who care about thought leadership.