The scenario described in the article can easily be managed if all projects are tracked in a high level portfolio. The relative priority of each individual project should be known: a portfolio approach makes you allocate resources on factors that define relative priority.
To suggest that the problem relates to "sacred cows" is to understate the issue. Competitive business pressures will require you to constantly reevaluate the relative merit of what projects to work on. A good priority-settingprocess will be the answer to "sacred cows" without merit, but in my experience the person who asks for a project generally believes it is a valuable initiative.
Depending on where the new project falls in the priority ranking, you can look at the work that is in progress to determine if and how you can fit the new project in (keeping in mind the cost of mothballing work-in-progress). You then bring all project sponsors to the table to work out all the options based on the opportunity costs and/or losses involved in the rearranged workload.
Sometimes this is where outsourcing comes in, so that you don't have to assign lesser qualified staff to a project in progress in order to start a new project. It is just a matter of dollars and "sense", where the project manager focuses on the management, and the sponsors make a decision.
If ultimately the wrong decision is made then the responsibility should be placed where it belongs, assuming that the PM has laid out the facts.
Discussion on:
View:
Show:
Devleoping a high level portfolio of projects is the best way I've found to deal with situations as described in the article. This organization routinely deposits on my desk, projects without adequate planning, budgeting, etc. It is a culture that took me by surprise but quickly adpated to it, and for the better. It has allowed me to be flexible, adaptable and be an optomist while delivering pessimistic answers. It is the basis for work plans for myself and staff through out the year. Keeping portfolio priortization also assigns the various project stakeholders with accountability.
The scenario described in the article can easily be managed if all projects are tracked in a high level portfolio. The relative priority of each individual project should be known: a portfolio approach makes you allocate resources on factors that define relative priority.
To suggest that the problem relates to "sacred cows" is to understate the issue. Competitive business pressures will require you to constantly reevaluate the relative merit of what projects to work on. A good priority-settingprocess will be the answer to "sacred cows" without merit, but in my experience the person who asks for a project generally believes it is a valuable initiative.
Depending on where the new project falls in the priority ranking, you can look at the work that is in progress to determine if and how you can fit the new project in (keeping in mind the cost of mothballing work-in-progress). You then bring all project sponsors to the table to work out all the options based on the opportunity costs and/or losses involved in the rearranged workload.
Sometimes this is where outsourcing comes in, so that you don't have to assign lesser qualified staff to a project in progress in order to start a new project. It is just a matter of dollars and "sense", where the project manager focuses on the management, and the sponsors make a decision.
If ultimately the wrong decision is made then the responsibility should be placed where it belongs, assuming that the PM has laid out the facts.
To suggest that the problem relates to "sacred cows" is to understate the issue. Competitive business pressures will require you to constantly reevaluate the relative merit of what projects to work on. A good priority-settingprocess will be the answer to "sacred cows" without merit, but in my experience the person who asks for a project generally believes it is a valuable initiative.
Depending on where the new project falls in the priority ranking, you can look at the work that is in progress to determine if and how you can fit the new project in (keeping in mind the cost of mothballing work-in-progress). You then bring all project sponsors to the table to work out all the options based on the opportunity costs and/or losses involved in the rearranged workload.
Sometimes this is where outsourcing comes in, so that you don't have to assign lesser qualified staff to a project in progress in order to start a new project. It is just a matter of dollars and "sense", where the project manager focuses on the management, and the sponsors make a decision.
If ultimately the wrong decision is made then the responsibility should be placed where it belongs, assuming that the PM has laid out the facts.
While .NET may offer lower development costs, we should all be careful before we drink the MS Kool-aid.
There are other factors that CIOs must consider before making the leap. Those factors are the cost of maintenance, licensing, support, security, downtime, and the danger of putting all of the corporate eggs in one basket.
Do you really want Bill G. to own you? If you buy your DB, desktops, servers, development tools, networking, enterprise framework, (etc...) from Mr. Bill, you lock yourself into his world. A world where competitors are eliminated, customer negotiation is non-existent, and vendor support is defined as "Yeah, it does that sometimes. Just reboot the box. If that doesn't work, then reload the OS and the application. If that doesn't work, then we'll sell you our 9th OS REPLACEMENT in 7 years. You'll be no better off Mr. Customer, but at least I'll have another billion."
Bill: "Microsoft is committed to better security! Trust me!"
Press: "Microsoft hit by Slammer worm. The worm that MS warned you about 6 months ago."
Press: "Microsoft distributes virus on .NET development tools CD."
I'm not saying that .NET is not without merit. I'm just saying that heterogeneity can be a “good thing”.
Caveat emptor!
There are other factors that CIOs must consider before making the leap. Those factors are the cost of maintenance, licensing, support, security, downtime, and the danger of putting all of the corporate eggs in one basket.
Do you really want Bill G. to own you? If you buy your DB, desktops, servers, development tools, networking, enterprise framework, (etc...) from Mr. Bill, you lock yourself into his world. A world where competitors are eliminated, customer negotiation is non-existent, and vendor support is defined as "Yeah, it does that sometimes. Just reboot the box. If that doesn't work, then reload the OS and the application. If that doesn't work, then we'll sell you our 9th OS REPLACEMENT in 7 years. You'll be no better off Mr. Customer, but at least I'll have another billion."
Bill: "Microsoft is committed to better security! Trust me!"
Press: "Microsoft hit by Slammer worm. The worm that MS warned you about 6 months ago."
Press: "Microsoft distributes virus on .NET development tools CD."
I'm not saying that .NET is not without merit. I'm just saying that heterogeneity can be a “good thing”.
Caveat emptor!
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
