Archive for ‘system nougats’

1 October, 2011

Is there hope out there in the real world? Yes, there is!

Theories about managing the application of information technology are not all a crock. I don’t think this is what the ‘practical’ people mean when they get impatient with ‘waffle’ and say theorists are not ‘real world’. I think their complaints are valid in fact about certain parts of certain theories, but not about the basic messages. The complaints are also valid as symptoms about two other concerns:

  1. ‘practical’ people have difficulty accepting the idea that their complex problems can be explained by any theory, especially a ‘not-invented-here’ theory;
  2. even when such a theory does seem right, the people involved cannot see their managers as being able or willing to accept what the information engineer’s basic message means.

What is that basic message? The main points which I am hearing as I study and practice and help people gain success in the real world of using information technology are:

  • Information processing is important and still growing in importance to every organization which values good planning and control; i.e., to every organization which perceives good management of its resources as being essential to its competitive survival. Information technology and the systems which use it and the information itself are too important to leave solely to those who are experts on its provision.
  • The management of information technology is usually ineffective, because it is misunderstood. It is misunderstood both because of the relative newness of its importance, and because of its continuously new technologies. As Karl Popper expounds, each new solution leads to new problems, and in information technology this happens so quickly that we cannot tell until too late whether what we are experiencing is the solution, or the problem, or both at the same time.
  • There are stages of growth in acquiring and successfully using information technology which cannot be skipped and should not be ignored. If someone is falling from an aeroplane (a not wholly inappropriate analogy), mere diagnosis (I’m falling) is not in itself a cure. Probability of survival is enhanced by knowledge of which stages of the fall are optimised by which management actions. The effectiveness of open parachute and remove parachute depends on the stages at which they are used.
  • The movement through the growth stages can be managed, but has a inherent speed limit. Things go better if they are put into perspective and if the stages are planned. There are quite a few good techniques and methods for doing this, but while having this professional expertise is essential it is not enough. There must also be experiential learning: no matter how good your ski instructor, start out on the beginner’s slope.

It is good to have a framework for managing information technology, and there are several which can serve the purpose. For example, Richard Nolan’s growth stages theory in the 1980s was not necessarily the only possible concept for explaining and therefore being able to manage IT, but it is one concept. It is a valid concept, because it encompasses the ideas of process, and it is useful, because it provides a framework.

Frameworks for managing information technology are like numerals for doing sums. No one framework is ideal (optimists and true socialists would add ‘yet’) nor does any framework give magic answers which remove the need to try to manage. Nolan’s framework does give one way ‘to get your head around’ the problem of managing (properly exploiting) the information technology investment.

It provides a setting in which management can establish baselines and anchor points within which they can plan and control information technology. This framework enables the management process to be synchronised with the needs of the business, rather than being a reactive process driven by technology.

To provide such a framework is no mean feat, nor is it a crock. The specialists and technology experts need a framework as much as anyone else, and they probably want it more because they experience daily the frustrations of being in the GUANO system, Generally Useless and No Objectives.

‘Practical’ people ask tough questions and are suspicious not because they believe all theory a crock, but because they want a framework which is logically unassailable – in the hope that it will therefore be accepted by senior management.

That is not likely, that is magic answers.

A framework is, so to speak, a way of counting, and although if you can’t count it (in numerals Roman, Arabic or Nolan) you can’t manage it, still management must say what counts.

To sum up, I think that the growth stages is one good working hypothesis about how to manage information technology, and I think we can profit by using it (judiciously) unless we find a more useful framework.

1 October, 2011

Systems make it possible. People make it happen.

  • most information systems fail to deliver even 50% of their potential
  • the number-one cause of systems failure comes from working on the wrong information requirements
  • failure is not mandatory, nor career enhancing
1 October, 2011

When to implement feasible systems

Implementing significant system improvements can take years and should be a permanent part of business planning to meet new requirements and use new information techniques and technologies.

However, each single system should be implemented quickly or it just won’t happen.

If it is worth doing at all, why wait?

Practical approach for say a small company or multinational division: install at least one useful module every six months and finish all presently planned systems within two years.

1 October, 2011

Information Technology Does Not Work (by Itself)

Information system builders (equivalent to automobile engineers and mechanics) need to remind themselves over and over again that what may be simple or elegant for them can infuriate and alienate their customers (the drivers).

The key issue is not technology but mind-set: learning to see system efforts through the eyes of their intended users.

The key message to remember with every attempted improvement is don’t make it worse.

The visibility of such problems becomes higher and higher with each introduction of more end-user computing. System drivers familiar with iPads and Google are not going to be satisfied with toy computing systems they are given at work by too many organizations.

1 October, 2011

Want your systems to succeed? Deliver them quickly, unfinished .…

Watch the winners like Facebook and Google. Copy their approach of delivering slews of interesting features that don’t always really work yet.

Trying to hone system attributes towards users’ ideals of perfection pushes development costs up towards infinity and does not help anyone.

The solution is to provide evolutionary and very early delivery of small sub-systems at the level of 1% to 5% of the entire systems effort.

Is this radically new? Not really. The rationale and some nice tongue-in-cheek comments in Gilb’s Mythodology, You need time – so let users learn the hard way, Computerworld 25.3.1982

1 October, 2011

You only make ‘own goals’ when your goals are out of sync

Goals of an Organization and (or versus) the Goals of its Management

In a healthy organization (a small business, a multinational, and even an individual person) goals are reached when and only when the goals of the organization and the goals of its management are in step.

J.J. de Jong once told me an appealing vision: he said that any organization can be viewed as a globe, with its management occupying one spot on its surface.

That seems right. Influences (both Orlicky’s “vital few” and his “trivial many”) come from without and within. There are external opportunities and threats and internal strengths and, weaknesses.

De Jong went on to say that the goal of management is continuity of the organization.*  THE goal. Continuity.

What happens when that is not the case, when a top manager can pick up $10 million for ‘losing’ and getting fired?

De Jong needed a qualifier there, his dictum applies only to healthy organizations.

*He also said that management’s task is to use the resources to achieve the goal, that the management process is intermittent on each task, and that management capacity is very restricted. He added that the exercise of management is holistic, not financial and suggested reading R. Ackoff, Designing the Future; J.F. Mackworth, Vigilance and Action; Churchman, The Design of Inquiring Systems. This was in 1977 and these texts are still not obsolete, being about humans and not about technology.

1 October, 2011

Why bother with information? Always for the same reasons.

If you substitute the appropriate noun for ‘company’ this applied in Plato’s time, in Machiavelli’s time, and today:

“Information should be seen as a means to reduce uncertainty in a [way]… which contributes to the successful pursuit of the company’s objectives.”

J.J. de Jong said this to me in September 1977. While the technical ways we obtain and process information have changed immensely, the goal is still very much what he said.

30 September, 2011

To Machiavelli and Beyond

There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct or more uncertain in its success than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. (Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince, 1532)

While the technology we use in our systems changes by the nanosecond, the principles of what makes some systems work and others fail were laid out by Machiavelli. They have predictive power even (especially) today.