AGILE IN ACTION

Fixing scope up front says win-lose to me. It's not the basis for a happy relationship. Everyone is best of friends while things appear to be tickety-boo, but that's just an illusion. The moment tickety-boo goes bang the contract kicks in to identify who can be blamed and penalized. But I digress.

There's something smelly about financing IT projects in return for a contracted return on investment. It’s not that there shouldn't be some expectation about return. There absolutely should. But given the uncertainty and the risk, isn't financing IT projects more like a funding venture? Isn’t it more about managing risk to achieve reward (the desired outcome or better) rather than managing cost and schedule? If it is, then the question to be asked more often is: What types of benefits are we seeing for this round of funding, and does the potential return at this stage warrant additional funding? And not: Are we on schedule and within budget? In this case, the IT department needs to replace specifications and sign-offs with measurements of risks and outcomes.

David Anderson graciously invited us to speak once more at The Lean Software and Systems Conference. This time it's in Long Beach California from May 3rd to 6th. Volcanoes permitting, here's the abstract for our talk:

In this article Ross Maynard says it’s unhelpful, even dangerous, to use the same methods to compile management and financial accounts. Regarding financial accounts he talks about matching accruals:

Have you noticed that costs and benefits are rarely seen together? I mean literally on the same page or board. Are we afraid of what the truth might tell us? I think this is the case when I've seen business sponsors protect initiatives dear to their heart. Also when product managers continue to add features to their product when user demand has already been satisfied. The blinkers are on. They pretend they can't see anything that might cause harm to their 'darlings'. If it can't be seen it doesn't exist, right?