Archive for May 2008
On the intrinsic complexity of IT projects
Several years ago Fredrick Brooks wrote his well known article, No Silver Bullet , in which he explained why software development is intrinsically hard. I believe many of the issues that make software development inherently difficult have close parallels in IT project management – parallels which apply even in projects that don’t involve much writing of code. In this post I look at Brooks’ article from the perspective of an IT project manager, with a view to gaining some insight into why managing IT projects is hard.
Brooks defines the essence of a software entity as, “…a construct of interlocking concepts: data sets, relationships among data items, algorithms and invocations of functions…” This construct is abstract; that is, it has many different representations or implementations. A line later he states, “…I believe the hard part of building software to be specification, design and testing of the construct, not the labor of representing it and testing the fidelity of the representation…” The connection with project management (especially, IT project management) is immediately apparent: the hard part in many projects is figuring out what needs to be done, not actually doing it. Put another way, requirements, rather than implementation, are the key to successful projects. Project management methodologies deal with implementation reasonably well, but have little to say on how requirements should be elicited. Why is this so? To answer this it is helpful to take a closer look at the parallels between inherent properties of software entities (as elucidated by Brooks) and IT projects.
According to Brooks, the essence of software systems (as defined above) is irreducible – i.e. it cannot be simplified further. This irreducible essence, he claims, has the following inherent properties: complexity, conformity, changeability and invisibility. These characteristics are present in any non-trivial software entity. Furthermore – and this is the crux of the matter- any advances in software engineering or development methodologies cannot, in principle, solve difficulties that arise from these inherent properties. I discuss these properties and some of their consequences below, pointing out the very close connections with IT project management.
- Complexity: Brooks describes software entities as complex in that no two parts are alike. This complexity increases exponentially with entity size. Deriving from this complexity, he says, are issues of difficulty of communication among team members leading to product flaws, cost overruns and schedule delays. This should sound extremely familiar to IT project managers.In an earlier post I looked into definitions of project complexity. In a nutshell, there are two dimensions of project complexity: technical and management (or business) complexity. Brooks defines complexity in technical terms, as he is concerned with building software. However, in large part the complexity he talks about arises from business complexity (or complex user requirements). The latter is often what makes IT projects difficult, even when there’s not much actual code cutting involved. Furthermore, this characteristic is intrinsic to all but the most trivial IT projects.
- Conformity: software entities must conform to constraints of the environment into which they are introduced. To paraphrase Brooks, “…These constraints are often arbitrary, forced without rhyme or reason by the many human institutions and systems to which interfaces must conform…” This too has obvious parallels with IT project management – the deliverables of any IT project have to fit into the environment they are intended for. This fit has to be at the technical level (eg: interfaces) but also at the business level (eg: processes). I’m sure many IT project managers would agree that the technical and business constraints imposed on them are often arbitrary (but compliance is always mandatory!). So we see that this characteristic, too, is intrinsic to most business and technical environments in which projects are conceived and implemented.
- Changeability: Brooks describes the software entity as being “…constantly subject to pressures for change…” This, he reckons, is partly because software embodies function (i.e. it does something useful) and partly because it is perceived as being easy to change (italics mine). One would think twice (or many more times!) before asking for large-scale changes to a building that has already been erected, but there’s considerably less restraint shown when asking for major changes to software. This, again, has parallels with IT project management – shifting requirements are the norm, despite the high cost in terms of time, if not money. Change control processes are put in place to dampen this tendency, but it is ubiquitous nonetheless.
- Invisibility: According to Brooks, software entities are, “… invisible and unvisualizable…,” in all but the simplest cases. Unlike the floor plan of a building, which helps project personnel visualise the finished product, no pictorial model is available to software builders. Sure, modelling techniques do exist, but they do not (and cannot!) depict the complexity of a non-trivial software system in any meaningful way. This, says Brooks, “…not only impedes the process of design within one’s mind, it severely hinders communication among minds…” Here too, the parallels with IT project management are clear – communicating the requirements of the project would be so much simpler if there were a visual representation of what’s required. If Brooks is right, though, a search for such a representation is akin to the search for the philosopher’s stone.
Yet Brooks is not a pessimist. Towards the end of his article, he mentions some techniques that can alleviate some of the essential difficulties of building software. These include: rapid prototyping and iterative / incremental approaches. Grow software, he says, instead of building it. Such an approach, which incorporates frequent interactions between users and developers, reduces risk associated with missed or misunderstood requirements and clarifies design in small, digestible steps. This is also good advice for IT project managers, as I’ve pointed out in a previous post.
In the last section of his article, Brooks states, “The central question of how to improve the software centers, as it always has, on people” and then goes on to discuss how talented designers (or architects) can greatly reduce the essential difficulties in building software. I believe the parallel here is between designers and project managers. A talented project manager can make all the difference between the success and failure of an IT project. What are the attributes of a talented project manager? Well, that’s a topic for another post, but I think most of us who’ve worked in the field can recognise a good project manager when we see one.
Brooks believes the essential difficulties associated with building software make silver bullet solutions impossible, in principle. The parallels outlined above lead me to believe that the same applies to project management. Methodologies may help us along the road to project success (and some do so more than others! ), but there are no silver bullets : managing IT projects is intrinsically hard.
A short note on project complexity
The adjective complex is often used to describe projects that are in some sense hard. I’ve used the term without defining it in a few of my previous articles on this blog (see my post entitled, rumours of a new project management paradigm, for example). I’m sure most project managers (PMs) have at least a qualitative notion of what makes a project complex. However, if you ask a bunch of PMs what the term means, you’d probably get answers varying from, “large projects involving many people” to “projects involving unfamiliar or new technologies”. It is worth gaining a general understanding of the term because it is often used in project management practice and research. Hence my motivation for this short, critical look at a few definitions and measures of project complexity.
A good place to start is with Dr. Lew Ireland’s paper entitled Project Complexity: A Brief Exposure to Difficult Situations. In the paper, Dr. Ireland identifies two dimensions of project complexity:
- Technical Complexity: This includes all technical aspects of the project, such as,
- Number of technologies involved
- Familiarity of team with technologies
- Bleeding edge or well established technology.
- Number of technical interfaces
- Management Complexity: This includes all business and organisational aspects of the project, such as,
- Project staffing and management (team composition, size, management hierarchy etc.)
- Number of parties involved (external vendors, internal departments etc.)
- Change-related issues.
- Stability and complexity of requirements
- Political issues
- Time / cost issues etc.
Dr. Ireland also highlights the need to identify and understand the elements of complexity in every project. He does this by describing a few real-life cases of complex projects which went wrong.
The approach described above is similar to that outlined in The Project Manager’s Desk Reference by James Lewis. In the book, Lewis identifies four kinds of projects on the basis of the two dimensions listed above (note that he uses the term business complexity instead of management complexity). These are:
- Type IV (Routine project): low technical and business complexity
- Type III: low technical complexity but high business complexity
- Type II: high technical complexity but low business complexity
- Type I (Complex Project): high technical and business complexity
One can get quite specific in defining dimensions, but some caution is necessary. As the number of dimensions increase, individual dimensions become narrower in scope and there’s a danger that some elements of complexity will not be captured. How this might happen is best illustrated through an example. Consider this project complexity model which uses the following eight dimensions:
- Time / cost
- Team size
- Team composition
- Competing demands
- Problem / solution clarity
- Stability of requirements
- Strategic importance / political implications / number of stakeholders
- Level of change
Question: Look at these measures carefully. Is there something missing?
Answer: All the listed measures relate to business complexity. There is no measure of technical complexity!
So I end this note with the following: It is important to understand what is meant by project complexity because the term is often used by project management professionals in conference presentations, trade journal articles and research papers (and blogs!). However, it is equally important to ensure that the elements used in a definition capture all relevant aspects of complexity in projects.
A path-based approach to corporate IT
CIOs the world over struggle to keep up with ever changing business requirements. At the same time, many companies feel short-changed by their IT departments, which end-users often perceive as being inflexible and slow to respond to changes in business needs. This lack of flexibility can usually be traced back to TItanic-like enterprise systems which straitjacket businesses into certain ways of doing things. In an article entitled Radically Simple IT published in the March 2008 issue of the Harvard Business Review , David Upton and Bradley Staats propose a “novel approach” to the design and development of enterprise systems. They call the approach path-based because it provides a path for systems to be developed over time, incorporating changing (or missed) requirements along the way.
The path-based approach is based on the following tenets:
- Meld IT and business strategies together: The authors reckon that IT-business alignment, as it is usually presented, is hard to achieve because of a lack of mutual understanding between the two sides (this is something I’ve alluded to in an earlier post on project communication). Most discussions between IT and business tend to focus on individual projects rather than the big picture. The latter, however, is integral to a path based approach. To ensure that both sides understand each other, the authors suggest that IT staff be encouraged to understand the business and vice versa. This recommendation is far from new – see this article from 2005, for example.
- Keep things as simple as possible: The article recommends that CIOs should strive for simplicity in their IT environments, thereby ensuring that systems remain flexible (i.e. open to change). Some ways to achieve this include:
- Adhering to a minimal set of standards, so that the company has a standard operating environment at the client and server level. Additionally, standards should be recommended for specific applications.
- Evaluating whether new functionality requested by the business can be provided by existing software.
- Looking for simple solutions before buying or building complicated ones.
- Developing a modular enterprise architecture . This is essentially the notion of loose coupling – where individual systems are built in such a way as to minimise effects and dependencies on other systems.
- Empower end-users: All project and IT managers know that the biggest resistance to new systems often comes from end-users who, quite naturally, are reluctant to change their ways of working. Without end-user buy in, any new system is doomed to fail. The authors recommend reducing such organisational resistance to new applications by rolling out changes gradually. They also recommend soliciting user feedback on a continuous basis. The feedback should be acted on (and be seen to be acted on) in a timely manner so that users know their input is taken seriously.
The above principles are hardly new or radical, and few CIOs would question them. The path based approach really amounts to a consistent application of these in a (often difficult and ever changing) business environment. The authors illustrate the approach through a case study based on the experiences of Shinsei Bank. The case study is helpful because it provides concrete examples of application of the principles discussed. For more on the Shinsei story, read this transcript of an interview with Jay Dwivedi, the CIO responsible for implementing a path-based approach at that bank.
The article is well written and makes a good case for implementing such an approach in just about any corporate IT environment. However, many CIOs – particularly those stuck in organisations that don’t appreciate the strategic value of IT – will find it hard to put these principles into practice. But try they must, else their departments will continue to be viewed as cash sinks rather than strategic assets.
Eight to Late 