eight to late

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.

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:

1. Time / cost
2. Team size
3. Team composition
4. Competing demands
5. Problem / solution clarity
6. Stability of requirements
7. Strategic importance / political implications / number of stakeholders
8. 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.

Many organisations believe (hope?) that strict adherence to a project management methodology  guarantees project success. These unfortunates have been blinded by the dazzling (but false) promise of whatever methodology they choose to follow, and their projects suffer for it. My feelings on this are strong, but with good reason. I’ve seen too many projects go awry because of blind devotion to methodology.   

The first step to fixing any problem is to recognise that it exists. So how can you tell if methodology has taken over your organisation? Well, here are a few warning signs:

1. The focus is on following The Book rather than getting the job done: A classic sign of methodology madness is when things are done a certain way just because the process mandates it. This is sometimes seen in organisations with a strong project management office (PMO). To keep the powers that be happy,  project managers often end up following the letter of the process but not the spirit, using other (informal) means to get the job done. 
2. There are templates for everything: The Book has a long appendix with templates for every conceivable action. You want to sneeze?  Sorry, it has to be approved first. Please fill in form SN123, and we’ll pass on your request to the appropriate committee for review. Expect to hear from us in a week or so.
3. Signatures / Approvals for everything: This is a particularly pathological variant of the well known, “Responsibility without authority” challenge that project managers face. Here, in addition to the lack of authority, you also can’t use informal channels to get things done because you need to have a paper trail to prove authorisation.
4. Every action is over-deliberated: Is every project action re-visited and re-analysed ad-nauseum? If so, your project’s suffering from process sclerosis (a close cousin of analysis paralysis), wherein mindless application of process slows progress to a crawl.
5. Everything is cast in stone: You want to do some things in a different way? Sorry, that’s not possible. The methodology has a prescription for every conceivable project action. No exceptions. 
6. Project management is a bureaucratic exercise: Project managers in methodology heavy organisations often end up becoming bureaucrats who spend  most of their time fulfilling the requirements of the methodology. This leaves them with little time to actually manage their projects. Methodology has become an end in itself. Good luck getting anything done - you’ll need it. 

Lest I leave you with the impression that I’m completely anti-methodology, let me assure you that I’m not. I’m a great fan of appropriate, well-considered use of project management processes. What do I mean by that? Well, many years ago a project management guru told me that every process employed in a project should be tailored to to that particular project’s needs and circumstances. Note his emphasis on the singular; each project is unique (by definition!) and must be treated so. Project management processes used in a project should be fit for purpose.

So I end with this thought: don’t let your organisation be blinded by methodology. Instead, insist that project management tools and techniques be used appropriately, in a manner that illuminates the way ahead on particular projects.

Jack’s a good friend of mine. A few days ago we were talking about this and that, when the conversation veered to project management:

“By the way, ” he said, “we’re looking for a new project manager for the CRM project I told you about last week. Would you know anyone who might be interested?”

“What kind of person are you looking for? Do you want someone with significant PM experience or do you want a CRM expert?” I replied. I have this annoying habit of answering a question with several questions.

We went back and forth a few times and ended up drafting out an advertisement for the position.

Let me ask you now: what do you think is more important for a project manager - domain knowledge (i.e. expertise in a specific subject area ) or project management skills and experience? 

My opinion? Although some domain knowledge is helpful and perhaps even important, many key attributes of a good project manager are skills which are applicable across a wide range of industries. I’ve thought so for a while, and this paper which I reviewed in an earlier post, appears to strengthen my position. After all, if practices are generic, skills should be too.

I set about performing an (admittedly unscientific) survey to see if this is indeed so. Here’s what I did: I looked at several online job postings for IT project managers. On sampling ten of these at random from a well-known local job site,  I found that many advertisements listed similar skill and experience requirements. Below I list the skills and attributes that appeared most frequently in the advertisements surveyed (frequency of appearance in brackets). 

1. Communication skills (8) 
2. Problem solving / analytical ability (6)
3. Vendor / stakeholder management (6)
4. Ability to work under pressure (6)
5. Negotiation skills (5) 
6. Understanding of project lifecycle /  methodology (5)

Note that I’ve incorporated similar attributes into a single point - e.g. Exceptional written and oral presentation skills and Good verbal and written communication skills have been combined under Communication Skills.

It is interesting that domain knowledge  does not appear in the list. This attribute came in just under the cutoff mark, with four ads specifying  it as a requirement. What’s even more interesting is the skills and attributes listed above are generic - i.e. they are applicable across projects in any domain.  So, my survey, for what it’s worth, indicates that the answer to the question posed in the title is, “Yes, the most important project management skills, as determined by what employers look for, are indeed generic.” 

Gathered there was the whole team,
at the late project’s autopsy.
They laid no blame,
but it was me - oh shame!
It was all my fault as you’ll see.

It started out feeling great
I’d padded every estimate
with lot of air,
much time to spare.
So why did it turn out so late?

The reality, if truth be told
is that I just cannot behold
the sight of work.
I simply shirk.
Even thinking of it turns me cold.

So, although I say I tried,
I was the reason the project died.
The work on my plate
was always in late,
with excuses that couldn’t be denied.

Procrastination’s the thief of time.
It only makes one fall behind.
So, try if you can
to stick to the plan.
Don’t wait for intervention divine.

——

Other pieces in my five limericks series are:

A project management tragedy in five limericks

A corporate IT tragedy in five limericks

Reply to a corporate IT tragedy in five limericks