Posted by Prac on March 07, 2002 at 06:52:51:

In Reply to: your are touchng on delicate issues now posted by mike cahill on March 07, 2002 at 04:27:25:

Mike

I have experience yes, and would think that I have some insight into the breakdown factors for IT projects, many as they are.

In support of above statement, one of my recent assignments was to develop a programme-management methodology for an international IT/Telecoms company, and one had to do a lot of research and mapping of PM and strategic management to evolve a programme-management concept and approach. As an indicator of "issues", I had to do all the work myself, without budget, co-opting very busy people to become involved in their "spare" time.

I have also been involved with IT projects for a number of years.

I had to personally struggle with many of the strategic, team and productivity/smart issues, hence my interest.

I don't profess to have more experience than the next person, but I have been around somewhat, in many different roles and organizations.

I managed some risks with customers on multi-million projects, and learned that by managing that risk (technically, personally, and honestly), a potential failure of an IT project could be turned around into a win, from a customer's perspective.

I don't think the implementation issues won't go away for a long time yet, until our work methods improve and we learn to do leapfrog-type of projects.

Please feel free to communicate with me directly. I would be happy to share my knowledge as best possible.

Thanks for the info. pointers. Will follow up.

My nickname is Prac, meaning I aim for practical solutions, aligned to my understanding of industry needs. My take is that if my output cannot improve matters in a simple, cost-effective, functional, and doable manner, I don't want to be involved with it. The challenge is to deabstract "complexity" to a point of operational implementation, and move forward in knowledge, in that manner. Someone has to do it, and we cannot leave it all to the vendors, as it leads to the vendors driving the organization via technological products, with an effect, which I term, "The cheese moon effect", or organizational fragmentation, which complicates management immensely.

I have a future product in mind to address this fragmentation, but it would be a huge stretch, and I am not convinced yet that it can be done, even though the financial and competitive benefits would be in the order of an event horizon.

For example, checking the concept with a respected director a few years ago, led to the agreement that BPR alone could be optimized in the region of 40-60 percent, which one could clearly see would launch a company into real-time process management, and provide the flexibility and adaptiveness organizations are aching for, at scale.

The theoretical work is still far from complete though, but a phase 0, and even 1 could be started.

I noticed HP recently launched their BPR product, which resembles a component of the full system I have in mind. The phased rollout would have to be part of the holistic framework, else integration issues would become impossible, and extremely costly, to say the least. The principles of design is where I think the real work lies at present.

Enough said. Hope to hear from you directly.

---

Follow Ups:

---

Click Here to Post Follow Up in New Forums

    Knowledge Management Think Tank (New)

  

 Subject: 

Message: