Archive for March, 2010

Making Sense of QA Test Results – Part 4

by on March 23rd, 2010

What happens when you find yourself 80% through the timeline of what seems like a never ending test cycle, and can’t make sense of test statistics and defect counts?  Every IT professional with enough experience has found themselves bogged down in a lengthy testing effort, buried in countless defects.

When you find yourself at this point, and the test planning failed to prepare for an elegant exit to traps like this (see previous parts in this series), it’s time to take it to the defects.

As stated in previous blog posts, in the end, Project Mangers need to only really answer the questions pertaining to real business value.  Questions similar to the ones below help drive towards this:

1 – When can we go live?

2 – How much more money, time, and opportunity cost are we going to have to spend in order to go live with something worthwhile?

3 – If we went live tomorrow, what would the system look like?  How would it feel?  And what hindrances to core business functions would the organization experience?

(more…)

Google Flavored Networks

by on March 22nd, 2010

We are all well aware of Google’s latest initiative to launch an experiment, to deploy fiber-to-home network, to provide Internet speeds more than 100 times faster than what most Americans have access to today. They have also published a RFP for the Cities to respond to .

There is a lot of speculation in the telecom industry related to this announcement. May be I am a little late in responding to this topic. But I was waiting for the heat to die down. It seems like it has not. I just saw this article in NYT, Courting Google, City Fathers jump to silliness. And this reaffirms my belief that this stunt launched by Google, termed as an experiment, will create a lot of pressure on the incumbent network providers. From people jumping into Lake Superior, to Google Fiber flavored ice creams – the reaction to this experiment reflects the frustration of the consumers, and also their high hopes in Google’s plan.

But the point to note is that – nowhere in their press release does Google say, that it intends expand this network across the country. They suggest that they will share their learning and help others grow this network. Thus reinforcing the pressure on the incumbents. I wonder what the Time Warners, Comcasts, Cablevisions and the SBCs are planning in response – no news on their end yet ?

Nevertheless, this contest is getting even more interesting, if only for the citizens who get to see their mayors act silly.

Ask the right questions

by on March 15th, 2010

One of the key elements of consulting that I revisit on almost every engagement, is that any puzzle can be solved if you ask the right questions. The three steps I find useful in my work are –

Why? - Why do we need to address this issue? To keep asking the why, until you get to the real problem is one of the strategies I use  in cross-functional meetings. It is important to get the subject matter experts from different departments of the company together, and have them agree on what the real problem is, that we intend to solve for them with this IT project. This helps in the long run, to manage expectations and scope.

What? – What are our options to address the issue? Are there any alternatives that can be tested? What is it that needs to be done to answer the why that we framed in Step 1. The what can either be technology solution, e.g. “we need to undertake an ERP implementation.”  or,  a process change, e.g. “let us revise our SLAs with the vendor and see if it cuts down the inefficiencies”.

How? - How are we going to implement the solution we came up with in Step 2. What is the CRM suite that we will use to implement the new CRM system?”, “Is Oracle the right choice for this project or can Microsoft also fit the bill ?” . How are the projects going to be managed, what does the project plan look like ?

Now , let us see these three forces at play. Consider a company with a vision of overhauling their IT platforms in order to support high volume of orders and provide state of art reporting and analytical capabilities. The vision was clear, but no one asked the right questions like, “What is missing in the current system that we need a new platform ?”.  Thus there was no clear consensus on why the company needed a new system.

With a weak reason to support the effort, a specious what was suggested. Whether this was really needed or not, was thus open to debate — and since it was a not a collaborative project in the first place, there was not much resistance to the solution proposed.

To implement this project a highly skilled team of professionals was put together – few folks from within the company, and an army of people brought in from the outside world. Vendors were selected; sub projects were set up and assigned to skilled managers — the team’s energy and drive was exemplary. The how pieces of the puzzle were finally put in place.

But ultimately after battling this weak foundation for two years, the project met its fate and collapsed under the rubble of unanswered “why”, “what” and “how”. A strong team with excellent skill sets, and three outstanding technology vendors could not put together the pieces in the rubble.

If only enough time was spent upfront in defining the true WHY?