Posts Tagged ‘collaboration’
The Winner Is… itensil
As I discussed in our last post, “A Consultant’s PMO”, we are looking for a PMO (Project/Program/Portfolio Management Office, take your pick) tool to form the core tool to help manage the business of the Centivity group. That is a group of independents that function as a single market entity that I’m affiliated with. Based on our selection criteria we have selected the Knowledge Apps™ tool from Itensil.
What we’ll do in today’s post is examine why we made this decision. Clearly, Itensil is not a household name and they certainly aren’t a large company so why would we make this decision. I believe there are some interesting answers.
The first thing to remember is that we are looking for a tool to manage a collection of projects, resources, documents and manage a collection of proposals, including the creation of those proposals. Consultants have to find work before they can do it. When we include the creation and management of proposals into the mix we extend the scope for our tool beyond just a traditional PMO application. We must also have the ability to manage resources and their activities that are not associated with any projects. Also, we have no expectation that one tool will do everything. Our goal is to minimize the portfolio of required software.
First we must decide how to minimize the required software. To do that we have to decide what functionality is needed in each tool. Besides the list of requirements identified in the last post, we need accounting functionality and project scheduling functionality. We need for the selected tool to connect with an accounting package. For the SMB (Small to Midsize Businesses) we chose Intuit QuickBooks for starters. It is not an elaborate tool but will service our needs. Other tools may be used instead of QuickBooks based on client requirements. As for project scheduling, I confess I’m a Microsoft Project bigot. There are many other tools and several are web-based. However, Project has been around for a long time, has many users and is a solid tool for most projects. It may run out of gas for very large projects and it may be overkill for very small projects. It is still a great overall standard for the majority of projects that we’ll run into. It too can be replaced based on client requirements.
For us, workflow is actually fairly significant. We need to standardize our business processes so we’re not reinventing how we do business with every project and proposal. That is a typical problem with small companies. We must position ourselves for an active future. Being able to incorporate automated workflow into our tools is very important, if not essential.
Now let’s focus on the available solutions. Before we start I want to acknowledge that many of you can provide many alternatives to the field of candidates we chose. We make no claims that our process was exhaustive. It did include representation of the major solution types of interest to us, like minimum cost, maximum project management features, strong document management and collaboration capabilities. First up is Google Docs. It is definitely the low cost leader. We are definitely very budget conscious so this was an early leader. However, it runs out of gas on many fronts very quickly. It’s OK for light document management and can provide some project management capabilities but, frankly, won’t build a lot of confidence in our prospective clients. It may be useful to get started but doesn’t meet the client sniff test.
Now let’s consider a Microsoft Exchange/SharePoint solution. This approach is very capable for document management, proposal management and non-automated workflow management. It’s fairly expensive and we’re pretty much on our own for doing the plumbing connections to other apps (obviously we can always hire help). This approach is not intrinsically cloud-based so there are some IT management requirements. We don’t need to worry about those things for a while. It would produce very capable tools but there would be more up front work than we want.
Next is the Project in a box solution. This is very much a document-centric approach with a heavy focus on lean project management. It is not intrinsically cloud-based which, like the Microsoft-centric approach, means more IT management. While having DSDM Atern artifacts built in is a big deal to me, it doesn’t provide a good all around solution. Connecting other apps to it is problematic. The fact that it is supported out of the UK is very inconvenient, not a deal killer but definitely a problem.
Finally, we’ll consider the Itensil Knowledge Apps™ approach. Their Knowledge Apps tool is basically a framework that is, in turn, customized to the customer’s requirements. That customization is remarkably easy and fast. Their basic offer includes a customized Knowledge App to help us get going quickly. They are cloud-based and, therefore, easily accessible by all of our project resources regardless of location. Workflow is built in, as shown in the diagram on the right, which is a huge deal for us. Wiki-based document management is strong, making collaboration on projects and proposals very easy. It can manage proposal creation as a project and supports other forms of collaboration as well. They can he
lp us with connecting the plumbing to other apps as well.
On the downside, they are a small company and there is some risk there. We have made arrangements with them that will mitigate that risk to our satisfaction. On the upside, they are a small company which makes other small companies (like us) a big fish in their pond. That’s a good thing. It offers functionality similar to Microsoft SharePoint Workspace 2010 in a cloud-based format. That is another good thing.
Overall, we were impressed with the tool. We like what it is now and what it will become. Everyone on our side was excited with what they saw during the demo. Oh yes, and we like the price. It’s one of the more affordable tools which is a big thing to us small companies. I also believe that we have a good relationship with their management. I think they’ll deliver on everything they’ve promised. We’ll keep you posted.
This post has run over my word limit so I’ll stop now. I believe that we’ve made the right decision for our PMO needs. We are looking forward to customizing the Knowledge Apps framework and working with Itensil to grow their product (the big fish in a small pond effect). Let me know if you have any questions.
Stay tuned for more…
A Consultant’s PMO
StrAIT Advisors is a part of the Centivity group. That group is a collection of independent companies which have committed to work together collaboratively, sharing resources and knowledge as one seamless group similar to what I have described in an earlier post. To manage such a group, we need to be able to collaborate, manage projects, manage proposals and share resources effectively in order to compete with larger, established traditional companies.
Essentially, what we need is an extension of a Project Management Office, or PMO, to accommodate everything. To that end, we have been searching for such a tool based on the criteria listed below:
- Supports Agile methodologies
- Web-based application
- Manages proposals like projects
- Resource leveling across multiple projects, possibly many small projects
- Time and Resource accounting
-
Collaboration
- Within project team
- External to project team but within same company
- External to project team
- Within project team
- Integrates with scheduling tool (MS Project)
- Document Wikis developed by sub-teams with sign-offs
- Similar functionality to MS Groove (MS SharePoint Workspace 2010)
- Integrated workflow
These criteria are distilled from several sources, including “Advanced Project Portfolio Management and the PMO: Multiplying ROI at Warp Speed” (if they tried harder they could probably come up with a longer title). The image on the left is linked to that book. The experience of our team also played a major role in these specifications. From the book we extracted some common attributes for successful PMOs, listed below:
- Gather and report the initial portfolio information (see Table 14.4 for an example of the initial information required).
- Develop the goals, resource and asset portfolios (described in later chapters).
- Link project, goals, resource and asset portfolios, and perform an initial assessment.
- Determine the organization’s multi-project strategic resource (described in this chapter and in Chapter 17).
- Prioritize the project portfolio according to accepted criteria and the information currently available.
- Assess portfolio balance.
- Develop recommendations for improving ROI.
- Facilitate the Governance Board meeting and communicate the results.
Clearly, these attributes don’t include anything about managing a portfolio of proposals or a pool of project specific resources. There is also no mention of the project or resource accounting needs. However, once these considerations were added we had a reasonably complete set of requirements for our shopping trip for tools to manage our business.
We have neither the time nor the resources for an exhaustive shopping trip. We let the marketplace and our previous experience help us generate our short list. No one tool will address all of our needs so we included ease of integrating our main tool with other specialty tools, like accounting and project scheduling tools. The approaches considered are Google Docs, Microsoft Exchange/SharePoint, Itensil Knowledge Apps and Project in a box.
Google Docs offers a low cost, easily accessible solution to our basic needs. It definitely wins the cost comparison. The Microsoft products are very professional tools with an excellent support ecosystem (very important to a small group like ours) and some mature products. The Itensil Knowledge Apps is a tool from a small, new company that seems to have an intriguing offering and can provide more personalize attention. The Project in a box offering is very affordable and offers built in support for my preferred agile project management methodology, DSDM Atern. Every option has something to say for it, which is why they are on the list. The other tools most likely to be part of the solution are Microsoft Project and Intuit QuickBooks.
I will report on our selection in next week’s post. As always, your comments would be much appreciated. Stay tuned for the results…
Virtualized Operations for the Rest of Us
Recently, I was reading an article in the Digital Energy Journal Issue 22. What caught my eye was the title, “How virtual collaborative environments can save $120,000,000″. That’s an intriguing title and I was curious where the $120M came from. Much of the article quoted people at Capgemini. That ultimately led me to the paper that Capgemini calls “TechnoVision 2012 for Upstream Oil and Gas” (the Capgemini link will take you there for the whitepaper and a video). Basically, it’s Capgemini’s grand vision for using IT technology to change how E&P does its business. I agree with most of what I read but was struck by the scope of the vision. Their vision clearly targets the super-major size energy company. The vision is a collection of really big projects. I wanted to look at the vision through the eyes of midsize businesses. This is actually a continuation of my post “Microsoft and the Energy Industry“.
I’m not going to try to restate the details of the Capgemini vision here. You can get a copy of the whitepaper for yourself using the link provided above. The DEJ article considers the benefits of building a virtual representation of a manufacturing/production facility much like what can be done with a 3-D CAD program. That model is then connected to real-time data from the actual facility as well as data from other sources. The result is a virtual working environment which allows control and maintenance of the facility, collaboration with facility coworkers (including showing them as avatars) and collaboration with remote experts as needed. I think that the article presents a version of the Capgemini vision but is overkill. For example, I don’t agree with the need for avatars walking through and interacting in the virtual environment. That idea may be appealing for a public presentation but in actual use it would get old and clumsy.
The ideas were sufficiently intriguing that I digested the TechnoVision paper. Fortunately, there were no avatars mentioned there. What was appealing in that paper was a clearly useful list of business drivers. They are:
-
The Growing Influence of NOCs (National Oil Companies)
This means national and regional politics won’t be declining anytime soon.
-
Exploiting Unconventionals
This means the need to access unconventional sources of energy.
-
The Aging Workforce
The baby boomers continue to retire with more people leaving the industry than enter it.
-
Alignment of Quality Provisions
Aligning long term investments with oil price cycles
-
Increased Public Scrutiny for Compliance Excellence
While the current oil release in the Gulf was not included as a motivating factor in the paper, but increased public scrutiny is now a certainty.
All of these factors affect the midmarket as much as the super-majors. The problem is the midmarket doesn’t have the same level of resources. I argue that the midmarket can get much of the same benefits as those referenced in the Capgemini paper by using low cost, commodity hardware and software as mentioned in my previous post referenced above. No avatars, just control panels built from commodity portal software, like Microsoft SharePoint or IBM WebSphere. Those same tools can also be used for collaboration although there are other low cost alternatives. Let’s not forget about the growing selection of low cost social media tools that can be hosted internally if you’re not ready to use cloud computing for mission critical applications.
I believe that you would be best served by thinking of my vision as well as the Capgemini vision as frameworks. A framework is just standard base of tools from which to build your own unique solution. That solution must contain business processes which include more external collaboration with experts and trading partners. Those business processes should also be automated with tools that allow quite a bit of flexibility and adaptability. Business process management tools are becoming increasingly mature and flexible. They can provide all the adaptability most companies need.
In summary, I agree with the bulk of Capgemini’s TechnoVision but advocate addressing the same issues with a somewhat more pragmatic approach. Commodity hardware and software tools used to automate more inclusive business processes can now be an effective alternative for companies of all sizes. The business drivers listed above still apply to all segments of the energy business and must be addressed. A framework based on common tools will allow projects to be simpler and faster to execute. And let’s not forget that they will offer a dramatically higher probability for success.
Until next time, thanks for stopping by…
2010 Digital Energy Workshop
This week I attended the 2010 Digital Energy Workshop here in Houston. It is an event sponsored by the Society of Petroleum Engineers, Gulf Coast Section and a number of vendors to the energy industry. The intent of the workshop is to address the technologies and issues driving the evolution in the use of digital technologies in the E&P industry. As an old manufacturing guy, I have my own preconceived notions about the state of this evolution. In the manufacturing world we had to address the same issues a couple of decades ago. The process manufacturing world lives on slimmer margins. The E&P world has not had to face that reality until recently, and not that much even then.
The focus of this industry has been on optimizing drilling and maximizing recovery from a field (35% is a reasonable number). As such, there is quite a bit of material and work focusing on reservoir modeling, geological tools and the operations of the drilling process, such as directional drilling. But when we talk about what we call digital energy we are talking about the integration of data from downhole sources, operational data and business data in such a way that organizational silos are not constraints to business improvement. Good decisions are made faster than ever before. Since the Houston area is one of the primary centers for this industry this event attracts vendors who see digital energy as a major business opportunity.
Major industry vendors like Halliburton, Baker Hughes, Schlumberger, ABB and Microsoft were major sponsors. Other, smaller firms like OSIsoft, Merrick Systems, Business Fundamentals Group, MicroStrategy and Performix were also sponsors. While this list of vendors is not as large as it will be in the future, it does contain some major corporations with a major commitment to digital energy offerings. Microsoft and Merrick Systems were the only two with booths at the show. I suspect that it won’t be too long until we see SAP, Oracle, Emerson and Honeywell at this event. All of them have a story to tell to the E&P market.
I heard a few comments about OPC-UA vs. WITSML. Both are communications standards but differ in focus. OPC-Unified Architecture is intended to provide just that, a unified architecture for control equipment and instrumentation which allows the equipment from vendors that adopt the standard to work together automatically. This offers the customer lower costs and greater flexibility when they build their control systems. WITSML is somewhat similar but much more focused on the specific needs of the E&P industry. The point of the comparison is whether or not a more generalized standard is better than one focused on one industry. This sounds like a future blog post to me so I won’t pursue it here.
The various presentations we heard varied from high level overviews of what is digital energy and what’s next to specific case studies of individual projects. What struck me was the similarity to events I attended in my manufacturing past. Those past events, like this one, reflected an industry waking up to new possibilities and technologies. The fact that this was only a one day conference is consistent with the new but growing interest in the topic. The presentations from this conference will be posted in a few days and they, in turn, will also become fodder for my blog posts.
Another interesting point that struck me is that the Gulf of Mexico now has a lot of fiber optic cables connecting the platforms. This means that the bandwidth available for platforms to connect to their on-shore operations centers is dramatically greater, allowing many more options than for those which continue to rely on low bandwidth satellite connections. Conversely, many on-shore fields are still limited to cellular or satellite connectivity. The ramifications of this seem to me to be worth yet another future blog post. Integrated operations of a geographically disperse collection of equipment using different connection pipes (bandwidth) using standardized applications is an intriguing concept.
Finally, one last observation was the literature review that the organizers did. Initially that seems like a dry topic (well, actually it was still a dry topic at the end). What stood out to me was the number of case studies that reported notable savings. Each study was a little different but, collectively, the direction was the same. This industry is starting to understand how to make and save money with this technology. As the number of these types of case studies increases, the number of use cases available to software developers and hardware manufacturers increases as well. That implies rapid growth in product features and diversity. It’s all good.
As you can see, there will be more posts from me on these topics in the future. Stay tuned…
A Consulting Ecosystem
I recently attended a dinner meeting addressing, among other things, the future of work. That reminded me of a book that I read a long time ago in which the same thing was discussed. That book is titled “The Future of Work”. An image of that book cover is shown here (click on it to see that book on Amazon.com). I’m not going to attempt to do a book review here. I will address one of the points made in the book and what it means to the consulting business.
In Grantham’s book he describes the “Hollywood Model”. That business model is based on the movie making business in Hollywood where teams of independent, self-supporting specialists group together for a project. At the completion of the project, these teams disband. These specialist entities may be individuals, small organizations, larger organizations or yet another small team of specialists. As this idea evolves we start to envision a network of entities that begin to look like a complex molecule.
Maybe it would be more meaningful to refer to a molecular consulting ecosystem. Just for kicks I did a Google search for “molecular consulting ecosystem” and got no hits. I think I’ll include that phrase in my keywords for this post. Or not. Back to a serious note, the notion of comparing coordinated groups of independent entities for some common purpose to something like a molecule is not a new idea. Actually, if you think about it, we are talking about a fairly structured collection of entities focusing on very specific goals or projects. I think the best analogy is a crystal. Crystals are composed of atoms in a very specific structure. They tend to be stronger and more predictable than more typical organic molecules. They also tend to last a long time. Maybe naming such a business model after a crystalline structure is a good idea.
So what should be done to actually use this idea in a more general purpose consulting environment? Let’s think about a few more details and specific goals of such an arrangement. So what are the basic goals for the group?
- The entities (individuals or small groups) must be knowledgeable.
- The entities (individuals or small groups) must be perceived as knowledgeable by the group’s clients.
- The entities (individuals or small groups) must be safe to do business with.
- The entities (individuals or small groups) must be perceived as safe to do business with by the group’s clients.
- The group must have a means of generating new opportunities.
- The group must have a means of presenting a unified presence to the marketplace.
- The group must have an accepted means of distributing revenue among the entities.
- The group must have an accepted means of distributing operating costs among the entities.
- The group must have an accepted means of distributing liability among the entities or centralizing it as appropriate.
- The group must have an accepted means of recruiting and vetting new entities.
- The group must have an accepted means of allocating rights and access to any intellectual property generated by the group during an engagement and not the exclusive property of the client.
- The group must have access to systems to support collaboration among the entities for skills exchange and training.
- The group must not be constrained by national boundaries.
- The group must have access to systems to allow the collaboration on work product documents and proposals.
- The group must be able to scale to perform various sizes of engagements.
- The group must be able to include external entities as necessary for specific engagements.
- The group must be able to include clients as appropriate.
Basically, the group must be able to function very much like a company but maintain the ability to expand and contract as needed. It strikes me that what the group needs is an infrastructure that looks much like a PMO, or Project Management Office. That PMO must have some of the attributes of a business and not just a department within a larger organization. Going back to our crystal analogy, there must be a seed crystal around which other crystals form or connect. That seed crystal becomes the key to making everything else stable and effective. The seed crystal contains the PMO.
Maybe I’ll just call this the “Crystal Consulting Model”. Google doesn’t have anything for that phrase either. Anyway, consider this a part of an upcoming series of posts. I don’t know how many or when they will appear but this topic is important to our business so defining it more clearly is very important to us.
Thanks for stopping by. Any comments would be much appreciated. See you next time…