Posts Tagged ‘Groove’
Wrapping Up Timeboxes
In my last post I addressed our decision to use DSDM Atern for the projects generated by an SLR engagement. Now comes the decision on what I call the “engagement architecture”. What this phrase means is what are the tools we will use and how will we use them to actually execute projects. No one tool does everything needed to execute projects in an environment of empowered, collaborative teams executing an iterative methodology. Trust me, I’ve extensively looked for the “silver bullet” application that does it all and could only find several lead bullets and a couple of bronze ones.
We need to remember that we’re also talking about doing projects as consultants working with both our resources and the client’s. That means that the chosen approach must have negligible impact to the client’s IT infrastructure and not commit the client to additional long term recurring costs. When we leave the engagement, we must be able to fold up our tent and take our working environment with us. That certainly isn’t always true but our planning must be based on the most conservative scenarios. The only materials that must be left behind are sufficient documents to support SOX requirements and audits. For any client, the answer is one of three modes.
Mode 1 (primary)
The primary collaborative environment is Microsoft Groove 2007 (soon to be Microsoft SharePoint Workspace 2010). In this mode the client provides a copy of Groove to each team member. Groove functions primarily in a peer to peer architecture but has a server-based architecture available when/if needed. For small teams peer to peer is appropriate and convenient. That approach can definitely scale to larger sizes but at some point a server option may be more appropriate. I know many readers will start to groan at the mention of peer to peer. I have discussed the value of this approach before. A link to that post is here. It fulfills the requirement of leaving no lasting footprint on the client’s IT infrastructure (only user PCs), does not inflict a recurring cost on their business (there is a minimal onetime cost) and definitely provides a flexible collaborative environment for the project team. I will not elaborate on how Groove is used because I don’t want this post to turn into a pitch (it’s already more pitchy than I would like).
The brainstorming and creative component uses MindManager from Mindjet. I have found it to be very useful and its integration to Microsoft’s Office Suite is very beneficial. The use of the Microsoft Office Suite (Word, Excel, PowerPoint, etc.) is assumed. For project schedule management we use the venerable Microsoft Project tool. For the methodology and document control we use Project in a box. We use the client’s storage/portal for archiving project information or we can archive it on our own SharePoint server. The use of all of these tools can be adjusted based on the client’s preferences or the client can just use our default engagement architecture.
Mode 2 (cloud)
Here the primary collaborative environment is one of several cloud-based project management tools. There is a wide assortment of them available and we have a few preferences. But the client’s preferences are what count so we’ll review the options with them and go from there. The reason this is not our primary approach is that I’m not satisfied that all the security “rude surprises” are all know yet for that approach (see this link) and it can inflict a recurring cost on the client. However, it’s all the rage now, very popular and growing. It will mature in time to address all of my concerns. We acknowledge that and will be happy to not fuss too much with the client about it if that’s what they want. The bottom line is that it can work for this requirement.
Mode 3 (whatever)
This is simply the case when the client is a larger, more IT-mature organization and wants to do it their way. If this is their preference we say “yes, sir”, salute and do it their way. This is true of any consultant in the world. We will do the best to adapt the core parts of our approach to that environment to assure of project success. We won’t let the client shoot themselves in the foot (or at least not contribute to it) but we will be adaptable.
In conclusion
We’ve covered a number of tools at a very high level. Each of you has to find the combination that works for you. I believe these approaches work for us and our clients to deliver professional and successful results for each project. If anyone from the DSDM Consortium reads this please harass the Project in a box people to expand their tool from just a document repository to include some of the functionality described above. If anyone from Project in a box reads this please consider yourself harassed.
Thanks for stopping by. See you next time…
Alignment to the Core
Let’s start by being very clear. For any business everything must ultimately align to the success of that business, period. That being said we can now focus on how all of the various pieces that make up that business must align with each other. At a high level, it is obvious that all business activities must support each other for the business to be successful. However, what I have observed over the years is that alignment is easy to get lost in the multitude of daily pressing details that we must deal with. This thought was best captured in Stephen Covey’s book The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. In this book there is one diagram that has stuck with me over the years because it is direct and simple. It is shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1 Covey’s time management matrix
For more information on Covey’s teachings look here. In this diagram we see Quadrant I as the place where most of us spend much of our time. Quadrant II is where we need to spend most of our time. We need to manage our time such that we can spend more of it thinking about planning, relationships and collaboration. Spending our time here is where alignment happens. We won’t spend any time on Quadrants III and IV. We are wasting our time there.
So what else do we need to consider when aligning our business operations? I argue that we must first understand that all things technology can best be represented as a circle bisected into two parts. One part includes the tools; the hardware and software that enable our business to function. The other part includes how those tools are used to deliver real benefits to our business. Each of those parts is dominated by very different states of mind. Historically, IT has focused on tools and the business users focus on their application. There is overlap for each group as shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2 All things technology and interest groups
The overlap between the interests of those two groups is important. The end user group must understand the tools well enough to know what can actually be accomplished in a reasonable period of time and the IT group must understand the needs of the user group well enough to deliver useful tools. Orchestrating the communication between these two interest groups is an ongoing activity between end customers of the tools and those people who must deliver those tools to the marketplace. It is a painful and inefficient process constrained by the financial interests and negotiating positions of each group. It’s beneficial to each group to make this process more effective.
We must also consider the methodologies that are needed for the alignment of business improvement work. For this we will focus on two of the most representative methodologies for their respective interest groups. For the tool provider group we will use RUP, or Rational Unified Process, as the most used (in its multiple variations) and for the end user community the BPM-based methodologies. The overlap diagram is shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3 All things technology and improvement methodology overlap
The key difference here is that BPM is about addressing what business processes are needed and the functionality of the tools each business needs. On the other hand, RUP is focused on the effectiveness of software development. Delivering business process improvements will consist of new capabilities delivered by some combination of revising the current tools used by the business, buying new software and writing new software. Neither BPM nor RUP alone is suitable for doing that, so managing the overlap between those two families of methodologies is crucial.
Finally, there is the overlap between those groups responsible for the day-to-day operation of the tools and those responsible for their daily application. That overlap is shown in Figure 4. 
Figure 4 All things technology and daily operations
The group responsible for the delivery of those technology tools to the business, either internal IT or external, hosted providers is represented by the ITIL, or IT Infrastructure Library, framework. The group responsible for the daily use of those tools is represented by the various continuous improvement frameworks, such as Six Sigma. Each of these groups needs some framework around which to manage daily operation and incremental improvements. Again, managing the overlap of these two interest groups and their frameworks is extremely important.
In each of the cases above, managing the overlap of the various interest groups is a matter of ongoing communication. That communication must happen within an oversight group composed of representatives of each of the interest groups with shared vocabulary and skills inventory. None of the groups need to be experts in the other’s fields but they must commit to understanding the basic needs and issues. This can be a challenge in most organizations but it is vital if the business wants to improve.
Alignment is important and complex. It requires a commitment from a business’s leadership to insure ongoing communications between the core groups within the company. It requires a commitment to include vendors, external service providers and other external stake holders in that collaboration in a meaningful way. So how do you do that? The options are growing every day. There are portal frameworks, like SharePoint and WebSphere. There are peer-to-peer tools, like Groove and Notes. There are Web 2.0 tools, like Huddle and Zoho. The list goes on. Regardless of what tools you use, the ongoing collaboration between the consumers of technology tools and the providers of those tools, both in improvement activities and ongoing daily operations is vital.
Thanks for your attention. Stay tuned…
Structuring your team for BPI sustainability
All business process related projects require some form of team to execute the work. Even for small companies with very informal and centralized leadership, BPI teams exist. They may not be formal but to improve their business processes they need a diverse skills inventory to look at the challenge from multiple points of view. The structure of those teams is extremely important. Insuring the appropriate mix of skills needs to be carefully managed by the company’s leadership to include the perspectives of business operations, information technology, staff functions and external stakeholders. Those external stakeholders may not participate the same way or to the same extent but the needs of customers, vendors and supply chain partners need to be included.
Historically, many business process improvement (BPI) projects fail to sustain their initial gains over the long term. Typically, this happens when the key resources needed to sustain your BPI benefits are overwhelmed by the crush of daily, urgent tasks. Over time, the automated part of the business practices may stay in place but the behavior of the people changes. To address this StrAIT Advisors recommends:
-
Create a collaborative environment
Create a site on your company’s network (portal or something similar) where team members can collaborate, collect new ideas and monitor BPI success. Examples of useful tools are Microsoft SharePoint, Microsoft Groove, IBM (Lotus) Notes/Domino and Oracle Beehive.
-
Project team becomes a business process competency center
Keep your team focused, even after the project is over. Put some level of accountability in their performance plans to spend a portion of their time managing and collaborating on your business processes from a companywide perspective. Remember it is possible to optimize individual departments but sub-optimize the company as a whole.
-
Team leader is on the COO succession plan
This is often overlooked. Your business processes are the lifeblood of your company. The Chief Operating Officer (COO) or equivalent has the primary responsibility for making sure all the wheels keep turning smoothly. The person responsible for your company’s business process “think tank” will gain a wider perspective on how your business works, reinforcing the experiences that put them on that succession plan in the first place.
Using the Internet for Sensitive Collaboration during Projects
Revised 8-4-09
I want to post some comments on how I see the use of the Internet to collaborate on and with sensitive information. First, I am sensitive to the “cloud”, i.e., the use of web-based applications and data storage. I use it to provide our website hosting, SharePoint portal and our WordPress blog, including reference files. I have accounts on LinkedIn, Facebook and Twitter. I have tried an assortment of tools for blogging (and I need to delete most of those sites) before settling on WordPress. I am looked into Ning and others. I have accounts with Google Docs and Office Live Workspace. And while some of these spaces could be useful I decided to do something different for StrAIT Advisor collaboration needs.
Let’s review StrAIT Advisor’s needs. Our engagements will be fast and when completed, there can be no lasting footprint in the client’s infrastructure. Our engagements typically consist of one of us working with a small team of the client’s people. We will discuss and collaborate on the client’s business processes and value stream (for more information about value streams click here). In both of those scenarios, we will be exchanging messages, documents and drawings that may clearly identify the client’s competitive strengths and weaknesses. The client will assume that none of that information could be accessed inappropriately. Given that I have run IT organizations and been accountable for a company’s cyber security in the past, I am extremely focused on security and best practices. To minimize our client’s risk, we will primarily use the web as the infrastructure for pipes. That means we use appropriate security tools to enable sensitive information to be transported over the web in peer to peer connections but not be stored there unless in an archive located in very secure storage where we know that we can “hug the data”. That is an old IT expression indicating that the user knows positively where their data is located physically and is comfortable with its security.
Accommodating team members with busy travel schedules is another need. Those people need to work in airports even if there is no wireless connection and work at 30,000 feet in the air and traveling at several hundred miles per hour. It will be years before the global transportation industry provides connectivity everywhere. Until then, a peer to peer approach solves this problem. Since most laptops have hard drives that vastly exceed the business needs of most people, the extra storage requirements needed typically don’t represent a major issue.
I have included a simple diagram from our overview presentation to emphasize my point. In that diagram the black arrows indicate the peer to peer connections using the “cloud” and the red arrows and database symbol indicate the archive storage. For the peer to peer collaboration we prefer to use Microsoft Groove. Groove can trace it family tree back to Lotus Notes which came out in the late 1980’s. 
We are satisfied that the security built in to Groove is sufficient to meet the security needs of our engagements. The archived storage can be supplied by the client’s own infrastructure or our SharePoint server. We will try to accommodate our client’s wishes if there are different architectural preferences as long as the same security needs are met and we can reuse our components and don’t have to build a customized solution. Every engagement is different.
I hope this post clarifies why we made the decisions we made. Please let us know what you think. Thanks for your time. We will talk again soon…