Comments on: The problem with process

By: karim ismail

karim ismail — Tue, 14 Dec 2010 19:41:36 +0000

very well said. I see this particularly in information security field where i work where there is a constant tug-and-pull between Risk vs Compliance. (The compliance part being heavy on process). This equates to the cost of doing business vs protecting the information assets, and when you have too much compliance (process) i see it detrimental to both the business and information security, because to achieve perfect state (unfeasible) you need infinite capital expenditure. Trying to achieve this state by tying down the business in process is a common problem in an organization that claims it understands risk management but really doesn’t.

By: Johnb

Johnb — Thu, 02 Dec 2010 12:14:00 +0000

Hi,

I came across this discusison and found it interesting. I’ve been trying to think of what is good and bad about having process and how it should ultimately be adaptable to fit the organisation to meet their goals. I’m coming at this from an IT perspective as many other contributors have so I’m interested in re-opening the discussion if anyone’s interested, it has been a while.
My view is that process is a good thing and generally speaking your friend so long a it is applied appropriately. I also find using an iterative approach is the best way to keep a project progressing and more likely to succeed. All of these technique can be wrapped into a process whether it be lightweight of bureacratic.

Get back to me to discuss further…

By: A Quick Survey of Development Methods « Z303

A Quick Survey of Development Methods « Z303 — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 20:42:32 +0000

[...] particular agile approach chosen would need to tailored to the project, customer and team, an experienced team working with a long time customer maybe most productive [...]

By: Creative Spaces - just…why? « electronic museum

Creative Spaces - just…why? « electronic museum — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 11:36:47 +0000

[...] the people involved, I like the institutions, and I understand the reasons why (museum) projects spiral into directions you probably wouldn’t ever choose. But then I remember that this puppy cost the taxpayer just [...]

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 15:08:14 +0000

@Bridget – glad it rang true with you..

I think your line about spending less time chasing specification and more time looking for a solid strategy and vision is absolutely right and makes sense on many different levels, from creative to user experience..

By: Bridget McKenzie

Bridget McKenzie — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 15:21:17 +0000

I do agree with you on this entirely. Until this moment, I had a residual sense of utter professional failure because I had so often failed to get specifications or a project schedule completely accurate before the real work had got underway. Ironic because we specialise in helping cultural organisations to scope new projects before they begin. What we do, though, is to ensure clarity of vision and purpose, and propose an iterative process to check that you are meeting real needs.

By: Nadia

Nadia — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 09:51:43 +0000

It would be great if we could demonstrate that stuff doesn’t have to be big – I think changing the traditional approach will require us to go through layers and layers of institutional policy and will take quite a while. I’m glad, though, that it’s being challenged! Looking forward to reading the paper.

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 14:29:13 +0000

@Nadia – absolutely. I guess my BHAG is to find ways to challenge the status quo. You’re 100% right, but why? And what can we do to change it? For starters, does stuff *have* to be as big as it is?

I’m particularly interested in this at the moment as I’ve just co-authored a paper for the 2009 Museums and the Web conference which challenges the institutional/big/bottom-up/juggernaut by suggesting a lightweight approach to something that has always traditionally been painful and big. I’ll blog about it when the paper has been published…

@DPEITCS – I’d like to think we can change it, probably by stealth and maybe by embarrassing the funders by demonstrating that small (and usually is) more beautiful than big… Shame you’re off out. This is gonna be interesting

By: Disgruntled public employee in the cultural sector

Disgruntled public employee in the cultural sector — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 00:23:23 +0000

I completely and utterly agree with you all the way. The thing is it ain’t gonna change – ever (or at least not in yours or my life time).

Having started networking with my local geek community in my own time I have begun to experience extreme cognitive dissonance between what I experience in the corporate sphere vs what happens outside in the socially and creatively driven developer community.

Needless to say I have decided that I want out of big the organisations. They are personally and professionally stifling. And, as you say, rarely if ever make good IT.

By: Nadia

Nadia — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 14:09:46 +0000

Mike, most of the time when this happens I get the feeling that it’s about people at the top (who aren’t directly involved) not wanting to relinquish control, either because they need to cover their backs, worry about money, or answer to someone else higher up who knows even less about the project. The problem is that so many things are set up this way. Smaller organisations have a lot more flexibility in the way they run things, which is why sometimes you can have a person-to-person conversation instead of raising a ticket. Too bad it doesn’t always work that way, but big projects = big money = big chances to go wrong = impersonal, inflexible juggernaut.