Posted on December 25, 2011 by Paul Ritchie
Merry Christmas! Here’s the gift of a little science for all you “gut” deciders. Matt Ridley posted this yesterday, pointing to research that suggests that…
more detailed analysis does not necessarily improve a decision, but often makes it worse. He believes, in effect, that less is more: Extra information distracts you from focusing on the few simple aspects of a problem that matter most.
Just don’t call it a hunch, call it a heuristic.
Filed under: Complexity, Knowledge Management, Leadership | Tagged: Gerd Gigerenzer, Matt Ridley, Wall Street Journal | Leave a Comment »
Posted on May 20, 2009 by Paul Ritchie
Niall Ferguson had an excellent short column on the financial crisis in this past Sunday’s The New York Times Magazine (here). I liked the piece, especially where Ferguson punctures some of the conventional wisdom about regulation vs. de-regulation.
I appreciated Ferguson’s reminder that we have to be very careful when drawing conclusions, especially when the topic is emotionally fraught. These days of stress and strain seem to emphasize the cognitive biases most of us are prey to:
Human beings are as good at devising ex post facto explanations for big disasters as they are bad at anticipating those disasters. It is indeed impressive how rapidly the economists who failed to predict this crisis — or predicted the wrong crisis (a dollar crash) — have been able to produce such a satisfying story about its origins.
Filed under: Complexity | Tagged: cognitive biases, financial crisis, New York Times, Niall Ferguson | Leave a Comment »
Posted on May 7, 2009 by Paul Ritchie
With the release of SAP Business Suite 7, the debate about the SAP and Oracle integration strategies has heated up. Loraine Lawson at IT Business Edge (here) uses two posts by Ray Wang (here) and Dan Woods (here), to contrast the two approaches.
Of course, I agree with Lawson and Woods that the SAP approach is better :-). I also agree that the Forbes audience — C- or high-level business folks — will eat up the SAP message. However, IMO, it isn’t quite so simple. Per a paragraph from Woods’s Forbes piece.
Companies implementing new applications or consolidating many companies must ask which foundation is best: a productized and unified platform for business automation or a collection of products that needs to be integrated. Best-of-breed is another way of saying that the user, not the vendor, is responsible for integration [emphasis mine].
My experience is that some firms and industries like to have that responsibility and chafe at having processes “pre-integrated.” Again, I don’t think that is a great default position — one ends up automating non-differentiating processes nearly from scratch — but many pharma and financial firms in particular have tried to “grow their own.” It is a legitimate strategy if you are truly creating competitive advantage via custom development and integration.
What SAP has done with the Business Suite and its business process platform strategy is to accommodate that desire to be different. Enterprise SOA allows such customers to get the benefits of process integration without forgoing the capability to differentiate (by assembling or building enterprise services on top of the platform).
Filed under: Complexity, Implementation Costs, IT special interests, IT Strategy, SAP | Tagged: best-of-breed, Dan Woods, integration, Loraine Lawson, Ray Wang, SAP Business Suite 7 | 1 Comment »
Posted on April 24, 2009 by Paul Ritchie
Glen Alleman and a number of commenters contributed to a great thread on math, PM, and complexity (here).
I try to keep the ideas of complexity “science” in mind when planning strategy and its execution. In particular, I have a deep respect for the power of self-organization and the need to create flexible rather than brittle management systems.
However, I’m not sure how powerful CAS really is as a theory, at least w/r/t/ project management. For example, how do its predictions advance my estimation approach beyond what we’re doing w/ probability distributions (e.g., Monte Carlo simulations via Crystal Ball)? To I really need math beyond that to get “good enough” estimates?
Filed under: Complexity, Portfolio Management, Program Management, Project Management, Strategy Management | Tagged: complex adaptive systems, complexity theory, Glen Alleman, Herding Cats | 3 Comments »
Posted on March 2, 2009 by Paul Ritchie
FYI, a Wall Street Journal article (“Dangers of Clinging to Solutions of the Past”) based in part on interviews w/ yours truly came out today (link here, page B4 in the paper). Thanks to Kishore Sengupta of INSEAD for pointing the WSJ my way and to Phred Dvorak of the WSJ for conveying the perils of experience so well and so succinctly.
As I’ve noted to a couple of colleagues, it is hard to believe that only 250 words of copy came out of two hours of interview time. Insert your own joke re: my verbosity here…
Filed under: Complexity, Knowledge Management, Organizational Change Management, People Development, Performance Management, PMO, Portfolio Management, Program Management, Project Management, Project Success Factors | Tagged: INSEAD, Kishore Sengupta, Paul Ritchie, Phred Dvorak, The Experience Trap, Wall Street Journal | 1 Comment »
Posted on February 23, 2009 by Paul Ritchie
Posted on February 22, 2009 by Paul Ritchie
Posted on February 21, 2009 by Paul Ritchie
Or maybe I should say “Methodology Scaling/Selection Graphic”… Glen Alleman’s recent post on PM and Agile (here) reminded me to post this picture (click to enlarge) of a slide we use when discussing which methodologies to use for which project. Note that we do not directly oppose “Agile” vs. “Waterfall” in our continuum. Sure, SAPScrum is pretty pure agile, but that doesn’t mean that ASAP doesn’t contain agile concepts (e.g., emphasis on iteration short cycles during the Realization phase).
Also, we’re emphasizing that initiative leaders must be comfortable combining philosophies when implementing solutions, which is why we’re driving program management knowledge out to our general PM community (as implied in the bottom box).
Filed under: Complexity, Methodology, PMO, Program Management, Project Management | Tagged: agile, agile development, Glen Alleman, Herding Cats, waterfall | Comments Off
Posted on February 13, 2009 by Paul Ritchie
Peter Thomas’s recent comment (here) and his post on developing an international BI strategy (here), reminded me that I had forgotten to post on some interesting dimensions of project and project complexity. Or at least they’re interesting to me…
This PDF outlines some of the complexity that culture introduces to managing global projects. It’s nothing revolutionary, but I’ve always liked two aspects of these slides:
- One slide outlines the cultural dilemnas well: “How does an India-based SAP project manager talk to a Manhattan-based marketing analyst?”
- Another reminds us that we need to remember that we’re individuals, not stereotypes… and yes, I’m the Paul R. on that slide.
Filed under: Communications, Complexity, Globalization | Tagged: cross-cultural communication, culture, Global Delivery, global projects, global teams, Paul Ritchie | Leave a Comment »
Posted on February 5, 2009 by Paul Ritchie
I haven’t a chance to dig into the details of SAP Business Suite 7, but it looks very promising w/r/t implementation costs and other TCO drivers. The enhancement package approach was a great start, but the new Business Suite should be a more comprehensive breaking of “the upgrade barrier” (per Ed Toben of Colgate-Palmolive).
Here are a couple of videos on the new suite: Jim Hagemann Snabe on the strategy (here) and a SAP Business Suite 7 demo (here).
Filed under: Complexity, Implementation Costs, IT Strategy, SAP | Tagged: Jim Hagemann Snabe, SAP Business Suite 7, TCO, Upgrades | Leave a Comment »