Are CMMI high maturity practices easy to use? Or are they tough to use?
The answer surprisingly is, both!
Easy, if you are largely interested in getting through an external appraisal.
Tough, however, if you try to leverage them for management and improvement in the real sense.
Most of the appraisers have a procedural approach to the implementation of high maturity practices.
The focus is primarily on the steps to be followed. Do this, do that and then do that.
Nothing is really wrong with that approach. After all appraisers are supposed to be doing appraisal against a set of expectations.
And what better than converting the expectations into a sequence of clearly laid down steps.
Easy to follow for the organization and easy for the appraiser to do his job!
The underlying concepts behind high maturity practices are, truly speaking, as real and as powerful as any scientific process or phenomenon is.
If you a throw a ball in the air, it will fall down.
Similarly, if you want to succeed in doing a project, you have to define the objectives, put a plan in place, track it meticulously and take necessary actions on the way to ensure the objectives are met.
Implementers of high maturity practices know that very well but choose to toe the line of the appraiser.
After all they know very well that they do not have the final say in the matter!
And they are also supposed to see the organization successfully through the appraisal.
So where does the problem lie?
Why are CMMI high maturity practices so very much neglected despite being so very powerful?
Among various reasons, one quite clearly stands out.
It is the answer to a pretty simple question - who stands to benefit the most from the implementation of high maturity practices if done the right way?
It is undoubtedly the head of operations/delivery.
This gentlemen will be able to exercise superior degree of control on the predictability of project execution using high maturity practices.
So why does the head of operations/delivery fail to do justice to his role by neglecting something as powerful as high maturity practices?
Two of the key reasons for above are - lack of competency and lack of ownership. It is no coincidence that competency and ownership are closely intertwined.
The basic ingredient for a good implementation of high maturity practices is sincerity and ownership of practitioners in collecting and reporting accurate data.
GIGO is a well know principle, if projects report garbage-like data for high maturity analysis, they will get gabage in return.
The failure of head of operations/delivery in owning quality of data being reported is the main reason garbage gets collected, reported and analyzed.
CMMI high maturity practices are very powerful but get neglected because the head of operations/delivery doesn't want to or can't see the long term picture.
If an organization genuinely wants to derive the benefit from the power of high maturity practices then it is tough.
Neglecting high maturity practices is indeed an option available for any organization to follow but doing that means the benefits are foregone.
And if the core issues are not addressed especially those connected to lack of ownership at the end of the head of operations/delivery, the way it is going on now will go on and on.
Head of operations/delivery will be happy because he chose the easy path.
Appraiser will have no reason not to be happy and more so since the organization sticking to his formula makes his job easy.
Implementers will not be happy but have no choice.
They might still carry a happy smug on their face since those who are supposed to leverage the power of high maturity practices neglect it (the practitioners and head of operations/delivery).
And those who are supposed to appraise (the auditors and appraisers), are fine with the organization following what they have told them to.
Implementers are fine too with the above arrangement as in the end they are just facilitators!
For them, being able to see the organization successfully through the appraisal is a consolation enough not to get disheartened.
After all, getting through an external appraisal though simple is still not a small feat.
The effort required by the organization to implement high maturity practices is no different in either case - getting through an external appraisal or leveraging these practices for management and improvement in the real sense.
So what breaks? That's a question worth asking.
And if you are seriously looking for the answer to the above question, look no further than the cabin where the head of operations/delivery sits.
You will find the answer there. Or maybe not!
The answer surprisingly is, both!
Easy, if you are largely interested in getting through an external appraisal.
Tough, however, if you try to leverage them for management and improvement in the real sense.
Most of the appraisers have a procedural approach to the implementation of high maturity practices.
The focus is primarily on the steps to be followed. Do this, do that and then do that.
Nothing is really wrong with that approach. After all appraisers are supposed to be doing appraisal against a set of expectations.
And what better than converting the expectations into a sequence of clearly laid down steps.
Easy to follow for the organization and easy for the appraiser to do his job!
The underlying concepts behind high maturity practices are, truly speaking, as real and as powerful as any scientific process or phenomenon is.
If you a throw a ball in the air, it will fall down.
Similarly, if you want to succeed in doing a project, you have to define the objectives, put a plan in place, track it meticulously and take necessary actions on the way to ensure the objectives are met.
Implementers of high maturity practices know that very well but choose to toe the line of the appraiser.
After all they know very well that they do not have the final say in the matter!
And they are also supposed to see the organization successfully through the appraisal.
So where does the problem lie?
Why are CMMI high maturity practices so very much neglected despite being so very powerful?
Among various reasons, one quite clearly stands out.
It is the answer to a pretty simple question - who stands to benefit the most from the implementation of high maturity practices if done the right way?
It is undoubtedly the head of operations/delivery.
This gentlemen will be able to exercise superior degree of control on the predictability of project execution using high maturity practices.
So why does the head of operations/delivery fail to do justice to his role by neglecting something as powerful as high maturity practices?
Two of the key reasons for above are - lack of competency and lack of ownership. It is no coincidence that competency and ownership are closely intertwined.
The basic ingredient for a good implementation of high maturity practices is sincerity and ownership of practitioners in collecting and reporting accurate data.
GIGO is a well know principle, if projects report garbage-like data for high maturity analysis, they will get gabage in return.
The failure of head of operations/delivery in owning quality of data being reported is the main reason garbage gets collected, reported and analyzed.
CMMI high maturity practices are very powerful but get neglected because the head of operations/delivery doesn't want to or can't see the long term picture.
If an organization genuinely wants to derive the benefit from the power of high maturity practices then it is tough.
Neglecting high maturity practices is indeed an option available for any organization to follow but doing that means the benefits are foregone.
And if the core issues are not addressed especially those connected to lack of ownership at the end of the head of operations/delivery, the way it is going on now will go on and on.
Head of operations/delivery will be happy because he chose the easy path.
Appraiser will have no reason not to be happy and more so since the organization sticking to his formula makes his job easy.
Implementers will not be happy but have no choice.
They might still carry a happy smug on their face since those who are supposed to leverage the power of high maturity practices neglect it (the practitioners and head of operations/delivery).
And those who are supposed to appraise (the auditors and appraisers), are fine with the organization following what they have told them to.
Implementers are fine too with the above arrangement as in the end they are just facilitators!
For them, being able to see the organization successfully through the appraisal is a consolation enough not to get disheartened.
After all, getting through an external appraisal though simple is still not a small feat.
The effort required by the organization to implement high maturity practices is no different in either case - getting through an external appraisal or leveraging these practices for management and improvement in the real sense.
So what breaks? That's a question worth asking.
And if you are seriously looking for the answer to the above question, look no further than the cabin where the head of operations/delivery sits.
You will find the answer there. Or maybe not!
No comments:
Post a Comment