In the world of Information Systems Development, there are ‘many ways to skin a cat’ as the saying goes but, when all is said and done, there are two major school of thoughts (or philosophies) on implementation approaches, or how and when to implement what has been developed; here they are:
Implement your best. This approach states that it is extremely important to put up a quality product that, on the vast aggregate, meets the stated requirements, and it is the best the team is able to produce. There will be issues that come up and require fixing but, for the most part, they are cosmetic in nature. The ‘customer’ will be satisfied from the beginning. --- There are many merits on this approach (no need to re-state the obvious) and there are also pitfalls, the main ones being that, in the pursuit of the best, time lines are blown, budgets are busted; at the end, it may be a great product but no longer desirable due to the CBA (Cost-Benefit Analysis) being no longer valid because of cost overruns or a closed window of opportunity…
Implement what you’ve got. This approach subscribes to the principle that it is extremely important to implement what you’ve got at the expected time, ready or not. It states that it is easier to deal with issues from the inside that from the outside looking in (not having implemented); it is easier to cancel an implementation than to revert one. --- Although there are many benefits to this approach (Microsoft has been practicing it for 20+ years making billionaires out of thousands of people and achieving an until-recently unchallenged market dominance) there are also mortal sins when overdone.
Having professionally practiced the discipline (or art?) of Systems Development in all possible rolls for the last 35+ years, I have selected/directed/used, and successfully executed, both of those approaches in many instances. Although I strongly favor one of them above over the other (won’t disclose which one), the overarching principle always has to be not to overdo either one of them; in the end, all successful endeavors are a healthy mix of both approaches. You take reasonable risks on the timeline and budget but deliver sound functionality; or you take reasonable risks on functionality and deliver on time and within budget; and sometimes, when almost everything goes perfectly, you deliver the expected functionality, on time and withing budget! The decision making process (regarding the reasonability of the risks you take) is always influenced by your understanding of the role of the project, the priorities of the 'customer' (the person paying the bills), and what risks they could either afford the most or hurt them the least; in other words, always picking the lesser of all evils…
In the case of the implementation of the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare) electronic interface (web site), there seems to be a multitude of basic leadership and Project Management concepts that were either ignored, neglected or plain all abandoned. All the information one hears on the media (after filtering for political biases/noise) seem to point out to lack of focus, lack of coordination, lack of care, lack of accountability, lack of communication and last – but not least - lack of understanding of what were the project organizational and institutional priorities. These lapses in all these areas seem to have permeated from the project leadership (Sibelius) through middle management, down to the myriad of contractors running amok, enriching themselves and delivering garbage.
One month after the implementation debacle there seems to be nobody in charge, no credible remediation plan in place, no time frames as of when the deficiencies will be satisfied and a hell of a political rainstorm.
I personally do not think President Obama was either coding or testing or managing the project; he should not have been. But his Secretary of Health and Human Services was the manager in charge. Full accountability needs to be established and made public; that includes the chain of command within the administration and contractors involved; and heads should roll!
No comments:
Post a Comment