The CHAOS Ten - and the Missing Item

I had a look at the Standish Group's CHAOS report of 2001. The report contains an analysis of the factors that contribute most to project success. In order of importance, the factors are:
  1. Executive Support
  2. User Involvement
  3. Experienced Project Manager
  4. Clear Business Objectives
  5. Minimized Scope
  6. Standard Software Infrastructure
  7. Firm Basic Requirements
  8. Formal Methodology
  9. Reliable Estimates
  10. Other
According to the report, the top item, Executive Support, is about 3 times as important as the number eigth item, Formal Methodology.

When I hold talks about software development, which I do a bit sporadically these days, I am most interested in talking about the top five items on the list. Not because of the report, BTW, but because my own experiences, and those of others, have led me to believe that these factors are important.

I also like to talk a bit about number eight, Formal Methodologies. This is because of a personal belief that methodology matters a bit more than the list implies. Why is that? It is because the methodology guides how we think about the other items on the list.

Sometimes, having a formal methodology becomes a substitute for thinking. If we do what the methodology says we should do, we won't get blamed, even if we fail. Well, there may be a bit of yelling, but probably few consequences beyond that.

On the other hand, not following the methodology is dangerous. If we fail, there may be severe consequences. There may even be unfortunate consequences if we succeed, because in many corporate cultures, following the rules is more important than succeeding.

Which brings me to the missing item on the CHAOS list: Corporate Culture. That is where everything begins. The corporate culture has a strong influence on all the items on the list.

A project team can get executive support even if its not a part of the culture. However, the team is much more likely to get such support if it is part of the culture. Also, such support is much more likely to matter. Same thing with user involvement. If its not part of the culture, for both vendor and client, user involvement is likely to dwindle over time, even if things start out well.

Going down the list, corporate culture is a strong, but often unnoticed, influence on everything. I believe it should be the top item. Therefore, it is also my favorite subject for talks. It is also why my articles at www.henrikmartensson.org tend to be about corporate culture and management, even though I am a developer at heart.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Waterfall vs. Agile: Battle of the Dunces or A Race to the Bottom?

Image
The major software methodology wars since the mid 1950’s. Someone was wrong on the Internet, so here we go… In a recent HBR article, It’s Time to End the Battle Between Waterfall and Agile , the author sets up a false premise: There is a war between Waterfall methodology and Agile. The war must end. And finally, you can combine the approaches to get the best of both worlds. This sounds good, but the article is based on a misunderstanding of both Waterfall and Agile. Also, there is no war between Waterfall methodology and Agile. There can’t be, because Waterfall methodology does not exist! Waterfall is a name for large projects that failed in the 1960’s. Waterfall was never a methodology, but a failure to apply the methodologies that existed back then. As I will show towards the end of this article, at least one of the “successful” Waterfall projects mentioned in the HBR article was neither successful, nor a Waterfall project. I got invaluable help from Alistair Cockburn. He fact che...
Read more

Agile Requirements Structures, Part 1

Image
If you have worked in large Agile projects or programs, you may have noticed that there is often quite a bit of confusion about requirements, what the requirement types are, their purpose, how to write them, how to use them, and above all, what not to do with them. There are many causes for this confusion. Here are some of the more common I have seen: Nobody in the organization has read up on the requirements model it is using, so everyone makes their own interpretation. The organization deviates from a standard requirements model, but nobody knows which standard model the organization is deviating from, and/or there is no agreement about how they deviate from it. The organization has not documented its own requirements model very well. The organization mixes two or more different requirements models, often without realizing it. The organization has documented its requirements model, but finding the documentation is an epic project in itself, on par with when Henry Sta...
Read more

Performance Evaluations, Business Strategy, and Agile Methodologies

Image
It is performance evaluation time in many companies. This can be stressful, both to the people being evaluated, and the people doing the evaluation. In companies adopting agile software development methods, the tension can be extraordinary. Individual performance evaluations run counter to agile philosophy, which emphasizes team performance over individual performance. However, managers and corporate leaders need to take a few steps back, and consider the impact performance evaluations have on the organization as a whole. Especially now, in the midst of a recession, it is important to look at a companies current policies to see if they can be improved, or if they are actually holding the company back. So, how can a manager evaluate policy? Performance evaluation policies can serve as an excellent example. I'll confine myself to discussing the so-called ‘rank and yank’ methods. These are performance reviews were employees are ranked using a forced ranking system. It usually looks so...
Read more