Archive for category project management software

The Laws of Simplicity

In these prior blog posts:

Applying Occam’s Razor Principle to Product Design – Lessons learned from our Project Management Software design experiences

Occam’s Principle Applied to IT Investments

I outlined how Occam’s Razor principle could apply to product design and IT investments. I recently stumbled on to the writings of John Maeda who has authored a book on the laws of simplicity. A summary of the laws can be found here:

http://lawsofsimplicity.com/category/keys?order=ASC

A review of the laws is a good refresher for anyone in charge of project management, new product development and software design. The last law states: Simplicity is about subtracting the obvious, and adding the meaningful. This is actually Occam’s principle which I described and provided some examples for in the above mentioned posts. In fact as John Maeda mentions in his book and on his website Occam’s principle is really an encapsulation of the first nine laws.

, , , , ,

No Comments

The Year in Review in Software & Services and 90% Software Maintenance Margins

Here is a good short review of enterprise software and services stories in 2009.

What caught my eye was Brian’s referral to 90% software maintenance margin as a bad thing. Brain, most software companies invest significant dollars in infrastructure, R&D and new product development. Healthy profit margins from on-demand services and support are an absolute necessity. Without those margins no software company can attract great talent, investors or even consider any new ideas.

As an example, at Tenrox while 9 out 10 new customers are opting for Tenrox on-demand we still do have and support on-premise customers with perpetual licenses. One of these customers had gone without support for eighteen months thinking the software works great and they do not need our support, updates or innovations. Well something went wrong and they called our service team asking for help. They wanted to pay time and material for us to jump on the problem and fix it. We explained our policy that they must reactivate support, pay a penalty for the reactivation, and get up to date before we can even look at the problem. This customer was quite frustrated and did not take the news very well at all.

As a software company we have no choice but to establish such policies. Tenrox is not a consulting “time and material” provider. The profits and good margins from on-demand services and support are absolutely essential for continued innovation and first class customer support.

, , , ,

No Comments

Interview with Microsoft Project’s Seth Patton

Here is an interesting interview with a marketing director at Microsoft Project regarding their product roadmap and strategy.

http://www.enterpriseirregulars.com/500/interview-with-microsoft%E2%80%99s-seth-patton/

I guess Seth has not kept up to date with technology trends all that much. If Microsoft’s strategy is to try and drive out independent software vendors (ISV) they are not going to do all that well with their customers or partners. With Software as a Service and cloud computing, best of breed is a clear hands down winner in this market. Just look at the huge success stories of salesforce.com, RightNow, Taleo, and Success Factors all of which are SaaS offerings; there are so many more SaaS and cloud winners out there. I think Microsoft is better off focusing on strengthening its ISV partnership base instead of alienating them with this kind of thinking and interviews. This is not forward thinking.

Here is another interesting exchange in the interview:

While PPM products, Microsoft’s included, contain many of the functions needed by professional services firms, they are still some key functions not available within Project just yet. These include: client billing; dedicated time entry for vendor, client, contractors, etc.; two-way interfaces with payroll systems; proposal tools; and, more. Nonetheless, Seth reminded me that thousands of Microsoft partners are service firms as well as users of Project in client work.

This sounds a lot like the old we have it all ERP type of talk. Well then I guess customers should wait another 10 years for Microsoft to develop these and other capabilities. Or customize the heck out of Microsoft Project to fulfill the gaps they perceive in the solution and to get what they need like these other companies he mentions have.

I still remember the first time I read a brochure from one of these large vendors. The brochure said they do everything under the sun. I got the same impression with virtually every release of Microsoft Project. To this day, all of these products have only fallen behind more, become more bloated, more complicated, and more out of touch with what customers really need.

No Comments

We’re going SaaS‚ no exceptions

I attended a PS Village meeting last week. PS Village is a pretty interesting, fun and educational breakfast meeting that takes place in various cities all across the United States and Canada. The attendees are primarily professional service executives, project management and software professionals. The sponsors are Professional Services Automation and project management software solution providers like Tenrox and others. The breakfast meeting lasts about two hours, is pretty informal, and the attendees simply sit around the table and discuss a few topics together.

One of the people at my table (name and company will not be disclosed of course) was the leader of a professional services team in a large multi-national organization, let’s call him PS-man for short. He was complaining about a meeting he attended where the division’s CEO articulated his strategy for the division’s product and service offerings.  The CEO said, and I quote:  “We’re going SaaS, no exceptions”.

PS-man was quite frustrated and unhappy with this sudden shift. To him, the CEO had not articulated a believable vision and a clear path to achieve that vision. According to PS-man, it seemed like the CEO, being sort of new to the job, had heard of the industry buzzwords and decided the industry trends are the way to go. However, PS-man felt that neither the company’s products nor his team were ready for the shift to the SaaS (software as  a service) model. They did not believe that SaaS was the answer to their challenges or that it could drive new growth. PS-man’s reaction was “Yeah right, we’re going SaaS until a sales guy comes with the next big order for an in-house implementation”.

Our table spent the breakfast talking about SaaS, its benefits, how to transition a traditional product and service offering towards the SaaS model and the roadblocks one can face on this journey. At the end of the meeting, PS-man seemed more sold on the opportunity that SaaS could represent for him and his team, but he was still unsure as to whether his company’s leadership truly is willing to make the investment, has the sponsorship and the expertise to navigate the company towards this change. I tried to highlight a roadmap to SaaS from our experience, and how to take some steps towards this goal without completely abandoning what works for them now.

This meeting reminded me of how executives can so quickly get out of touch with their teams. While our “visions” and ambitions may sound great and exciting to some, many out in the field will react exactly as PS-man did. Your team has to see and feel that you have really done your homework, you have thought it through in great detail, and that you are truly in it to win it. If you are unsure, unprepared or it looks like you are simply following the crowd then even a good strategic initiative and good intentions can actually hurt instead of help the organization.

No Comments

Occam’s Principle Applied to IT Investments

In a previous blog I looked at how Occam’s principle can be applied to product design and development. Now let’s look at applying this principle to making IT investments.

The question to answer:  How long should I stay with the technology I have already invested in and should I choose to stay with our existing IT investments or move to a brand new technology?

Applying Occam’s rule to IT investments could go something like this:

  1. Choose technologies that are simple to use
  2. Use just one IT system to automate a specific function
  3. Don’t oversimplify

1) Choose technologies that are simple to use

All things being equal, such as cost of adopting the new technology versus cost of staying with the current technology and processes, choose the simpler alternative. If the new technology is easier to implement and support then making the new investment is the right choice. If not, best to stay with the existing technology.

2) Use just one IT system to automate a specific function

We often run into organizations that use several different systems for time tracking, project management, workforce planning and billing. Most of the time this is because every group or department chooses and implements the solution it prefers.

As an example, accounting staff are naturally biased towards accounting applications. As far as they are concerned, everything including project cost and revenue data should be driven by the accounting system. However, IT, project or professional services staff hardly ever choose such an option if they have any say in the project management software they use. The time tracking, job costing, project management and workforce planning add-on’s offered by accounting systems tend to be subpar, based on older technology, and at best mediocre applications. This is because these are not the main focus areas for accounting software or ERP vendors. Similarly, IT and project teams would never choose a departmental project management solution for its strong financial reporting and accounting integration capabilities.

In applying Occam’s principle, accounting, HR, IT, professional services and project teams have to collaborate much more before making new enterprise software investments. Any investment that reduces the number of redundant systems, eliminates manual integration and reporting, or breaks down the communication barriers between various teams is a definite move towards the key elements of the OCCAM principle.

3) Don’t oversimplify

As mentioned in the previous blog you should not try to take things too far when it comes to simplifying. As an example, IT investments must take into account and accommodate the unique requirements of various stakeholders and constituents. Imposing oversimplified washed down software that everyone in the company must use may standardize a process at the expense of lost group-specific productivity, flexibility and innovation.

Let’s look at an example of a typical project management software initiative. A prospect contacted us to investigate whether they should invest in Tenrox Project Workforce Management software. They had the following project management software investments:

  • Timesheet: an in-house timesheet application they had developed a few years ago and maintained over the years; customized to run on top of their ERP/accounting system
  • Expense reports: using Excel file to report and approve expenses
  • Project planning: using Microsoft Project desktop to plan projects
  • Billing/cost reporting: done manually by extracting the information required from the timesheets and expense reports

Should this prospect:

  1. Change only the timesheet application
  2. Change only the timesheet application and automate expense reports with a single time and expense tracking solution
  3. Change all systems at the same time; replacing them with a single solution
  4. Do nothing – stay with their current systems for another year

According to the OCCAM principle the simplest approach that does not create redundancies or oversimplify is the best option. Let’s look at each option in that light:

  1. Change only the timesheet application
    - If the old timesheet system has no major shortcomings, this option replaces one working system with another; without really creating any new value. Changing just the timesheet system in such a scenario does not add any value.
  2.  

  3. Change only the timesheet application and automate expense reports with a single time and expense tracking solution
    - This may be a suitable option. Two disconnected systems are replaced with a single system and the new system is simpler in that manual processes and spreadsheet are eliminated, and a standard approval process is used for time and expense tracking and approval.
  4.  

  5. Change all systems at the same time; replacing them with a single solution
    - This option may oversimplify requirements of the various teams that need a project workforce management solution to get their job done. However, if all user groups conclude that a new system is as good as their current system, is as simple or simpler, and even solves some existing issues then this is the best option.
  6.  

  7. Do nothing – stay with their current systems for another year
    - Staying with legacy disconnected systems is definitely not the simpler path to choose. While on the surface the company does not take any risk, using old disconnected processes to manage in today’s highly connected and competitive world is the worst option.

1 Comment