An Organization Must Adjust its Approach to Projects of Varying Size and Complexity
An organization uses a prioritization scheme to remove barriers caused by its inability to manage tradeoffs. It deploys risk mitigation measures to reduce the threat caused by dangers to its work. Yet, not every project is identical in size and complexity. An institution must adjust how it approaches endeavors of varying intricacy, to remove another roadblock to correcting its deeper problems.
Many companies have undertakings with a variety of sizes and levels of complication. For example, a business needs to create an Excel spreadsheet with a macro, but it also must build a backend business-application that is a system of systems. Many organizations have projects ranging from the very small to the very large and the extremely simple to inordinately complex.
Those undertakings differ in their needs. A microscopic one does not require extensive planning or resource acquisitions. A gigantic endeavor absolutely does. Miniature ventures should be approached differently by an institution than colossal ones are.
Yet, many companies extend small projects out, and they lob large ones off. Tiny undertaking are stretched out, by a business subjecting them to far more planning than they require. An organization lobs huge endeavors off, by failing to account for adjustments in requirements inevitable on sizeable endeavors. Those two tactics create the Procrustean bed.
That approach makes short projects miss the due date and/or surpass their budget. Longer endeavors do not meet their objectives. Both initiatives are made failures by it.
The Procrustean bed is avoidable by an institution. It does not have to stretch small undertakings out and chop large ones off. A company can bypass many failures by scaling its approach, according to the size and complexity of a project.
If a business does not adjust its strategy, deeper problems can be masked by its lack of adaptation. Those issues might appear to be a result of the Procrustean bed. That situation is rectified by an organization spending and energy to do so. Yet, its difficulty continues to exist. If that environment did not exist, an institution receives a clearer signal about its underlying struggles. That company must adjust its approach, according to a project’s size and complexity, to remove a barrier to correcting its foundational problems.
Curated Content and Authors
Ben Linders interviews Barry Boehm and Richard Turner, about the incremental commitment spiral model (ICSM).
Abraham Marin-Perez describes rules for writing maintainable code.
Jeff Link discusses what information architecture (IA) is and why it is more than simply a roadmap.
Rajesh Venkatasubbu talks about security best practices for modern data architectures.
We wrote that describes how an organization can identify underlying problems in it software development operations.
We penned a piece that describes how conclusions form the logical bedrock of a strategy.
Endnotes
How a business fixes its rudimentary issues requires many more issues of this newsletter and several other blog articles. Even the need to adjust approaches based on the scope and the intricacy of a project demands a deeper treatment that future iterations and posts will address. To read those works, subscribe to this publication and browse the Software Development Journal. To consume those efforts, follow ExperTech Insights on Twitter.