Anticlue: Educated Sanctioning

January 31, 2005

Educated Sanctioning

We have all been there, asked to do a project that we think why in the world do they want to do that instead of this. Or we have had the other extreme anxiously waiting at the bit to do the latest and greatest, but being told this isn�t where we are extending our resources at this point in time.

The truth of the matter is that if you work for a corporation, someone has to agree and bless the work you are doing. In other words sanction that it is ok to go down that road. If you are working on a project that isn�t sanctioned by the powers that be, that project has one of the main factors of failure.

Taking a step back there is some key information that is needed so that the project does get blessed. First, there has to be a realistic business problem defined and quantified, and the picture of the future state needs to be explained. For example, wanting to place an rss feed on the what�s new is cool, but what problem does it solve? However, allowing a way for employees to receive instant updates about media news, may be a good use of resources, but having an rss feed of new PACS images with the archaic PACS system is probably not fruitful. Another factor is realistically guestimating the work effort needed. Back to our example, the rss feed may be simple, but pushing a news reader to 1300 desktop may be a bit more work. Along with guestimating work, estimating impact on networking, hardware, systems, and process is needed. The information on all of the above, gives an idea of what the project will do. With this information, the sanctioner can make a good decision, and the project will be well on its way.

Posted by Elyse at January 31, 2005 7:00 AM | TrackBack

Comments

OK: how about the need to "slip something under the radar". Here's a "hyperthetical":

Say that the team are working on a large project that will take a couple of years to complete. After the archetecture is mostly finalised, the "second" module is built.

(note: this is version 2 of the framework - a previous large module - the first - was built differently but as far as scalability and maintainability is concerned, it failed).

The team are desperate for similar modules to the "second" to be then built so the framework and system can be fully unit tested, new techniques used in different contexts and performance evaluated. This way important re-usable components and new technology can be "put to bed".

But the CIO is not interested. The worth of unit and performance testing is not considered a high enough priority and new non-related modules will be developed instead. It will now be many months before the technology of the "second" module can be used under other conditions. The team are worried that this will be too late for the "second" module if any problems are found.

the question:

is it ethical if the team take it upon themselves to create "opportunities" to develop modlues similar to the "second"? That the team go behind managements' back to "do the right thing"? sneak work "under the radar" that could be used for unit testing to verify that the second (and subsiquent) units are in fact "on the right path"?

any suggestions?

as I said, this is just a "hyperthetical" case...

thanx
barry.b

Posted by: barry.b at February 1, 2005 6:31 AM

We have found this to be a pervasive problem in IT not just healthcare IT. That is why we went to use cases and activity diagrams to communicate what the sanctioner will be sanctioning and what the rough cost will be. An article about solving the problem is published at www.alistapart.com/whatstheproblem describing the first step of defining the goal.

Posted by: Tim Meehan at February 1, 2005 5:42 PM

HI Barry,

No, its not ethical. What is the CIO actually interested in, perhaps selling the idea based on those interests would be a better approach.

If the whole team agrees, the the problem needs to be defined in terms that impact the CIO's success.

Elyse

Posted by: Elyse at February 3, 2005 6:06 AM