Agile as a project approach enables value creation whilst also empowering sponsors and senior stakeholders to affect governance over the investment. However, this depends on effective mechanisms for translating the team view into a stakeholder view of progress, risk and opportunity. This paper identifies the challenges and solutions in achieving this translation.
I have recently been struck by how frequently poor supplier and / or client management is a major contributing factor to under performance of IT systems. This often manifests itself in incomplete implementations or a steady decline in the use of what the software was intended for - or both. Then the problem is exacerbated by the emergence of shadow systems often horribly constructed in Excel duplicating effort, introducing risk and wasting resources.
Products and services have the potential to transform customers, to change their behaviour. Henry Ford changed his customers into drivers, IKEA has changed their customers into assemblers of furniture and Ryan Air has created passengers willing to take their own sandwiches.
These are some of the examples from a recent Harvard Business Review webinar How IT Creates Customer Value featuring Michael Schrage.
Both Agile and Waterfall projects can fail due to poor debt management, however Agile process and techniques allow for finer grain management of debt. Unfortunately Agile debt has become synonymous with Technical Debt rather than a wider view of debt.
If you google Agile debt, you get around 2,980,000 results, if you google technical debt you get around 148,000,000 results, either way, in relation to the Agile domain, all the results relates to technical debt, that debt which leads to increasing cost of change to the software.
Rather than a rash of acronyms, this post looks at Bring Your Own Device strategies in the third sector.
The launch of the latest version of the iPhone (slightly larger screen, a wee bit thinner, a faster processor and slightly worse on-board maps) reminded me about the opportunities and challenges of introducing a BYOD strategy in a NFP organisation.
We are all happy with the concept of standards, well I hope we are anyway. A standard gives us a baseline to work with and allows us to have a common understanding of what to expect. Coding standards are pretty universal in development. Well I say that, but I am amazed how often they don’t seem to be in place, used, or validated against with static analysis or manual code reviews. But that’s another issue. Few people would contest their value or importance in generating quality code. So let’s assume we are happy with the value of coding standards.
So, last time I talked about how maybe we should rethink the concept of contingency in agile projects and introduced the concept of Adaptive Capacity, our ability to deal with the ever expected change. Adaptive Capacity is comprised of three major sources:
Yesterday I went along to CiviCon to see what the current state of play is with CiviCRM and was very impressed.
I've been tracking CiviCRM for a couple of years and wanted to assess CiviCRM against the criteria I use for assessing the readiness of open source software.
Where are the savings that IT can make for non-for-profit organisations?
This question has been prompted firstly by the recent Government Charity Report and secondly by a meeting we had recently with a consultant on behalf of a cross-sector organisation promoting the UK's digitally capability (which quotes NCVO identifying ICT as the biggest skill-gap in the charity sector).
Congratulations to the YHA, which has recently been recently been awarded a WebAward by the Web Marketing Association. The implementation of the site is the final piece of a significant business change programme aimed at providing better service to customers.