Globalization at the turning point: A Perspective from the great surges model.

Professor Carlotta Perez has been one of the many Professors that I keep a close eye on. Her work is in the area of long wave economic theorists. Defining two distinctive periods of time marked by change. The installation period, and the deployment period. I found this abstract to a seminar that she is holding at Sussex University. Within this abstract, she calls the current time period as the "Turning Point between the two periods." A very important point in time.

Abstract:

Though Schumpeter himself emphasised the double agency of the entrepreneur and the financier in the innovation process, neo-Schumpeterians have generally neglected the role of finance in technological diffusion. The great surges model proposed by the author addresses these complementary roles and suggests that the propagation of technological revolutions has historically involved two distinct periods of two or three decades each: The Installation period, led by financial capital and characterized by radical innovations or creative destruction and the Deployment period, led by production capital and marked by processes of expansive growth that could be termed “creative construction”. After indicating the differences with Schumpeter’s long wave model, it will be argued that, at present, the diffusion of the ICT revolution is at the Turning Point between the two periods. The world economy would be in a phase of instability, imbalances and income polarisation, calling for institutional changes as profound as those of Bretton Woods and the Welfare State, which enabled the full flourishing of the previous technological revolution, that of mass production and its “Fordist” paradigm. On this occasion, due to the nature of the “Knowledge Society” and the flexible ICT paradigm, much institutional innovation would need to be at the global level. Thus, seen from the great surges model, globalisation would be at the crossroads choosing a path between two extremes in the current “space of the possible”: between creating the institutional conditions for a global “golden age” that would be a positive-sum game for all countries, developed and developing, or letting the short-term criteria of the financial world continue to guide investment towards what is likely to result in merely “a gilded age” of polarised incomes, very uneven growth and an incomplete realisation of the wealth generating potential of the ICT paradigm.

Carlota Perez is Professor of Technology and Socio-economic Development at the Technological University of Tallinn, Estonia, currently Visiting Senior Research Fellow at CERF (Cambridge Endowment for Research in Finance), Judge Business School, Cambridge University, and Honorary Research Fellow at SPRU. Originally from Venezuela, where she served as Director of Technology Policy at the Ministry of Industry, she is also an international lecturer and consultant, specialised in the social and economic impact of technical change and in the historically changing conditions for growth, development, innovation and competitiveness. As such, she has worked for various public and private organisations, for major corporations and governments in Latin America, North America and Europe, as well as for the EU, the OECD, the UN and other international agencies.

For many years she has collaborated with Chris Freeman in the study of long waves and techno-economic paradigms

Carlota Perez’ articles from the early 1980s and her book Technological Revolutions and Financial Capital: the Dynamics of Bubbles and Golden Ages (Elgar 2002) have contributed to the present understanding of the relationship between technical and institutional change, between finance and technological diffusion and between technology and economic development. ISBN 1843763311

Technorati Tags: Genesys, Perez, Call-to-Action, Trends

Change artists; Stories from the Real World: CEOs, CIOs and Change

HP in cooperation with CNN and CIO Magazine have produced a series of videos focusing on change, and particularly technological change in organizations. Click on the title of this entry, registration is necessary to review the videos, and I highly recommend it.

A particularly interesting video is the Chevron CTO Don Paul talking about his business. If only we had such progressive forward thinking leaders here in Calgary.

Technorati Tags: Genesys, Video, Development, Innovation

Enterprise search and security.

In the User Vision I noted the ability to search the domain of the user. A far easier thing to say then it is to do. Consider for a moment the number of companies within the industry. Consider the number of Joint Operating Committee's (JOC's) they participate in, and then consider the number of users that will be involved in preparing and using corporate data. Access to the user's domain when they may fulfill different roles in different JOC's for different client companies, one begins to see the issue regarding their ability to search for their information.

The idea that search and security would be linked would have seemed oxymoronic a few years ago. How could search maintain and build upon the security of a Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) such as the one being written about in this blog. Firstly the top priority of any development and operation of any application of this type is the quality, integrity and security of the data that is being used by producers and users. At the same time search will become an indispensable competitive tool for any oil and gas producer. Access through extensive, state of the art search technologies is a critical requirement for the oil and gas producer and user. Another critical issue is the users expectation of near single shot relevancy being provided by search giant Google. A little review of the features of the technological architecture as it is proposed here is as follows.

Authorized access will be granted to users through the world wide web. Recall that the use of a private network using IPv6 provides enhanced security that is inherent in the protocol. The producers will also access their applications from the Grid that is owned and operated as a service by Sun Microsystem. Hosting of the Genesys application by Sun provides a level of third party reliability and security that is necessary for the application. Genesys will focus on research and development of systems, not compete with Sun on infrastructure.

Each producer will have a virtualized Solaris environment on the Grid, Ingress Open Source Database Instance, and Genesys Application Server all operating side by side with other producers, possibly on the same processor. This will provide, and it stands to reason that firewall and other security requirements are already in place, each producer will access their, and only their application and data. In addition each virtualized environment will have a Google Enterprise Search Appliance maintaining the access, control list, search security, and search index's. Information about Google's Enterprise Search Appliance can be found here, and their Enterprise blog here. Information on Sun's virtualization of Solaris is here.

Deciding between money, time, and / or quality, as with any system development you are entitled to two of these objectives at the expense of the third. In the case of search security, and security in general time and quality will be at the expense of money. Although the Solaris user and Ingress user accounts are free as they are open source, they do command large fees for services of operation, the Google Search Appliance is also relatively expensive.

I found a website and consulting firm that has dedicated themselves to enterprise search and security. Idea Engineering have a newsletter that provides the necessary discussion of many of the issues companies will need to address in the future. I am highlighting a series of articles they wrote in a series of newsletters that provide value for the readers here. The series of articles are here, here and here.

A couple of the assumptions that I am operating under should be stated explicitly. We have design freedom in terms of how the application is built. Secondly, we have the cost of 1 Million Instruction Per Second (MIPS) of processing power is now $0.01 (processor costs only), enabling intense, yet affordable processing capability. Think encryption, virtualization of each producer each employee, heavy and multiple indexing algorithms and access control lists, processing demand will be very high. Add the unique perspectives that are part of this blog like Military Command Structures, Single Sign On (SSO) which is a necessary feature.

Lastly the manner that I see this application being built is through the ultimate users. What I would like to see happen is that a discussion around these points fill in some of the detail and ferret out the finer points and issues. It is the users application and their involvement is being called on for this critical issue.

Technorati Tags: Genesys, User, Vision, Data, Search, Security

Professor Whitesides, on MIT Video

This video has an interesting point of view, one that states the United States will at least be challenged for leadership in science and technology. Professor Whitesides suggests that areas such as K - 12 education need to be amended to accommodate the ways that academia and corporate research are undertaken.

Two of the important points that he suggests is that the Chinese have a very low cost structure. This cost structure extends in all areas of their economy and includes research. Noting the Chinese also have very large foreign currency reserves that could be used to help sustain the long lead times necessary in research. This provides them the opportunity to challenge and possibly lead the world in research and science.

Professor Whitesides notes that energies problems will require science and technologies to advance to solve these issues. I would suggest that this is correct, the problems are many, they are diverse in nature, and are key to a countries competitive position. I have suggested here that the oil and gas industry needs to aggressively employ the sciences in order to meet these challenges. I have also suggested that the tie in to the academic community is necessary. As Professor Dosi has suggested technology influences science, and science influences technology. Industry and academia need to be working together. And to do this effectively I believe industry needs to reorganize themselves for these purposes around the Joint Operating Committee. A bureaucracy will most certainly fail in these critical energy challenges.

The question and answer session in the last half of this video is a must watch as well. The participants for this presentation are the who's who in terms of who is interested in providing solutions to these issues.

Technorati Tags: Genesys, Knowledge, Research, Engineering, Science

What I would do.

In the instance of having some companies with qualified opinions on their financial statements. If this project was proceeding as it should, I would have struck a committee of the large accounting firms to discuss what would be necessary to ensure that the companies had unqualified opinions next year. And then set out to do just that.

The source of this problem is the sale of Qbyte last year by IBM. The new vendors gave notice that it would not support Qbyte after 2009, and therefore has put the energy companies in a situation where on a go forward basis they have to qualify their opinions in the financial statements.

Why did IBM sell? Their frustration with the industry to do anything with their systems on a go forward basis was discussed many times in the past. What were they to do? I can't blame them in the least.

The industry reaps what it sows.

Technorati Tags: Genesys, Team-Failures, Call-to-Action, Alternative

Annual Report Season

Canadian Natural Resources Ltd have filed their 2006 annual report. Within its financial statements there is a small qualification of managements opinion on internal controls. But first lets go back to 2005 to see what they wrote.

The accompanying consolidated financial statements and all information in the annual report are the responsibility of management. The consolidated financial statements have been prepared by management in accordance with the accounting policies in the notes to the consolidated financial statements. Where necessary, management has made informed judgements and estimates in accounting for transactions that were not complete at the balance sheet date. In the opinion of management, the financial statements have been prepared in accordance with Canadian generally accepted accounting principles appropriate in the circumstances. The financial information elsewhere in the annual report has been reviewed to ensure consistency with that in the consolidated financial statements. Management maintains appropriate systems of internal control. Policies and procedures are designed to give reasonable assurance that transactions are appropriately authorized, assets are safeguarded from loss or unauthorized use and financial records are properly maintained to provide reliable information for preparation of financial statements.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, an independent firm of Chartered Accountants, has been engaged, as approved by a vote of the shareholders at the Company’s most recent Annual General Meeting, to examine the consolidated financial statements in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards in Canada and provide an independent professional opinion. Their report is presented with the consolidated financial statements. The Board of Directors (the “Board”) is responsible for ensuring that management fulfills its responsibilities for financial reporting and internal controls. The Board exercises this responsibility through the Audit Committee of the Board. This committee, which is comprised of nonmanagement directors, meets with management and the external auditors to satisfy itself that management responsibilities are properly discharged and to review the consolidated financial statements before they are presented to the Board for approval. The consolidated financial statements have been approved by the Board on the recommendation of the Audit Committee.

And for 2006

Management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting for the Company as defined in Rule 15(d)-15(f) under the United States Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Management, together with the Company’s President and Chief Operating Officer and the Company’s Chief Financial Officer and Senior Vice-President, Finance, performed an assessment of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting based on the criteria established in Internal Control – Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). Based on the assessment, management, together with the Company’s President and Chief Operating Officer and the Company’s Chief Financial Officer and Senior Vice-President, Finance, has concluded that the Company’s internal control over financial reporting is effective as at December 31, 2006. Management recognizes that all internal control systems have inherent limitations. Because of its inherent limitations,internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.

Management’s assessment of the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting as at December 31, 2006, has been audited by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, independent auditors, as stated in their report presented with the audited consolidated financial statements.

Well who would have thought, sounds like a systems related argument that has been discussed here many times. I'll let you know of whom's head I see rolling down 5th Avenue first.

Technorati Tags: Genesys, Governance, Call-to-Action, Failure

Technology, Entrepreneurship, and Inequality

Alfonso Gambardella, Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy

David Ulph UK government, London, UK

February 2003

This paper has some interesting insights as to the makeup of the skilled vs. unskilled workers within oil and gas. The number of unskilled workers in the energy industry is very small. Weather it is in the offices of downtown Calgary or in the field, the level of skill is generally very high. Since we are primarily concerned with the head office staff we can focus just on that "high skilled" group. The research done by these authors provides a good understanding of how the energy industry as it stands today, may evolve.

"This paper develops a model that compares some implications of the rise of these new industries with the traditional organization of firms and sectors based upon the large integrated companies of Chandlerian memory (Chandler, 1990). Our model yields three main insights.

The contrast of the authors in terms of firms is very high. To compare the Chandlerian firm with its structured hierarchy and emphasis on process and regimen, vs., the purely entrepreneurial company that can best be summarized as a Silicon Valley firm. And the two types of workers that are employed at each type of firm. The Silicon Valley skilled vs. the unskilled in the Chanlerian firm are fundamentally different.

"First, our two archetypes - Silicon Valley and the Chandlerian firm - entail two different degrees of inequality between the earnings of the skilled and unskilled workers." pp. 1

"Second, apart from skill-intensity, a notable feature of the new industries is that they entail knowledge externalities." pp. 1

"Third, our model shows that the marginal effect of an increase in the relative supply of skilled people on the total income (and therefore on the total output) of the economy is always higher in the equilibrium where the new industries dominate vis-a-vis the other. The intuition is intriguing as it is a natural upshot of inequality. If the skill premium is higher, then as the marginal unskilled worker becomes skilled, the raise in her income will be higher than if the economy was in the less unequal equilibrium" pp. 2

Which is the logical conclusion to the use of their model. Creating an equillibrium that is unique to the situation, and that is reflected clearly in the next quotation.

"Put simply, German skilled workers, with potential employment in companies like BMW, Bayer or Mercedes, have higher opportunity costs of setting up their own firms vis-a-vis Indian or Israeli engineers." pp. 4

With so much to lose by taking a risk as an independent machinist, it would be foolhardy to attempt entrepreneurship in a country like Germany. And in India it may be the only manner in which a highly skilled machinist could exercise the value of their skills. I would suggest that the equilibrium of highly skilled workers in the energy sector provides little incentive or disincentive for the worker to take a risk in an entrepreneurial fashion. Therefore a mix of both contracting and employment approaches exist for a person to being hired in oil and gas. With some companies such as Encana employing a 50% employee 50% contractor human resource strategy.

"Our model shows that a large relative supply of skilled people is likely to imply a higher total income in the Silicon Valley equilibrium vis-a-vis the one dominated by Chandlerian firms. This suggests that, as the relative supply of skills rises, skilled people may "direct" technical and organizational change towards the formation of new firms and industries that are skill-intensive, rely on knowledge externalities, etc., whereby their inventive capabilities can be best exploited." pp. 5

Well that is music to my ears. The high skilled labor would "direct technical and organizational change towards the formation of new firms and industries." I would normally be on the verge of describing this research as a call to action.

Conclusions

"In sum, the large Chandlerian firm has been a notable shield against inequality across skills for many years. At the same time, the knowledge spillovers produced by the new industries imply that the rise of such industries require co-ordination, which gives rise to multiple equilibria. This explains why even when comparing similar countries or regions, either the traditional sectors or the new business models dominate." pp. 31

Technorati Tags: Genesys, Call-to-Action, Lem, Research, Trends

We've been Haacked!

And I do like it. Phil Haack runs a blog that

"attempts to infuse technology and software development with humor and a pragmatic eye... Attempts."

Phil read one of my recent posts and commented on it in his blog.

I certainly would welcome Phil and his community to have a look at this early stage project. The scope is large and therefore, "one day", will have ample amounts of paid developers working on it. No time like the present for a little introduction, and self-promotion, I think.

Technorati Tags: Genesys, Development, Open-Source, Software

Silence Fails, Part B

Continuing on with Silence Fails and the impact that the documents 5 crucial problems have raised.

Starting with the Conclusion on page 18.

"Although Silence Fails focuses on important findings that can predict and explain failure, the most important implication of the study is that potential leaders have to influence success." pp. 18

More then anything the energy industry needs this project to be a success. The time, money and effort that needs to be channeled through this project is not something that can fail. I believe fundamentally the ability for the industry to increase its throughput capacity requires fundamental revolutionary change in the manner that people organize themselves and conduct their work. The time for this to start is not after this software is built, but now, starting today the user needs to be the influence and drive to make this real and successful. Now that this paper Silence Fails has enabled me to dispatch the wrong approach, its time to start planning how the process gets under way. I think Google is going to be announcing the integration of JotSpot into Google Docs & Spreadsheets. This will enable me to put up all the blogs content on that Wiki and have any and all people that this project appeals to to begin posting their content. From there the users will determine what's in and what's out and what should be there. The project scope, the budget etc.

First lets continue on with the review.

Getting People to Speak Up Well.

This is something that I can see is important and I think I have been able to maintain the scope of the project as a result. Many times I have been approached with alternative methods of dealing with this project. A compromise here and a compromise there and the project is on a go forward basis. This hasn't happened because the time and effort necessary for success is not there. You also can not compromise on such a large and important project as the basis of the first step. If it is necessary to say no, I apparently have said so. The paper deals with this specifically;

"Across the problem areas, about half of leaders make some attempt to speak up. But most are ineffective. Some speak up but they water down their concerns, so the issues are never fully aired. Some speak up but do so in a way that provokes defensiveness from others. And a handful - are able to share their full concerns by the end of the conversation, feel their views are understood and respected."

and

"The study also shows that while the skill of the initiator is a key ingredient in ensuring these crucial conversations are held well, the receptiveness of the other party is similarly important."

"Unless and until leaders take extraordinary measure to ensure their environment is conducive to holding crucial conversations, a number of issues will remain unaddressed, invisible, and fatal."

The authors then note a number of key steps to make the changes that are necessary for this project.

Develop a Business Case for Change:

• Begin by making the problem visible. Track and publish data about project successes and failures.
• Distribute Silence Fails to generate discussion about the root cause of current under performance.
• Engage senior leaders in a "listening campaign" where they lead structured focus groups to validate whether these crucial problems affect current results.

Well I have been doing this with the blog but that is not enough. As soon as I get a Wiki up and operational it will enable more voices to express what they want in terms of systems etc. I am also hopeful that I can find the kind of software that prepares and manages the Java Community Process. Have a look it's ideal for the purposes of this project.

Measure Behaviors

What gets measured gets done. The authors have prepared a Silence Fails Assessment to help measure and monitor the conversations that need to be carried out. The scoring of this assessment will help the project leaders assess where the conversation is missing and initiate steps to get it back on track.

Invest in Skills

The two sponsoring firms in addition to preparing the report and assessment, have prepared training materials in this area for project managers. This is of course how they make their money. The training looks to be very thorough and is designed to teach the project managers how to carry out these difficult conversations. I believe these programs have value and will explore them when we get our funding. Until that time I will have to muddle through with the material that has been published by the two sponsors The Concours Groups and VitalSmarts. In addition, the program states;

Hold Senior Management Accountable

Ultimately this project will survive and endure the difficult road ahead through the determination of a few strong CEO's in the marketplace. Their commitment to making this project successful can not wane or fade.

"Make leaders the teachers. People will change their behavior more rapidly if leaders deliver the training than if staff trainers or outside consultants do so. When leaders teach, the speed of change can be two or three time greater than when those who aren't as credible and connected in the organization lead instruction."

Make Heroes of Early Adopters

In order for the candid comments and conversations to be carried out The early adopters of these principles, the ones who stand up and take a risk and raise the conversation should be identified publicly with the recognition and support of the project leadership.

"Be sure to send a clear and public message that these conversations aren't just important, they're crucial and those who raise them are highly valued."

Technorati Tags: Genesys, Silence-Fails, AWOL-Sponsors, Call-to-Action, Team-Failures, Project-Chicken, Skirting, Fact-Free-Planning

Silence Fails, Part A

The title of this entry will take you to a website that will enable you to download a .pdf entitled Silence Fails.

In the process of determining what the proposal for the targeted 135 producers (T135) will be. It is necessary to review the project completely. The scope has changed slightly. The target market is different and I think they need a fundamentally different approach. Particularly from the point of view of the knowledge, ideas and undertakings discussed here in this blog. These ideas and the basic premise that the Joint Operating Committee (JOC) is the key organizational construct for oil and gas. Unless they stumbled onto the blog they would have heard very little about this project. Specifically the May 2004 research report was not targeted at them. Times have changed and the need to start over again is the approach that has to be made to them. Therefore I have revised the first years budget requirements at $375,000.00 and will be looking for a number of T135 producers fund this first year. The purpose of these funds has changed radically as well. As opposed to doing any construction of the project deliverables I want to create a number of "conversations" with the industry. This will be done by continuing on with reviewing the pertinent academic research as I have been on the innovation in oil and gas blog. This is the most effective area of where I can spend the next year. The addition of a Wiki to deal with the project scope, budget, deliverables and associated material gets developed. These need to be determined through the population of users that this project is targeted at. They need to be involved in these determinations. This change in tactical approach is as a result of the prompting of the "Silence Fails" research report that I am in receipt of.

Silence Fails is the name of a research report that has been published by it two research sponsors VitalSmarts and The Concours Group. These companies are described as follows.

VitalSmarts
"An innovator in corporate training and organizational performance, VitalSmarts helps teams and organizations achieve the results they care about most. With award-winning training products based on more than 25 years of ongoing research, VitalSmarts has helped more than 300 of the Fortune 500 realize significant results using a proven method for driving rapid, sustainable, and measurable change in behaviors. VitalSmarts has been ranked twice by Inc. magazine as one of the fastest growing companies in America and has trained more than 500,000 people worldwide"

The Concours Group
"The Concours Group is a new breed of professional services firm, supporting senior executives through the blend of leading-edge intellectual capital and pragmatic business applications. The firm works with more than 300 of the Global 1,000 firms, helping leaders turn human and technological potential into business value. The Concours Institute is the research and education arm of The Concours Group. Concours research discovers and develops future best practices in business, technology, and human capital; its education articulates them and motivates their adoption; and its innovative senior-person Advisory Services enables clients to implement them quickly and achieve business results."

The sponsors research involved approaching a variety of companies with more then 2,200 projects ranging from $10,000 to billion dollar organizational restructuring efforts. It sounds like these research projects are almost directly in-line within the scope of what this project entails, organizational change with information technology.

Silence Fails; The Five Crucial Conversations for Flawless Execution.

The project focused on five conversations that should occur within the project, however rarely do. These five conversations, or rather their lack of them, were determined to be the reason for "91% of all large scale corporate initiatives fail". These five conversations make it clear to me that I was on the wrong path. Expecting that a top heavy project would be able to lead the Users to the ultimate destination of better systems is clearly the result of the lack of the conversations that need to be done. Going through these five conversations also show me how it could be done with less risk, greater accountability and potential success.

The five conversations are simply conversations that should be carried out, but aren't for a variety of human resource and psychological reasons. They are:

• "Fact Free Planning"
• "A project is set up to fail when deadlines or resource limits are set with no consideration for reality."
• "Away With Out Leave (AWOL) Sponsors"
• "A sponsor doesn't provide leadership, political clout, time, or energy to see a project through to completion."
• "Skirting"
• "People work around the priority-setting process."
• "Project Chicken"
• "Team leaders and members don't admit when there are problems with a project but instead wait for someone else to speak up."
• "Team Failures"
• "Team members are unwilling or unable to support the project."

This listing does not provide a lot of comfort that this would be an appropriate direction to follow. But reading the entire report gives a perspective that transcends just the listing of the necessary conversations. Reviewing the report provides an understanding of why projects fail implicitly. Anyone who has worked on projects will understand why these conversations will have an effect on the outcome of projects. So lets look at each conversation and attempt to capture what the research report is providing.

The Silent Crisis

To mitigate failure, management has turned to hedge against failure by implementing
"Formal systems. Over the past twenty years, project professionals and management experts have focused on improving the formal systems related to program governance, project management, and project related technologies." pp. 3
"This study... demonstrates that project leaders can substantially improve their organizations ability to execute on high-stakes projects and initiatives by breaking a code of silence on five astoundingly common yet largely un-discussed and ignored problems that contribute significantly to almost all project failures." pp. 3

Key Findings

"When one or more of these problems is not controlled - or not confronted well - it festers, sets off workarounds, and produces politics." pp. 5

One of the key findings is that when four out of five of the projects fail when one or more of these conversations is missing. The good news is that one in five projects succeeds because the conversation was used by the project leaders or the project was turned around based on introducing the conversations. The authors of this report go on to note;

• "Does it affect project success when project leaders speak up effectively?"
• "Can others be taught to speak up more skillfully with similar results?"

"The resounding answer to each of these questions is yes". pp. 5
"Senior leaders can predict and prevent the failure of high-stakes business initiatives by creating a culture where the five conversations are held quickly and effectively. Silence Fails Also provides insights and recommendation on how senior leaders can develop a business case for change, measure behaviors, invest in skills, hold senior management accountable, and make heroes of early adopters." pp. 6

Crucial Problem # 1:
Fact Free Planning
"A project is set up to fail when deadlines or resource limits are set with no consideration for reality." pp. 8

To this I plead guilty. Using a top down approach as I did, didn't feel right. Yet this un-asked question was never raised outside of the comment that the total amount that was deemed necessary was "sticker shock" the real and necessary conversation about the resources and the sources of project funding did not occur. Therefore it is necessary to start this conversation and have the input from all stakeholders and users detail a plan and budget that can instill the accountability and ownership to the agreed to deliverables. Immediately I can see one source of this problem being the users. In retrospect I was expecting the users to provide their involvement and participation out of the greater good of their employer or in the case of independent workers their time. This is wrong and the developers and users should be paid equally to provide the long term motivation and sustenance of the project. This will form the basis of the conversation as we go forward. It should also be understood that the resources to carry out this conversation are not available. Participation in this next / first year should provide some direction with respect to who the leaders and resources are in the user community so that when the project does have its sponsors their participation can be recognized. The report goes on to say.

"Fact free planning reflects bad planning behaviors at every level. When project leaders realize these practices are taking place, they must be willing and able to call the bluff. If they avoid this crucial conversation and either commit to something they know can't happen or fake their way to success, they set themselves and their projects up to fail."

"Similarly, executives who avoid discussing their doubts about an estimates validity or the team's competence instead use their power in a way that generates political rather than valid agreements. Then when failures follow, their doubts about the team are confirmed, and they feel justified in using more fact-free planning to re-establish their sense of control."

The only way out of this vicious cycle is for project leaders and executives to candidly and effectively express their suspicions, doubts, and data. While these crucial conversations aren't easy, they are the only path to rational commitments."

How common are these problems? Eighty-Five percent of project leaders are faced with "fact-free planning"."

Crucial Problem # 2
AWOL Sponsors
"A sponsor doesn't provide leadership, political clout, time, or energy to see a project through to completion."

Not something that I want to experience. This is a long life project and to have sponsors disappear is not what I want for this project. I don't even know of whom the project sponsor would be. Since this is an industry wide initiative the need to have several committed to the success would be necessary, and therefore possibly the CEO's. This conversation therefore needs to be undertaken in the next year with the funding being sourced.

"Project Sponsors are responsible to provide leadership and political support. And they frequently don't. When the sponsor is AWOL, the project team is stranded and exposed. They're sent off to accomplish a task and don't have the firepower needed to implement the project. For example, key leaders whose help or resources are needed to enable the project may not come through, and the sponsor who has the organizational muscle to hold them accountable fails to do so." pp. 11

Crucial Problem # 3
Skirting
"People work around the priority-setting process."

"Powerful stakeholders and senior leaders often skirt the formal decision making, planning, and prioritization processes. They need what they need, and they don't want to be burdened with practical considerations. So they work around the process. The results are often outrageous overcommitment, disappointment, and burnout. Projects get approved for which there are no resources, scope creep bloats approved projects far beyond the resources originally budgeted, and team members deliver a succession of disappointing results from battered morale."

Yikes this one hurts just thinking about the possibility. The authors break this category down even further into the various culprits that cause skirting.

• New projects added without revisiting priorities. 59%
• Too many projects on my plate. 53%
• Politics determine highest priorities. 52%
• Too many high priority on my plate. 52%
• Low priority projects become emergencies. 49%
• Some projects should be cancelled but are not. 33%

Crucial Problems # 4
Project Chicken
Team Leaders and members don't admit when there are problems with a project but instead wait for someone else to speak up first.

"When project leaders play project chicken, the status and review process becomes a joke. The team loses opportunities to gracefully respond to problems by revising goal, shifting resources, reorganizing plans, and more. Instead, the project hurtles forward on a collision course with failure while everyone watches - nervous but silent."

As with all of these crucial problems, the issue resonates with the experience and understanding of why some things did not work.

Crucial Problem # 5
Team Failures
Team Members are unwilling or unable to support the project.

Firstly the change I mentioned in Crucial Problem # 1 where users will be compensated for their efforts as well as the developers will help mitigate this problems exposure. Specific problems include Team members;

• Don't have the right skill set for the projects. 55%
• Don't put enough time or energy into the project. 51%
• Not raising issues when they are met. 48%
• Not making a real contribution. 46%
• Don't attend meetings or respond to requests. 43%
• Are difficult to work with. 42%
• Are remote or otherwise not participating fully. 23%

In terms of expecting the user to contribute to this project on a volunteer basis is foolhardy.

This glaring problem of the users not getting compensated was not seen earlier by me, but thankfully has been rectified. How many more of these types of problems are lurking in this project, to be honest most if not all these are resident within the project. Effectively with this posting I am setting this project back to day one for a re-start. The need to have the resources be represented in the necessary discussion's is obvious for this projects success. As I indicated I will continue to conduct the research that I was doing, the review of the LEM working paper series, and the authors that are on topic with the efforts in this new community. Secondly, with the budget for next year, I will set up and maintain a Wiki and run the Collabnet software so that the community process is completed in the time frame that is requires. I would suggest that this may involve more then one year to establish and conduct these conversations. The key point is, the time - line needs to be established in these conversations. What I can do to help this process is contained within the second entry of this paper I will publish on Wednesday.

Technorati Tags: Genesys, Fact-Free-Planning, AWOL-Sponsors, Skirting, Project-Chicken, Team-Failures, Silence-Fails