We really need to rethink the metasystems around these kinds of projects. A $1bn government payroll project is like the canonical "project that is guaranteed to suck" but realistically this extends pretty widely.
These custom software builds, built around specific corporations, with all the sales and account management and expectation planning and making sure that *when" this fails, it is the other party's fault....
Reminiscent of the state of Indiana's lawsuit against IBM for allegedly botching a project to automate the state's welfare system — lots of finger-pointing on both sides; the trial court's 65-page decision started out with the words, "Neither party deserves to win this case" [0]. The case has been up to the Indiana Supreme Court already [1]; on remand last summer, the trial court found that IBM is liable for USD $128…
Sales and Engineering - very different competencies. Companies like IBM are NOT technology companies. They are sales-culture oriented, and their product HAPPENS TO BE technology. In fact you could argue, the only way to win big enterprise contracts in the first place, is to be a sales-culture company. But after selling the deal, their workers have to solve a difficult engineering and organizational management problem…
I wholly disagree with your criticism of the middle. The original article points to the cause of failure which was dismissal of SMEs prior to deployment. Almost all projects of this size are doomed to complexity overload but that is surmountable, but loss of Product Owners and SMEs is not.
Sales and Engineering - very different competencies. Companies like IBM are NOT technology companies. They are sales-culture oriented, and their product HAPPENS TO BE technology. In fact you could argue, the only way to win big enterprise contracts in the first place, is to be a sales-culture company. But after selling the deal, their workers have to solve a difficult engineering and organizational management problem…
The project sizes are fine. The team sizes are too large. There's too much empire building and career-minded politicking going on in companies of this size, which gets in the way of actually working on the product. Managers increase scope to increase their budget, then do busy make-work to justify the budget so they can get more next round. The engineers need to look busy even though things aren't defined, and optimi…
This is the correct answer. I saw it first hand how PM and engineers don't care about the product, they just care about their careers and company internal metrics.
Hard to have an opinion without knowing the details but from my little experience I feel like the reason why these big project fail is not so much because they are too complex, I am sure a good (not excellent) developper could come up with an algorithm and data structure generic enough to accomodate all corner cases. But because these big projects start from a preexisting solution (PeopleSoft in this case), that wasn’t designed for this particular complexity, so it requires orders more energy to go around its limitations, and the people staffed by the likes of IBM on these projects are usually project managers with little to no programming skills and little domain knowledge. So you end up with a disaster for things that aren’t that complicated (custom shifts for coast guards and prison guards doesn’t look like a hard computer science problem).
Having worked on similar things on a smaller scale but higher up the chain, I can tell you the list of possible issues is a mile long. Everything from lack of leadership and conflicting goals to ever-changing scopes and insufficient resources is a candidate for the big blame. A lot of people, organizations, and systems have to work well together to succeed. As techies, we think the technical solution is the most supe…
And, often times that discussion leads to a decision maker saying - that shouldn't be the case, it's your problem, not ours that you can't handle that. So you end up assigning someone to 8+ hours of work to do it, you also have to end up having 2-4 meetings on the topic, and on and on.
8 hours of work to fix a small issue like this one is just bad design. In this case using php.
Not having ever worked on anything like this, the death knell for these projects must be the inability to ever reduce functionality into a reasonable core set. Basically the 80/20 rule but where there are practically an infinite number of edge cases that stretch the project on indefinitely? You could serve 80% of the payroll burden with software that cost $10m. 90% coverage costs $100m. 98% costs $1,000m. And 100% co…
> You could serve 80% of the payroll burden with software that cost $10m. 90% coverage costs $100m. 98% costs $1,000m. And 100% costs $∞ I read something in a trade journal probably probably about 15 years ago, that really stuck with me: When businesses buy big software solutions (I think the article was about ERP systems), they should prepare to adjust and change their processes (within reason, of course) and not ju…
Except that there are often legal reasons for things to be in a weird way. Or it would require a long negociation with trade unions and 3 strikes. I have some sympathy for the complexity large organisations (public or private) have to deal with (even if “keeping it simple” is still too underrated). I have way less sympathy for the ERP software than can only handle one use case and then it takes a bunch of non technical consultants months to hack a way around the ERP through configuration when really the problem is that the ERP has been designed in a too narrow minded way or that the consultants aren’t the right people for the job.
I was the CTO for a large, Fortune 100 company. When I first took over the position I would regularly get requirements documents for internal projects that were 3 or 400 hundred pages. The project team would dutifully carry out the requirements gathering process, everything was meticulously documented, with data flows, and process maps, etc. Everything was a requirement, everything was mandatory, and everything had t…
I disagree, IBM is a multifaceted company. These kinds of projects fall under what used to be called IBM Global Services https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Global_Services . It could be compared somewhat to EDS (HP), Accenture, Perot Systems (Dell) etc. I've never heard of over-delivery from any of these kinds of outsourcing arrangements, they always seem so obviously destined for boondoggle. IBM proper, the one that…
I’m surprised the Stratix FPGA platform isn’t getting more marketing. Half a TiB/s memory bandwidth [0] (white paper) when GPU’s memory transfer is the bulk of the overhead could help Intel make up for lost gains in SIMD application marketshare. [0]: https://www.altera.com/content/dam/altera-www/global/en_US/p...
Maybe misparented comment?
HP has GenZ, IBM is going to move from DDR or DDR buffers to CAPI attached RAM -- expect to see HBM2 attached to CPUs in 2019. I'd be happy to discuss that kind of thing in email.
Anybody have any insight on what it feels like working as consultant on such a huge failure? I (or my department, but honestly mostly me) once failed, as a consultant, to successfully deliver on a $50k contract and I felt like absolute shit for weeks and had trouble sleeping. I'd hate to think how it would feel to fail on this scale. Or is it a situation where the whole thing is so large and diffuse that no one can honestly be said to be responsible.