Apr 15 2008
Thoughts on Innovation, the Federal IT Budget and iRise
The Standish Group and others have reported over the past decade that more than 30% of all software made for users was, in hindsight, never needed or used to accomplish their mission. The project stakeholders discovered this only after the solutions were delivered at more than several thousand projects surveyed to date. Also reported widely, more than 20% of the code related to functionality and/or usability was found to be “missing” or “wrong” after the users had a chance to interact with the software in real-world mission scenarios. In the survey responses, the terms requirements “reworked” and “moved to the next release” are used interchangeable with the terms “missed”, “misunderstood”, and “changed.”
The Federal IT Budget - With the Standish statistics in mind, more than $10 billion dollars of the $70 billion dollar federal IT budget this year is earmarked for software modernization efforts. Most American citizens and government employees know these efforts are long overdue. The opportunity exists to reduce this expenditure by more than 10% or alternatively to get more for the taxpayer dollars invested on projects already in flight. There is a rapidly increasing “expectations gap” by users and acquirers alike as to what “good software” means for individuals and organizations to take care of business and fulfill assigned missions, tasks and goals.
The Government Needs To Innovate - Michael Schrage, a senior adviser to MIT’s Security Studies Programwrites, “Innovation’ isn’t what innovators do….it’s what customers and clients adopt. His research and advisory work explores the role of models, prototypes and simulations as collaborative media for managing innovation and risk. His ongoing work on strategic and “just-in-time” experimentation is at the core of several corporate transformation efforts. His insights into the economics of “hyperinnovation,” “‘iterative capital” and “innovation cross-subsidies” are redefining executive investment criteria for supply chain and customer relationship initiatives.” He is the author of Serious Play: How the World’s Best Companies Simulate to Innovate. In the forward provided by Tom Peters, author of In Search of Excellence; Tom writes, “this is simply the best book written on innovation I’ve ever read.” …. “Read! Act! Now!”, he concludes.
Robert Austin, Harvard Chair of the CIO Executive Program focuses on management of innovative and knowledge intensive activities, especially as applied in creative industries and information technology management. He has written on these issues in Artful Making: What Managers Need to Know About How Artists Work (co-authored with Lee Devin) and The Role of IT in Innovation-Based Value Creation; where Rob writes, “it will soon be all too apparent. IT, finally mature enough to think of itself as an old dog, very badly needs a new trick.”
Partnering With The Government - Richard Frost is a Global Director at General Motors where he has responsibility for driving systems development, software engineering, and program management globally, including agile development, streamlined development processes, and requirements visualization. As a senior advisor to the SEI CMMI for Acquisition (CMMI-ACQ), a collaborative effort of GM, DoD and NASA, Rich has helped identify best practices for systems acquisition at GM and is helping incorporate these into a CMMI framework for the customers of technology.
Through innovation and partnerships like GM’s collaboration with SEI, iRise’s expansion into the Federal Market announced last month is tasked with saving the Federal Government a “fistful of cash” and helping accelerate the software modernization efforts over the next several years.
Good morning Dean,
I was wondering if you could help me understand the correlation between iRise and CMMI-ACQ? I understand how iRise optimizes CMMI best practices, but still trying to pin down how iRise and CMMI-ACQ assist each other. Thanks so much Dean!
Best Regards,
Jim Davis
Jim,
Please also see my response at this location: http://www.irise.com/blog/index.php/2008/06/26/the-correlation-between-cmmi-acq-and-irise-visualization/
Rich Frost from GM, Keith Glennan from NGC and Michael Schrage from MIT helped me correlate this during a roundtable event in Washington DC on May 9th. http://www.irise.com/summit/washdc_summit_email_v2.php
The cost of rapid iterative prototyping/modeling/simulation (i.e. visualizations) have dropped by more than an order of magnitude in both time and cost, during the past decade according to Michael Schrage.
If you take the notion that CMMI is about improving the process of development (being a better supplier) - then CMMI ACQ is about improving the process of being a better customer (acquirer.)
One way to do this is for customers to demonstrate (”demo”) to their IT suppliers and partners what “capabilities” they want, need, and value; and believe that their users will readily adopt and use.
Another way to so this is for IT suppliers to demo to their customers and clients (collaboratively / iteratively) solutions – taking into account that customers do not (really) know what they want…until they see it and can interact with it (or so I have been told.)
If it only costs pennies on the dollar to visualize a multi-hundred dollar software modernization effort before writing one line of code, would you not do this to improve the acquisition process?
Best regards,
Dean