Skip to main content

The Garage-Sale principle and process-centricity


Ignoring the Whole is like a caller saying "Excuse me, but is this nine, four, three, seven, eight, five, four?" and a math professor responding "No, yes, no, yes, yes, no, no."

People and teams often do not see the Whole. And the result is not hilarious like the professor's response. When enterprises and software vendors do not see the Whole, the result is technology silos and poor business-IT alignment.

In The Back of the Napkin: Solving problems and selling ideas with pictures, author Dan Roam introduces The Garage-Sale Principle. "How do we even know what we've got? Regardless of how well organized all the stuff in our garage may be, laying everything out on tables in the light of day yields a completely new perspective on it all. The same is true of data: When it is packed away in individual files and records, it's impossible to look at the big picture -- but getting everything out in the open makes otherwise invisible connections visible ... great ideas emerged as people really looked at everything for the first time."

Business process centric software development uses this principle. Rather than merely "capture" the requirements for the software to be developed, process-centric approach makes you look at what I call "the process landscape." This landscape comprises not only touchpoint processes and applications, but those business processes sitting in user interfaces! In short, process-centricity brings it all out in the open -- a crucial step missed in software projects.

Check out the business process centric approach here.

Comments

  1. Any research has been done on what makes people not follow a process-centric approach?

    One observation I made in software projects: team is driven by tasks assigned to them and there is pressure to complete it on time. There is not much incentive to see the big picture or to do a process optimization before starting an application development.

    Also organizations are traditionally function oriented and do not have end-to-end process visibility. For example if a project manager make a resource request, there is hardly any visibility on the status of that request.

    What could be the several barriers for taking a process-centric approach? In fact all the Quality frameworks I know promote a process view. Even with so many quality initiatives around, why is that it is not taking roots. Does it mean that the key people in the organizations are not yet aware of the power of process centric approach? Or is it because, the traditional way of rewarding short-term gains and individual accomplishments acting as a barrier?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thomas, thanks for sharing some reasons why business process orientation is inadequate or missing in software projects. Could you also point us to some of the Quality frameworks that you say promote a business process view?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Business model intimacy

Courtesy: NobelPrize.org
The Grameen Bank success story continues to be researched and written about. Other companies have tried to repeat the Bank's model. Is there a fundamental difference between the original innovation and the followers? In MIT Sloan Management Review (Summer 2009), Erik Simanis and Stuart Hart compare the original model with that of India-based Hindustan Unilever's model and point out a crucial difference.

Grameen Bank was a result of personal bond and shared vision between Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus and Bangladeshi farmers/villagers. Yunus and the villagers spent quality time together as a community before the innovator launched the bank. While Grameen Bank became a profitable and scalable village bank, the authors say that Hindustan Unilever's project is "unlikely to grow into anything more than a new distribution channel." While Grameen Bank generated a "groundswell" of demand," Hindustan Unilver's entrepreneur turnov…

clinton/obama/media cabal to be exposed starting june14

A lot of people have surrendered themselves to be constantly duped by leftist media outlets.

The duped people now believe things that are entirely different from facts – as regards the obama/clinton/media cabal.

For the duped leftists, the coming Inspector General (IG) reports and follow-up actions (assuming they're both carried out unobstructed) will be a shock.

The shock will be so powerful, the duped leftists may react in insane and dangerous ways. (Well, they've already been behaving in such ways, but they've been doing so for a different set of reasons and largely unaware of facts.)

Broadly, the IG reports are going to be about treasonous/ unconstitutional/ illegal activities, power abuses, and obstructions for the purpose of:

1. Exonerating a criminal Hillary

2. Covering up the crimes of the Clinton folks

3. Attempts to block a presidential candidate

4. Attempts at a coup against a constitutionally elected president

5. Obstruction of presidential duties

6. Public deception…

Elon's April 1 tweets: part of an emerging leadership style?

First his tweets and then my comments ...

Tesla Goes Bankrupt
Palo Alto, California, April 1, 2018 -- Despite intense efforts to raise money, including a last-ditch mass sale of Easter Eggs, we are sad to report that Tesla has gone completely and totally bankrupt. So bankrupt, you can't believe it. — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 1, 2018
There are many chapters of bankruptcy and, as critics so rightly pointed out, Tesla has them *all*, including Chapter 14 and a half (the worst one). — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 1, 2018
Elon was found passed out against a Tesla Model 3, surrounded by "Teslaquilla" bottles, the tracks of dried tears still visible on his cheeks.

This is not a forward-looking statement, because, obviously, what's the point?

Happy New Month! pic.twitter.com/YcouvFz6Y1 — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 1, 2018
Almost all commenters appear to love Elon's April 1 tweets. But one person commented "CEOs of public companies shouldn't be putting out tw…