Simon Battersby

Not all problems can be solved by throwing more resources at them.

A few years ago I worked on a programme with three or four workstreams, with maybe 70 or so people in all. For various reasons, the requirements were relatively fluid, and because the programme was quite large, there was a danger of some design decisions being made without taking the full picture into account.

The master stroke (and I can’t claim responsibility), was to set up a small team, with one person responsible across the programme for requirements, one person responsible for technical design, and one person responsible for build. This team achieved a vast amount in only a few weeks in aligning the requirements, assuring the design, and generally tidying up a lot of loose ends. Like all small teams, everyone in the team knew what everyone else was doing and what they were responsible for.

Once again, a few people in tune with each other was the critical difference.

I’m reading this book about Scott’s expeditions to the Antarctic at the moment.

A bit of background information about the Royal Navy particularly interested me. It talks about communication between naval vessels in action. In Nelson’s time in the early 1800s it was very difficult, with the result that each captain had to rely on his own judgement and initiative. By the mid to late 1800s, however, improvements in naval signalling meant that captains relied far more heavily on orders from superior officers, with the result that initiative and individual thought was largely stifled, and the quality of naval leadership suffered badly as a result.

It struck me that there are parallels with today’s “always in touch” culture via mobile phones, emails, Blackberrys and the like, all of which discourage people from using their initiative and making a decision, because there’s always someone else to refer the decision upwards.

Maybe one day a week should be declared “trust your own judgement” day…

Consultant-speak buzzwords have been around for a while, of course, but the one that really gets up my nose is “underpinned”. Often used when announcing some new development or innovation, it is somehow (deemed) far more impressive to say that it’s underpinned by this, that or the other. I thought that was what you did to a building that’s in danger of falling down. What on earth’s wrong with “supported”?

Equally bad, the use of “architected” instead of “designed”. Particularly prevalent in software ITTs.

It’s not big, and it’s not certainly not clever…

Feel free to offer your own personal favourites.