Who is the Customer? (RE: Lack of end-user interest (was RE: Re: Customers who can't take small releases))

Forgive me for reviving an old thread. I was bogged down at work.


So said  Alleman, Glen B.  on  2003-01-10 --------------------

>JB,
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: J. B. Rainsberger [mailto:[email protected]]
>> Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 2:17 PM
>> To: [email protected]
>> Subject: RE: Lack of end-user interest (was RE: [xpAdoption] Re:
>Customers
>> who can't take small releases)
>> 
>> So said  Alleman, Glen B.  on  2003-01-09 --------------------
>> 
>> >JB,
>> >
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: J. B.
>> >[>] snip
>> >>
>> >> Why are the CRMs not the (XP) Customers, then?
>> >
>> >[>] Cause they're not in the same room as the developers. They pass
>by
>> >once in awhile - usually after the morning Plan of the Day, are in
>the
>> >Plan of the Week meeting, and are there for other "events." Otherwise
>> >they're on site with the customer and roaming the site (6,000 acres)
>> >looking for opportunities for IT.
>> 
>> Let me review.
>> 
>> The CRMs are supposed to represent the end users' interests, but are
>too
>> busy to be involved in the project on a day-to-day basis. How exactly
>do
>> the CRMs represent the end users' interests, then?
>
>[>] Plan of the Day, Plan of the Week, stand ups with the development
>team.

So if the CRMs can afford to be there for the "Plan of the Day" meeting, then why can't they answer questions about how the system ought to behave? I would say that the people who ultimately pay for the software are concerned not just about what it'll cost and when they'll get it, but what they'll get. Someone has to be able to definitely answer the question, "What should this button do?" Why can't the CRMs do that? What I have read so far gives me the impression that the CRMs don't find this to be important enough to warrant the requisite effort. I have to say that that surprises me. Who audits the CRMs? Whoever does, that individual or group may well be asleep at the wheel. In that kind of environment, I wouldn't think anything could work.

>> In this environment, let's say that I am a programmer and need
>> clarification on a requirement. The current documentation is
>insufficient.
>> How do I find that clarification?
>
>[>] take out your Nextel and press the button for the CRM.

So they ARE in day-to-day communication with the team, just not in the room. Don't knock it: that's a whole hell of a lot better than not having a Customer at all! XP's "Onsite Customer" practice might well be better stated as "Active Stakeholder Participation" a la Scott Ambler (or wherever he got it from). Do you see this Active Stakeholder Participation? If not, why not? What's more important?

>
>> >Also they can not officially "receive" the applications.
>> 
>> As in "are not permitted", if I recall correctly.
>
>[>] The fiduciary owners of the software are rarely the users or the
>CRM's they are the agency Deputies tasks with keeping everything safe
>and secure. It's the compartmentalized approach to "everything."

So security is an issue in delivering a partial working system to someone with the responsibility of judging whether the correct system is being built? How does anyone know that they're writing the proper software?

>> Someone else, then, is so permitted, even if it is someone within the
>> team. I don't think I'm very interested in trying to help XP be
>adopted in
>> an environment where no-one is permitted to try out the application.
>> 
>> If the CRMs are not permitted to receive the applications, then how
>will
>> anyone ever know that we are six months behind? 
>
>[>] Through the PMO and the daily red/yellow/green lights on the EV
>system.

But who decides "red, yellow or green"? What is their criteria?

>> Is it possible in that
>> environment for the programming team to lie successfully until
>Delivery
>> Day? 
>
>[>] They have in the past, but the EV now reports progress to plan (SV
>and CV) on a daily basis, so they can't do that any more.

How do the people receiving the reports know that the reports aren't also lies, apart from relying on each other's "professionalism"?

>> Assume that the programmers all conspire to hide the fact that
>> they've done nothing for the past three months. 
>
>[>] They'd have to lie on their time cards and lie to SV&V and CM and
>lie in  the POD and POW stand-ups.

So what if they did? How does someone catch them?

The point is this, really: if someone (a group, an individual, whoever) is responsible for judging the progress of a project towards a deliverable and if someone is responsible for deciding whether the development group is building the right thing and building the thing right, then that someone is the Customer. Just formalize the role and get on with it! :)

Take care.


J. B. Rainsberger,
President, Diaspar Software Services
Let's write software that people understand.
http://www.diasparsoftware.com/
telephone: +1 416 791-8603
All correspondence (c) 2002 Diaspar Software Services.
If you want to use it, just ask; don't steal.


To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/