Today, in software industry, we hear surreal stories about heroes saving projects from failure, with their single-mindedness and with very little regard to their personal lives.
Such stories are really motivating for others and in general used as benchmark for great performances. Everyone around those projects would want to bask in this glory by happily inflating their part in this success.
In that collective euphoria, we don't introspect to see why we ended up facing the crisis in the first place. Somehow, the act of introspection of such a project is considered disrespectful to those who pulled off such a stupendous feat.
For as long as i can remember, I have held similar opinion.
But, I don't believe that to be true anymore and these hero stories really merit closer scrutiny.
These exalted heroes could have been the architect of the very crisis they rescued the projects from; through their part in poor planning and shoddy execution.
Don't get me wrong. I don't intend to be sarcastic or belittle superhuman effort that went to recover the project. I am merely lamenting the absence of an honest reflection with an intent of never getting into another crisis.
The habit of successfully getting out of one crisis after another and the adulation that follows the crisis recovery threatens to get ingrained into organizational psyche. Longer we feed this monster, faster it would drain the organization's resources & resolve.
For a while , I have wondered why well executed projects are not celebrated in an organization.
On the contrary, if a project is completed on time without issues, it is popular belief that the project must certainly not have been complex enough.
We owe this attitude to a common psychological bias, where we are tuned towards negativity mainly because a bad event is sudden and impactful.
A good event/behavior is incremental, built over time and more preventive in nature ("prevents bad event from occurring").
This means projects in crisis markets itself, while project executed on-plan should be consciously marketed to bring it to the management's attention.
Let me drive this point further with a simple analogy.
There were three brilliant physicians. The first one was a surgeon who saved lives of people in critical conditions through invasive methods. People thronged his hospital, everyone in the country knew him and he was wealthy.
The second physician looked at the early symptoms and prescribes medicines that would cure their ailments. He was also well known and respected, but only in his village.
Third physician would advise on practices to follow in order to lead a life of absolute health. Neither anyone listens to him nor respects him.
In today's world, there is strong and increasing need for "Third physician".
It is no longer enough to execute a project well but we should also aggressively promote it.
It is our responsibility to show that disciplined execution of projects will be rewarded by the organization.
To show that one can be successful in both work and life and not necessarily have to choose one over the other.
Such stories are really motivating for others and in general used as benchmark for great performances. Everyone around those projects would want to bask in this glory by happily inflating their part in this success.
In that collective euphoria, we don't introspect to see why we ended up facing the crisis in the first place. Somehow, the act of introspection of such a project is considered disrespectful to those who pulled off such a stupendous feat.
For as long as i can remember, I have held similar opinion.
But, I don't believe that to be true anymore and these hero stories really merit closer scrutiny.
These exalted heroes could have been the architect of the very crisis they rescued the projects from; through their part in poor planning and shoddy execution.
Don't get me wrong. I don't intend to be sarcastic or belittle superhuman effort that went to recover the project. I am merely lamenting the absence of an honest reflection with an intent of never getting into another crisis.
The habit of successfully getting out of one crisis after another and the adulation that follows the crisis recovery threatens to get ingrained into organizational psyche. Longer we feed this monster, faster it would drain the organization's resources & resolve.
For a while , I have wondered why well executed projects are not celebrated in an organization.
On the contrary, if a project is completed on time without issues, it is popular belief that the project must certainly not have been complex enough.
We owe this attitude to a common psychological bias, where we are tuned towards negativity mainly because a bad event is sudden and impactful.
A good event/behavior is incremental, built over time and more preventive in nature ("prevents bad event from occurring").
This means projects in crisis markets itself, while project executed on-plan should be consciously marketed to bring it to the management's attention.
Let me drive this point further with a simple analogy.
There were three brilliant physicians. The first one was a surgeon who saved lives of people in critical conditions through invasive methods. People thronged his hospital, everyone in the country knew him and he was wealthy.
The second physician looked at the early symptoms and prescribes medicines that would cure their ailments. He was also well known and respected, but only in his village.
Third physician would advise on practices to follow in order to lead a life of absolute health. Neither anyone listens to him nor respects him.
In today's world, there is strong and increasing need for "Third physician".
It is no longer enough to execute a project well but we should also aggressively promote it.
It is our responsibility to show that disciplined execution of projects will be rewarded by the organization.
To show that one can be successful in both work and life and not necessarily have to choose one over the other.
