Communication Conundrums

Perhaps the greatest challenge and the main cause of issues and problems in IT (or anywhere else for that matter) is lack of effective communication. This is paradoxical as on first thought, the advance in technology and mobile devices nowadays should actually enhance communication. However, we see that in spite of the high tech capabilities to communicate being available, we still run into many “he didn’t tell me” or “ I was never informed about such and such” scenarios. Why is this?

In my opinion, the primary cause for poor communication is a lack of emphasis on this area by senior management. Communication must be deeply embedded in the very fabric of the organizations architecture and the ones to drive this through are the top management. Communication must be encouraged and rewarded, while a “shoot the messenger of bad news” predilection strictly discouraged.

Therefore, achieving successful communication can be divided into two parts: setting up the infrastructure for great communication technically and setting up the environment for communication “mentally” or “psychologically”.

The first part is relatively easy, as there exists an abundance of technology, applications and devices that create the infrastructure for effective communications. A great deal of information on this topic exists on the net and it is beyond the scope of this blog post to go into it in great detail. Furthermore, it is the other part of the problem, the psychological one that I feel deserves greater attention.

I have yet to meet a senior executive who did not believe in communication and publicly acknowledged the importance of it and yet most organizations that I have interacted with suffer from poor communication. Furthermore, these were organizations that had the latest infrastructure, applications and setup to communicate effectively and yet were facing significant shortcomings in their exchange of information, which in turn led to ineffective performance and low quality products and services delivered to the customer. The answer was that although the environment for effective communication was created technically and logistically, it was not created mentally or psychologically in the staff members minds.

Some significant barriers to effective communication in an organization are:

• A change in predisposition required to communicate effectively. Most IT staff members are not used to efficient communication and have to make a shift in their habits to become proficient in this capability.


• The formation of tribes or silos that have poor communication outside of their structure. This is something we have all seen and experienced. The QA department, for example, may deal well with each other internally but are in poor communication with the requirements group or the development group.


• Too much information. If staff members are overwhelmed by too much information, then it becomes difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff and important information can get missed or ignored.


• Lack of standardized terminology within the organization. I have personally experienced test cases being described using three different names at an organization I worked at in the past. Needless to say, the testing was extremely poor and out of control there. This is where standardized methodologies like ITIL and Six Sigma can assist in bringing a standardized terminology throughout the organization.


• Control issues & political games. Certain staff members might wish to deliberately avoid the circulation of information for their personal gains. Tactics of scapegoating, blaming, silence and exclusion are typically utilized here to achieve the control goals by people. It is imperative that management discourage this type of self-centered behavior and set a high standard themselves.

With each of these problems, management can play a crucial role in providing a solution by discouraging negative behaviors and setting themselves up as a role model of positive conduct. Especially important is the avoidance of “shooting the messenger syndrome” by management. Of course, over and above management guidance, the organization needs to foster an environment of easy and efficient communication by incorporating a planned communication strategy. The PMI body of knowledge offers the following communication management processes:

• Communications Planning – determining the information and communication needs of project stakeholders


• Information Distribution – making needed information available to project stakeholders in a timely fashion


• Performance Reporting – collecting and distributing performance information. This includes status reporting, progress measurement and forecasting


• Manage Stakeholders – managing communications to satisfy the requirements of and resolve issues with project stakeholders

Each of these processes is outlined in greater detail in the PMI Body of Knowledge publication and can be modified to suit the organizations individual needs. Clearly, the tools and techniques are available. What seems to be lacking is the determination by all concerned to make it successful.

Communications is the lifeblood of IT and just as a body with poor circulation will be host to disease and degeneration, so will an organization suffer from an array of problems and inefficiencies if communication is not managed and cultivated properly. It is the organizations own interest that the implementation of world class communication practices is given high priority and attention.

Pick and choose

It is easy to get overwhelmed by the extensive array of process techniques that exist nowadays. Just for starters, we have ITIL, COBIT, and CMMI for general overall process and governance. Then, there also exist SDLC, RUP, Agile, Lean etc. We have PMI and PRINCE2 for Project Management. For quality, there exists QAI’s CSTE certification and Six Sigma for continuous improvement. Also, Function Point Analysis and Balanced Scorecards with a plethora of choices exist for metrics. This, by no means is a complete list, but just a few examples to give you an idea.

For an industry that has historically been in chaos due to a lack of set standards, a lot of process choices are now making the rounds. However, this newly available variety coupled with a lack of awareness and understanding seems to cause more problems and a general desire to shy away from process implementation for most people and organizations. Personally speaking, it is only after a great deal of studying lots of different process standards and gaining practical experience in the application of these techniques that I felt prepared to start consulting and post a related blog. For those who have not devoted the effort to adequately train themselves in the area of IT processes, a degree of confusion and frustration will naturally exist. However, it is too often that someone not fully knowledgeable on processes finds themselves in the position of making process decisions for an organization. What inevitably follows is a desire to “play it safe” masked by vague generic comments cloaked with several acronyms that are the current “hot” buzzwords. The “cubicle dwellers” and “naysayers” are only too happy to curtail the process improvement by causing roadblocks every step of the way. No wonder then that most process improvement initiatives die out faster than a speeding bullet and are as successful as the recent financial bailouts have been in restoring the economy.

The first step is to understand the industry that your organization is in, its customers and the products and services being offered to them. This analysis will then provide information on the levels of quality, availability, security, reliability, continuity etc. of the product or service expected by the customer. For example, “high quality requirement” industries like airlines and biomedical (where lives are at stake) would absolutely mandate a Six Sigma initiative as opposed to a typical web design setup where quality, although important (and not to be neglected) does not have the same life threatening impact.

An understanding of the capabilities of the resources available (people, finances and tools) is also necessary. For example, you may wish to implement Six Sigma, but if your staff don’t know the first thing about Six Sigma, then it will be some time (not to mention effort and money) before you can get a Six Sigma initiative in place. Furthermore, if the staff are used to a certain way of doing things then it will require some effort to get a new way of thinking in place. A transition between processes can create new defects that could be passed on to the customer making the aforementioned transition a tricky proposition requiring careful planning and forethought. A certain amount of realism is always necessary when planning anything and IT process improvement is no exception.

With all these factors understood, a realistic choice of process techniques and timetable for implementation can be decided on as opposed to going with a certain process because the CTO happens to be familiar with that process and nothing else (which is too often the case). Most process professionals get stuck with some “pet” technique of theirs that they have some background and knowledge in. They even develop a fanatical obsession with their pet process, blindly disregarding any other possibilities. This is short sighted and self-defeating. Remember, it is the flexible tree that survives the strong winds, not the rigid and unyielding one. What might come as a revelation to some is that processes standards can be “mixed and matched” to suit the organization’s needs. For example, ITIL could be used as an overall process approach with Six Sigma techniques being used for continual improvement. A sample combination of IT processes that I think work quite well synergistically and would serve most organizations capably are:

• ITIL as an overall process technique “umbrella”


• Six Sigma for continual improvement which fits in very well with ITIL


• PMI Project Management techniques for project management


• IIBA’s (International Institute of Business Analysis) for industry standard business analysis guidance


• SOA (Service Oriented Architecture) and Object Oriented Design and development techniques (if producing software)


• QAI’s (Quality Assurance Institute) quality and testing techniques for verification and validation


• COBIT (Control Objectives for Information and related Technology) for governance and SOX compliance (if needed) which fits in very well with ITIL


• Function Point Analysis (if producing software) and Balanced Scorecards which again fit in very well with ITIL and its Key Process Indicators (KPIs)

While at first glance, this list might seem overwhelming for an organization to put together, what must be understood is that all aspects of all these techniques need not be implemented at first pass. Simply what makes sense and provides “the most bang for the buck” within each of these techniques should be identified and executed. And this is where the artistry comes in. Only a professional who has studied these techniques and has experience in their implementation will be able to combine the specific aspects of these tactics to the particular situation at hand. Unfortunately these species of professionals are rare, indeed.

It is also recommended that process improvement activities be carried out iteratively. Too often, organizations attempt to implement everything in one go (Big Bang) with unrealistic goals, timelines and resources. This, then inevitably results in a great deal of chaos and confusion with the naysayers nodding their heads sagely, stating “we told you so; all this newfangled process stuff is just a fad and doesn’t work”. Things then quickly return to the status quo with the organization in an even worse situation than before having expended a great deal of time and resources for nothing. It is important that organizations implement process improvement continuously in iterations, picking and choosing where they can get the most benefit for their particular situation.

It is, therefore, recommended that organizations implement improvements in a recurring phased approach that targets the most attractive benefits to their specific circumstances from a variety of industry standard process definitions.