Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
7.26 Process Compliance Issues at GEAR—The Problem
At GEAR, there were few checks and balances in the organization. Each
department had been delegated the responsibility for much of its own sup-
port needs, including quality checks. This is not uncommon in R&D
organizations where the priority is usually rapid development and demon-
stration of capability. I had heard in my gap analysis interviews that
“minimum” process requirements did exist for key development activities
such as design and testing. However, these minimums as far as I could tell
existed only in the heads of a few functional leaders, and no one else was
checking to ensure they happened.
I also found that when you looked closely at their processes, those “mini-
mums” were a bit fuzzy, allowing for loose interpretations in many
situations. What I mean is their processes were not supported by clearly
defined
artifacts
with
templates
that made it clear what
content
should be
included, which
reviews
needed to be conducted, and which
stakeholders
needed to be included in those reviews.
I have found that this is common in organizations that are given responsibil-
ity for their own process definitions. In these cases, there is often a tendency
to focus process on the things that are easiest to control rather than on those
that are most important for the end product.
An example discussed earlier is the tendency to invite people to a review
from your own department, and forget to invite dependent groups. This
speeds progress prior to integration, but often hides difficulties until integra-
tion. Long integrations were, in fact, a common occurrence at GEAR.
When I brought these issues to the attention of Senior Management at GEAR,
they were not surprised. They knew that a more effective quality program
was needed. They had put this decision off for fear it would slow the organi-
zation just when they needed rapid response to demonstrate capabilities that
could win the larger programs they had been seeking. However, there was a
catch-22 here since one of their key customers had already expressed concern
about their ability to handle a large full-scale development effort without
quality checks in place.
