Not having ever worked on anything like this, the death knell for these projects must be the inability to ever reduce functionality into a reasonable core set. Basically the 80/20 rule but where there are practically an infinite number of edge cases that stretch the project on indefinitely?
You could serve 80% of the payroll burden with software that cost $10m. 90% coverage costs $100m. 98% costs $1,000m. And 100% costs $∞
Having worked on similar things on a smaller scale but higher up the chain, I can tell you the list of possible issues is a mile long. Everything from lack of leadership and conflicting goals to ever-changing scopes and insufficient resources is a candidate for the big blame. A lot of people, organizations, and systems have to work well together to succeed.
As techies, we think the technical solution is the most superior solution but that is not always the case. Here is an example of something that just happened to me 2 hours ago today. User called and said osTicket system I manage treats '0' as blank. So when they fill out a form with question 'How many X happened today?' and they enter '0', the system just treats the field as unfilled and does not print '0'. That's a big problem for auditing because they absolutely need to be able to show that it was '0'. I started digging into the source code to see where '0' int was treated as a blank. osTicket being PHP where 0, '', null, and false can all be treated as FALSE, it could've been 8+ hours worth of work digging into the right piece of code to figure out the fix.
So I called the user up and we discussed the best way to handle this. In the end, I added a new question above this one: 'Did one or more X happen today? YES/NO'. If it's 'NO', it doesn't matter the 'How many X happened today?' with '0' doesn't get printed.
To make a major implementation work, this kind of discussion needs to happen 10000x a day among 1000+ people, many of whom may not have the authority to just decide things on the fly.
I would have gone for the 8 hrs option. Polluting the ui with redundant information and flow on impact to reporting potentially. The impact of saving some hrs might end up amounting to even more. Also, testing and lifecycle of this approach could be worse. And a sign of how we sometimes get carried away by tge tech definition. Why call it 1 or more tickets rather than any tickets?
That's the point I was trying to make. This was something where we could've bikeshedded for weeks with numerous interdepartmental meetings and spent way more hours than necessary to try to come to the optimal solution. Instead since both the user and I had the power to come to the final decision together, we picked this option.
If it works, then we spent less time on the business problem than I've spent writing my two comments here. If it doesn't work, we go back and decide if 8 hours to fix osTicket is worth it or not. Or maybe we find an osTicket consultant to do it for us. Or we find a hosted, mobile-friendly alternative to replace osTicket. Or we integrate this feature into our existing ERP system.
There are a million ways to do anything. Nobody has the time to do any of them in the real-world when we all have hundreds of things to do on a daily basis. The right/optimal/correct solution isn't often the most appropriate solution and vice-versa. People willing to take risks and defend their stances on difficult decisions can get work done. Otherwise you get 'Nobody Ever Got Fired for Buying IBM'.
And, often times that discussion leads to a decision maker saying - that shouldn't be the case, it's your problem, not ours that you can't handle that.
So you end up assigning someone to 8+ hours of work to do it, you also have to end up having 2-4 meetings on the topic, and on and on.
You're right, but at the same time, it's a totally unhelpful statement in a project.
Everything is bad design everywhere, at least when you're a consultant. You're generally not brought into projects that have good design, and everything's roses.
I've been on a few projects with amazing design, and it was a very different experience. I didn't even argue for more work for them, because they had it all under control.
They essentially, wanted to be confirmed how great they were. I don't know if the CIO was curious if it was true, or if they all just wanted pats on the back, but we taught them a few really detailed things they didn't know, helped on a few really tricky edge cases, and said you're golden, keep killing it.
> You could serve 80% of the payroll burden with software that cost $10m. 90% coverage costs $100m. 98% costs $1,000m. And 100% costs $∞
I read something in a trade journal probably probably about 15 years ago, that really stuck with me: When businesses buy big software solutions (I think the article was about ERP systems), they should prepare to adjust and change their processes (within reason, of course) and not just insist that the software be modified endlessly to suit every little ossified process and preference. Not just because it's very expensive, but because the resulting system will be brittle and incompatible and taking advantage of further developments.
Too many buyers of software would benefit immensely from taking a good, hard look at those remaining 20% and making some hard decisions about what is actually important. Sure, for a government payroll system, there is limited room for movement, but I'd suspect that the majority of the long tail are people on weird, custom contracts and the correct solution is actually to hire a room full of clerks to handle these in Excel - and/or applying political pressure on the hiring parties to get their contracts adjusted to fit standard payroll schemes.
Having worked on ERP software for medium businesses, that sounds spot-on to me; in my experience the biggest challenge was not so much technical as getting clients to change their processes so they can be systematized in a sane way.
There is a lot of resistance from employees not willing to change the way they work. Even seemingly simple things like standardizing language / glossary between departments so we can have a single representation in the system can be an uphill battle.
My favorite quote illustrating this is from former GE executive Craig Kipp, quoted in the book Softwar: An Intimate Portrait of Larry Ellison and Oracle[1]:
“So Oracle has this great product that will do eighty percent of what you want just by throwing the right switches in the software—no special code or anything—and it all falls down because someone asks that innocent little question: ‘What else would you like it to do?’” (p. 231).
> Not just because it's very expensive, but because the resulting system will be brittle and incompatible and taking advantage of further developments.
But that's where the lure of the IBMs of this world comes in: they claim no change will be required, it's all free. Of course, we know that eventually it'll be a big fuckup.
Except that there are often legal reasons for things to be in a weird way. Or it would require a long negociation with trade unions and 3 strikes. I have some sympathy for the complexity large organisations (public or private) have to deal with (even if “keeping it simple” is still too underrated). I have way less sympathy for the ERP software than can only handle one use case and then it takes a bunch of non technical consultants months to hack a way around the ERP through configuration when really the problem is that the ERP has been designed in a too narrow minded way or that the consultants aren’t the right people for the job.
>You could serve 80% of the payroll burden with software that cost $10m. 90% coverage costs $100m. 98% costs $1,000m. And 100% costs $∞
this is where crucial distinction and choice comes - enterprise software which supposedly have enough flexibility and configurability to cover all the cases or the software which allows and requires a bunch of custom code. The former is a monster and the latter requires good tech chops. And choosing the software with the right balance between what can be configured and what would have to be developed requires deep tech wisdom and experience on the part of the leadership which is usually a very tall order...
Also there's a good chance that the decision to go with IBM as a vendor, and the conduct thereafter, was corrupt from the start. That would go a long way toward explaining why so little due diligence was observed in assessing whether or not to continue the project with them at any of the stages it could've been.
Yes, people do make huge blunders in powering forward with overpowered, unnecessary solutions to problems they largely do not have; but blunders this big usually don't take this long to suss out.
Idunno, that doesn't really seem like such a big deal. The whole idea was rather pointless (in the face of all the bigger fish they have to fry) to begin with. With such headed, small minded planning, it may have been a blessing if they never bothered to implement it.
At the same time, "Nobody got fired for choosing IBM" is a statement for a reason. If you hire someone else, people will say, "Why didn't you hire the best?"
If you hire IBM, you're avoiding that reasoning, even if on any given project IBM or other large enterprise vendors may not be the best.
You could serve 80% of the payroll burden with software that cost $10m. 90% coverage costs $100m. 98% costs $1,000m. And 100% costs $∞