چگونه با ابزارهای مولد، تولید را از دست می دهیم HOW TO LOSE PRODUCTIVITY WITH PRODUCTIVITY TOOLS

Many of the problems of tool use are direct results of an organization’s approach to the introduction of tools. There are a number of key symptoms which signal mismanagement in the acquisition and introduction of productivity tools: Shopping Without Real Goals. Organizations often shop for tools without well-defined goals. If you walk around the tools fair of one of the many CASE marketing shows and pick up a list of clients from each vendor of a brand new tool, what do you see when you compare the lists? The same major company names appear over and over again on the long lists of well-known corporate clients. These companies buy at least one or five of everything. Many such organizations have “Tool Finder” as an implicit or explicit job role — someone who is charged with finding technology . But they fail to assign responsibility for successful transition of the tools acquired into user projects. Throwing Tools Over the Transom. Many organizations isolate the real users from the acquisition of tools. The user project teams are not consulted regarding the real needs to be satisfied for real projects. Instead, they receive new tools that looked good to the tool finder and 10 upper management but may have little direct value to solving the problems at hand. Tools thrown over the transom often become shelfware on the other side. Conducting Pilot Projects Without Support. For a pilot project of a software tool to be most useful, there should be some up-front agreement on the criteria for success. The parties to this agreement should include management, prospective user from other projects, and the pilot team. Too many organizations go into pilot projects without having sufficient management support and without determining how the project will be judged. In contrast with these first three symptoms, the transitionsuccessful tool finder relies on a well-defined set of objectives, often the result of corporate strategic or project management tactical planning efforts involving multiple projects or departments. Pilot projects are most successful when planned with the informed and interested participation of users and management. Through the use of well-planned pilot projects, organizations can identify the correct scope in which new methods and tools can succeed, and where they need 10 be engineered to the appropriate scale. Managing Solely b~ Edict. Some organizations try to introduce new technology solely by executive fiat or management edict. Without grassroots support among project teams, mandated tools may be followed without fervor or embraced in name only. Implementing Revolution Without Evolution. Organizations and people do not like drastic change, making it hard to succeed by introducing revolution. Tools and methods which require analysts or project groups 10 work in a manner which departs significantly from their experience and understanding have been harder to introduce and get accepted. This implies that it will be quite difficult to change to better 100ls and methods which are more demanding, recognizing the uphill effort needed to gain acceptance. It is easier to garner support with an evolutionary approach to tool introduction. It is often best to encourage use by introducing tools or features which are supportive of the way the organization works now. Building on such a foundation, it can be easier for the organization to accept improvements and advanced featured in the future. By customizing new tools to better capitalize on familiar aspects and procedures of the potential audience, it should be possible to improve the implementation process and aid their acceptance. Adopting Instead of Adapting. For a tool or method to be accepted in an organization, it must adapt to the corporate culture. This adaptation occurs in several ways. The project management procedures of the organization provide a framework into which the products of the tool must be fit. The contractual obligations of the organization constrain, and often mandate, the deliverables of the development process which the tool must meet Many organizations looking to acquire methods have not been satisfied with implementing the methods in off-theshelf form. Instead, they have selected what they consider to be the best and most applicable aspects of several methods, often covering different life cycle phases or different modeling perspectives, and have welded them together into a new corporate method. (For an example of a corporate integration of methods, see Kathleen Mendes’ article “Structured Systems Analysis: A Technique to Defme Business Requirements” in the Summer 1980 edition of the Sloan Management Review.) The adaptation of methods means that tools to support methods must be able to adapt to be successful. The best tools are able to be customized and evolve with the organization’s needs without extensive intervention by the tool developer. Allowing” Acquisition Deadlock”. With so many alternative approaches in the marketplace regarding software engineering tools and methods, some managers are at a loss to find reasonable criteria to make informed decisions. This is further compounded by the organization’s lack of identified goals. The drive to examine each and every tool on the market for the “best” solution has caused many organizations to go into a form of “Acquisition Deadlock”. Another new tool entering the marketplace causes a new round of deliberation. Organizations which have broken the cycle early and have chosen some initial tool set, knowing that it might not be a perfect choice, have better handled the technology introduction hurdle. These organizations are now better prepared to receive and utilize second- and later-generation tools.