Project management is incredibly simple until you actually have to do it, which is why books, seminars and other aids abound. I’d heard of T-Shirt Sizing before, where team members are asked to help estimate and prioritize project elements using relative measures, rather than guessing the absolute time or manpower needed. Yvette Francino uncovered another project estimation technique, Project management poker:

Planning Poker is a technique where each team member use cards with a range of numbers to estimate effort. Typically the numbers do not progress incrementally, but are more spread apart, the higher they get. The Fibonacci series (0, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, …) can be used for this. The reasoning behind this is that the larger the numbers get, the more uncertainty there is.  Cohn gave us each a deck of cards and had us do an exercise in which we were given several tasks and then work in teams to estimate those tasks using the cards. If we didn’t agree on the first pass, we would explain our reasoning and vote again. In all cases, we were able to reach consensus quickly.  Cohn even has made a free planning poker tool available for distributed agile teams.

Yvette has posted some videos that more fully explain why poker planning works, and there’s even a free tool to try it with your team online. While that tool is specific for Agile development teams, I would love to hear if you think, or any other project estimation techniques, are useful in your department when plotting out major projects.

Software asset management (SAM) gets a lot of attention these days, and many organizations have implemented or plan to implement SAM programs soon. There’s no mystery why – significant initial savings of up to 25% from recycling shelfware (those sexy programs that nobody actually uses), renegotiating software licensing contracts and/or right-sizing software investments, policies and usage.

Fantastic!

But then something funny happens. Like the crash dieter who loses 30-40 pounds in a hurry only to gain it all back within a year or so, many middle and senior executives assume that their SAM programs somehow run on autopilot, which allows unnecessary software costs to creep right back into their enterprise. But it’s not a perfect analogy. Unlike the dieters’ added weight, those unnecessary software costs typically cannot be readily seen, and they aren’t even necessarily the same costs that were reduced or eliminated in the first place. And those creeping costs represent what should be ongoing annual savings of 15 to 20 percent.

What’s going on here? Usually, it’s a combination of misalignment, misunderstanding and misinterpretation of SAM between senior executives and IT staff. Nine times out of ten, once the initial SAM savings are achieved, senior executives rarely look at the program again, and the new SAM policies and procedures are not enforced correctly. Typically assigned to an IT administrator, many middle or upper executives regard SAM as purely an administrative function that requires little, or none, of their ongoing attention. While most of the day-to-day execution should, indeed, be assigned to an IT administrator, neglect by middle and senior management overlooks the importance SAM plays in multimillion or billion dollar software budgets.

This is especially true when it comes to software licensing. While Adobe and the Microsoft Office suite are easily definable, major Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) and database vendors such as Oracle and Microsoft have complex licensing models that are about as easy to understand as Egyptian hieroglyphics. And these ERP and database licenses often have annual support and maintenance fees in the millions! Much of the time, these licensing contracts are housed, managed and maintained by either the controller, the CIO or the procurement office – separate from the person in charge of the SAM program. This disconnect often works against the enterprise – especially in the case of an audit (whether internal or external). While the SAM administrator is taking care of the daily technology needs of employees near and far, chances are good that she is creating licensing compliance conflicts based on lack of access to, or understanding of, the hieroglyphic (and rapidly changing) Terms and Conditions within specific licensing agreements.

The fact is, companies need a SAM administrator for day-to-day functions, but they also need upper executives to create and participate in a committee dedicated to understanding all the functions in deploying software, including:
• Re-upping licenses: are there better methods for reducing costs or adding value during this process?
• Purchasing new licenses: a SAM administrator might see a need, but may not necessarily be the “go-to” expert for negotiating the best deal, or especially Terms & Conditions.
• Recycling licensing: would the SAM administrator know that Oracle licensing, by and large, cannot be re-used except under very specific terms?
• Reviewing maintenance and support: most SAM administrators don’t understand that maintenance and support fees are a percentage of the total software purchase. Furthermore, they are not usually focusing on connecting software based on ‘best fit,’ but seeking to fulfill current needs expressed by their internal clients.

Bottom line: successful SAM programs require senior executive involvement. If they don’t seem interested, emphasize that the initial savings are just the first course (approximately 30 percent) … that ongoing SAM savings typically dish up annual savings of somewhere between 15 – 20 percent a year. Most C-suite executives will respond to that, especially in this economic climate!

Scott Rosenberg, founder and CEO of Miro Consulting, has more than 20 years of engineering and operations experience. Miro Consulting has over 400+ clients across North America and has overseen more than $1 billion in Oracle and Microsoft transactions. Prior to Miro Consulting, Mr. Rosenberg was a founding principal and driving force behind Cintra, a highly successful Oracle consulting company with over $20 million in revenues. Mr. Rosenberg is an active member of the International Association of Information Technology Asset Managers (IAITAM) and is a Certified Software Asset Manager (CSAM).

Mr. Rosenberg earned an Industrial Engineering degree from the University of Pittsburgh. He currently resides in Leonia, N.J.

Organizations have long faced liability in an environment of e-mail, instant messaging, blogs, and downloads. Critical dependencies and vulnerabilities abound. But a fairly recent, yet established, challenge has materialized in the workplace: that of social networking. In addition to high profile sites such as Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, et al., there are countless other sites – some friendly, some professional, and some neither friendly nor professional. For an exposure to the latter, just try Googling “vent your job,” “rant about your job,” etc.

In the recent past, it was enough to have a prudent e-mail policy as part of an Acceptable Use policy for information systems at large. Most of it was obvious, though necessary: no harassment, no abuse in terms of too much personal e-mailing of family and friends, no e-mailing of negative views, such as political or corporate, and no posting of any kind to questionable forums – under the aegis of the corporate domain. That is, don’t use your corporate e-mail or user account for anything that could adversely reflect on the organization or you as a representative of that organization.

But today, often in the lag of policy, social networking has employees toggling between “friending” on Facebook, Twitter, etc. one moment, and “businessing” on corporate systems the next. In the case of small businesses, many find themselves taking advantage of social networks in the interests of client-building, marketing, communication, and general exposure. This is inexpensive and efficient – but here, the blend is a blur.

Of course, social networking has that universal business peril: wasted time. But this switch between friending and businessing can pose an extreme peril to any organization’s #1 asset – its reputation – in an age that grants enormous power to individuals. For example, Genesis HealthCare System, of Ohio, recently had to counsel healthcare professionals not to make negative postings online; personnel were discussing patients and referring to them by room number. Going the other way, employees too often have the temptation to bring an inappropriately lighter sensibility to business communications, having just exited the “party” of social networking.

Another peril in the blend of friending and businessing is the security concern. There is a proliferation of sites that offer to import contacts from other systems – be it your corporate account or other social networking sites. This blending of corporate and personal contacts can group people together for communications that may be inappropriate for either half of the group. These sites can also deliver malware, which in turn can monitor keystrokes, steal sensitive data (one need only refer to the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, and its Chronology of Data Breaches report, for a little perspective), and can direct users to other websites of further harm. Beyond, these activities can consume bandwidth and crimp resources better devoted to legitimate business, robbing Internet speed for other employees and online customers. Organizations must understand that when employees access outside systems, they risk exposure of confidential information, and open a possibility for hacking, spyware, viruses and, ultimately, potential lawsuits.

In the same vein, organizations must also look at how employees are accessing what they access. Today’s blended environment includes personal and business assets: In the era of remote and home offices, employees access corporate networks with their own PCs and laptops. Are these computers secure? Do they have virus protection? Is it updated? How often? Just as importantly, when employees take corporate laptops offsite, do they utilize them on secure WiFi networks? If a corporate laptop prompts for a download and update, does the employee know enough to vet and accept, or decline, the update? Would some employees decline a legitimate security update?

In a furtherance of blending, consider data’s portability: CDs, DVDs, thumb drives, mobile phones with huge storage capacity… who is transporting your organization’s data, and how? If an employee takes data off-site, is there a standard operating procedure for how that data is transported? Must the employee utilize a company asset for a critical transfer? Or is it enough that the employee shows up “with the goods”?
So – what to do? Companies are varied and no “one-size-fits-all” solution exists. Small Business, with limited budget, is exploiting social networking for all it’s worth; it is free, far reaching and effective. Some big companies are totally down on it as their client base, boards, and senior management can have a more conservative business sense. But in either case, smart organizations have always leveraged and protected content (information, business data), as well as the blended environment of personal and business assets. They now must do so with an immediacy for modern awareness, issues and resolutions. In this blending of the corporate and public domains, and of corporate and employee assets, a robust Acceptable Use policy and its maintenance have never been more important.

Fortunately, for diverse organizations, there are more options than extreme positions of green-lighting all social networking access, or red-lighting any access at all as a total denial. There is also the option to manage limits in between. Subsets of users can have partial or all-access; different sites can be available to certain users according to their role in the organization; some users may indeed have no access; and there may be conditional access based on projects and temporary need. The leading cause of data breaches is negligence, according to CIOZone, making control and education paramount. So, by adding necessary precautions and education, you should be well-poised for what some call “The Wild West” of social networking.

In getting there, IT Governance (Business) must engage. It is Business, after all, that owns “business” – the doing – even in a tech company. Business must understand the payoff and the perils, the benefit to risk, and must insist on a fully qualified user body and a regime of standards in service to present and evolving realities. Everyone needs to be a mini-security officer: Every activity must be viewed through security’s prism. IT must help to shape policy, in fully informing and serving Business, by making known the risks and exposures, and IT can enforce compliance to standards through regularized training and monitoring of activity. But the important thing is to mount a new awareness and to hammer policy and plans into shape based on your organization’s needs, vulnerabilities, size, budget, culture, etc. A good planning and policy panel is a Business Implementation Team (BIT), comprised of qualified Business, IT, and User counterparts.

In the realm of risk, unmanaged possibilities become probabilities. Security is only as good as its weakest link: an untrained or uncaring employee, a laptop with disabled virus protection, a data breach, a damaging Facebook post, or a ranting Comment to a news article by Firstname_Lastname@YourBusinessDomain.com – these can do extraordinary damage. Failed events and circumstances have a common point: It’s the failure to identify a true need – resulting in the denial of an appropriate solution.

Today and tomorrow, prudent business needs to managing an accelerating, even forced, evolution of critical technical empowerments and their best use. Organizations need to manage their progression through a world of accelerative change. A good part of this will be directing their employee’s use of, or avoidance to, social networking and other outside sites. Further, there should be a regularized schedule for review and updates to Acceptable Use policies and reinforcing training. Organizations should also survey their blended assets for protection, update, and best use.

In today’s blended environment, don’t wait – your domain hangs in the balance.

David Scott is the author of the MBA-text,  I.T. WARS:  MANAGING THE BUSINESS-TECHNOLOGY WEAVE IN THE NEW MILLENNIUM, and is a business consultant. For more information about him, visit his homepage or professional profile on The Business Forum.

You’ve decided on the software you need, the business side has bought into it, and you’ve even picked your integrator. Now the hard work begins: Making sure that your software deployment strategy sets your company up for success, and that means making sure business, IT and implementation partners are all speaking the same language when needed.

The implementation of packaged software is the implementation of a business solution. In order to be effective there must be alignment between Business and their IT partners (internal IT organization, Implementation Partners). Collaboration is a key enabler for alignment. However, being in the same meetings or having the latest collaborative technology does not ensure collaboration. It first begins with all the partners having common understanding and language. Consider the following illustration:

First, we need to understand that Business, IT, and the Implementation Partner are coming from different perspectives. Every party has a knowledge gap to address. Business best understands their existing business model and the underlying success drivers. The Implementation Partner understands the packaged software and has multiple years of implementation experience. IT best understands how technology supports the existing business model as well as how best to utilize existing corporate IT technologies. Alignment is generated only when a common understand of the business model, packaged software, and technology capabilities are shared by all three parties. When this alignment occurs there is effective communications and faster decision-making. Decisions move implementations forward.

Following is a recommended set of steps to develop a common understanding for effective collaboration:

1. Document existing business processes

It is an area that I see many packaged software implementations lack. The typical challenge I hear is “Why document my existing business processes if I know they are changing?” Here are my reasons:

a. Business users usually do not have a consistent understanding of their business model. Going through the exercise of documenting business process will highlight these differences and drive deeper understanding.

b. Documenting the existing business model will enable you to highlight the EXACT organizational changes that will occur. How can you manage organizational change when you do not have a clear understanding of what’s changing.

c. Business process maps can be a key source of information to quickly educate IT and the Implementation Partner on the existing business process model.

2. Educate IT and the Implementation Partner on the existing business model

Business should take a formal, iterative process to educate IT and the Implementation Partner on the existing business model. The entire project team should be involved in this training and should progress from a solution-level overview to a detailed business-role level.

Following is a suggested approach for conducting this training:

3. Complete packaged software training BEFORE the Implementation Partner arrives

Just as it is important for your Implementation Partner to understand your business model and your language it is important that Business and IT have an understanding of the packaged software and its language. Effective communication is a two party effort. Taking the required packaged software training before the arrival of your Implementation Partner will enable you to more effectively work together.

4. Have the Implementation Partner conduct supplemental packaged software training

Education is an iterative process – you will never learn everything you need to know for support packaged software in one class. Packaged software provides provide foundation training. I always say that the Implementation Partner completes your packaged software training. Implementation Partners have hands-on experience with configuration and maintenance of packaged software solutions.

5. Implementation documentation should be more business-oriented

Nothing encourages alignment more than being able to think like your end customer. Too often we create project documentation that focuses more on technology than business reasoning and justification. There are times were I am guilty of moving too quickly from what needs to be done to how will it be done without understanding why does it need to be done. At the end of the day we build software to drive business results.

“You can go into any IT organization and throw a stick and find a tool they’ve purchased that they aren’t utilizing,” she said. “Let’s actually take a good review of what we’ve already got.”

And isn’t January a great time to do that, even as we embark on those other new year resolutions to drop some weight, ask for a raise or spend more time with family?

If you’re looking for a little inspiration, we have a guest post from a Rahul Pitre on the Bookworm Blog, who advises how IT can safely expand their role without taking on much extra work using Microsoft Office Live Small Business. Or Mr. Denny has outlined his professional goals for 2010: Some might be worth mirroring in your own career.

Are you tired of projects stretching on for months, only to be scuttled for “business reasons”? Looking to boost your job security and get a few more feathers-in-the-cap? Then you’ve come to the right place: The IT Watch Blog is dedicated to pulling together the very best resources for helping you align your IT department with key business priorities.

Still have unanswered questions? See what others are asking about IT business alignment or ask your own IT question in our forums!

Frequently Asked Questions about IT business alignment:

• Who are project managers reporting up to?
• Organizational alignment for BASIS
• What is the business value of doing custom inhouse application development?
• What is required for organization to start focusing on business Agility instead of Agile being always IT team focused?

Or check out even more IT business alignment questions answered by our expert community.

For a deeper dive, take a look at some of these excellent blogs and blog posts about aligning business and IT we’ve pulled together from across the Internet.

Blogs and blog posts on IT Business alignment:

• Dilbert on IT / business alignment by Michael Krigsman
• How to get that coffee back: Align to business priorities on the IT Watch Blog
• On IT-business alignment and related things by MWD Advisors
• IT-Business Alignment is Not a Meaningless Catchphrase by Steve Romero
• IT and business alignment: Wrong choice of words? at TotalCIO.

We’ve also got a whole host of our own blogs on ITKnowledgeExchange.com, check them out or apply for a blog of your own.

Want to connect directly with experts? Why not try Twitter: We’ve compiled some of the top experts in the area, so follow them or Tweet them directly and they might offer some individualized advice!

Top IT Business alignment Twitter accounts:

• @CJSettles
• @MKrigsman
• @KeithRoan
• @EnterprisingA

Check out ITKE’s list of top IT Business alignment pros on Twitter here, or suggest new ones by tweeting us at @ITKE

What else would make this guide useful to you? Let me know in the comments or e-mail me directly at Michael@ITKnowledgeExchange.com with any additions, corrections or suggestions.