July 8th, 2007

INTERVIEW: Don Dodge (Microsoft) on Avoiding Project Failure

Posted by Michael Krigsman @ 3:16 pm

Categories: Interview, Red Herring East 2007

Tags: Software, Project, Microsoft Corp., Don Dodge, Software Project, Michael Krigsman

Don Dodge has been around the software industry for a long time. Currently Director of Business Development, Emerging Business Team, at Microsoft, Don works closely with startups and venture capitalists. I’m an avid reader of Don’s blog (called the Next Big Thing), so it was with pleasure that I ran into him at the recent Red Herring East 2007 conference in Boston.

I asked Don a few questions about avoiding project failures, based on his experience working with many IT companies and products. If you want to understand the dynamics of project failure and success, I urge you to read Don’s comments carefully; He’s distilled lots of wisdom into a few short answers.

Don, when we met at the Red Herring conference, you said (and I’m paraphrasing here) that one of the major causes of failure is ‘unrealistic customers who expect a lot but are only willing to pay a little.’ Is it really that dangerous to be a tough negotiator?

Not unrealistic customers…unrealistic or vague project requirements.

In my experience, many software projects fail because the requirements were unclear right from the start, and buy-in was not achieved among all the various stakeholders who should have been involved. I’ve never seen a project get smaller…they always expand and get bigger. Second, most software projects are not “rip and replace”; they need to integrate with many other existing systems, which are often not managed or controlled by the project sponsor. Integrating with those other systems causes lots of delays and potentially huge architecture issues. Third, I think the biggest mistake in software projects is not doing regular progress checks and demos of code early and often. I worked at one company that used the “Extreme Programming” model, sometimes referred to as “Agile Process”. The great thing about Extreme Programming is that you must demo your work to the customer every three weeks. You can’t get too far off track if you are demoing to the customer every three weeks and getting them to approve the work.

Regarding your second question, I wouldn’t call it tough negotiating…just clear negotiating. Be very clear about the project specs, schedule, and success criteria. Then regularly check progress throughout the project.

You work with many startups and small companies in your role at Microsoft, and they’re often in an extremely weak negotiating position when dealing with enterprise buyers. Is there a way for these companies to command a price that lets them do a good job for demanding clients?

Startups are not in a weak negotiating position. They can move faster, have lower overhead, and offer a more personal approach than big companies. In fact, startups can charge lower prices and still make lots of money because they don’t have the huge overhead expense. The problem is that startups often feel like they’re in a weak position and therefore under-price themselves. In fact, however, they are not in a weak position.

At the same time, some projects are just not worth taking. If the requirements aren’t clear, if the schedule is unrealistic, or the price is too low…don’t take it. Life is too short.

Any time there’s a bidding war among vendors, common sense suggests that the buyer better have a clear idea of key project requirements — must-have features and critical performance criteria vs. less-essential stuff. Do you see this happening in actual practice?

Bidding wars often result in the “winner” losing money in the end.

If a customer bases his or her decision strictly on price, there are sure to be bad feelings somewhere down the line. Most people are honest and try to do a good job. However, mistakes happen when people move too quickly, without clearly documented requirements, without taking the time to map out a realistic schedule, and so on. A quick deadline for proposals or vendor selection can cause the customer to make mistakes.

What about the role of consulting partners in an under-funded project? How can the consultants manage customer expectations so the project doesn’t fail?

Big projects can get very complex…too complex for any one person to fully understand. Customers and project managers rationalize away issues, hoping to make up the shortfall downstream, perhaps cutting features or requirements in the desire to make it all fit together and work. That’s a recipe for disaster.

Projects that are “under-funded” or where customer expectations are not clear are in deep trouble. It gets back to the basic points I made in the first question:

• Be clear about requirements and get ALL customer stakeholders to agree
• Get the integration plan and architecture clear up front
• Demo your work early and often and get the customer to approve

Is there a special Microsoft methodology that helps avoid doomed projects? Or are you guys in the same boat as everyone else?

Microsoft has been building massive software projects for over 30 years. Microsoft projects rarely fail, but Windows Vista is a recent example of a major project schedule slip. The project was successful, but significantly behind schedule.

We spend lots of time getting requirements clearly documented, and bringing all the participant groups together, so everyone knows what they need to do and when. Successful software projects always have a strong leadership team that communicates clearly.

The mechanics of a successful project are pretty basic…but often overlooked.

July 1st, 2007

RED HERRING EAST 2007: Plated Palms

Posted by Michael Krigsman @ 4:09 am

Categories: Interview, Red Herring East 2007

Tags: Microwave, Leave, Red Herring, Manufacturing, Michael Krigsman

Paper plates are decidedly not sexy, or so I thought until I met Michael Dwork at the Red Herring East 2007 conference. Michael is CEO of VerTerra, a company that uses dried, organically-grown palm tree leaves from India to produce amazing disposable dishes. He graduated in 2007 from the Columbia University Business School, where he won $100,000 in a business plan competition. He’s also a self-taught disposable dishware maven, with expertise in such matters as disposable dishware economics and the physical and chemical characteristics of plastic utensils.

My interest in paper plates arose when using plastic wrap to microwave food was banned in our house due to safety concerns. Turns out plastics can emit toxic fumes that may migrate into food zapped in a microwave. While there is some controversy on this issue, my wife insists that we microwave everything on paper plates covered with a paper towel. Unfortunately, as Michael pointed out, the high-end paper plates we use are impregnated with plastic, meaning they are also toxic in the microwave. Ugh, that sucks.

In contrast, VerTerra produces disposable dishes that are completely safe to microwave. They’re made from organically-grown palm tree leaves. That’s it — no chemicals, no binders or plastics, nothing but leaves. If you didn’t mind the texture, these things would even be safe to eat! Through careful research, and lots of trial and error, Michael developed a manufacturing process using steam and pressure to shape the palm leaves into dishes. VerTerra’s manufacturing facility is fair trade, meaning the folks who supply the leaves and actually make the dishes are treated properly.

Now the magic question: where can you buy these things? Although, Michael is still ramping up production, you can purchase these wonders by contacting him through email. Very soon, they will be available for sale through the VerTerra website. Michael is currently seeking capital to expand his manufacturing capacity.

As you can tell, I love this product. Here’s a picture of one his plates.

June 29th, 2007

RED HERRING EAST 2007: Virtual Worlds in Business

Posted by Michael Krigsman @ 11:10 pm

Categories: Red Herring East 2007

Tags: Michael Krigsman

Recently, the Enterprise Irregulars, a group of analysts and bloggers covering enterprise software of which I am a member, have been discussing so-called virtual worlds, such as Second Life. An important aspect of this discussion has been the applicability of virtual worlds to business. It was against this backdrop that I attended a panel discussion called Living Virtually: Evolving Ways to Play and Do Business (see Wed. 4:30pm for details) at the Red Herring East 2007 conference.

The panel consisted of one VC and three people from companies supplying tools for building and working with virtual worlds. The panel presented examples of how virtual worlds can be used for more serious applications than mere entertainment, such as medical education. One panelist mentioned that a large company has used Second Life (or something similar) to hold Board meetings.

This surprised me, so I asked the question, “Why is this better than phone call or a video conference, for conducting a Board meeting?”

The panel responded that a virtual world is much better than a conference call, because the avatars (which represent meeting participants) can interact in meaningful ways, beyond what is possible in a conference call. What exactly these interactions might consist of, and why they are significant, was not made clear. Next, the panel said that virtual meetings are better than video conferencing, due to the quality problems associated with most video conferencing today. In addition, according to the panel, virtual worlds represent a fun environment — for example, you can attend the meeting with your avatar dressed as a penguin.

I then made the point that this “cute” stuff interferes with communicating, and would wear thin very quickly. The panel responded to this comment, but didn’t demonstrate any specific benefits regarding the use of virtual worlds to conduct formal business meetings.

Conclusion: If the experts can’t articulate the benefits of virtual worlds in the workplace simply and clearly, I assume the technology is not ready for prime time.

(Note: interactions and comments described in this post are my impressions from memory and are not taken from a transcript.)

—–

June 29th, 2007

RED HERRING EAST 2007: Dixon Doll on Entrepreneurial Leadership Traits

Posted by Michael Krigsman @ 1:49 am

Categories: Project management, Red Herring East 2007

Tags: Michael Krigsman

Dixon Doll is a highly-respected and successful venture capital investor. At the Red Herring East 2007 conference, Dixon gave a talk and answered questions regarding his views on venture capital investing, global markets, and other sundry and related topics. Given his background and track record, you can be sure that people in the audience listened closely.

I particularly enjoyed Dixon Doll’s list of traits commonly possessed by successful entrepreneurial leaders:

• Willingness to take risks and not being afraid to fail
• Self-assured — successful entrepreneurs (and investors for that matter, according to Dixon) are “infrequently arrogant”
• Focused but adaptive — the ability to change and evolve as required, but always being aware of the ultimate goal
• Ownership of the vision, strategy, and numbers — the entrepreneur cannot hand-off ownership of these items
• Magnets for talent — they know how to bring great people together
• They listen well and can motivate others to accomplish the shared goal
• Strong record of personal accomplishment — they know what success means and how to make it happen
• Understanding and internalizing the VC objectives — the ideal entrepreneur accepts, and is highly motivated to achieve, the VC’s goals. Presumably, the interests of the VC and entrepreneur are aligned, but that point didn’t come up during presentation of this list.

I was surprised and pleased to hear Dixon talk about the lack of arrogance that characterizes the best entrepreneurial leaders. I recently touched on the arrogance issue, so his comment was timely.

 

—–

June 29th, 2007

RED HERRING EAST 2007: Overview

Posted by Michael Krigsman @ 12:46 am

Categories: Red Herring East 2007

Tags: Red Herring, Conference, Caliber, Michael Krigsman

During the last two days, I attended the Red Herring East 2007 conference in Boston. Although not directly related to my usual project failures focus, it’s an important event that should be of interest to readers of this blog.

The conference brings together investors and entrepreneurs in an environment where deep pockets and good ideas can find each other. The event format provides a mix of informational talks and panel discussions regarding VC investing and hot technologies, startup company presentations, and networking. You can see the agenda here. My hat goes off to Oliver Hanisch, the conference organizer, for pulling together a well-run event.

I was particularly impressed by the caliber of the attendees. By and large, the companies had an interesting story to tell, and the investors were experienced and willing to share their knowledge freely. I certainly learned a lot attending sessions and talking with people over coffee.

The promotional material states that the event is by invitation only, which I assume must be true, given the generally high caliber of the participants. Approximately 250 people were in attendance.

Over the next few days, I will describe some of the more interesting things I saw at the conference.

—–

June 21st, 2007

Attending Red Herring East in Boston

Posted by Michael Krigsman @ 6:18 pm

Categories: Blog annoucements, Red Herring East 2007

Tags: Michael Krigsman

I will be attending the Red Herring East conference in Boston on June 26-28. If any blog readers want to get together, please get in touch.

I’m excited, since there should be a variety of new ideas and companies being presented. 

—–