The Strategy of Divide & Conquer and its pitfalls

Have you used the strategy of “Divide and Conquer” in your PLM (product lifecycle management) project? I’m sure you have – it’s the commonly used “best practice” to solve a problem by “slicing the elephant”.  Or as the Romans would phrase it: to break another power into smaller, more manageable pieces, and then take control of those pieces one by one.

• It’s used in software implementation projects to slice processes into activities which are realized through features and functions which are again sliced into technical tasks
• It’s used in problem solving to get a grip of the challenge in front of you
• It’s used in change management and rollout strategies both in terms of scope and organization

Losing the Big Picture

Dividing the world into manageable chunks is powerful and has become a de-facto approach to take on challenging tasks. It’s a reasonable thought and it is a good strategy in many cases but it has its pitfalls. And looking at the other side of the coin: The “Divide and conquer” strategy is about keeping smaller powers and governments from uniting. This might have been a winning concept for Romans and the British Empire to conquer their enemies. But PLM and software implementation projects using this strategy require some mitigation actions to avoid falling into a trap of sub-optimization, lack of transparency and losing the sight of the actual goal. Because, even though you want to cut your elephant into digestible chunks, you still need to be able to see what you are eating. You become the victim of the strategy itself as its whole purpose is to separate, while both PLM initiatives and most software projects require a holistic approach throughout its implementation.

Conveying the Big Picture

If you don’t keep the bigger picture in mind while working on the details, you will deviate from the guiding vision and strategies, the architectural principles, the business goals and actual business needs, the overall processes, and the UX (user experiance) guidelines. Let’s look at the symptoms for each of the listed areas above:

• Vision and Strategies – Sub-optimized efforts which doesn’t contribute to the overall vision or strategy
• Architectural Principles – Platform, application, design decisions breaking the IT strategy will create silos, interconnectability issues, customized solutions, and a diverse spectrum of used technologies. This results in high TCO (total cost of ownership) and a situation where it becomes hard to support and maintain solutions (read: higher risk)
• Business Goals and Needs – Functions and features might be developed according to guidelines and conform with good architectural principles but that doesn’t make anyone happy if it doesn’t help in achieving business goals or addressing business needs
• Processes – If you don’t know how things are stitched together, the risk is pretty big that you will miss something along the way, resulting in a set of “disconnected” features
• UX – The perceived usability of an application will suffer if the look and behavior diverge across functions. This will result in more need for support, more user errors, more training and lower efficiency

The Right Decision at the Right Time

So one challenge we have identified with the strategy is that we need to find ways to convey the “big” picture, so that we can make the right decisions while working on the details, as we want the pieces to still work together to achieve the objective of the whole.

But, we need to find the right level of details describing this big picture. And the timing of setting these details (= make certain decisions) is also crucial. Finding this balance is important as we will lose important freedom too early in the process and thereby our agility.

I hope that it’s clear that it’s not a waterfall approach that I’m promoting. It’s just that I don’t believe that you can work effectively with enterprise software implementations, such as PLM systems,  if you don’t have some ground work done both in terms of processes/methods and involved technology. The output is as much an artifact to be used further down the lane as it should be used to anchor the stipulated way forward and keeping stakeholders involved.

Conclusion

The challenge lies in the way we slice the elephant, while maintaining the big picture and manage the balance between too much or too little of the ground work: taking the right decision at the right time. The next trick is to actually use that knowledge to communicate and anchor our way forward and give input to activities further down the lane. That is what will cater for success.

Do you agree? Have you found this balance and do you have an effective way of conveying guidelines, principles and decisions?

Robert Wallerblad

www.infuseit.com