The Process Prescription Polarity

I talked in a recent post about the concepts of Polarity Management and what I called the Progress Polarity.

Another polarity often encountered in Software Process Improvement is what might be called that of Process Prescription. In other words:

Should our organizational processes tell projects exactly what to do, or should these processes allow projects considerable latitude and discretion?

The more prescriptive approach is often associated with the CMMI and its adherents, while the laissez-faire attitude is more typical of Agile proponents. In fact, this polarity was described in a recent paper from the SEI, entitled “CMMI® or Agile: Why Not Embrace Both!”

There is a balance to achieve across organizational, project, and
individual prerogatives and responsibilities….

If the balance is weighted too heavily in favor of the organization,
projects and practitioners may lack the flexibility they need to be
successful and motivation fails.

On the other hand, too much flexibility can expose the organization to
excessive risk… and missed opportunities for organizational learning
that over the longer term might lead to improved product quality and
productivity.

It is difficult to achieve the right balance.

A Forrester research paper from November 17, 2006 said much the same thing, labeling the two extremes as “Process Dictatorship” vs. “Process Anarchy.”

As with all polarities, we can see that both extremes have their advantages and disadvantages.

Advantages of Process Prescription

1. Ability to pass on organizational learning
2. Ability for team members to easily move from one project to another
3. Assurance that important steps and deliverables will not be skipped
4. Consistent, reliable execution
5. Consistent interfaces at process boundaries
6. Provides “training wheels” for junior staff members

Disadvantages of Process Prescription

1. Feelings of disempowerment among team members
2. Burdening all projects with steps and deliverables that may only be needed by some
3. Inability for project teams and team members to learn from their own experiences
4. Provides “straight jacket” for senior staff members

Advantages of the Laissez-Faire Approach

1. Feelings of empowerment and ownership among team members
2. Ability of team to rapidly improve its processes (especially for projects working with short delivery cycles)
3. Ability to fully leverage the knowledge of the project team
4. Reduction of waste through “right-sizing” of process to fit the project

Disadvantages of the Laissez-Faire Approach

1. Propensity of developers to avoid analysis, documentation and testing
2. Junior developers may not know how to proceed, or may make common mistakes
3. Practitioners may feel overwhelmed trying to keep up with the changes
4. Large learning curves when developers switch from one team to another
5. Inconsistend hand-offs to other organizations and processes

Again, as will all polarities, the challenge is find the best balance point between the two extremes.

Some of the typical ways to achieve compromise are:

• Providing multiple softare development lifecycles to choose from.
• Allowing some flexibility, or tailoring of a selected lifecycle to “right-size” it for the task at hand.
• Providing some consistent tailoring guidance, to indicate in what conditions certain steps and deliverables are recommended or required.