Bespoke house building lessons for IT projects
You can learn a lot about successful IT projects from bespoke construction. Here’s how.
As I reflected on my last career, it struck me that there are some, but not all, similarities between house building and IT projects. As background, five years of my early career was spent in construction and I’ve managed both house and IT projects.
The last couple of years I’ve completed two home renovation/upgrade projects. The first was a ‘take it back to the brick’ designed to restore a Georgian property in a conservation area. The second was more of an upgrade to a Victorian house that had been intelligently extended and modernised but was not quite what we wanted.
The critical thing about both projects was that the main fabric of each property was largely left untouched although in the first project we had to repair the roof and replace the electrical wiring and parts of the plumbing infrastructure. In the first project we also replaced the windows and doors but those replacements were undertaken within the confines of planning restrictions, cranking up cost.
In both cases, we ended up with what we wanted and most people who saw the final results admired the completed products.
Can you say the same about your IT projects? There are plenty of examples where IT projects went pear shaped. In my past professional life I almost exclusively put the responsibility onto the shoulders of vendors and their ecosystem of partners and contractors. I rarely gave customers tough love because from my POV, vendors of all stripes are far too keen on pushing marketing points rather than showcasing success.
This was exemplified in a show I tuned into recently with Jon Reed, Brian Sommer and Bonnie Tinder. (Sorry - can’t get the link form LinkedIn to copy here - grrr - update - Jon got me the link to work - see below)
They discussed how vendors fail their customers and what customers can do about it for what seemed to be the umpteenth time. I almost tuned out until I heard Brian discussing the difficulties that came from the COVID induced isolation that often prevented what Brian felt are essential nuanced conversations that occur during projects. In Brian’s line of thinking, the in-person, serendipitous conversations often reveal important facts that can have a material impact on project outcomes. I can see the parallels with construction that arise when it comes to picking out finishings. But for this story, I’m stepping back to consider the nature of projects and the similarities between house building and IT projects.
First up, few executives lead or actively participate in multiple, major IT projects during their working lives. The same goes for homeowners. I’ve overseen the building of one house in 50 years of adult life, upgraded two more and renovated/modernised two. That’s more than most and I ALWAYS made mistakes, some more important than others.
The perceived wisdom in both house building and IT projects is that the best outcomes are achieved by engaging independent project managers who look after your interests. I’ve done it on some of my house projects and tried doing it myself. I always got a better outcome by having professional help.
An independent manager endeavours to interpret the client’s wishes while steering them away from unnecessary follies. The best are terrific communicators, capable of keeping an iron grip on vendors only too keen to look for high margin change orders.
Both house building and IT projects require blueprints and architects who design to the client’s specification. Both require engineers tasked with overcoming project specific and often unique problems. The final outcomes are rarely a 100% reflection of the original blueprint or architectural design but ‘should’ be close. Here, there is a divergence between the two industries in the sense that IT projects are considered living ‘things’ that include a level of complexity that is hard to overcome in the early design phase and which lead to different outcomes that too often appear suboptimal.
As I’ve thought more about this, it struck me that many problems that plague IT projects could be overcome if business leaders are fully engaged in that early, design phase. I know from my experience with house building that we could not have got anything close to the desired outcome without sweating the details, assisted by the project manager; in IT project terms, a lead consultant. It’s never a fun process but rewarding when executed well.
IT projects have project managers but they’re often there to look after the teams of software builders. In house building parlance, we’d call them site managers and foremen/forewomen - but I guess those are terms that wouldn’t fly so well in IT.
All of which is to say that the responsibility for both individual house building and IT project outcomes ultimately rests with the client. Again from experience, house building projects are stressful but perhaps the difference to IT projects is that as a client, I’m personally invested in the outcome. I wonder how many internal IT projects leaders feel the same way?
Brian made the point that those tasked with IT project responsibility also have days jobs. The implication is that these projects are like side gigs. In my view this is the wrong approach. Major projects require full time executive attention.
You might observe that in housing estate projects, there is a high degree of repetition. That’s true but not 100%. Ground conditions in particular plus buyer options mean that each house is slightly different below ground level but can be bespoke in the final details.
Why can’t IT projects be treated the same way? It’s a question Brian raises from time to time. As we both know, SIs undertake multiple projects using the same softwares. Yet too often, they effectively do little more than digitise what went before rather than push the client into rethinking standard processes to achieve step change efficiencies. When I renovated the Georgian house, did I install a new coal fire or replace the gas lights? Of course not.
Like IT projects, construction projects are messy (sic) where success depends on many factors, held together by a vision of the outcome that rarely comes into view until close to the end. Along the way, changes are made with all the cost and time implications that attend project decisions. I’ve never seen a construction project come in on time or budget and have presided over similar issues in IT projects.
In both cases, the client (in some cases me) got what we/they paid for. In IT projects that isn’t always what is needed. In housing projects it’s essential.
No comparison between industries is ever perfect. But in this case I am convinced that there is enough for valuable lessons to be learned.