KISS

I have tons of amazing ideas for software products.  The only problem is that most amazing ideas violate the KISS principle.  When I was is the army, KISS stood for Keep It Simple Stupid (or Sir).  Basically non-KISS ideas are those that only an engineer or project manager would like.  You know the type.

I was reminded of the KISS principle while listening to episode 197 of The Project Management Podcast.  In that episode a product called Eppora is discussed.  Listening to the guy behind Eppora was like listening to me when I have an amazing idea; he was actually describing project management software I had thought of years ago but thankfully dropped.  The problem?  Grandiosity… 

Some features that rubbed me wrong:

• Most project managers and the companies that employ them don’t have the time and money to keep statistics about every person working on projects.  If only some project managers use it, the return on investment disappears.
• Those statistics are wrong anyway.  For example, easy task plus great programmer equals great productivity, hard task plus great programmer equal normal productivity, normal task and so-so programmer equal normal (maybe) productivity, and hard task plus so-so programmer equals… So match the wrong person to the wrong task and your statistics mean nothing.
• You can’t pay people on productivity statistics. Hard task plus great programmer equals normal productivity and normal task and so-so programmer equal normal productivity.  The two guys are worth the same?  Like hell they are.
• Many clients will not let their schedules live on or be accessed via “the cloud”.  Schedule information can be highly sensitive.
• Selling a critical chain approach is hard.  Most people are threatened by that kind of approach as they think it may cause them to sit on their hands if they are too productive.

I understand that the guy was kind of selling his salad but if you are going to make extraordinary claims you’d better have extra ordinary proof.  He has not given me the proverbial warm and fuzzy feeling.

What do you think?  As always questions and comments are welcome.

Connect with me on LinkedIn.  I am a LinkedIn Open Networker (LION); you can use “Friend” to add me to your network, please mention the blog in your request

Comments

[Jashandeep]

I never listen before the full form of the kiss.Its mind blowing.Keep It Simple Stupid .Lol

[Patrick Richard]

No, no; Keep It Simple Sir! Got to stay polite...

[logan]

I just finished listening to this podcast set. I completely agree with ALL of your rubbed the wrong way points.

I did agree with his suggestion that requirements be separate statements be worded as testable units.

He also made a good point or two about project portfolio and project selection.
But is this the quantum leap? Hmmm not so much

[Patrick Richard]

Hello Logan,

Thanks for the comments. You might already know about SMART (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, Timeboxed) requirements. This is pretty much what he was referring to. If you have good requirements you increase significantly your chance of success. After all, if you don’t know what you are trying to achieve or if feasibility is questionnable you probably will fail.

Same goes about portfolio or project selection. If you start on something that is not aligned with the company’s goals or competencies, things don’t look good from the start.