If the door is shut stop pushing.

There has been a lot of debate in the last few days about the inclusion of a change into the current release. As a change it runsr alongside the constituent projects that make up the current quarterly release. It is independent in technical and management terms; but delivery requires some of the same resources in testers and environments. There is a view that it constitutes an extra logistical challenge but IT rebut this with the view that it is manageable and low risk. The business remain unconvinced.

It is clear that the assessment of risk is subjective and that the view is tempered with the level of desire to complete the change. In essence the zealous project manager is keen to get the delivery over the line in 2010 and so makes the case it being low risk as they know this gives them the greatest chance of success. The business on the other hand want to secure the bigger prize with as few issues as possible. This difference in perspectives is the key to the disconnect. As the business pays the bills they are the final arbiters and have stated clearly that the change should be deferred. Despite the unequivocal nature of the statement of priority the project manager continued to provide options until they were told to stop.

This has caused the project manager in question some considerable disappointment; but should it. On a personal level the delivery has slipped but only due to a business led priority call. The business have decided that the relative merits mean that the change can be held over. So it may just be that the business strategy that drives the decisions isn't always clear. I suspect that this is part of the problem coupled with a sense of personal disappointment.

As a result I intend to ensure that I have a clear understanding of the business strategy and then cascade the information out. I will also find time to see how we can ensure our approach to risk assessment is more objective so that we can be clearer when debating risks.