My background has been from the users perspective, understanding the various requirements independent of technology. Once modeled from this perspective; I am extremely good at extracted the vital or simplest inputs to produce the required outputs globally.
- I focus on the good in designs or re-engineering and my name should infer a level of quality that my career was built on.
- After a horrible experience where I was like many others, we customized our accounting software to the point that nothing worked.
- I had the opportunity to run a shadow instance of the software without the customizations and to my surprise the clean instance worked as designed.
- I had to leave my bias at the door, which wasn’t the hard part. The hardest part was realizing I was wrong.
- Since this experience, I have been without question a strong supporter of using your technology as designed —
- Your performance, business process and capability maturity score goes down and your effort to support goes up.
- I wouldn’t buy a solution, until the people and process were addressed to an industry standard model.
- I’ve worked with several industry tools that support a lack of governance – low probability of success, in fact a vendor was once bold enough to share both good and bad use cases. The experience they had proved that the poor use cases were missing the critical role of governance.
- The translation for me; features out of the box = higher maturity and higher capability model maturity.
I am committed to process excellence and design for the rule, allowing the adjacent possibility models well before promoting any exception designed in an application.
People are the actors in the process, without the activity you can have no performance measures.