We just completed a Cutter survey on IT budget and costing practices (for more on Cutter's survey, see the Cutter Benchmark Review, August 2007). This is the second year of the study (see also Cutter Benchmark Review, August 2006).

We just completed a Cutter survey on IT budget and costing practices (for more on Cutter's survey, see the Cutter Benchmark Review, August 2007). This is the second year of the study (see also Cutter Benchmark Review, August 2006).

On many offshore projects, there's a high degree of parallelism between the requirements and the build/code/test phase.

On many offshore projects, there's a high degree of parallelism between the requirements and the build/code/test phase.

In the rush of sourcing issues that threaten to pull you under like a riptide, it is worthwhile sometimes to step back and recalibrate your perspective to better understand the current sourcing environment as a necessary step in planning for the future.

Several current sourcing issues loom over managers. Here they are in no order of importance or urgency. All are worth watching closely.

Here's an interesting finding: although on-demand BI and data warehousing solutions are receiving increasing interest from organizations, my research indicates that their use requires that companies modify their business processes.

Every once in a while, someone I respect gets something wrong -- I suppose that it just shows everyone is human. Michael Stonebraker is one of my longtime heroes.

Every once in a while, someone I respect gets something wrong -- I suppose that it just shows everyone is human. Michael Stonebraker is one of my longtime heroes.

Every once in a while, someone I respect gets something wrong -- I suppose that it just shows everyone is human. Michael Stonebraker is one of my longtime heroes.

In my last Advisor (see "On Tools in Agile Development, Part 1," 23 August 2007), I talked about tool requirements for agile developers. In this article, I focus on tools for team support, while the next Advisor will discuss tools that help in planning agile projects.

The latest Web 2.0-related developments to move into the corporate world are mashups.

Last month, we examined the first of the seven essential questions of planning: "what?" (see "Principles of Planning, Part 2: The Seven Questions," 15 August 2007). In that Advisor, I talked about the importance of clearly defining the business problem for which a solution will be developed or acquired.

As a practitioner of agile software development, I've had to participate in and lead collaborative work sessions. People remark on the strong feeling of collaboration during those meetings and the speed at which we get results. Other skilled facilitators manage the same. People ask my colleagues and me how we achieve these effects and whether it can be learned.

Last week, we saw Cognos acquire multidimensional database and performance management analytics vendor Applix, Inc. in an effort to broaden its BI and financial business performance management offerings (see "Keeping Up With the Joneses: Cognos Buys Applix," 11 September 2007).

It is not unusual for business and IT organizations to be in conflict. Depending on the maturity of the IT organization, this can be anything from mild disagreement that IT doesn't understand the business and is not sure what is required to operate it, to open hostility between the organizations. It has come to the point where some customer organizations want to break from their IT organization and start their own IT group or outsource the whole lot.

The software-as-a-service (SaaS)1 model is having a profound effect across the entire spectrum of corporate computing.

In Part I of this two-part Executive Update series (Vol. 8, No. 16), I discussed the meaning and expectations of agile project leadership and what agile project leaders need to know. Here, I continue this discussion by examining leadership styles and the impact of vision/value alignment.

The purpose of this Executive Update is to critically examine service contract price benchmarking as a tool to measure price efficiency of contracted complex services against market prices. A complex service contract can be viewed as a legal framework tied to a financial model. As a result, what is actually being benchmarked is a price exhibit tied to an underlying complex financial model.

The purpose of this Executive Update is to critically examine service contract price benchmarking as a tool to measure price efficiency of contracted complex services against market prices. A complex service contract can be viewed as a legal framework tied to a financial model. As a result, what is actually being benchmarked is a price exhibit tied to an underlying complex financial model.

"Web 2.0" is a phrase in search of a meaning. This can be a very convenient state of affairs for consultants, since it can be used to add shine to just about any idea. My first reaction to the idea of Web 2.0 was a quick roll of the eyes (after all, there is nothing new under the sun). I fell into the camp with Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of what we can presumably call Web 1.0, who said, "Web 2.0 is, of course, a piece of jargon, nobody even knows what it means" [3].

"Web 2.0" is a phrase in search of a meaning. This can be a very convenient state of affairs for consultants, since it can be used to add shine to just about any idea. My first reaction to the idea of Web 2.0 was a quick roll of the eyes (after all, there is nothing new under the sun). I fell into the camp with Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of what we can presumably call Web 1.0, who said, "Web 2.0 is, of course, a piece of jargon, nobody even knows what it means" [3].

"Web 2.0" is a phrase in search of a meaning. This can be a very convenient state of affairs for consultants, since it can be used to add shine to just about any idea. My first reaction to the idea of Web 2.0 was a quick roll of the eyes (after all, there is nothing new under the sun). I fell into the camp with Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of what we can presumably call Web 1.0, who said, "Web 2.0 is, of course, a piece of jargon, nobody even knows what it means" [3].

In my last Advisor (see "Doing a Tap Dance on a Waterbed, Part 1," 30 August 2007), I posed a question that has plagued large systems project managers for a very, very long time: "where do you start your systems requirements -- with the inputs, database, or the outputs?" I suggested that defining the o

In my last Advisor (see "Doing a Tap Dance on a Waterbed, Part 1," 30 August 2007), I posed a question that has plagued large systems project managers for a very, very long time: "where do you start your systems requirements -- with the inputs, database, or the outputs?" I suggested that defining the o

I've been thinking recently that the term "self-organizing" has outlived its usefulness in the agile community and needs to be replaced. While self-organizing is a good term, it has, unfortunately, become confused with anarchy in the minds of many. Why has this occurred?