Why the Feasibility delays happens in the IT Organizations by which Cost of execution and Time spent are 10x more than planned.

1. Why the “Feasibility phase” get delayed in the organizations –
An analysis on Ground zero:
Reddappa Gowd Bandi - Chief Enterprise Architect
20th
April 2014
Background/Context of the problem:
In the mostof the IT Companies/Enterprisestoday,spending10 timesmore time andcost in the
Opportunity/Feasibilityphasesthanplannedbutstill notyieldingthe rightprolificresultswhichhelps
themto start project/programsinthe Projects’phase.Andthisisbecause of manyreasonsrightfrom
the Operatingmodel tothe lowlevel strategytodrive the visionof the feasibilitiesacrossthe
organization.Lackof synergies,streamliningthe workforce towardscommongoalsisstill notarealityin
mostof the Enterprise andIT corporate divisions.
EveryOrganizationhasgot itsownEngineeringprocessandstageswhichare broadlycategorizesinto
 OpportunityPhase
 FeasibilityPhase
 ProjectPhase
 Value Phase
 RealizationPhase
Critical tohave pass throughOpportunity/Feasibilityphasesandconvertthemintothe possibleprojects
and eachcompanyhas got itsown culture builtintothe system.Andthiscritical phase involveslotsof
uncertaintieswhichare closelydependson
 Operatingmodel of the ITOrganization
 Domainbusinessgroups’involvement
 Centralized/distributedITImplementation/Executionstructures
 Andmany more.
Here in this paper,we triedtofocus on opportunity/feasibilityphasesmore indetailedfromground
zeroand capturedsome of the thoughtswhichmayhelpthe organizationstoovercome those andsave
lotsof Time andCost there byROI and time –to- marketwill be achievedinthe projects’phases.

2. Enterprise A –Opportunity/Innovationphase:
As a pre-condition/backgroundactivity,Feasibilitylifecycle startsverynexttothe
Innovation/opportunitycycle (Noformal Innovationcycle asontoday insome companies).Forexample,
the classicInnovationprogram foran enterprise hasanoverlapwithFeasibilityprogramandthe
activitieslookslike below.
 Innovation cycle –
 Out come from the hundredsof ideason Idea board –
 Idea to Thought realizaiton–
 Conceptevolution–
 RealizedConceptto BusinessSituations–
 EligibilityforFeasibility –
Weakestlink0 –
1. No formal Innovationprogram/Innovationcycle whichkeepsall domaingroups/business
divisions disconnectwithone unifiedGlobal feasibilityprogram.
2. ThistranslatespotentiallyintoRedundancyof same work(differentcontexts),Redundancyin
communicationattime intervals,lackof commonunderstandingonInnovationmodels
(business/IT).
3. ThistranslatesintoRedundancyof same Feasibilityprojectswithdifferent silocontextsacross
multiple domaingroups,
4. There by dilutingthe Enterprise Architecture principlesbyindividualprogramlevelcompromises
at that time and
5. StaggeredsiloInnovationfruitswhichare notinline withEnterprisebusiness/IT/Technology
roadmap(withconstraintslike financial,business,political andetc.).
6. Overall,resultsintonegativeproductivityatorganizationwide like
a. Redundancyinfundingprograms
b. Redundancyindeliverystreams
c. RedundancyinsiloITRoadmaps
d. Staggeredroadmapachievements
e. Nonalignmentof programs/projectsatenterprise wide forthe same businessproblem
f. Evolutionof Newproblems/issuesdemandsagainthe same cycle of redundancyin
staggeredinnovation/feasibility.
Note:Needsome examplestobe listedhere.
Thiskicksoff the FeasibilityPhase formally,

3. Enterprise A - Feasibility Phase:
Thisphase potentiallyinvolvesseriesof chainof activities (hassome weakestlinks) withqualitygatesat
everylevel whichdecidesthe GO-OR-NOGO.
Step 1 (BusinessTeam):
1. Businessside study(BusinessTeaminvolvement)
2. CurrentAs ISEnterprise businessmodel/proceduresperspective
3. Businessprocessside positioning –currently it is theoretical,needmore deepdive in a formal
POC cycle which is a weakest link1.
4. Businessside Visiondocument
5. GO-OR-NOGO
WeakestLink 1:
1. Redundancyof concepts/programsforthe same businesssituation/problem/scenarios.
2. StaggeredInnovationandnotinline withcommonfeasibilityprogram.
3. Multiple teamstranslatingthe staggeredvisionintothe multiplecontexts creatingmore
issues/newproblemstothe future.
4. Cumulative impact&Redundancyof DSO/Data/delivery/QA/EA organization’sefforts
Step 2 (Enterprise IT Team/EA team)
1. Enterprise BusinessArchitecture feasibility(EA/ITTeaminvolvement) –needone Global
Feasibilityprogram (providesanunifiedand global approach for many individual domain
groups, currentlyit is weakestlink2
2. SolutionArchitecturefeasibility –SolutionArchitecture study needsmore deepdive and
domain level specificsatGlobal Enterprise SolutionArchitecture program side,whichis a
weakestlink3.
3. Update visiondocumentwithITArtifacts
4. GO-OR-NOGO
5. Enterprise TechnologyArchitecture feasibility(selectionof technologystack/alignmenttothe
Enterprise TechnologyArchitecture)
6. POCPlanof activities&POCprojectstartsformally
7. POCFunding
8. GO-OR-NOGO
WeakestLinks 2 :
1. Due to staggeredandsilocontextsasabove,unable tomanage channelingvariousfeasibility
efforts.
2. UnifiedInnovationprogram&Global Feasibilityprograms.Vendorscanbetterhelpto
channelize the effortswithbusiness/technical savvyteams.

4. 3. SolutionArchitecturefeasibilitystudyneedstobe more detailed(datacomponents,App
components,businessprocesscomponents) anddeepdiveandtobe done withcontexton
variousindividual domaingroups’programssynchronizationandsynergies.
Step 3 (Engineering/DeliveryTeam/Vendorteam):
1. POCphase – Resource Availability& Enablement, VendorTeam involvement
2. Componentfeasibility –
a. Extendingthe SolutionArchitecture vision& goalsin specificApplicationdomain
b. And translate SolutionArchitecture componentsinto Application/Technology
Architecture Components.
c. Validate and VerifyNewvs Existingcomponents,Approach through Outward-In
thinkingand Inward-outthinkingof component nature.
d. Reusabilitythinking, Componentdependency/impactonother
programs/projects/platforms
e. Re-validationofthose existing/newimpacts,Traceabilityto the respective
programs/projects (running/started/to be) and made aware at Global Feasibiity
Program charter.
3. Technical feasibilityimplementation
a. Validationof POC activities/thoughtsthroughselectedtechnologyplatformwith
meaningful and complete usecases
b. Newcomponents/existingimpactedcomponents – Fit to the Standard Enterprise
TechnologyReference Architecture
c. ComponentScenario interactionmodels
4. Enterprise Datalevel feasibility
a. Informationanalysis & conceptual,logical models
b. Key Analysisat enterprise wide onMaster/Non-Masterdata and current Silo&
Staggereddata
c. Current Data sources/Islandsin the Enterprise,any dependency/impactbasedon
logical models.
d. Master/Reference data analysis
e. Traceability ofdependenttracks to the respective Master/Reference/NonMaster
data.
f. Dependencyofraw data whichis not Enterprise Aware.
g. Bird’s eye viewon Data volumesand typical theoretical transactional feasibility
5. Engineering(DEV/QA) level feasibility
a. UtilizationofQuest Cloudinstancesfor on-demanddev/qa environmentsand enable
the developerstostart so that eliminate longerenablementtimes.
b. Reusable Buildand DeploymentArchitecturesand buildthe code as a near Production
aware code.
c. Keepingan eye for reusabilityofthe developedcode inthe risk phase.
d. Buildinga POC system whichwill be demoedfull use case.

5. e. Data Serviceslevel interfacesandsuitabilityto the reusabilityor newdevelopment
f. QA scenarios feasibility,anyautomation strategy, reusability ofany regressiontest
suites,Test data setup, Customtest modelsand etc.
6. Backlogof stories
a. Translate the project/program requirementsintothe Feature Map
b. Translate each feature into the Userstoriesand prioritize list
c. Readinessof product backlog
7. SWAG Estimationimplementation(Storysize,goldenstory)
a. Arrive to the story pointestimation
b. High level Resource requirements& proposedtimeline forproject
8. GO-OR-NOGO
WeakestLinks 3 :
1. Nothavinga possible dedicated sharableteamof POC/Architecture whounderstandthe
CommonFoundationArchitecture platforms,Commoninformation/datamodelsandCommon
Infrastructure componentsandleverage themaccordingtothe bestunderstandingof Reference
Architectures.
2. Non-collaborativetechnologyfeasibilitiesanddue tostaggeredandsilocontextsasabove,
unable tomanage channelizingvariousfeasibilityefforts towardsGlobal Feasibilitydashboard.
3. UnifiedInnovationprogram&Global Feasibilityprograms.Vendorscanbetterhelpto
channelize the effortswithbusiness/technical savvyteams.
4. SolutionArchitecturefeasibilitystudyneedstobe more detailed(datacomponents,App
components,businessprocesscomponents) anddeepdiveandtobe done withcontexton
variousindividual domaingroups’programssynchronizationandsynergies.
5. Nothavingrighttool set,communicationmechanismsIn-OutandIn& Out.
6. Unworthycycle of meetings,feasibilitymeetingsforthe same businessproblemfromdifferent
groups’perspective.
7. Lack of accelerationinthe decisionmakingfromdifferentgroups’stakeholders.
8. Lack of control on the FeasibilityScope,over-enthusiasticrealizationof requirements,missing
the linksbetweenmultiplefeasibilitiesacrossthe organization.
9. Lack of clearRoadmapsfrom Businessinitiativestill tothe Feature levelroadmaps.
10. Lack of stronggovernance onthe Feasibilityprograms.
11. Last but not least,highlypolitical silosandconflictof interests betweenthe differentpower
centers.
Step 4 (Pre-Final phase,Program/Project management/DeliveryTeam):
1. Program level feasibility
2. Political feasibility
3. GO-OR-NOGO

6. 4. Operational feasibility
5. GO-OR-NOGO
WeakestLinks 4 :
1. Lack of TransparencyindrawingPortfoliolevelinitiativesintothe Program/Projectlevel
initiatives.
2. Lack of revisitacrossmultiplefeasibilityinitiativesandre-scopingthembasedonnew inputsor
scrap themwherevernotapplicable.
Step 5 (Final Phase):
1. Economic/Finance feasibility
2. GO-OR-NOGO
3. Schedule feasibility
4. MinimumValue Product (MVP) Approachfeasibility
5. GO-OR-NOGO
WeakestLinks 5 :
1. Lack of TransparencyindrawingPortfoliolevelinitiativesintothe Program/Projectlevel
initiativesfromFundingperspective.
2. Lack of identifyingthe sellablemilestoneswhichistie backto the Global Feasibilityprogram
3. Lack of Productmindsetanddefiningthe Global FeasibilityProgram’svision(fromall groups’
vision) earlyforatleastnext2 yearsand communicatingthe agreeableroadmaps.
4. Thiseliminateslotof redundancyandduplicatesPOCs/Feasibilitystudieswhichsave lotof time
and money.
Final comments:
 Step1till Step5are commonactivitiesinthe Feasibilitycycle whichare commoninthe most of
the organizationsandweakestlinksineachphase will endorse whatcompanieswilldoto
eliminate“Lotof Lean”.
 Organizationsneedto come upwithPlanof actionspecifictotheirenvironmentandaddressall
the weakestlinksandsave Lotof Moneyand Time andutilize these resourcesforstrong
organizationculture.
 Optimize the Feasibilitycycle withrepeatableprocessesandReusableFrameworks.
 ApplyLeanAgile Practicesandbuildthe maturitypyramid.
 Kickof the projects’phase withexperiencesfromFeasibility,reuse the POCcomponents,and
incrementallybuildthe maturityfromwhole 9yardsso that youaccelerate the projects’phase
and optimize the projects’costsoverthe periodof time.
-Reddappa Gowd Bandi, Chief Enterprise Architect, Global Financial Services, Ness SES, USA.
reddappabandi@gmail.com