The Hidden Consequences of the Go-It-Alone Approach to Managing Applications

Understandably, some companies want to be self-sufficient in managing their mission-critical applications. However, the go-it-alone approach can cause them to miss out on important benefits or require cumbersome workarounds that result in unexpected costs and inefficiencies. Broadcom Knights can help companies straddle the line between autonomy and getting the most out of their software investment.

Let me tell you about a technology company that provides a cautionary tale about taking a go-it-alone approach. Six years ago, this company implemented Clarity, the all-in-one workflow management software. The company used the tool’s classic Project, Program, and Portfolio Modules, which provided features like status reporting, staffing, and resource management.

The company wanted to be self-sufficient with the tool. It engaged my company, Winmill, a Broadcom partner, to implement Clarity so they could manage their projects and programs and utilize the solution’s resource management and portfolio reporting capabilities. We even trained the customer on how to write their own reports so they could be as self-sufficient as possible.

As a Broadcom Knight, I would check in on the company periodically, and they always responded that everything was working fine. They were the epitome of the go-it-alone approach and wanted no interaction or assistance beyond their initial training. As the company’s second three-year Clarity renewal came near, I reached out to them again, wanting to identify any pain points they were experiencing. As I dug into their situation, it was clear they were trying to become more agile. However, they were struggling to make the tool fit in with their new ways of working.

The company’s Clarity instance had only 50 users, mostly program managers and portfolio managers.  Since they implemented Clarity, the product had been reinvented with the new Modern UX.  The company was using the solution’s Modern UX in a limited capacity, but they were not aware of many of the new features it offered.  They had been able to transfer over some things that they were using in the Classic version of the tool, but that was it. For example, they hadn’t expanded their use to custom investment types so that they could include their agile work. They never implemented Roadmaps, because they  didn't even know it was available in the Modern UX.

With the update to Modern UX, the tool has changed a lot. Since it's hard to teach yourself an entire application, I suggested that we come in, assess their needs and how they are using the tool, and offer some recommendations.  

Performing a health check

They wanted to keep a tight rein on their budget and didn’t have a lot of money for additional services.  I offered to do a health check. For a modest fee of $6,000, Winmill devoted a couple of weeks to analyzing their situation. I spent time with some of their product managers and portfolio managers, having them explain in detail how they spent their days.

The company was unaware that Modern UX had features like Roadmaps, which help to plan, visualize, and manage strategic initiatives and projects. Roadmaps provide a visual interface to map out the schedule and progress of projects, while ensuring these projects are aligned with organizational goals and strategies. Unaware of this invaluable feature, the company had layered on other tools to try to improve their project management. However, these other tools came to place a drag on their productivity.

As a result, when the company began to do staffing, employees found themselves jumping from spreadsheets to Jira to Asana to find the information they needed. They had created a shared Google sheet that everyone had to update monthly.

The consequences of these cumbersome workarounds were felt throughout the company. Because employees were typing in data manually and pulling the data from several systems with different formats, they lacked a single view of the truth.  Different groups would use completely different processes, making their efforts unsynchronized. The go-it-alone approach that they had adopted to be more efficient and agile was having the exact opposite effect.

Creating a central hub

After conducting the health check, I demonstrated how they could alleviate many of their problems by making Clarity the central hub of everything they did. They just needed to leverage new capabilities of the tool that they were already paying for.

I understand companies that want to be self-sufficient in managing mission-critical applications. The risk with this approach is that the employee who takes over the administration of a tool isn’t steeped in all the nuances of the technology. To avoid this problem, companies can benefit from a continuous engagement with a partner who spends every day focused on Clarity, maintaining an intense focus on eliminating wasted work and friction caused by a lack of visibility, alignment, and efficiency.

When companies try to manage their applications entirely by themselves, they often are underleveraging their technology assets. In this case, the technology company spent well over $100,000 on employee time putting together all these band-aids. By relying on guidance from a Broadcom Knight, they could develop a better approach much faster at half the cost.

To fully maximize the benefits from Clarity, organizations should:

• Check in with a Broadcom Knight at least once a year to identify enhancements and solutions to ongoing issues.
• Have employees who are designated as Clarity stakeholders attend Broadcom monthly system demos to learn about new features.

There are times when a go-it-alone approach makes sense. But there are also times when go-it-alone can introduce inefficiencies and hidden costs. By having a Broadcom Knight at your side, you can maintain a high degree of autonomy, without sacrificing the guidance that promotes the agility and savings every company wants.