The ‘Sum’, or the ‘Parts’?

A thought on the psychology of project delivery –

There’s a constant tug-of-war between the idea of ‘big bang’ delivery and incremental or iterative delivery.

And as much as I think which approach is correct is dependent on the project and its characteristics, I think there’s a psychological component that we often overlook.

The ‘sum’ is greater than ‘the parts’.

It’s by definition larger, but it’s also easier to visualize, and identify the benefits.

Here’s a quick example –

We all have to pay our bills (for the most part) on a monthly basis – rent/mortgage, power, internet, car, etc.

But how do you negotiate your salary?

Monthly, or Annually?

Do you negotiate compensation for this month, and then again for next month after you’ve delivered?

Or do you negotiate ‘up front’ for a ‘known’ cumulative amount of value you will receive?

Yes, our negotiations or number may be ‘based on’ that monthly or incremental need (I need a minimum of X/month), but we don’t negotiate with ‘pay me X/month’.

There’s also an aspect of this that explains why orgs have struggled so much with the idea of Agile and incremental or iterative delivery.

Just as you wouldn’t negotiate a ‘monthly’ salary dependent on what you delivered each month because you need ‘stability’, orgs are in the same boat. They’re ‘betting’ money, and they want to know what the ‘payoff’ is, not the ‘monthly income’.

(yes, consultants are different)

 

 

Originally published on LinkedIn