Phil Wales's blog

Everyone pays lip service to the value of Change Management. It is a standard component of every mature project plan. So why do so few companies actually implement Change Management? The answer is most likely found in one of the following understandable, but erroneous assumptions:

It has been driven home to me again over the last few days why I am the luckiest guy on the planet. Those who know me understand that a large part of that title can be attributed to a fantastic wife, great kids, and five incredible grandchildren. However, it is also a title that applies to my professional life. I have recently seen the carnage left by other consulting organizations who don’t share the strong commitment to core values that inform and inspire all of the ebusiness strategies team.

There is an assumption in the world of software and systems engineering that by gaining a detailed understanding of a system’s constituent parts we can fully understand the system as a whole. In other words, by breaking down a desired solution into discrete bite-size snippets, we can see how everything fits together and thus we will clearly understand how the overall solution will operate.  However, this approach seldom works in practice for our industry. Why?

In an article published in The Oil & Gas Magazine (click here for the full article), I wrote about moving high-value assets from a cost to a profit impact on the bottom line.  I noted that most Corporate Real Estate (CRE) and Facilities Management (FM) organizations manage non-revenue producing facilities, making them major targets for cost reduction.

Back on September 15th, my blog entry was entitled “Data Alone Isn’t Enough”. The premise of that treatise was data in and of itself is useless – it must be viewed in context to have real value (i.e. to become information). Today I want to expand on that thought and address the question, “Is more data better?”