No documentation

Don’t make any documention as it’s waste is sometimes said in agile projects.

The question is then how far we can go with this principle while not breaking the law.

The first step is easiest, don’t document what you are doing and have done.

The second step would then be to scrap the source code after we put it in production, as we don’t need it after compilation. It’s easier to rewrite in a new language compare to fix undocumented code.

Third step is to get rid of the developers from the files as they still may waste their brain with memories of what they have done. 

Fourth step definitely over the limit, and that is assure no living witnesses from your projects. However, natural death gives the same result, but takes longer time.

The alternative is to think of what you need to document, for whom and why.

Cost of legacy

Why is Hollywood substantially better at running large projects than your IT-department?

First of all, my experience is that IT-projects are started on a whim, without proper scope, estimates, funding and stakeholder commitments, e.g. business as usual. To have a green light for a feature film, you need to have your ducks in order. You will end up with an indie film that will fail if you don’t do your homework. One 3% of them are profitable and more or less in the same grassroots league as a large IT project.

Second, a new feature film is often a greenfield endeavor and the director doesn’t need to think of the past, unless you are doing a sequel or two with you godfather. But we have TV-series that have been running for ages, they have their legacy. But they also have a production bible and a show runner. The production bible describes what have happened in previous episodes and the show runner is responsible for over arching story and that things fits together. Do you recognize the role in business and IT?

IT-project are very very seldom greenfield projects and the legacy we have is mostly not documented. Think of making the last episode of Game of Thrones without knowing what happened in previous episodes. 

Third, humans and film critics (in you think the are human) define if they think it’s good enough, not yet machines, which means there is a softer success criteria’s for movies. Compare this with two different IT systems, that have different integration concepts, will not work together. IT-systems on the other hand can ship updates afterwards. So far only one Hollywood film got a major update after release. 

My take on this is that within IT, we are more sloppy because we can fix things afterwards. We don’t need to get it the first time, unless it’s a spaceship, nuclear power plant or a self driving car. 

Right competence for the job

You just got a new wild horse, and you need help to train her and you don’t know how.

Who would you like to get help from?

1. A person who trained wild horses before

2. A person who trained ordinary horses

3. A person who trained dogs

4. A person who looks good and is nice

5. I can myself

When your business is doing something completely different, who do you ask for help?

It’s easier to train a wild horse than run a transformation project.

Risks and rewards with IT

We all know that the bigger the project are, the greater the risk of failure.

Small teams, small deliveries is the essence of agile project, and they do succeed if they stay small.

But if you want to win big, you have to bet big is also a common wisdom, but how well does this work in software development?

Are IT-projects profitable? The statistics shows that only 18% of the project with less than $2M budget succeeds and only 2% of larger projects, but not if they are profitable. 

Let’s go to Hollywood for their statistics for film production.

According to an article from Stephen Follows, 51% of Hollywood movies are profitable. What’s interesting is that films with a budget of $25M was as profitable as films with a budget of $100M. I.e. no difference in profit based on budget size. If we instead are looking at profitability for low budget films (< $3M) is the statistic show that only 3.4% are profitable. If we only look at profits for them with teathrical release, 30% is profitable. E.g. less profits with smaller budgets.

Profitability in Hollywood is on average 7% of the revenue. Compare with Spotify, a company celebrated for there software development, who turned profitable after ten years, with an operational  margin of 3% for Q3 2019.

So far can we conclude that the dream factory is much more successful in running large projects that the IT sector, where large programs regulary fails. 

Traditional banks have a profit margin of 10-15%, in spite of the fact that they usally can large IT projects. Most fintech companies are not profitable, so we don’t get any help from that sector.

Automotive, a sector as old as film have as an average a negative profit margin of -4.4% for the last ten years, but some smaller brands had profit margins near 10%.

Is your IT helping you to be profitable?

1. https://www.standishgroup.com/sample_research

2. https://stephenfollows.com/hollywood-movies-make-a-profit/

3. https://stephenfollows.com/what-percentage-of-independent-films-are-profitable/

4. https://investors.spotify.com/financials/press-release-details/2019/Spotify-Technology-SA-Announces-Financial-Results-for-First-Quarter-2019/

5. https://www.businessinsider.com/fintech-profitability-report-2017-5

6. https://smallbusiness.chron.com/typical-net-profit-margin-banks-73276.html

7. https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/CARS/cars/profit-margins

EA case study - Two and a half years later

How often do you follow up your EA work, especially when you have been a consultant and left the building long ago?

We all know that unexpected things happens, but the question is if this will make huge changes to the plans done in Enterprise Architecture.

We are still impacted of Covid-19 limitations in societety and we will probably have a new normal in the future. Our EA didn’t foresee this comming, but we said from the start that we should be working remote and not to be forced to sit in the same office. ✅

This year in Sweden, there have been much more public discussions about working conditions on set. We didn’t see this curvball either, but we early recognized that in Sweden, this a sector where the planning for productions is subpar and contract management is really poor. This is why we said that these areas are important to focus on ✅

Our plans for making three movies with theatrical release in three years is not on track and may party need to be revisited. With near 1 1/2 year of lock down, theatrical releases are not mandatory, not even for Disney. The big question is if today’s requirements of two theatrical releases are needed as proof that you are an established film maker. But we still plan to premiere “Att vinna ett Kex” and ‘Saving Mimosa” on the big screen and I’m writing a manuscript for a third feature, “Lost and Found”, that hopefully can be shot next summer. ⚠️

We have also been working to implement new tools to our workflow in both pre-production and post-production according to plans. As we are dependent on cloud providers to offer services, this time plan is very much limited on external parties and their release schedules. ✅

We got a small profit last year and we think we do the same for 2021. Expecting higher revenues and profits next year (2022) when productions are back to more normal. ⚠️

KPI’s for GDPR and risk management are not yet started as I been focusing on recovering from my ridning accident last year. ❌

Over all, high-level architecture and principles are still valid for film production.