Methodologies vs. Winging It: What You Should Expect From Processes

The debate about the value, relevance and usability of methodologies continues to rage. Some love them, others hate them – and many just wish they were easier to use. The challenge is, what makes a really great methodology? Does one even exist? And how would I recognize it if it walked up and bit me?

A recent online discussion that I have been following about maturity models has sparked a number of thoughts on the subject. Some of the major themes coming up on the negative side of the fence – too much bureaucracy, too many restrictions, too rigid and inflexible – illustrate many of the common issues with poor, or poorly implemented, methodologies. Methodologies are often viewed as strict and hidebound processes, where every "i" must be dotted and every "t" crossed.

In reality, some organizations require this degree of rigidity. Sometimes the restrictions are in the name of consistency and quality assurance: Think software systems for the space shuttle, as an example, where an uncaught bug can have catastrophic and irreversible consequences. Occasionally, the requirement is driven strictly by the business model, the most famous example being McDonald’s. How else could a 14-year-old kid who burns toast at home turn out a Big Mac that looks and tastes the same in Missoula as it does in Moscow? Rigid processes, strict quality controls …