Three ways to do projects # 2

    I laid out theses earlier , now with explanations.

    You can do any project in a completely different way. A project can be understood as a business as a whole (startup), as well as the creation of a separate site, advertising material, or whatever.

    Often a lot of effort and money is spent when the project is not done at the level that is needed for this particular case. Often a lot of time and effort is spent if the customer and the contractor sees the execution of the project at different levels. Therefore, starting something, it is worth asking the question: "how will I do it."

    There are several models:
    1. Prepared territory capture.
    2. A good standard without stars from the sky.
    3. Entrepreneurial approach.

    1. Prepared territory capture.

    When there is investment (or the client is ready to pay), everything is first designed “from above” to the last bolt, done as needed, and then launched.
    - the customer has the illusion that this is the final project - one estimate, one iteration at the project creation level, they’ve done, launched, and are working. It is good in large companies when efficiency is not so important, but the covered backs of managers who are responsible for the project are important.
    - it is possible to link quite a lot of meanings into one whole system. Let's say to create a website in isolation from the marketing system - nonsense. Until a sales system, a system of attraction, a site (and he is only an intermediary) is always built, there will always be nothing. There will be a beautiful brochure on the Internet that no one needs. If you build the system as a whole, you can design it quite clearly and connectedly, then each part of it will strengthen the other and the effect may be many times greater than in other cases.
    - Everything is beautiful. All projects and TK have a sane and finished look, everything is holistic and logical.
    - Such work is usually long and if the company operates in a very fast market, then the external environment manages to change while the project is being designed and implemented. In this case, the hit on the goals will be medium, low.
    - A large amount for the entire project, which is not lifting for all customers.
    - Requires large system brains, a good team. Not everyone can design large related things, systems, let alone implement them. On a big stage, a bad game looks very stupid.

    2. A good standard without stars from the sky.

    First, we do it right, but without any additional chips. The simplest version of the system, but of high quality. Then we weighed tuning for improvement and optimization. The normal approach for most new companies.
    - Initial budgets are not so high.
    - The speed of implementation is much higher.
    - The response rate to environmental changes is much higher.
    - Consistent implementation of all the chips and functions. You can see how each of them affects the results.
    - Much more feedback and greater adequacy of decision making. The main engine is not their own assumptions, but real data from real users. Minuses

    - The project takes on the form of a process. New goals constantly arise, new problems lie on their way, which require new solutions and constant efforts \ money \ time.
    - The planning horizon is smaller than in the first case, so the connectedness of the system is not so high. There is constant hole filling.
    - Requires a high level of project managers, both from the developer and the client, speed and adequacy of communication.
    - A lot of time and effort is lost at the junctions of information between the parties (client – ​​developer – user), for analysis, conclusions, statements, questions and answers.
    - Constant payment by the client for seemingly the same thing - “We paid already for the design !? We already paid for the design ?! ”
    - If the customer does not understand the process very well, or wants to save on consulting, design, development and implementation (everyone wants to save?), Then there will be a lot of financial hemorrhoids.

    3. Entrepreneurial approach.

    When nothing matters except money now. Minimum costs, do only what makes a profit. Everything is done on the knee, a minimally working system is assembled, then development goes along the way. Minimum investment, only practice, practice, and practice. Head against the wall, and to a victorious end, until the wall collapses.
    - Minimum costs
    - Maximum implementation speed
    - The fastest response to changes in the environment, feedback.
    - Ability to check a lot of assumptions (due to speed) and find working options.
    - You can start, make and start a project today. Today!
    “It takes some business acumen.” To take and do, without studying the issue, without analysis, without everything, is simple to do and experience. Then remake, then more and more, until victory. Only a few can.
    - It works poorly in a competitive market (at an emotional level), generally does not work at the level of products and services of a Luxury level (social level)
    - Allows you to enter the system only from the bottom. For a long time, you will have to endure all the disadvantages of this state of affairs.
    - There will be no profit at all, or there will be minimal, at the subsistence level, until you gain a foothold, break through, earn, become familiar and so on and so forth. The work is aimed at growth, not profit.
    - With sufficient competition in the market, or low qualification of the entrepreneur, the growth rate will be lower than the speed of market development, so time will go on, you will develop, and the general situation will only get worse :(
    - You need a large margin of safety, the ability to endure pain for a long time.
    “If the market is already developed, then it will be very difficult to attract professionals to such a business.
    ” “In a developed market with decent competition, you will have to give Mega-bonuses to customers to convince you to work with you.

    There is another 4th option:

    Design in the first way, implement some things in the second, some in the third - depending on what, for whom and how we do it.
    Combines the advantages of all options, of the minuses implies high qualifications on both sides, strategic partnership, a very high level of trust.
    Related link:
    1. Three levels of positioning of something . Cast from PR training.

    Also popular now: