It’s been a busy week – too busy to concentrate enough time and attention to write anything worth reading.

Fortunately enough, ten years ago I wrote what follows – about how my bank ticked me off and how your company could easily turn into a similar perpetrator without anyone even realizing what a succession of what seemed like reasonable decisions when they’re taken one at a time.

It’s another example of the “third axle alternative” at work. I hope you enjoy it.

– Bob

# # #

The Third Axle Alternative is alive and well.

The third axle alternative, in case you don’t recall it, is deciding to weld a third axle onto your car when a nail punctures one of your tires, instead of fixing the flat.

Before we get to why it’s important to you, let me take a few moments to talk about me, and a bank that’s working hard to lose my business.

When I opened IT Catalysts, I worked with the bank that already took care of my personal checking, my wife’s personal checking, and our household checking, all of which were free checking accounts … excuse me, they were FREE! Checking Accounts as I recall how they were advertised at the time.

So were my two business checking accounts (one for IT Catalysts, one for IS Survivor Publishing).

For convenience, I had the same bank provide my business Visa card. A few years later I switched my personal Visa card to the bank as well.

And then the service charges started to appear.

On every single checking account.

I called customer service, explained that my idea of FREE! Checking isn’t compatible with paying service charges, and asked what had changed.

What had changed, it turns out, was that the bank had redefined the types of checking account it offers, along with the conditions necessary to maintain FREE!-dom. Long story slightly less long: The bank couldn’t stop the service charges, but it could automatically refund them right after it charged them, welding on another axle as it did so.

The fix lasted a year, at which point the service charges reappeared. Another call to customer service; another discovery that the terms had changed. For my business accounts, this meant:

  1. Switching to a different class of checking account.
  2. Opening two business savings accounts.
  3. Transferring $150 from each business account to one of the savings accounts on the first day of each month.
  4. Transferring $150 back from the savings accounts to the checking accounts on the third day of each month.
  5. Sticking my left pinkie in my right ear.
  6. Pushing my left foot in and my left foot out, pushing my left foot back in and then waving it all about.

We didn’t long ago switch banks for two reasons. The first is our suspicion that all the rest are just like the one we’re already working with. The second is the inconvenience of switching all of our accounts, automatic payments, and so on, to a different financial institution.

Why am I telling you this? To vent, of course.

But also as a cautionary tale.

Unencumbered by facts, I can nonetheless make a pretty good guess that the Third Axle Alternative is at work. It matters to you as an IT leader.

But first, back to me and my venting. Here’s what I think happened: FREE! Checking sounded like a terrific idea to the banking executives when money was plentiful and there was more competition. And so they offered it. Then, with banking consolidation eliminating competitors and an ongoing need to grow profits, the bank decided to use the lure of free (as opposed to FREE!) checking as an upselling tool — customers could still get their checking at no charge, but only if they were good customers — the kind that buy several products and services.

Instead of figuring out products customers actually want — fixing its metaphorical flat — my bank created a set of artificial financial upselling incentives, built around an ever-more complex collection of bank-account types — a third axle.

(What banking customers actually want: I’m pretty sure most of us want no choice at all with respect to our bank accounts. We want one type — one where we can put money in when we have it, take money out when we need it, and send money from it to someone else when the situation calls for it. As the bank already makes money by loaning out depositors’ money, and more on float when we use on-line banking to pay someone … we figure the bank makes a profit without charging us an additional fee.)

Anyway, instead of ending up with more-profitable customers, my bank ended up with the $150 back-and-forth transfer — a fourth axle developed by bank staff as a way to placate customers like me who were irritated by the third axle.

Brilliant!

I’m still on vacation (and will be for another week). I won’t be in a position to post a re-run tomorrow, so I’m sending this one out early. I don’t think anything in it has become at all stale, so give it a read even though you might remember it from 10 years ago. – Bob

# # #

Remember the rule from the KJR Manifestothat there’s no such thing as an IT project — they’re all business change projects that make use of information technology?

It’s just as true for the projects that result in so-called “shadow IT” — the information technology that happens without IT’s direct involvement. And because it’s shadow IT, the folks who ask for it know this. They’re looking for business improvement — that’s where their thought process starts. The linkage is automatic.

Last week’s column explained why IT should start supporting shadow IT. But that isn’t enough. We need to support shadow projects as well … the too-small-to-notice-but-too-important-to-let-fail projects business managers charter to make their shadow IT happen, and also to make all kinds of other stuff happen too.

Let’s imagine, for the sake of argument, that your company has established a PMO or EPMO ([enterprise] program management office). If it’s like most PMOs, the company’s project managers all report there, and one of the rules is that all company projects must be managed by its trained project managers. That way, the company doesn’t risk investing in projects that are managed poorly.

Sounds a lot like the arguments against shadow IT, doesn’t it? Like those arguments, the driving force is risk reduction, but the actual impact is mostly opportunity avoidance.

Limiting the number of projects a business can take on to the number of available project managers artificially limits the company’s capacity for change. And when it comes to change, any bottleneck other than the company’s ability to absorb it is inappropriately limiting — a decision to adapt and improve more slowly than necessary.

Which is why, in so many companies that have established an official PMO or EMPO, business managers charter lots of under-the-radar projects.

The shadow project situation sounds more and more like shadow IT, doesn’t it?

On the whole, shadow projects have less risk and yield higher returns than most of the official projects in the company’s portfolio, a natural consequence of their being small, short, tightly focused, and properly sponsored.

Yes, properly sponsored, something that’s more-often true of shadow projects than official ones, because shadow projects are started by business managers who personally want them to succeed. This makes them sponsors … real sponsors, by definition … and the importance of sponsorship in effective project management is well known.

Just in case: Real sponsors want their projects to succeed enough to stick their necks out and take risks when necessary to support their project-manager partners. That’s in contrast to assigned sponsors, who are thrown in front of official projects, just because the methodology says every project has to have one. Assigned sponsors don’t really care, because why would they?

So shadow projects have less risk than their formally chartered brethren. Except for one thing: They’re mostly led by employees who, while promising, have no project management training or previous experience. Their managers/sponsors, themselves usually unaware of what project management actually takes, tell them, “This will be a terrific development opportunity for you,” ManagementSpeak for “There’s a bus approaching at high speed!” followed by a shove.

The result is that right now, many shadow projects aren’t managed as projects at all, because the employees who are put in charge of them have never managed a project and have no idea where to start.

They need help.

So here’s a thought: Instead of trying to stamp out these shadow projects the way IT used to try to stamp out shadow IT, why not provide some support?

Like, for example, giving about-to-be-run-over-by-a-bus neophyte project managers some tools and training, instead of treating them like orphan stepchildren. The secret, and the challenge: Those best equipped to provide the tools and training know too much about the subject. They know, that is, the techniques needed to implement SAP, erect a skyscraper, or build a nuclear submarine.

What many of them don’t know is which of those techniques can be safely jettisoned when the task at hand is managing a team of three people for a few months — at a rough guess, 90% of their expertise. As is so often but so strangely the case, scaling something down can be harder than scaling it up.

Still, it can be done, and doing it is important. In the aggregate, shadow projects add up, even if no one of them is a big hairy deal.

If the PMO/EPMO reports inside IT, the CIO can make shadow project support part of its charter. If not, there’s no reason IT can’t provide it on its own.

Which is a nice irony: Where IT used to do its best to stamp out shadow activities, it has just become an active conspirator in them.