Quantcast StorefrontBacktalk » Blog Archive » “I Stopped Caring About Your Requirements Last Friday”
advertisement
advertisement

“I Stopped Caring About Your Requirements Last Friday”

Written by Todd L. Michaud
October 21st, 2009
Like this story? Share it
To share this story with people in your social network, please click on the network icons below.

Franchisee Columnist Todd Michaud has spent the last 16 years trying to fight IT issues, with the last six years focused on franchisee IT issues. He is currently responsible for IT at Focus Brands (Cinnabon, Carvel, Schlotzsky’s and Moe’s Southwestern Grill).

One challenge in a franchise IT environment is “requirements bloat.” Similar to a bill traveling through Congress, to garner support from different functional areas and franchisees, IT project requirements keep piling up as more people weigh in.

The next phase of this process is typically a debate over which requirements should be included and which should be trimmed. The impact of which requirements are used is significant. I have seen a single requirement from a single franchisee raise the cost of a chain-wide IT project by more than 25 percent.

What often happens is a sort of gridlock, where a project stalls under its own weight. Typically, the debate divides over party lines. Conservatives (those who believe that IT is simply a cost-suck) and Progressives (those who believe that IT drives business value) generally are split over the “smallest/cheapest/simplest technology” and the “ring every possible ounce of value out of it” divide.

Nobody can agree on what is important, and there is very little movement toward compromise. Although the brand will—in most cases–ultimately decide the final direction, the hope is to do so with as much franchisee support as possible. Sometimes the greatest support for a given project design might be only 30 percent. How do you battle against this type of gridlock? Start saying “No” right up front.

When you are in a highly political role, such as that of a franchise CIO, one of the last things you want to do is start telling a lot of people “No,” right? It’s bad for business, because it upsets people. And if you upset the people you support, then you will be run out of town. It seems pretty straightforward: “Keep the people happy, and keep your approval rating high.”

If you believe this statement, you might as well start looking for a new job, because your current one isn’t going to work out. I personally believe the ability to look a franchisee straight in the eye and say “No” is the single biggest key to success in franchise IT.

I’m not saying that franchise CIOs should be very negative and turn down every new idea or new requirement request. What I am saying is that there are more CIOs ousted for failing to deliver results (because of stalled projects) then there are for taking a firm line on requirements. As Harvey Dent said in The Dark Night, “You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.”

My suggestion is to work with the chain’s leadership to define a crystal-clear vision and highly specific goals for any IT project. Then you need to communicate, communicate, communicate with your franchisees about that vision and its goals. Make sure that as you build your requirements, each one supports the project vision and goals. If you cannot tie a requirement to a specific goal, or if a requirement goes against one of the stated goals, politely tell the person making the request that you are unable to meet that specific need.

It is much easier to write that directive than it is to actually follow it. As an example, let’s say that you have an IT project and that one of the goals is to provide the basic services as easily and inexpensively as possible. (This goal is not as specific as you would want in a real-life project, but it helps to illustrate the point).

So, after gathering requirements, you identify a few different vendors that will meet the need. Remember that the IT vendors you work with aren’t always aligned with supporting your goals. Suppose one of those vendors offers you an add-on component (one that many franchisees are excited about), which will increase your discount on the entire package. The initial thinking might be, “This is great! I can provide more functionality that franchisees want while reducing the costs of the rest of the technology. Score!”

But wait. If you decide to go down this path, you are headed toward failure. It goes directly against your goal: You would be purchasing more than the basic services. Plus, additional functionality often decreases ease-of-use and, while you have gotten a greater discount, you have also increased the overall costs. I have seen situations just like this derail more than a few IT projects, and I admit that I was a part of letting it happen. It was only learning through such experiences that I now understand what a slippery slope requirements can be.

One of the biggest things that you can do to protect against requirements bloat is to set a date when requirements gathering will close. Structure a formal requirements gathering process that calls out business, functional and technical requirements. Work hard to provide department heads and franchisees with the ability to ask questions and provide requirements during that time. Create a clear framework that communicates the requirements back to the stakeholders. Make sure that you provide ample opportunity for requirements to be provided. But when that date comes, STOP.

In my experience, most requirements bloat comes from later stages of a project, after you have already started to develop or configure the technology. People who weren’t involved in the initial requirements process get involved and want to offer input. New features or functionality will be discovered. New vendors with better/cheaper technologies will be found (after the vendor selection process is completed).

Obviously, not all of these issues can be avoided. But I strongly recommend that you resist these things and keep the project on its initial track. Explain to people that although such things might be considered in later phases of the project, you believe it is important to continue to deliver the currently agreed upon project in the timeframe and budget allocated. It’s best to create a separate and formal phase of the project called “Enhancements” to house new requests.

In the end, it is very important to be respectful of franchisees’ needs and wants. But it’s more important to be firm in your resolve to deliver a quality project on time.

What do you think? Love it or hate it, I’d love to gain some additional perspectives. Leave a comment or E-mail me at Todd.Michaud@FranchiseIT.org.


advertisement

Leave a Reply

Newsletter

Quickly catch-up on the latest in E-Commerce and Retail Tech with our free weekly newsletter, with urgent bulletins as news merits.
advertisement

Most Recent Comments

What’s The Rush For New PCI Call Center Requirements?

And I have not heard anyone mention the impact on companies who provide quality improvement services. Many merchants hire quality improvement companies to review their audio recordings to provide guidance on how to improve their sales staff’s effectiveness in customer service and sales retention. PCI Council needs to rethink this requirement until there is a widely available commercially viable solution. Read more...
Another ridiculous decision where regulators don't think critically enough about the unintended consequences of their decision. This will be a huge problem for the credit and collections industry. We have to keep all recorded calls for other reasons not related to cc information. We can't purge all of our calls and we don't have the technology to not record part of the conversation. Even if we did, I am not sure we could afford it. Read more...
This "clarification" is causing a lot of panic with large FS clients who now appear to be non-compliant after spending 7 figure sums on their compliance programs. The only alternative to call recording would now appear to be some sort of IVR/push button type interrupt to take card data away from the contact centre. The council is a position to force that sort of process and technology change and this may backfire on them and the vendors that lobbied hard for this clarification. Read more...
PCI council has made a one-sided decision; They should have done a much more in-depth research that could have provided more insight on what regards to the implications of such decision. Read more...

Will Old OS Cause PCI Violation? No, But Marketing Still Says So

This is an interesting issue, because there's more to it than what's apparent on the surface. PA-DSS requires supported and patched operating systems and other software components (e.g., databases, libraries, Java, etc.) per PA-DSS 7.1.b and 8.1, and the option for compensating controls simply isn't there. Merchants can make use of compensating controls for most PCI DSS requirements, but only when legitimate constraints exist and only in ways that meet the intent and rigor of the requirement and go above and beyond the other PCI DSS requirements. Read more...
Why would one automatically upgrade to a "new" OS -- some of the older versions of certain OS-es are more stable and more robust than the crap being peddled today. This is yet another clear example of PCI SSC being out of touch with reality. Rather than requiring a "current" OS, the requirement should be to demonstrate the OS in use is stable and robust, and is adequately hardened against threats. Read more...
There are compensating controls that encrypt the swipe at the driver level as it enter the PC, there are hardware encrypting card swipes so the cardholder data is already encrypted before it comes to the PC -- either of these, especially the second, would remove the OS entirely from a cardholder data risk profile. Read more...
In my opinion, the only thing the vendor did wrong was they didn’t know of that FAQ entry. Even if they did, it changes nothing about the need for merchants to update software that no longer receives updates. Read more...

MasterCard Blinks, Drops Dec. 31 Level 2 PCI Deadline

Reciprocity between MasterCard and Visa was always been a factor in Acquirer merchant level assignments. The brief removal of reciprocity generated a great deal of interest in being able to be classified at a lower level in MasterCard's world. Nevertheless the return of the reciprocity language in the December changes did not effectively create any new Level 2 merchants, but it DID dash the hopes of a lot of them.... :-( Read more...
Let's given them credit??? For being idiotic in the first place? Not on your life! Everyone has just had to scramble and include the costs of the previously announced M/C requirement in their 2010 budgets, and start negotiating with the QSAs for the additional services. All for naught! Read more...
"A bunch of Level 3 and Level 4 merchants just became Level 2s". Is this an accurate statement? MasterCard & Visa have historically included the caveat "or is a Level X in another brand" in their level setting criteria. MasterCard appeared to back way from this in the June pronouncement, and have simply returned to the status quo. Have Acquirers have been tracking and reporting merchants at separate levels by brand? Read more...
I stick by my comment (quoted in the column) about a bunch of L3 and L4 merchants becoming L2s and requiring an onsite. To me, what made MasterCard's original requirement for an onsite assessment for L2s palatable was that they took away their reciprocity provision. That is, they seemed to focus on larger merchants with over a million MasterCard trans/year. With reciprocity in place, a lot of smaller merchants are pulled into the onsite requirement. Rather than causing confusion, I think reciprocity will lead to additional work for processors and acquirers. Read more...

Retailers Sue POS Vendor, Questions Raised Where PCI Duties Stop

I would add a couple more questions: "did the breach involve the use of the default passwords?" (The story doesn't say.) And "were the default passwords used by Computer World to remotely administer the store systems?" "where is the PCI auditor in all this?" Did the restaurant group think they didn't need an audit because Radiant was (mis)representing Aloha as PCI compliant? How is a retailer or even a PCI auditor to know otherwise? A PCI auditor is not necessarily a qualified computer forensic investigator capable of finding the card data on the hard drives. They can only base a decision on information given to them by others. Read more...
There are so many holes in the process it will be difficult to pin blame on just one constituent. It is ridiculous that the technology exists to better secure these transactions (PIN, EMV, etc) yet banks won't use them. Only the banks or government can force this change, and retailers will suffer until then. Read more...
A major issue in this case will be if the restaurants had any support agreements in place with Computer World and if so what those agreements say. In my experience many single unit/small operators choose to skip the support agreements in favor of a "pay as you go" arrangement. In this scenario I can't imagine how the POS VAR can be held responsible for a system they don't own nor exclusively manage. Read more...
There is a big difference in having the POS installation guide say "make sure you set this password because the security of your CHD depends on this" vs. a POS application not storing the CHD in the first place. Traditionally only the merchant was liable for breaches and PCI related fees (fines). Maybe dragging some of the vendors into the liability mud fight will open the eyes of some of these vendors. Read more...

Should Credit Card Transactions Be Free? There May Be A Way

Here in the Netherlands, where the population is notoriously penny-pinching, credit card acceptance is amazingly low. It's both a result of the consumer not wanting to pay interest on everyday purchases as well as merchants not giving up a slice of the action. It is both legal and common to pass the processing fee onto the customer as a surcharge. Now things are moving to leave the credit cards behind: mobile phone payments are becoming more and more common here, and the transaction fees are minimal. Parking and entertainment (movie/concert tickets, nightclubs) have been amongst the first, and it's rapidly gaining momentum because the market has been hungry for the convenience at a price it is willing to pay. Read more...
"Free" is an illusion. Don't charge one person but charge double to someone else. I am very skeptical on anyone who says that advertising will create valid cashflow. Just look at the advertising struggles in a TiVo world. And if you sell your customers data, just be warned that the one group that might have issue with that are you customers (which to me is very important to cashflow. Read more...
Another factor not mentioned here is the impending costs that the processors and issuers are going to incur when someone decides on an end-to-end encryption method, and it then becomes government mandated. I can guarantee that this is a when question and not an if question. The back-end networks are pretty antiquated right now, and it's going to cost billions to replace everything. The cost of tech may be going down, but the cost of replacing millions of servers and hardware, and creating new, proprietary, software is still really expensive. Read more...
Accepting credit cards are not "risk-free" for merchants, contrary to Jim's comments above. Chargebacks are an expense - both in terms of actual transaction reversals and costs associated with managing the process. Chargeback rules and expenses can be everything from a thorny issue to an onerous expense for some merchants, especially for convenience stores that allow customers to pay for gasoline at the pump, or other retailers that allow in-store self-checkout options. Read more...
I've wondered for years why the price of transactions has been so high. Phone companies long ago started offering unlimited calling for flat rates because they understood that in many cases it cost more to report on the transactions (calls) than it did to fulfill them. Read more...
If a home-owner defaults on the mortgage, who is taking the risk? The bank making the loan to the consumer or the person selling the house? It is obviously the bank that takes this risk and is rewarded for that risk through interest rate charges. In my mind, we have mixed together two distinct and unrelated transactions. Read more...
The one big factor not mentioned in this article is who will take over the risk ? Taking credit cards is risk free to merchants and the issuing Banks take the risk if a customer defaults on the payments ! If you had a "interchange free" payment system will the merchants assume the risk ? Also, if there isn't enough profit for the issuing banks they will stop issuing credit cards which will in turn kill our economy. Read more...

The Dangerous Out-Of-Scope PCI Charade

If tokens are ever deemed in-scope, then where does the line stop? I ask this because it would mean that all timestamps, sequential number, random numbers or any other piece of information that may or may not be used to generate a token is within scope -- all data a POS uses and stores, not just payment data. Read more...
Having the ability to do both Tokenization and End to End Encryption (not mere point to point) can have tremendous scope and risk reduction benefits and agility to adapt to change in this fast moving compliance landscape. Being able to have both on tap from a single platform is a solid approach to avoiding the pitfalls. Read more...
But the consumer walks into a particular retail chain, gives their payment card to someone wearing that chain's uniform and the card is swiped. If, six months later, there's a breach and that card was misused, it's the retailer who will in the spotlight. They're the deep pocket and, therefore, the target. If the consumer is angry and wants to cut off business, it will hit the retailer. Therefore, if the retailer is going to end up being blamed no matter what, they have to stay involved. Read more...
True, that someone may be storing a token-to-PAN cross reference. But that would be the bank, not the retailer. If the bank is not sure they can keep their data secure, then there are bigger problems to be addressed than bringing tokens into scope. Read more...
Good general point, Steve, but for the record, not all tokenization is done the same way. Many tokens are associated with lookup lists that allow for them to re-matched to the card data if it's needed, such as for a chargeback. A token doesn't have to be decryptable (is that a word?) for there to be a way to access the original data. Read more...
The out-of-scope argument is very valid but in reference to tokens, the premise of temporarily out-of-scope or abruptly deemed in-scope is flawed. Conway was quoted “anything that could be made unreadable can, in various ways, be made readable again,” this statement is true when talking about encryption technologies (all encryption technologies) but not so with true tokens. True tokens are in no way related to the original data other than as a reference key. Read more...