Rationale behind Productionizable Viable Product (PVP)

Q: Why not to-use Traditional Approaches?

The industry's overall success rate is alarmingly low, with only 0.5% of IT projects classified as 'successful'. Discrepancies in achieving project goals are evident, as only 59% of projects are completed within budget, 47% finished on time, and 44% deliver the intended benefits.? Achieving all three measures of success is rare, with only one in every 200 IT projects accomplishing this feat. Additionally, one in every 14 projects is delivered both on time and within budget, highlighting the difficulty in meeting multiple success criteria simultaneously. Unsuccessful projects face substantial challenges, exceeding budgets by 75%, running schedules over by 46%, and generating 39% less value than anticipated, on average. Notable cost overruns, including a 200% overrun in approximately one in six IT projects [source: Harvard Business Review https://hbr.org/2011/09/why-your-it-project-may-be-riskier-than-you-think] and an extreme case with close to a 700% overrun, showcase recurring challenges in financial management [source: https://www.runn.io/blog/it-project-management-statistics]. The prevailing high failure rates indicate a challenge in successfully executing initiatives. This not only raises questions about the return on investment (ROI) but also points to the considerable risk organizations face in allocating resources to projects with uncertain outcomes.

‘PVP Approach CUTDOWN the TTM and REDUCES CAPEX investment in Data analytics and AI new initiatives.’        

For NEW initiatives, using traditional approaches, organizations typically begin by outlining a Use Case that aims at achieving efficiency enhancement, margin improvement, or compliance with regulatory requirements. This involves implementing emerging technologies to address specific business objectives. Upon obtaining approvals and ensuring alignment with business goals, organizations assemble a team of technical experts, build teams either internally or from reputable System Integrators like Accenture, EY, Infosys, or technology giants such as Microsoft, AWS, Databricks, Neo4J, and others. Using traditional methodologies, the entire system is implemented in Development, Testing and Production environments at full scale, exposing all three environments at risk in case of failure. Big Bang, POC, Pilot and Minimum Viable Product (MVP), all these methodologies and approaches include the development of a High-Level Design (HLD) and infrastructure planning for various stages, including Development, Testing, and Production either at large or at smaller scale. Despite the adoption of the latest approaches, all share common architecture, risks, challenges etc., prompting organizations to explore more innovative approaches.

Below were few HIGH-LEVEL KEY REASONS for traditional approaches to utilize three environments as in past:

• Tools and technologies were immature which made it impractical to develop and validate a solution in a single environment. Additionally considering immature technologies, management made it mandatory to implement non-functional functions such as data governance, data quality, data cataloging, data lineage, and more, in development and testing environments as well before transitioning to Production. NOW TECHNOLOGIES ARE NOW MATURE.
• Lack of technologies existed to ensure the data privacy, security, and compliance of data, exposed to non-relevant stakeholders who execute end-to-end solutions. NOW ITS POSSIBLE TO HANDLE PRIVACY & SECURITY IN SINGLE ENVIRONMENT.
• Due to the on-premises infrastructure, scale-up and scale-out capacities were limited. NOW UNLIMITED SCALE-UP & OUT IS POSSIBLE IN CLOUD.

Question: WHY PVP?

Answer: The Primary benefits of the PVP approach

1. In the case of project success, not to wait for provisioning UAT and Production environments and to go through all the processes to move code from development to testing to Production environments. Post success, product can be released to end users, immediately.
2. In the event of project failure, the loss is limited to the cost of a single environment i.e., Production.

Cheers.