Before reading this post, please view the Duck and Cover video from You tube. This video which was uploaded on 2008 is based on USA DOD's video from 1951. I could easily find the original, however the original is about 9 minutes video. The 2008 version is a little more than 2 minutes.
The covering pattern appearing in the video is similar to the Covering Customer's behavior.
What does the Covering Customer tries to cover?
Prior to answering the question, let me tell you that he is different from other customer types.
He does not know everything. He knows that his knowledge is very limited and he has to hide this fact.
Make no mistake, he is not The Self-deprecating Customer. If being a Self-deprecating customer, is the approach which maximize covering, he will stick to this behaviour type.
He is not the classic Social Customer. He will be a Social Customer, if and only if this approach will help him to cover.
He will be anti-Social, if this approach will guaranty covering.
Similarly, he is not The Paralyzed Analyzer. Usually he is far from being a good analyzer. However, when it comes to hiding his limitations he suddenly become the ultimate Paralyzed Analyzer.
He is not a Captive. You may wrongly assume that he is a Captive Customer, because dependence on a vendor, could hide his limitations. As soon as the vendor approach will not fit to his agenda, he will be not be a Captive anymore.
He will never be The Good, but could be The Bad or The Ugly.
What does the customer tries to hide?
He is trying to hide: Limitations and/or lack of Knowledge or Understanding and/or inability to Execute.
He would like to continue Business as Usual. He would like to make mistakes, including those he knows that they are mistakes.
His point of view is: Errors and Mistakes are good, as long as they are not new mistakes or errors.
He is Change averse guy, who would like to preserve the current state as long as possible.
I already posted that the term Customer does not refer to a single entity in the Organizational context.
A Consultant could have multiple Customers in an organization. However, if the Covering Customer is a dominant player he cam determine the success or failure of the consultancy assignments.
The Covering Customer may refer to multiple people in the same organization. In extreme cases Covering is built in the Organizational Culture.
An Example
The Consulting Assignment was requested by Business Users. They were not Covering Customers. They just want Information Technology Systems adequate to their requirements and flexible enough to support Business needs changes.
I prefer Win-Win scenario rather than a Win-Lose scenario. In a Win-Lose scenario, I will be payed for my work, but the customer will get no Value.
The Covering Customer was a key Information Technology figure, who tried to cover his responsibility for the current improper system, which was going to be replaced by a new system.
Covering by Limiting Changes
The Covering approach was based upon changing the code without Analyzing the System.
The conclusions of not Analyzing the System could be:
1. The System addressed the customer's requirements properly when it was build a decade ago.
2. The System is Agile and flexible, so changes were incorporated easily or the system still address the requirements without significant changes.
Nothing could describe the System worse than the conclusions above.
Prior to asking my services the Customer told me that the system did not address properly the requirements when it was built. He also told me that it is inflexible.
I interviewed other Business Users, and discovered that my Customer view was a consensus.
The dispute between the Covering Customer and me is analog to a dispute between two engineers:
One argues that a building should be build from the foundations. The other argues that it should be built from the roof without foundations at all.
Anyone will understand that the second engineer is right. However, a non-human being just landed from Mars or Venus, who had never seen a house, he may think that the first engineer's view is as plausible as the second engineer's view.
Elderly Business Users resemble the one just landed from Mars or Venus, as far as Information Technology is concerned. They may think that the Covering Customer's view is not as unique as it is.
The conclusions of not Analyzing the System could be:
1. The System addressed the customer's requirements properly when it was build a decade ago.
2. The System is Agile and flexible, so changes were incorporated easily or the system still address the requirements without significant changes.
Nothing could describe the System worse than the conclusions above.
Prior to asking my services the Customer told me that the system did not address properly the requirements when it was built. He also told me that it is inflexible.
I interviewed other Business Users, and discovered that my Customer view was a consensus.
The dispute between the Covering Customer and me is analog to a dispute between two engineers:
One argues that a building should be build from the foundations. The other argues that it should be built from the roof without foundations at all.
Anyone will understand that the second engineer is right. However, a non-human being just landed from Mars or Venus, who had never seen a house, he may think that the first engineer's view is as plausible as the second engineer's view.
Elderly Business Users resemble the one just landed from Mars or Venus, as far as Information Technology is concerned. They may think that the Covering Customer's view is not as unique as it is.
The Business User's dilemma
His IT knowledge and understanding were limited. In addition, the Covering IT guy is the one who will have to maintain the system for the following years.
The Covering Customer told the Business User that coding before analyzing a system is the standard approach in the organization.
I assume that he was wrong, however even if he was right we were still on Earth and not on Mars.
The Covering Customer told the Business User that coding before analyzing a system is the standard approach in the organization.
I assume that he was wrong, however even if he was right we were still on Earth and not on Mars.
Waterfall vs. Agile
You should not confuse between my disagreement with the Covering Customer and Waterfall vs. Agile Development approaches.
His approach has nothing to do with Agile Software Development. Agile approach advocates partial analysis in order to identify the highest priority components. These components are analyzed and developed.
The Covering Customer advocates no analysis at all.
His approach has nothing to do with Agile Software Development. Agile approach advocates partial analysis in order to identify the highest priority components. These components are analyzed and developed.
The Covering Customer advocates no analysis at all.
Consulting to Covering Customer
I encourage my students to make mistakes. It is a good way to learn. The problem of the Covering Customer is that he will never learn from his mistakes.
Do not talk to him about the company's goals, values or benefits. He does not care. Covering is his only goal.
The best approach is to work with other people in the organization. As you already noticed from the example appearing in previous section, sometimes it is not a valid option.
If it is not a valid option, you have to chose the least bad alternative:
1. No Consulting to that Organization
2. Failure
3. Changing the Covering Customer mindset
Do not talk to him about the company's goals, values or benefits. He does not care. Covering is his only goal.
The best approach is to work with other people in the organization. As you already noticed from the example appearing in previous section, sometimes it is not a valid option.
If it is not a valid option, you have to chose the least bad alternative:
1. No Consulting to that Organization
2. Failure
3. Changing the Covering Customer mindset
Comments