So how come no one read it except that one critic? I thought the team didn't do any work on the project for the past two weeks because they needed this report to tell them more about the project and what I wanted.

I've never seen anyone read a report, say to themselves I need to do something and then go out do it. They need to be talked to, have questions answered, understand what is being asked of them and then decide on their own if they have the time or desire to do it. They won't just read a report and take action.

So in a meeting the following week I go over everything again, convey why it's important and why it should get done. I finally get agreement that the final issues will be resolved and we can do the work I asked them to do three weeks ago to do. Why didn't they just do the work in the first place?

A document can be useful to advise new people to the project what it is all about but otherwise I do not believe it helps finish the project. Therefore they should be minimal and if people need to know something they should directly talk or work with someone and not expect they can get the information they need from a report. Following this will also let the people who are doing the work to keep working. Updating reports is also tiresome, wasteful and of little value since things can change so fast.

Sometimes it seems the longer it takes to create a project document the less likely it is that it will be read. The reason for this is because the longer it is the less people will want to read all those pages.

So why can't we just say no to the report requesters? Because if we do we will give the people we need help from an excuse to say no. Even though you might get agreement that the work is important, people already have enough work to do and if the documents are not created, they will be supported by their bosses and the bureaucracy for saying no.

A bureaucracy requires documents, reports and materials be created even if they do not help push a project forward. I think bureaucracies are created just to say no to projects or slow them down. Bureaucracies and development processes do not complete projects on their own and worse they take projects away from those trying to get something done and give it to review and audit teams. Sometimes the projects come back, sometimes the project dies but even if it comes back it's seldom improved.

I find bureaucracies are answerable to no one and no one person can control them. Not even an executive can dictate a project to proceed with all due speed but just about anyone can stop the project by saying development is being done out of process which offends the bureaucracy very much.

Hardly anyone will admit to working or aiding the bureaucracy which makes it all the harder to fight. The system and process stands as a kind of force field that blocks any attacks seeking a change.

Yes it is true bureaucracies and development processes have a role in deciding which projects should get done and which shouldn't. However, this sometimes cuts people off from doing what they can when they can. Instead of being able to just directly ask someone if they have the time to help, you have to go through the bureaucracy which often says no.

For instance, Paul who has an idea may need just a little help and has relationships where he can ask around and receive that help. Initially people may be willing to assist but if others outside this discussion get wind of it, they can kill the effort. So Paul and his friend may proceed without anyone finding out and this is what is meant as getting something done through the backdoor, which is to say if the project went through the front door (development process) it would have never been completed.

So why bother with trying to please the bureaucracy and not just use backdoors? Well if you know, please write a report and let me know. Maybe I'll give you some feedback.