''This article provides a brief summary of the many efforts within industry and government to wrestle the beast of unprecedented systems and implementing major organizational changes to the ground. We use the word 'beast' in the same sense that Tom Peters, in his latest book ([weblink:595]), reminds us that old maps labeled uncharted territory with notations such as 'There be dragons here', to warn the unwary of the dangers inherent in such situations.'' The current (and popular) quality, cost, and governance initiatives in industry and government typically focus on ways to get efforts off on best possible foot, improve communications, leverage knowledge and learning, and manage cost, schedule, and quality drivers. All of these things are obviously laudable goals. Examples of such approaches that have been introduced over the last 20 years in pursuit of these goals include: *Standards efforts which codify [When best is not good enough|best practices] that are subsequently invoked through procurement practices, government regulations, or company policies and guidelines *Legislation which introduces new governance models, improved management systems, provides for increased senior management accountability, or requires individual accreditation or licensure *Maturity models which are used to benchmark and establish roadmaps for improvements *Assessment programs which are organized to evaluate organizational capabilities, attributes, or assets *Measurement techniques which are used to identify gaps between current and target outcomes, highlight leverage points, and track progess towards goals *Modeling approaches which are used to explore options and stabilize cost drivers early *Alternative business models or relationships (outsourcing, partnerships, acquisitons, etc) *Focused incentive systems with rewards tied closely to performance *Competitive pressures which are applied through supplier management sourcing techniques *Consortia which work across companies to leverage their collective knowledge and experience in tackling commmon challenges *Centers of excellence that provide a showcase for others to emulate and learn from *Organizational, educational, and professional society infrastructure to train and certify practitioners *New methodologies, technologies, and training programs which enable, integrate, and accelerate these approaches in creative and unique ways While all of these initiatives have been successful in some contexts, they have failed in others. Despite marketing and hype, few have actually been rigorously demonstrated in laboratory settings that allow for scientific analysis, or control for key success factors (such as the talent on a team, or the personality of a program manager) which have a substantial influence on the approach's ability to produce consistent and predictable results. Each of these initiatives have a broad community of supporters, often claiming that the initiative is the thing that saved their company, or made them world-class. Most have generated their own set of consultancies that offer to help you get that way, too. Too often, though, the initiative itself becomes the goal, rather than the result it was intending to produce, and in such settings, it's quite easy to spend more on the initiative than the savings you might have hoped to harvest. In such settings, the beast isn't killed; it's just entertained. Additionally, for any approach to be sustainable and deliver value, it must face many other challenges. These challenges often become the fundamental determining factors in whether the effort will ultimately prove 'worthwhile': *Justifying business cases for improvements, and keeping those improvements focused on real business issues *Driving improvements based upon facts and data, rather than perceptions and mental models *Overcoming resistance to, and distrust of, change at all levels in the organization *Treating root causes of problems or constraints, rather than symptoms *Avoiding the tendency of organizations and individuals to misrepresent information about progress or status when it may personally impact how they are viewed or rated *Avoiding the rollout of multiple, overlapping, and often inconsistent initiatives for improvement, which collectively introduce confusion and chaos, and create opportunities for political in-fighting and loss of focus *Senior management changes in leadership, commitment, or patience *Achieving a balanced portfolio of investments in new features, products, and product lines (with shorter-term but potentially lower payoffs) with associated investments in improvement of process capabilities (with longer-term but potentially higher payoff) *Balancing scalability and efficiency, or flexiblity and relevance, or usability and formality, in the definition and application of these methods Because of this, interventions for improvement often create additional pressures on program managers and team members as they work to organize plans and resources, remove roadblocks, improve communications, address the above challenges, and manage risks. Given a choice between delivering results or complying with one or more of these initiatives, delivering results will always win; it's not always an 'either-or' situation, but it often is. When a choice must be made, such calls usually come down to decisions about who and what to trust - the proponents of the new method, or the established ways of doing work that have served the organization in the past; in other words, the devil you know, versus the devil you don't. In such settings, whatever confidence is granted to the 'new world' can rapidly erode when unforseen situations arise, and pressures mount on those responsible for decision-making.