Random Thoughts from a CTO: Organizations

Everybody should think about improvements!

Tue, 03 Oct 2006 19:59:37 GMT

Traditionally, process improvement has come down from management. It's expected that this is part of management's job, to keep check on the status quo and determine when things aren't working and fix them. Management assumes that as well, and is always trying to find ways to improve without having impact to others in the organization. Even if individuals who are "feeling the pain" with the inefficiency are discourgaged to help, and told to "focus on their jobs" and leave it up to management to improve. Management ends up taking on the entire burden of improving the orgranization on their own. As a result, because they don't have the bandwidth to improve everything they end up choosing areas of most pain. The danger is that they aren't looking at the whole picture, and may be treating the symptom and not the cause. At best, this only helps things temporarily, as the cause is still out there and will eventually hit a new threshold to cause other symptoms. For those areas that they are able to attend to, it still impacts others in the organization as they have to react to the changes and aren't prepared when they happen. Also, despite what managers think, they aren't directly "on the battlefield" and don't always understand what is really happening. Especially, if they don't ask.

I think the model needs to change. Improvement should be part of every employee's list of responsibilities. Management's job is to help others understand what goals are most important to the organization and why, and how to measure success of these goals. If they can do that and people truly comprehend it, then anybody can determine what improvement initiatives need to happen at their particular level. It's then up to management to make sure that the initiatives are in alignment throughout the organization and depending on the priority and timeframes, make sure that people given ample attention and time to implement them. Where possible, to reduce the impact to the organization, things should be done parallel to existing processes as part of a "pilot" project and then rolled out when proven successful. By spreading both the burden and the work across the organization, this will allow more things to happen. Management is then focused on the "big picture" instead of the "details", which helps reduce the risk that you are treating the problem and not the symptom. Lastly, by involving people at all levels of the organization, you are assured that the improved solutions are going to work better because the people expected to implement have been involved throughout the process. Not only do they have more ownership, they are more proactive in their approach.

Improvement isn't (or shouldn't be) just a "management thing", it should be everybody's business!

Meetings - Part 5: After the Meeting

Thu, 21 Sep 2006 18:53:12 GMT

We finish this series on ways to have more effective meetings by discussing what should happen at the end of the meeting, as well as what you should do following the meeting.

Here is what should happen at the end of every meeting:

Running out of time. No matter how well you plan the agenda and try to stick to it, you are bound to have surprises which cause your meeting to run longer. Don't just continue the discussion as people might have other plans following your meeting. As I see it, you have two choices: 1) Ask for permission to extend the meeting for the additional time needed. If people are ok with that, continue the meeting. Otherwise, 2) Schedule a follow up meeting with the group at a more convenient time in the next 24 hours while the information is fresh in their memories.
Thank attendees for their time and contribution. You would be surprised how this little thing can make a difference in future meetings. People want to feel that they helped in the meeting and by thanking people publicly it will encourage participation in the future.
Summarize Action Items. It is a good idea to summarize the decisions that have been made, who will work on the action items and when you expect to provide more information to everyone.
Review the Meeting Goals as well as Questions. Hopefully, if you have been doing everything right, this should just be a confirmation that these things were covered. After all, this was the whole point of the meeting, right? If some of the goals or questions were not covered, try to answer offline or schedule a follow-up meeting with the appropriate people.

After the meeting there are a few things that you should do to ensure that the communication and meetings goals have been completed:

Create Meeting Notes. Take the notes from your Scribe as well as the Action Items and publish meeting notes. Send these notes not only to all participants of the meeting but any other stakeholders who were unable to attend the meeting but are interested in the information gathered.
Check on Action Items. Hold people accountable after the meeting to complete the action items assigned to them. Once those have been completed, either publish the information and have a follow-up meeting. The decision will depend on the information and how accepted it will be with the stakeholders.
Get Feedback on the Meeting from all participants. Ask questions like: "What did you get out of the meeting?" "In what ways can I conduct a better meeting in the future?" "Did you feel you were able to participate in the future?" "Was there anything that you wanted to say but didn't?" There may be more questions, but these will not only help you in future meetings but also gives participants one last chance to give their opinions.

I hope that you enjoyed this series and that it will better help you in conducting meetings in the future!

Meetings - Part 4: During the Meeting

Wed, 20 Sep 2006 17:10:20 GMT

The tone of the meeting can be set in the first five minutes. Therefore, it is important to do the following things at the beginning of each meeting:

Establish Ground Rules - What are ground rules? They are a list of things for each participant in the meeting to consider. These ground rules can be global for every meeting or apply only to a particular meeting. Here are some global ground rules that we have established for meetings:

Inward focused not outward – “What can I/we do?” instead of “What can others do?”
Proactive not reactive – Produce action items, not just talk.
Participatory – Everybody should be prepared to contribute to the discussion.
Be prepared – If you didn’t read the materials, please don’t come to the meeting.
One at a time – Let each person finish this discussion before interrupting.
Open discussion – Anything can and should be discussed as long as they fit the other ground rules.

Assign a Timer - It is very easy to run out of time in a meeting unless you have somebody paying attention to it. I have found this to be difficult for the meeting coordinator to do if they are to focus on the meeting itself. Therefore, it is a great idea to assign this task to somebody in the group.

Assign a Scribe - Same goes with meeting notes. We have tried to write everything up on the marker boards, then the meeting coordinate takes notes afterwards. However, this doesn't always work because the meeting room might have a meeting immediately following. We have found that assigning a scribe to the meeting ensures that we get accurate and complete notes that the coordinator can get at the end of the meeting.

Review the Agenda - Though you sent the meeting agenda ahead of time, that doesn't mean that each person had time to review it. Go through it and make sure that everybody understands what will be discussed. Allow for clarifying questions.

Introduction of Attendees - Unless the people in the meeting are very familiar to each other and their particular role in the meeting, it is always good to go around the room and make introductions. This is especially important when you have outside visitors or are involved in a conference call type of meeting.

Once you get the meeting going, here are some guidelines that you need to consider as you progress through the meeting:

Stick to the Agenda - I think it is very important to discipline yourself and the group to follow the agenda. This will ensure focus and make sure that sufficient time is given to all aspects of the meeting.
Establish a Parking Lot - Though we should stick to the agenda, there are times where things will come up that weren't considered beforehand. Plus, you don't want to stifle creativity by not allowing for out-of-the-box thinking. Therefore, it is good practice to have a parking lot. Document items that come up with the idea that they will be discussed in future meetings or offline with the appropriate individuals.
Check with the Timer - You should establish with the timer a way to communicate to each other how we are managing our time. This could be in the form of signals or just asking the Timer occassionally.
Document Action Items - The meeting coordinator should put up on the marker board all action items that are coming up as the meeting progresses for all to see. Don't worry about who and when those will be done yet, we will get to that later. Just make sure you are showing the participants that some things will be resolved through the discussion.

Next, we will finish this series up by discussing what happens at the end of the meeting and the steps that occur after the meeting.

Meetings - Part 3: Before the Meeting

Tue, 19 Sep 2006 18:13:09 GMT

Before you have a meeting, you need to make sure that you determine if a meeting is the best forum. Hopefully, the previous posts have given you some background. In addition, you need to look at the following things:

Why do we need to meet? Is there a particular problem we are trying to resolve? Do we need to choose a solution from several options? Do we need to make sure that everybody on the team has the same information? It is important to make sure as the meeting coordinate that you understand these things. Don't just have a meeting because you can!
Are the alternative forms of communication that should replace or accompany the meeting? Having a meeting, though valuable, is the most disruptive to people's schedules and workflows. There are other forms that are less intrusive such as email, voice mail, posting pages on the company's intranet. If there is a better forum, pick it.
Who should come to the meeting? Definitely, those people who need to come up with plans of action and are stakeholder. All other people may be optional and you should consider the other forms of communication as a way to get their input or provide results of the meeting. Also, if you are trying to come to a consensus for a decision, a reminder that the more people involved the harder it is to gain that consensus. Try to limit the participants where making sure that others are included through activities and communication outside of the meeting.

Now that you have decided to have a meeting, it is best to make sure you are well prepared for it. We have all been to meetings that have been poorly planned and done at the last minute. Most of the meetings have been nightmares. Don't let that happen to you. Here are the steps:

Define the goals of the meeting. "What do we want to accomplish by the end of the meeting?" Keep the goals to a few, no more than three, one or two is best. This will set the general flow of the meeting to keep things focused.

Determine the stakeholders. "Who are the people I need there to best accomplish the goals?" Don't have a meeting without those people if possible! If for some reason, a stakeholder cannot attend, try to have a "proxy stakeholder" come in their place. Make sure that this proxy reflects the opinions of the true stakeholder.

Determine the timing of the meeting. "Is this the right time to have the meeting?" "How long should we take?" Timing is everything. If you feel that there is not enough infomation needed to accomplish the goals, WAIT to have the meeting until you and others are ready. Otherwise, you are wasting your time and others! Also, don't meet longer than necessary. Too often, people just block out an hour for a meeting that should only take 15 minutes. What happens? It becomes natural that people end up spending the hour JUST because it is there. It is much better to underallocate time, and have a followup meeting if necessary than overallocate. Keep this in mind!

Create a meeting Agenda. This really doesn't take a lot of time but is such a valuable tool. The Agenda should contain the following items:

Name of Meeting
Meeting Organizer
Date, Time, Place
Attendees
Purpose of the Meeting
Goals of the Meeting
Introduction Time
Breakdown of Objectives with Description, Owner/Presenter, Time Allocation
Q&A Time
Action Items Form with Description, Owner, Date to Complete
Place for Notes

Send a meeting invitation. Most likely by email and integrated with a scheduling program. This email should have the agenda attached as well as have the name of the meeting in the Subject Line and the Date, Time, Place and Purpose of the meeting in the body. You should also ask people to RSVP by a certain date/time prior to the meeting. Make sure that you hear back at least from stakeholders.

Next time, what to do at the start of the meeting...

Meetings - Part 2: The Five E's

Fri, 15 Sep 2006 18:16:35 GMT

Now that you understand why meetings happen, the next step is to understand the five E's that are important to have for any meeting.

Efficient - The meeting must be started and completed on time, taking no more time than is necessary to accomplish the goals of the meeting. The moderator of the meeting must make sure that the meeting moves along at an appropriate pace.

Effective - The meeting must accomplish its goals. People that attend the meeting must feel that it was worth their time. There must be action items that come out of every meeting. Participants must feel that choosing to meet was the best form of communication and it was also the right time to have the meeting.

Educational - People that attend the meeting must learn something from it. They should come out the meeting having a better understanding both on the information shared in the meeting as well as action items coming out of the meeting. They should also learn more about themselves as well as other people by allowing for group participation in the meeting.

Entertaining - Who says meetings have to be dull and so serious? Make them fun! Some of the meetings we have contain fun icebreakers to ease the tension or get to know newcomers. Food, especially those containing lots of sugar, not only are appreciated but keep everybody awake (and sometimes a little jittery!).

Enriching - If the meeting does accomplish its goals, those goals should have done something to enrich those attending the meeting. Each person should feel a part of the team and felt that their participation in the meeting made a difference towards the outcome. If the purpose of the meeting is to remove roadblock by resolving issues, then the participant must feel that action is being taken to allow them to do their work.

Next time, we will look how to determine if a meeting is necessary by examining alternative forms of collaboration and communication.

Meetings - Part I: Why Do We Meet?

Thu, 14 Sep 2006 22:39:21 GMT

Over the next few days, I am going to talk about something we are all familiar with - MEETINGS! Whether or like them or not, they are a part of your work life. Most of the information discussed in this series aren't new to many of you. If nothing else, this will be a refresher course for you. The series will focus on the role of meeting organizer, though some of you will learn some things regardless if you are in that role. So, here we go....

Why do people meet? I think there are several reasons why meetings are necessary:

Social gathering - If you are going to work as a team, you must get to know your teammates. Meetings provide that face-to-face interaction that is important in any kind of relationship.
Collaborative - If the purpose of the meeting is to brainstorm, there is no other vehicle of communication that fosters collaboration like meetings. Bringing people together with various perspectives, working through the issues and coming to a better solution than any one individual can come up with.
Change in Routine - Meetings can be a distraction - positive or negative. A positive aspect is that it forces you to break up your routine. You might find that the break gives you a fresh perspective just by having the diversion.
Remove roadblocks - This is probably the most important reason to have meetings, in order to take care of the things that are getting in our way. Finding solutions to problems and issues that are plaguing us.
Be informed - Sometimes it is good to have a meeting just to make sure that everybody is on the same page by being well informed. The information provided may help each person in ways that is not expected.

Do you have PASSION for your job?

Mon, 11 Sep 2006 16:18:18 GMT

It seems that the word "passion" has come up a lot in my reading lately around having the right people in your organization. People have used "passion" to describe me based on my random thoughts on this blog. People that I work with, work for or have worked with have used the word to describe me at times. I thought I knew what passion was, but learned more when I looked up the term (using Wiktionary):

passion - 1. great emotion; 2. fervor and determination

Ok, this seems to sound a little like me and is definitely the kind of person that I would want to work with in any organization. As long as the great emotion is used in a positive and contributing way (I have had plenty that have great emotion or should I say drama with little substance). Fervor and determination...hmmm...that sounds interesting, let me look up the definition for those words:

fervor - 1. An intense, heated emotion; 2. enthusiasm for some cause

determination - 1. Direction or tendency to a certain end; implusion; 2. The quality of mind which reaches definite conclusions; 3. That which is determined upon; result of deliberation; purpose; conclusion formed; fixed resolution.

Intensity, cause, implusion, quality of mind, purpose, and having a fixed resolution -- yep, that sounds like me and those kind of people who I most like to work with. It also sounds like the scenario for the perfect company that I would like to be a part of.

I think of the movie "Joe vs. the Volcano". It starred Tom Hanks and was a bad movie overall. But there was this one scene that has forever stuck in my mind. At the start of the movie, Tom's character is going to work and walking up to this mammoth building along with other people. He and the rest of the employees look almost like robots - emotionless, cold, distant, and lifeless. As he walks into the building, it's like one big cube farm (very Dilbert-like), so quiet that you can hear the buzz of the florescent lights, so dark and dismal, and everybody just goes to their areas and sits down and starts their work. And my thought was....I never want to work for a place like this and become one of those "robots". The entire organization had no "passion" whatsoever! You could feel the life draining as each painful minute passed.

Though that was the extreme scenario, I have seen organizations that have no life in them. People just come into work to do their mandatory 40-some hours each week to pick up their paycheck. They drag themselves into work, and can't wait until the clock hits quitting time. Their work life (and perhaps their entire life) has NO meaning, NO purpose, NO emotion, fervor or determination. They have nothing to look forward to, and nothing to feel rewarded for. I think it's an epidemic that continues to plague corporate America.

How do we turn it around? It starts with one person, and this person doesn't necessary need to be the CEO. They begin to ask questions about their role in the company and what the company is all about. They encourage others to get involved. It becomes a whole new viral epidemic. People then want to know what the future of the company is, its mission and vision, to determine the organization's cause. Then, if allowed by management, they want to be active and participate in that cause (if that's what they believe in). Those that didn't fit into the cause, are probably not the right people to work for the organization. You let them go, and replace them with others that want to work the cause. Now everybody has meaning, purpose, emotion fervor and determination. They look forward each day to contributing towards the organization's success and they receive tangible rewards for their efforts!

It starts with you. Where is your passion? Can you use your passion in your current role within your current organization. If not, look for other places where you can. If there still is a potential fit with the organization, start getting others involved and triggering their passion. Sometimes passion has always been there, but never triggered. Other times, passion was there but need to be re-ignited. Find it! Use It! Help others do the same! If you find that these things don't renew your passion, then you seriously need to consider finding another organization that will.

Unless you like to be a robot...

What does it mean to obtain perfection?

Thu, 31 Aug 2006 19:08:00 GMT

What does it mean to be perfect or to obtain perfection? Some may say that to be perfect is to not have any flaws. Others may say not to make any mistakes. Still others may say that there is no such thing in the world as perfection.

Can one truly reach perfection? It depends on the definition. In an organization, people expect perfection - customers, vendors, managers, and those good-ol-fashion perfectionists out there. It's demanded from us. But can we deliver on those demands?

In the agile software development world, there's a motto called "Do the simplest thing that could possible work." For them, that is their definition until they receive feedback through frequest delivery that more is needed. For those that are in Quality Assurance, usually the definition of perfection are to catch critical bugs that we impact the general operation of the solution or possibly corrupt the underlying data. For other bugs, they determine if the workaround is acceptable. For cosmetic issues such as mispellings and inconsistences of terminology, those things can be fixed when time is available. For project managers, their idea of perfection is to remove any bottlenecks keeping the team from delivering something of value to end customers. Therefore, there are many compromises between the development team, the end customer and other stakeholders of what the "acceptance criteria" is for the project.

Bottom line is that in business, in our departments, on our teams, with our products and services -- we must all define and agree on what perfection is. Once we define that, we need to make sure that the processes and end deliverables reflect that. How? By measuring our quality and constantly tracking and balancing our "perfection" against that which is achievable. Eventually, the definition of perfection will take a life of its own, one that is aligned to the expectations of customers, vendors, managers, and perhaps even those perfectionists out there.

What is my personal definition of perfection? Well, it's simple actually. Perfection to me is to provide the very best value that is possible given the abilities and constraints that are put upon the team. What are the measures? Maximizing our abilities while minimizing our constraints. This would be measuring things such as skills, time, money, risk, customer acceptance, stability, technical challenges, etc.

Hopefully, that's good enough!

Learning lessons from geese

Tue, 18 Jul 2006 17:46:03 GMT

I posted this a year ago and got great response from it. So, here we go again...

Lessons From Geese was transcribed from a speech given by Angeles Arrien at the 1991 Organizational Development Network and was based on the work of Milton Olson. It circulated to Outward Bound staff throughout the United States. It's interesting what we can learn from nature.

Fact: As each goose flaps its wings, it creates an "uplift" for the birds that follow. By flying in a "V" formation, the whole flock adds 71% greater flying range than if each bird flew alone. Lesson: People who share a common direction and sense of community can get where they are going quicker and easier because they are traveling on the thrust of each other.
Fact: When a goose falls out of formation, it suddenly feels the drag and resistance of flying alone. It quickly moves back into formation to take advantage of the lifting power of the bird immediately in front of it. Lesson: If we have as much sense as a goose, we stay in formation with those headed where we want to go. We are willing to accept their help and give our help to others.
Fact: When the lead bird tires, it rotates back into the formation to take advantage of the lifting power of the bird immediately in front of it. Lesson: It pays to take turns doing the hard tasks and sharing leadership. As with geese, people are interdependent on each other's skills, capabilities, and unique arrangements of gifts, talents, or resources.
Fact: The geese flying in formation honk to encourage those up front to keep up their speed. Lesson: We need to make sure our honking is encouraging. In groups where there is encouragement, the production is much greater. The power of encouragement (to stand by one's heart or core values and to encourage the heart and core values of others) is the quality of honking we seek.
Fact: When a goose gets sick, wounded, or shot down, two geese drop out of formation and follow it down to help and protect it. They stay with it until it dies or is able to fly again. Then, they launch out with another formation or catch up with the flock. Lesson: If we have as much sense of geese, we will stand by each other in difficult times as well as when we're strong.

Overtime is just WRONG

Mon, 17 Jul 2006 17:33:08 GMT

Nothing good long term can come from working your employees more hours than they should be working. Managers know this. Employers know this. So WHY do they keep insisting that people work more hours? Why should the 60 hour+ week be normal. It's NOT! Why do people get criticized if they don't work as hard? Why do they reward people who work the most hours by saying that they are "raising the bar", "going above and beyond", "a team player willing to do what they can for the company".

All of those things sound admirable. Sound heroic. Sound even respectable. But those people who are working those kinds of hours aren't doing themselves any good. So why do we end up with cultures that expect overtime as the norm instead of the rare exception? Here are some theories:

Poor Planning - This is perhaps the biggest reason. Projects get behind. Risks weren't taken into account. Tasks were underestimated. Not enough time was spent in upfront requirements and design to better understand the scope. Most of these could and should be prevented by management, but there is usually a rush to get the "real work" started.

More Productivity - Once managers start using overtime, they also get the feeling that productivity is higher. Though this may seem so in the short term, it's only because of working more hours. However, productivity will slip over time as you will see below.

More Work for Less Pay - In some organizations, they do compensate for extra time with higher spot bonuses, generous salaries that are higher than the industry, and other kinds of rewards. However, I know of many organizations that hardly do any of these things. Managers feel that because people are salary, that they have the right to work them more hours. However, the employees that are being asked to work more hours aren't getting compensated for that. Not fair in my book!

Rewards for the wrong things - If companies do reward, it is usually based on metrics such as lines of code, hours worked, and other things that only encourage overtime. How about rewards for the quality of the work vs. the quantity? People that work normal hours therefore get penalized even if they work is much better than the person who isn't as productive but is working a lot of hours. Something is very wrong with that!

So what harm can come from overtime anyway? Let's look at some side effects of continued overtime:

Increased number of defects - Quality begins to suffer. There is such a focus on quantity that people take shortcuts, miss critical steps in the process. The process is there to ensure quality, but process takes a second seat when you are behind, have worked too many hours, and you aren't thinking straight. Also, when less planning, requirements gathering, design, risk assessment, and other things are not followed then things are missed, your end customers don't get what they want.
Increased incentive to take unwise risks - People are inclined to take chances. "Oh, we don't really need to do that step", or "Let's just through it over the wall to our testing group, it's good enough". There are usually enough risks that managers need to be watching without adding unneccessary (and usually unreported) risks.
Reduced creativity - People spend less time coming up with alternative (and perhaps better) ways to solve problems and look for the low hanging fruit. Therefore, both their skills at problem solving as well as the end solution suffer.
Increased burnout - Your emotional, physical and mental states can only take so much. Eventually, one if not more of these begin to decline. You first start seeing people take more sick time, then you start to see their work suffer, eventually they don't seem to be able to think clearly, respond quickly. Burnout is a bad thing, and VERY hard to recover from.
Reduced time for self-education and organizational improvement - With all of the focus on getting work done for customers, it leaves little time for internal activities. Therefore, you aren't "sharpening your axe" and therefore skills, processes, tools and other things necessary to do your job become sluggish.
Reduced personal time - If you have a family or significant others, by working overtime you have declared to them that work takes a higher priority than them. If that is the case, the priorities are all out of wack. If you want to put career and work ahead of yourself and others, you have the freedom to do so...but you should be single and have no friends or family. Eventually, that may happen anyways as they feel invisible after awhile.
Reduced productivity - It's just a matter of time, where productivity suffers because there is no motivation and energy to keep going at a faster pace. Even if people are working the hours, the number of hours where they are really accomplishing good work goes down. Also, given the decreased quality, it means a lot of rework.
Increased turnover - No matter how much you are rewarding, because of all of these other factors, people will leave your company to take a chance at "greener pastures". You have invested a lot in these people, do you really want to spend the company's time and money reinvesting constantly in new people?

So if you are tired of working overtime, talk to your manager about it. Send them this blog entry from a manager that have seen the benefits of working normal hours long-term outweigh the use of overtime. Make sure that they are aware (and should be concerned) about the long term effects of overtime. Give them examples in the past where these things have occured.

If you are a manager, change your culture. Have your people work more reasonable hours. Let them enjoy life outside of work. Allow for time to grow and improve. Encourage people to do better planning and not to avoid quality processes. Also, show them that working overtime will only be used in the most extreme situations where you have done everything else to avoid it but some additional hours must be worked for a week or two. Reward people for planning projects correctly and getting them done on time or early. Reward people for coming up with creative solutions that better solve the problems (even better if they have less cost or risk associated with them).

Let's ABOLISH overtime! Or at least, let's make it less of an issue.

Simplicity, Flexibility, and Customer Service

Fri, 16 Jun 2006 21:50:53 GMT

Can simplicity in software be achievable?

What do you have to give up in order to have that simplicity?

What are the costs of flexibility weighed against the cost of simplicity?

How does all of this relate to providing customer service to end users?

I struggle with these questions on a regular basis as a CTO in a software company. Many companies take the stance of taking care of the customer at all costs. If a customer has a unique need, they provide an option to allow them to do it. If they want the functionality to behave a little differently than designed, they code in a special switch that they can turn on to have the application behave as they want. The talk is in the language of switches, options, flags, etc.

Why don't these companies just change the functionality for all customers you might say? Good question. They make these assumptions:

That we must have provided the right solution in the first place and that this particular need is different.
That we cannot change this functionality because other customers will be impacted by this change.
That those other customers must be using and feel satisified with the existing functionality since we didn't hear from them.
That the functionality that we initially provided shouldn't change over time.

Are those assumptions validated? No, because they don't want their customers to think that they didn't get it right the first time. They also don't want to validate that they might not have figured it out right the first time. All in the name of providing great customer service to the end users because we accommodate their needs without impacting them in any way that could be perceived as negative.

So, what does flexibility and customer service have to do with simplicity or complexity of the solution? The more straightforward you can provide a solution, with less "moving parts", the easier it is too maintain, validate(test), document and train the end user. The long term benefits of this simplicity means less ongoing operational costs. Less operational costs means that you can provide additional enhancements or solutions. Additional enhancements or solutions, with the simplicity of each solution, will create RAVING FANS!! (as Tom Peters! would say)

On the other hand, the more you do in the name of customer service to provide flexibility through options, switches, etc creates more operational costs. More operational costs means less enhancements and additional solutions. It also means that it will make it more difficult for end users to understand how to use all of those "moving parts" sometimes even to do the more simple things in their minds. Eventually, this will cause your end users to gain resentment for you in saying "What have you done for me lately?" and "Give me something that makes sense and that is usable".

Look at any software package and you can see that there is a very fine line between flexbility and simplicity. Some companies choose to focus entirely on simplicity, saying no often in order to focus on core functionality. Other companies choose to design their products in a way that the end user can define how simple or complex they want it: Look at Mozilla Firefox for instance in how they built the ability for plug-ins. Others have allowed their solutions to get complex over time by providing a lot of configuration options. It is the latter that concerns me.

What can be done?

Validate assumptions about your end users. You saw the assumptions above. How do you know those assumptions are correct? When were they last validated? Do you really understand your customers?
Make honest evaluations about current functionality. Did you really get it right in the first place? Has something changed in the marketplace or customer needs that you haven't accounted for? Determine what is really core to your solution verses "nice to have" accessories.
Avoid quick fixes and make time for the long haul. Put in the short term costs in order to have the long term benefits. Don't be tempted to go for the band-aid solutions and yet still have internal bleeding.

What defines your culture?

Tue, 06 Jun 2006 21:17:56 GMT

When I first took over management of my department at my current company, I wanted to make sure that they understood what I valued. At the same time, I wanted to make sure that there were some guidelines that aligned with what the company thought was important. It was also critical that what I had to communicate wasn't unrealistic but not easy to achieve as well. It needed to be a stretch, something to motivate, remind people of what is important (and what is not).

So, what did I do? I defined several value statements and for each put some definition behind them. This became the definition of the principles (culture and values) that our department should live up to. Though each person doesn't have this list memorized, they can describe what our culture and values are and will hit on each of these points. It has been engrained in each of them, it has become a part of each of them, it defines what makes the department different from other departments in other companies.

Another thing with these values, for the most part they haven't been changed in over five years. There has been some tweaks and additions for better definition, but the overall definition is still the same. When you create principles, they need to set in stone so that they can become part of the foundation of an organization. Otherwise, they will be nothing more than some words on a piece of paper.

The following statements best define the culture and values of our department:

Work hard, play hard - The best place to work would be one where you have very intense times of productivity on projects, but also have very intense times having fun and getting to know your peers. We need to continue to find ways to make the environment a fun place to come to. We also should make time to have fun. We recognize that people also have lives outside of work, and want to make sure that we foster a healthy work-life balance.
Managers need help too - Your manager is only one person, and able to only accomplish so much. It is important that they try to delegate where possible. It is also important that there are people who are willing to have things delegated to them. If you find areas that need resolution and you believe you can help resolve, it is encouraged that you talk to your manager and ask if you can help. We are a team, who has a leader, but it takes a team effort for us to win!
Share the knowledge - Our best resources at our company are our people that work for our company. Though we have ways to ask and receive knowledge via email and verbally, these are short lived and only touch a part of the company. Plus, as the company changes, newer employees may be asking the same questions and not having a history of prior knowledge that was shared through those vehicles. We need to find ways to consolidate more of this knowledge into a central "knowledge base" on the company's Intranet (technical, company, non-technical skills, lessons learned, etc) and encourage people to contribute to our "Think Tank". Also, take the extra step if you have the knowledge to personally pass it on to others that can benefit from that knowledge.
Speak your mind - If you have an idea to make our products or department work better, please tell others that can help take that idea and make it happen. If you feel there are things that aren't working well, provide that feedback as well. Everyone is professional and we should feel it is acceptable to challenge each other, as long as it is done is a constructive manner. Sometimes the best things that have happened in our company have been the result of people not being afraid to speak up. Perhaps the next good idea may come from you!
Respect and acknowledge your peers - Though it is nice (and necessary) to get a pat on the back from your manager and upper management, it is also just as fulfilling to feel that from your peers. We all come in contact with each other and need to work with each other on a daily basis. Find creative ways to recognize each other's efforts!
We can all learn from each other - We need to mentor each other. Senior level people need to offer help to Junior level. Everyone needs to not be afraid to ask other for help instead of painstakingly trying to figure it out themselves. If you get stuck, nobody will think less of you by asking for help. In fact, it shows that you aren't wasting time just to save your ego. Mentoring will not only improve the quality of those doing it (talk to any person that has done training and they will tell you that their skills have improved greatly as a result) but also allow everyone to grow and become more skilled and valuable to the department.
Quality is everything - We should constantly preach quality in everything we do. Quality is something that should not be short-changed and we shouldn't settle for second best. We should show our quality to the customer and help everyone understand the need for quality. However, quality does sometimes come at a cost, but we need to prove to others that these costs are only short term. Long term costs eventually will be less with better software that is easy to maintain and less buggy. We shouldn't accept any project where we feel we are compromising this quality too much, otherwise we won't practice what we preach!
Work smarter - Faster isn't always better. Using best practices and efficient process methodologies will maximize our efforts and ultimately help us execute faster. Doing things fast for fast sake is not necessarily the best way to truly accomplish something fast. In fact, some things require slowing down and taking time such as thinking through requirements and design, or forecasting potential impacts to other projects or people. Become disciplined to actually take the time to slow down and think about things! Make decisions and produce deliverables based on facts or solid assumptions. If the assumptions are weak, actions will be made based on weak information. Take the time necessary to ensure that the information has been gathered to take the appropriate actions.
Spend your valuable time wisely - Though we are not billable as a consultant, we still cost our company money for every hour that we work. We should have the mentality of a consultant, in that you need to account for every hour. Everything we do should have a value to our company, our department, and to you as part of the department. Make sure that problems are being solved at the appropriate level. If you are the expert, assume that the responsibility of resolution is being asked of you. If you are not or the responsibility is clearly defined by others' roles, make them aware of the problem and let them take care of the solution. Focus is key to maximizing your productivity!
Learn from our mistakes - We are human. We will make mistakes no matter what we do. The question is: Do we try to prevent those mistakes from happening in the future? We need to show the tough lessons learned on projects and within the department to each other. We need to have more "Lessons Learned" meetings on the projects, not just at the end of the project but during. We need to constantly learn how to improve our best practices, architectures, processes, and standards. Let's try to avoid having to run into the same costly problems in the future. Change will always happen in the organization, whether we like it or not. If you feel the change will impact you in a negative manner, let those who may have control of the change know. Have patience as change occurs, and assume that the end result of the change will be positive. We may at times take "two steps forward and one step back", but we will strive to always move forward in a positive direction.
Serve our stakeholders - Our stakeholders include our external customers, internal departments, and the product steering committees. In all of our activities – technical development, fulfillment and support we need to have a servant attitude towards our stakeholders. We need to ask the question to them, “How can we best serve your needs?”. If we forget about them and live in a vacuum, we risk the impact to the bottom line with lost customers, negative industry reputation and missed opportunities.
Smaller is better - We can get a lot more done in smaller pieces, because it will provide the maximum benefits of quality, efficiency and service to deliver to our stakeholders in a timely manner. We must avoid “gold-plating” in our requirements and design at all costs. We need to make sure we understand the minimum needs for us to produce a competitive product and stick to the minimum throughout the process. It’s best to get something out the door as quickly as possible and determine later how to enhance the product based on feedback, than try to think of the “kitchen sink” before we can deliver.
We are assets, not just costs - As people invest their knowledge in our products and the technology behind them, they are becoming much more to the organization than overhead costs. Instead, they are becoming a fixed asset to the organization that over time becomes difficult to replace without some negative impact. We should continue to find ways not only to reward these “assets” but also invest as much as we can into them, as that investment should provide a return many times over in the responsibilities that are asked of them. Where this investment in both training and experience can also provide career growth for that individual, it becomes a true “win-win” scenario. We need to continue to find ways to create this scenario for every individual in the department.

Do you have some guiding principles in our organization? in your department? If not, you should stop what you are doing and put them down on paper. Then, review these principles with people in your department and get their feedback. Also, make sure that these priniciples are aligned with how your company defines itself and operates. Finally, once you have something, DON'T CHANGE IT, and find every opportunity to talk about them with people throughout the organization. Make sure that new people that come into the organization are provided with this information from the start. Last, but not least, as a leader you must be the example and demonstrate each of these values in your leadership.

Efficient vs. Effective

Tue, 30 May 2006 15:49:19 GMT

You hear both of these terms thrown around by management, many times interchangably usually around productivity - "You must be more efficient!" "Can you be more effective in your work?" However, I believe there is a big difference between these two words and even more so, you must have both in order to maximize productivity.

Let's go to the definitions:

Efficient
1 : being or involving the immediate agent in producing an effect
2 : productive without waste
Effective
1 : producing a decided, decisive, or desired effect
2 : ready for service or action
Agent
1 : one that acts or exerts power
2 : something that produces or is capable of producing an effect
3 : a means or instrument by which a guiding intelligence achieves a result

EFFICIENT suggests an acting or a potential for action or use in such a way as to avoid loss or waste of energy in effecting, producing, or functioning. In other words, getting to the information quickly to act upon.

EFFECTIVE stresses the actual production to produce an effect. Now that you have the information, getting the task done with the results you are desiring.

I have seen individuals that are highly organized and feel that they can get the information quickly but don't ever get things done (or at least those things that matter).

On the other hand, I have seen people get things done but they take way too much time due to lack of organization.

I think there are also those that don't take the least path of resistence and focus on just enough information to get the results. They may be organized, and eventually get to results, but they get buried in the details and it takes too long.

So, here's how I see it -- Productivity = Efficient + Effective.

Management's got it easy!

Tue, 09 May 2006 19:52:00 GMT

I used to think that when I started my career as a programmer. It felt that the worker bees were doing all of the work and that the manager really just sat in his office doing who knows what. Sure, there was the occassional status meeting and some communication with management, but otherwise nothing. All I knew was that getting into management meant not doing the fun work and having to do a lot of administrative stuff and deal with a lot of politics throughout the organization. It sounded boring and I wanted to do real work that would make a difference. Who would want to become a manager, I asked?

As I continued moving in my career, I was asked to get into more of a leadership position given my experience and ability to work well with people. I eventually made the leap to management. Boy, was I wrong in thinking that management was less work or boring! I soon found myself working more hours and having more work than I ever imagined.

So why did I think what I did, and why did it turn out so differently than I expected?

To the answers, I turn to an analogy of an orchestra...

A orchestra requires that each individual have the skills to play the instrument that is being asked of them to do. Some people are better than others, and it is up to the section leaders to work with the individual of their sections to improve their performance. The more senior the person, the more complex the piece that is given to them.

Section leaders are also responsible to ensure that their section understanding their part of the composition and are working together well as a group. This requires not only understanding the individuals and their pieces but how the section's pieces play into the entire composition.

The conductor or orchestra leader is responsible to ensure that evey section works well together and knows their part of the composition. They need to understand the entire composition and where each section (as well as individuals within the section if they have solo pieces) need to start and stop. If the conductor is also the composer, they need to determine how each instrument fits into the overall strategy of the composition. They need to provide vision on how each pieces fits into the composition and why each person's part if necessary in order to achieve the goals and success of the composition.

Now, substitute the following:

Strategy = Composition
Project = Piece
Upper Management = Composer
Project Manager = Conductor
Functional Manager = Section Leader
Functional Area = Instrument
Project Team Member = Orchestra Member

Therefore, the higher you move up into management, the more knowledge you must have, the better direction you must provide, the more coordination you must lead, and the more dependencies you must understand. Though it takes knowledge and skill for each individual to do their part, it requires management to understand everybody's part. As for me personally, I found that both the duties and responsibility that came with being a programmer were much less demanding and less overall thinking than it has required of management. You can't play any composition without an orchestra, but you can play a lousy composition if the orchestra doesn't have good management. Both are essential for success!

Looking back to my early days, I made the wrong assumption, the ol' adage "Out of sight, out of mind". I assumed that because I didn't see what my manager was doing I assumed he was doing nothing at all. Instead, what I didn't realize is that I was able to do the work I had because he was doing those things "behind the curtain" to make sure that I could continue working. He was also making sure that I had what I needed from others and that they had what I was providing.

The Five E's of Meetings

Mon, 17 Apr 2006 23:06:15 GMT

Meetings are a big part of our lives and can take up considerable time in our work week. Therefore, it is very important that meetings have the right qualities for success. I have summarized these quality attributes into five areas:

Next time you have a meeting, consider these attributes. If you do, you will find that instead of dreading meetings you will look forward to them (or at least you will see value and tolerate them better!).

Making Executive Decisions

Fri, 07 Apr 2006 17:55:39 GMT

As a executive manager, decisions that you make will always be challenged. Everybody is depending on you to make as many right decisions as possible - customers, management, co-workers, and vendors. What people don't understand is the analysis that is performed for many of the decisions that I make. Whereas, any particular individual may attach a problem from a couple of different perspectives, it is up to the upper management to look at as many perspectives as possible. The larger the decision and the higher level of management, the more perspectives are needed in order to make an informed decision. What may look like the best decision from a couple of perspectives may not be the best after all perspectives have been examined. It is management's responsibility to ask the right people the right questions to gather the information you need.

Here are the common perspectives that are examined for many of the decisions that I am asked to make:

Financial: What are the costs involved? Can we afford them? What is the return on the investment? Will this decision help our profitability?
Strategic: How does this decision impact company goals? Will this decision support our principles? Will it maintain our competitive advantage?
Risks: What are the risks in making this decision? If these risks happen, are we prepared for them? What can we do to avoid the risks?
Customer: How is this decision going to help the customer? Will we lose customers over this decision? Gain customers? How will they feel about us after this decision?
Technical: Is the solution maintainable? Does it meet our level of quality? Do we have the right technology? Can the solution be done in phrases or all at once?
Organization: Do we have the skills and experience to fulfill the decision? Are the people that need to provide the solution available? Do we need outside help through training or consulting? Does this decision support our processes, standards and culture?
Projects: Is this the right time to provide the solution? Does it support previous projects? Does it require future projects before a decision can be made? What work will need to be considered in later projects?

In making a decision, it usually becomes the best compromise between these viewpoints as it may not fully satisfy every requirement. Many times it isn't clear whether you have found the problem or that you have the right solution, but the decision you make is the best given your understanding at the time. The greater you increase your understanding by looking at a solution from various angles, the better chance that your decision will be successful.

Like anything with life, there are no guarantees. However, you can rest assured that by tackling decisions in this way that you will have a better chance of success than if you don't.

Get a "Stop Doing" list!

Tue, 14 Mar 2006 20:32:33 GMT

I love the book Good to Great from Jim Collins. Probably one of the best business books I have read in the last couple of years (and I read a lot). Though there is some contraversy regarding the success of the companies in the research, as well as the current success of several of the example companies, Collins presents many solid concepts in the book that can stand on their own. One of those concepts Jim introduces while discussing that "Great" companies have a better sense of focus of their execution is the idea to start putting together a "Stop doing" List. What an interesting idea! Let's explore the challenges that companies have to deal with by looking at common phrases that you hear in most businesses.

"The customer is always right." This is a slogan used often in reference to providing good customer service. But, what if the customer is wrong? What if you are providing a product or service and they just don't understand how it intended to be used and uses it incorrectly? They need to understand where you are coming from. Too often, we react to customers' need too quickly and don't understand what their real problem is (which usually isn't the problem that they are communicating).

"Every customer is a good customer". This is usually said by Sales. While it is true for profit-based companies to have customers in order to stay in business, there is such a thing as having a bad customer. Find out how this potential customer treats their other vendors as well as their particular customers. You can learn a lot about how they will treat your organization. If they are coming from a competitor, really try and understand why they are leaving them and coming to you. There are bad customers who can become high maintenance and take service away from the rest of your customers. How will your other customers feel about that?

"Every opportunity is a good opportunity". This kind of goes along with the previous statement, but focusing on what products and services you provide to which industries. If you get too diversified, you can find yourself spread too thin and the organization doesn't have the capacity to execute effectively. You also need to do your research and when you find a niche that nobody else is looking at...did you really find the hidden gold at the end of the rainbow or is it toxic waste that others have avoided? Getting into the wrong opportunities not only takes you away from the good things that have kept you in business but could come with costs that could hurt the bottom line of profitability and possibly end your business. Opportunities come with risks, just make sure you understand what they are and if it is worth the gamble.

"Our competitors are doing it, so we must do so as well". Kind of reminds me something my parents used to say to me, "Just because <so and so> jumps off the cliff, doesn't mean you have to as well". Unless you can demonstrate the value to your customers, you may be wasting time putting something in place that may not even be working for your competitors. Check the value first, then implement in order to maintain your competitive position.

"Everything has a high priority and must be done right away (or done yesterday!)". No matter how many times I hear this, when I go back to my desk I have to do things in a certain order. Same goes with every person on my team. Sure, there is some multi-tasking going on, but in the end certain things get done before other things. Therefore, things do get put at a lower priority and many times there are items that continually get "back-burnered". If that is the case, why are those things on any list? Wouldn't it be great if we could rank the priorities from 1 to whatever, and do things in order of ranking? Wouldn't it be great if this list had a breaking point where nothing else can go on the list unless something else gets done or knocked off?

There are a lot of other phrases like this, but I think you get my point. Statements like this can cause actions that can cause a business to lose its focus quickly. With each of these statements, there are times to say YES and keep on your "to do" list. There are also times where it is best to say no and add to your "stop doing" list.

Saying NO is never easy but has to be done. How well does your organization do in this area?

Don't play to lose!

Thu, 09 Mar 2006 18:26:05 GMT

"It's not if you win or lose, it's how you play the game."

We've heard this advice growing up, but how does it apply to running a business?

Of course, in the business world, it is all about winning. However, many company don't play the game correctly in order to win.

You've witness this scenario: Two teams are playing in a basketball game. One team is playing great and has a significant lead in the first half of the game. In the second half, you sense that something is different about how the team plays. Instead of increasing their lead, they begin to lose their lead and eventually lose the game. What happened during halftime?

Here's what happened: the team changed their focus from "playing to win" to "playing not to lose". Instead of being aggressive and play their very best as a team to win the game at all costs, they try to protect their lead by being conservative and not taking risks. As a result, the opposing team since they are already behind have nothing to lose but take risks and be aggressive. Thus, the winning team changes hands.

Now, apply this to business. Take a company like IBM. The dominant company of the 60's and 70's became so big that they didn't task enough risks and be aggressive enough as the Personal Computer market came around in the 80's. As a result, they lost out to companies such as Dell, Apple and Microsoft who had nothing to lose and everything to gain, took risks and were very aggressive. Even for awhile Apple begin to play not to lose until they have recently rebounded with the iPod in the last few years. Dell and Microsoft, on the other hand, have to continually reinvent themselves in order to play to win.

Companies that are considered leaders and have been around for awhile will continually be challenged by smaller, more aggressive competitors looking for any way to get to the top. They are hungry and will take any kind of risks to get there. They are truly playing to win and in many cases don't have anything to lose! If you aren't playing to win like these competitors, you may find yourself quickly out of the leadership position and struggling to keep up with the new leaders. You have to always keep two steps ahead of them, which requires you the need to stay on your goals and remained focused on what is important. You have to become an agile organization that is able to revise their goals and execution strategy when the outside world changes the definition of what is important.

So...is your company playing to win or playing not to lose?

My Search for Excellence

Tue, 03 Jan 2006 21:49:41 GMT

I'm on the hunt for excellence -- within my organization. I want to define what excellence means to me as well as others. Then, I want everybody to commit to that definition. For those that aren't committing, they shouldn't be part of the organization. After all, can your organization really become excellent if there are those that aren't practicing excellence? I really don't think so.

So, yesterday I decided to start my definition of excellence and have asked my other managers to start their individual lists. This is only an initial list and only starting the process towards my search. I hope to capture my progress in this blog. I thought it may be interesting for others to observe.

So for my initial list, I have two columns -- What is Excellence and What is not Excellence. For each attribute that I define I make sure that there is a counter-attribute for the other column. So without further ado, here's my initial list. Let me know what you think.

Excellence IS NOT	Excellence IS
Missing work during peak work hours	Being accessible to your team
Working only hours that are required of me	Working whatever it takes to get the job done
Quantity over quality of work	Quality over quantity of work
Working against the team	Working with the team
Taking care of only your needs	Taking care of customer's needs
Only helping when asked	Helping each other out all the time
Focusing on the problems	Focus on the solutions
Playing victim	Taking charge
Learning only "on the job"	Constantly sharpening your ax
Taking sick time because it's available	Taking sick time because you have to
Giving 110% to only assignments that are interesting	Giving 110% to everything assigned
Demanding respect from others	Earning respect from others
Having our own agendas	Having a common agenda
Accepting just the status quo	Looking for improvement
Holding back your best	Giving it your all
Working for a paycheck	Working to be part of something good in our company
Unaware of how you are spending your time	Making every hour count
Working around conflicts	Working through conflicts

Improvement is everybody's business

Mon, 28 Nov 2005 18:31:59 GMT

Traditionally, improvement has come down from management. It's expected that this is part of management's job, to keep check on the status quo and determine when things aren't working and fix them. Management assumes that as well, and is always trying to find ways to improve without having impact to others in the organization. Even if individuals who are "feeling the pain" with the inefficiency are discourgaged to help, and told to "focus on their jobs" and leave it up to management to improve. Management ends up taking on the entire burden of improving the orgranization on their own. As a result, because they don't have the bandwidth to improve everything they end up choosing areas of most pain. The danger is that they aren't looking at the whole picture, and may be treating the symptom and not the cause. At best, this only helps things temporarily, as the cause is still out there and will eventually hit a new threshold to cause other symptoms. For those areas that they are able to attend to, it still impacts others in the organization as they have to react to the changes and aren't prepared when they happen. Also, despite what managers think, they aren't directly "on the battlefield" and don't always understand what is really happening. Especially, if they don't ask.

Improvement isn't (or shouldn't) be a "management thing", it should be everybody's business!

Delivering on your promises

Thu, 17 Nov 2005 18:21:35 GMT

As a consumer, I am fed up with companies that don't deliver on the goods and end up disappointing in the end. As a manager, I understand the importance of integrity and doing what you have committed to do and get frustrated with others that don't. As a employee, I am aggrevated when others in the organization promise things to our customers that I don't believe we have the capacity to deliver something that will meet our level of quality to them in a timely manner that fully meets their needs (and others). It's all about delivering on your promises.

For many organizations, they just want to get and keep the customer's business. I get it! What I don't get is those promises that are made on the spot without any consideration if the rest of the organization can deliver on those promises. Here's what I think happens:

Customer wants something that you don't currently provide.
Customer thinks this something should be easily obtainable either because it sounds easy or because other competitors have it already.
Employee representing Company, wanting the Customer's business, agrees with the Customer and figures that the customer must be right so the something that they want should be obtainable.
Employee promises the Customer that the Company will get his request done quickly many times even promising dates without checking with others.
Request gets to the rest of the organization, who are already involved in other priorities based on past requests and expectations and told to make this a high priority. Request also could end up being something very unique to this organization and of little or no value to the majority of the customer base.
Organization shuffles around and given the tight deadlines that came from the customer either misses those deadlines or cut corners to meet them.
Customer is frustrated with the solution or how long it is taking and is feeling that the Company misrepresented itself in making the promises.
Organization is frustrated, work in now behind on other priorities, and Customer is ready to walk out the door (and sometimes does)!

Does this sound familiar? What do you think would happen to a company who continues to operate this way? My guess is that they would end up losing their customers and telling the competition that the company couldn't live up to its promises and is unreliable and lacks integrity. Would you want to work for a company where customers feel this way? Not me! This model of "overpromising and undelivering" needs to stop!

How about this scenario instead?

Customer wants something that you don't currently provide. Customer thinks this something should be easily obtainable either because it sounds easy or because other competitors have it already.
Employee, if they have heard this request before, let's the Customer know when to expect this functionality (if it has been determined important and has a project planned), or let's them know that others have had similiar requests but the Company has decided not to do these requests for "these reasons".
Employee, if they have not heard of this request before, tells the Customer that they will submit their request for consideration and get back to them
Request goes to the business stakeholders for consideration. They look at current priorities, value to the overall customer base with this request, impact to the organization, and current capacity of the organization to determine what priority (if any) should be given to this request.
Employee gets back to the Customer with the results.
If the Customer is unhappy because either the dates aren't what is expected or the organization has decided not to do the request, Employee tries to let Customer know of other priorities that are of value to them and other customers that the organization is currently working on. If the organization has done their homework, the customer should see value in those other priorities and understand.
If the request was approved, organization works on request at the right time, with the right people and given sufficient time to accomplish the request according to the company's quality standards.
All Customers are pleased with the new solutions and knows what is coming next from the Company. They see value with the solutions and are happy that the Company spent the time to make sure the solution is of high quality, meets their needs, and improves their business.
Customer tells others about the organization and of their integrity and looking to meet their needs with a sound solution. Organization is happy because things are doing right, in the right order and the referrals bring other business to the Company.

Now we are talking a win-win scenario for your customer base and your organization. Sure, there may be customers who want things that you can't provide or aren't quick enough for them. However, there should be many other customers (who will tell others) that are very satisfied in the process. If you lose those customers that aren't satisfied, it may be better in the long run anyways. Plus, your employees will appreciate a company that treats their employees the same way as they treat their customers - with consideration and the upmost respect and integrity! As a manager, it allows me to be proactive than reactive and be able to achieve focus and efficiency in getting things done for our customers. As a consumer, I would appreciate a company that "promises and delivers" and even occassionally "underpromises and overdelivers" if what is delivered is better than expected and meets my needs.

Can an office be a barrier?

Mon, 14 Nov 2005 18:48:33 GMT

Most organizations say they have some kind of "open door" policy, that management's door is always open to help you with any problem or need that you might have. However, I have found that many people are intimidated in approaching me this way. In fact, they are much more open when they send me an email instead of meeting in person.

I don't think it's a problem in meeting face-to-face, as communication is very open in meeting situations. I think the problem might lie with my office. People assume that if I am in my office, I am very busy. Otherwise, if I'm managing by walking around, I am available. While this generally can be true, I try to put aside work if somebody approaches me with a question or concern. If I am really too busy in trying to meet a particular deadline or prepare for a meeting, I may ask the person to come back another time.

I think the office puts people off. They are in foreign territory, and are separated by a large desk. Even if the person is approachable, the office setting isn't.

So, how do I deal with this? Do a lot more managing by walking around. If I need to speak to an individual as I am walking around, we might step into a conference room or some other "neutral territory". For those that are comfortable with meeting in my office, that is always available. I try to accomodate to the comfort level of the individual.

In the agile development community, many organizations are doing away with traditional offices and cubicle farm environments and are creating workspaces to encourage groups to interact more. If there are offices, they are used for private spaces for the phone calls or other needs for privacy. Though we haven't made these kinds of changes, I can see the value of it.

So I am curious, have you encountered these problems? Have you changed your workspace environment? If so, why and how?

Budget Games

Tue, 01 Nov 2005 23:59:59 GMT

It's my favorite time of the year, budgets! It ranks right up there with teeth extraction and taxes. But, it's a necessary part of any business to determine what your financial picture is going to look like for the coming year based on what you know right now.

Something that really bugs me is how different people view budgets, and then manage those budgets after the planning and approval process. Here are the various "games" that I have ran up against:

Manager purposely over-budgets because they know that there will be budget cuts, and they will use the "fluff" as bait to cut so that they are guaranteed those items that they need.
Manager who budgets what they need, but then doesn't spend what they have asked for. Their thinking is that they are doing their part in watching expenses but tightening the belt. They are proud when they have gone under budget. However, their people pay the price because they don't get what they have asked for. What's even more amazing is that these are items that have been approved to use!
Manager who budgets what they need, but doesn't spend any monies that were used or approved for. Those differences go directly to the bottom line. Their thinking is "If I didn't plan for it, I can't use it even if the money is available".
Manager who only budgets what is absolutely critical to keep their department alive, but nothing more. Things such as training, research, improvements, etc are not considered critical. That doesn’t get anything cut from their budget because it is so obvious that there isn't anything to cut. Their thinking is "I'm saving the money by only spending what I have to spend, therefore the rest goes to the bottom line." However, their department suffers because it has no financial room to grow.

We all know that no matter how much forecasting and predicting we do about the next year, that surprises and changes are going to happen. What's bad about #2, #3, and #4 is that when those things happen, they aren't going to go ask for things they need because it wasn't budgeted!

Here is my perspective on budgeting:

I budget what I need, and try to spend what is in my budget wisely. If a particular item is under budget, I want to use those monies on other items that I needed in their budget but was cut during the planning process. I may also use those monies to compensate for other items that have gone over budget. My thinking was that since the money was approved, it is my responsibility to find good ways to use that money even if particular items were accounted for during the planning process. Also, if something comes up that needs additional monies, I will ask for those things even if I hadn't planned on it.

What is your (or your manager's) view on budgets?

Perfection is in the eye of the beholder

Fri, 28 Oct 2005 17:31:37 GMT

In the agile world, there's a motto called "Do the simplest thing that could possible work." For them, that is their definition until they receive feedback through frequest delivery that more is needed. For those that are in Quality Assurance, usually the definition of perfection are to catch critical bugs that we impact the general operation of the solution or possibly corrupt the underlying data. For other bugs, they determine if the workaround is acceptable. For cosmetic issues such as mispellings and inconsistences of terminology, those things can be fixed when time is available. For project managers, their idea of perfection is to remove any bottlenecks keeping the team from delivering something of value to end customers. Therefore, there are many compromises between the development team, the end customer and other stakeholders of what the "acceptance criteria" is for the project.

Many thanks in particular to Stacy at Virtualosophy for her "perfect" insights as I try to understand and achieve "perfection" in my own life!