Inquiries Into Alignment

Sticks, String, Feet-n-Inches and Ideas

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew Meyer) — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 20:21:00 +0000

My father had a practical way of differentiating different types of people. In my childish imagination, it came from the wisdom of Generals preparing for battle in World War I. In my mature, adult worldview, I like to think it came for the wisdom of Generals in World War I. Whatever it's source, I still find it's classifications beneficial in understanding how to work with different people. It divides people into three groups:

Sticks-n-String People
Feet-n-Inches People
Conceptual Idea People

The example which was always given had to do with digging trenches. The concepts still holds. In business whether you're digging trenches, making widgets, writing code or selling apples, there are still tasks which have to be done and people who have to be asked to do them.

Sticks-n-String People

If you want a sticks-n-string person to dig you a trench, you need to go to them and say:

"I need trench that's as deep as this stick, as wide as this stick and as long as this piece of string and I need you to dig it right here. I'll be back at 10:30 to see how it's going."

If you give a sticks-n-string person these types of instructions, they'll dig you a perfect trench. If you leave much more ambiguity than that, they'll get confused, frustrated and you'll get delays and disappointment. And it will be your fault, not the person you asked to dig the trench. Know who you're dealing with, know what you have to provide them and provide it to them.

Feet-n-Inches People

If you want a feet-n-inches person to dig you a trench, they need the correct amount of direction, a little explanation about why they're digging the trench and they need to know how much freedom they have to solve problems. A good approach with a feet-n-inches person is to say something like:

"We need to protect the left flank. Could you dig me a trench that'll hold 20 soldiers. Make it 5 feet deep, 3 feet wide and 20 feet long. Let me know when you're done."

Feet-n-inches people care about why they're doing something. They like to have some context and purpose in what they do. They also like a certain amount of freedom to go around rocks and such. Finally, they like to have closure. When something is finished, they like to know it's finished. Feedback on how the trench looks will pay great dividends in the future.

Conceptual Idea People

Conceptual idea people think too much and often work too little. Yes, they may have great ideas about how to dig better trenches and if you need to invent a trench, they are definitely the person to go to. But if you want twenty trenches dug, these people are useless. They'll spend more time arguing with you about whether trenches are necessary, if there aren't better ways and mostly whether someone else wouldn't be a better trench digger.

These people need a lot of freedom. In certain situations, they'll create great work. For innovating new approaches, they're fantastic. If you need someone to scout out a new territoriality, find the best place to defend and dig a trench for forward troops to go to, they are great for this. You're best approach working with a conceptual idea person is to say:

"Look, we need to take that valley. Could you scout ahead, find the best location to build a base to advance from and then dig a trench for the 20 scout troupes to work from. Go forth and report back to me by 02:00 Tuesday morning."

It is critical with conceptual idea people that they have a good amount of freedom, but also strict deadlines. Give them too much freedom, and you'll never get anything done. Be too precise and they'll argue with you or think it's below them. For the right kind of problems, they are the best person to pick.

Knowing the different types of people, what they'll respond to is critical for getting what you're looking for. In the end, a trench is a trench and to be successful, you need to get it dug. Pick the right kind of person and give them the correct type of instructions.

The Blindingly Obvious

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew Meyer) — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 23:39:00 +0000

The blindingly obvious is like a beautiful woman, impossible to describe but instantly recognizable when seen. Think of your local school orchestra playing Beethoven’s 5^th Symphony. They may get every note right, but compare their performance to the London Philharmonic. The difference is blinding obvious.

The same is true in business. There are two people. One is executing a plan and the other is just floating along, they may do the same things, but the difference is blindingly obvious.

You don’t have to ask if someone is wealthy. If you have to ask, they’re not. The difference between wealth and middle class is blindingly obvious. Look for the blindingly obvious in people with whom you work.

Is it Better to be Obscure or Visible?

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew Meyer) — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 21:27:00 +0000

Obscurity is your friend. If you're working on something or figuring out how to make something work, you don't want people watching you. Only after you've got it operating smoothly do you want spectators and critics. Why do starlets say such stupid things? They haven't worked out where they fit, where they have expertise and how people will respond to what they say. Think about it with U2 as your example.

U2 is a rock band. Their fans know what to expect from a song, album or concert and when U2 publishes something, they stay within the range of what their fan base expects. They identified an area, developed expertise in it and cultivated a fan base that expects certain things from them.

Ok, what if U2 wrote a symphony? They may well love classical music. Maybe they go to the symphony regularly, but that's not the vein of expertise they've cultivated. If they put out a symphony, it would alienate their fan base and the fans of symphonies probably wouldn't take them seriously.

Wisely, they developed expertise in the area of rock-n-roll when they were obscure, cultivated a fan base that enjoyed what they produced and created a nice career for themselves doing that. It was really their work while they were obscure that gave them the opportunity.

Obscurity is your opportunity to develop something great, don't try and draw attention to yourself until you're really ready.

An Idea about Improving Meetings with Busy Executives

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew Meyer) — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 18:21:00 +0000

One of the things I’ve learned, is that when you’re meeting with a busy executive, don’t mix issues. If you are talking to them about “A”, don’t mix “B” into the conversation. You might see them as related and influencing each other, but from their perspective, this meeting is about “A”. Hopefully they prepared for or thought about “A”, but bringing up “B” comes as a surprise to them. At best, they’re caught off guard, more likely, they don’t see any connection between “A” and “B”. They thought you were working on “A”. Alluding to “B” confuses the issue.

When talking with co-workers, who focus on and think about these work items regularly and see the interactions between A and B, mixing the two makes sense, in fact, that is how you move things forward. Remember, a co-worker spends all day thinking about these issues, a busy executive has maybe 15 minutes in a week.

Ideally, create an agenda and clearly state topics to be discussed. If they need background material, it should be less than a paragraph and included in the email. If they choose to jump between topics, that’s their choice. As an executive, they have the option to drive the bus. As someone working for an exec, if you control the agenda, to the greatest degree possible, you structure the meeting.

Ambiguity vs Definition

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew Meyer) — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 22:51:00 +0000

There’s an interesting conflict with people. They hate being told what to do, but they also loath ambiguity. If they are in a controlled environment or the goal is clear, they will do what needs to be done. However, when they are in an uncertain situation and the outcome is unknown, people err on the side of caution, or better yet, do what someone tells them to do.

When people take vacations, do they go places where they have to figure out the culture, find what to do, experiment with new foods, operate in countries where they don’t speak the language? No, they go to Disneyland or Cancun or their mothers house. Places where they know what will happen, how they are expected to act, what the outcomes will be. Safe, warm, beautiful places. Go to a place like Colombia or Myanmar or somewhere that might have wonderful adventures, but they are not clearly defined. They are places where you have to research, then get a read of what’s happening on the ground to determine what to do. They are ambiguous, so you have to cultivate local contacts to discover what’s interesting and worthwhile.

One place has definition and the other has ambiguity. Which do you choose? Why?

Do you prefer defined vacations where you know what will happen or do you prefer ambiguity?

US Top 1% Versus World Top 1%

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew Meyer) — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 19:04:00 +0000

It's rarely mentioned how wealthy the US is. We like to think we're similar to everyone else, but that ignores some numeric realities. For example, the reality of what being in the top 1% means.

To be in the top 1% in the US, in 2011, you needed to earn $368,238.

However, to be in the top 1% in the world, in 2011 you needed to earn $34,000 after taxes. That's about $50,000, (not counting benefits)

The point being that about 50% of the people in the top 1% in the world live in the US. If we make the numbers a little more specific, there are about 60 million people in the world in the top 1%. About 29 million of those people live in the US.

What this points up is where the middle class really lives (Hint, it's definitely in the US). As globalization and technology change the global playing field, the middle class in the US will almost certainly decline. Everyone cannot be in the top 1%.

Corinthian Leather Claims

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew Meyer) — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 18:47:00 +0000

I've started dealing with vendors again and I'm suddenly hearing a lot of Corinthian leather statements. They don't say "Corinthian leather", they hype some feature of their product all out of proportion to it's benefit.

Corinthian leather doesn't exist. The phrase was made up by the advertising agency Bozell to differentiate Chrysler's Cordoba. It suggests a link between Corinth and the car's upholstery, however there is no link. It just sounds great, especially when Ricardo Montalban says it. It sounded so rich and luxurious, it was a reason to buy the Cordoba. However meaningless it might have been.

Vendors don't realize the risk they take with Corinthian leather claims. If I know that Corinthian leather doesn't exist, what does it say about your product?

When was the last time you bought a Cordoba?

The Cost-Value Requirement

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew Meyer) — Mon, 26 Dec 2011 20:31:00 +0000

Dave Bressler has a wonderful blog, if I agreed with him, it would be less wonderful. His post today on the "Cost-Value Conundrum" is a case in point. In talking about replacing phone systems, he brought up an interesting and subtle point, what does it mean to meet business requirements. I know the phone system scenario, because we replaced our phone system last year, so I'll provide numbers to back up my point.

If you do an RFP to look for phone systems, you find there are a number of alternatives and those alternatives have a wide range of prices. For a seventy person company, there were options over $200K. They were excellent systems with many intriguing features. However, we went with a system that cost $34K that is good enough.

There's an interesting question in the IT world, when is a requirement a "nice to have" and when is something "good enough"? And the follow on is, how much are you willing to pay to move from "good enough" to "nice to have"?

I would put it to you, that in this brave new business reality, "nice to have's" and "best of breed" will vanish from the business lexicon. The future for IT Executives is exactly what is described in the post you linked to, how does an executive cut CAPEX by 50% and increase capabilities? That author didn't go into details, but I bet OPEX is also being cut. Hell, any imbecile can cut CAPEX by 50% if no one's watching OPEX...

If you have to cut both, how do you do it? By using RFPs to clarify requirements, understand the costs and shift power away from the vendor to the buyer. That's how you buy a new phone system for $34K rather than $200K+. Another example: A business can buy an onsite ERP systems for $1mm plus, which also requires hiring two employees, each costing $120K a year. Or that business can get a cloud based ERP at $50 per user per month that requires no additional employees be hired.

The cloud based ERP system will cost about $60K per year, which is less than the maintenance costs for the onsite system and you won't hire any additional employees. Oh, and with the cloud based system, when you need customization, you hire a developer through Elance for $35/hr rather than through a consulting company for $285/hr.

That is the "Cost-Value Conundrum." Every IT Executive should be given the mandate "Give me better capability than I have today and cut your budget by 50%. It's up to you how you achieve that between OP and CAP. Oh, and I'm going to cut your budget again next year and the year after that too."

Yes, you have to understand requirements, but also understand that IT is a cost center, just like accounting or HR or building services. The question is, how to provide the business the IT services or accounting services or HR services they need at the lowest cost? Unless your IT services can move the dial by increasing revenue, they better move the dial by decreasing costs. In the current environment, there are plenty of options to decrease costs while increasing value and revenue.

That is understanding that doesn't require special training to communicate.

Quality or Quantity

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew Meyer) — Tue, 04 Oct 2011 16:38:00 +0000

One of the downfalls of a democracy is that quantity is more important than quality. McDonalds is more important than Le Cirque. WalMart is more important than the corner bakery. Pile it high and sell it cheap.

Occasionally someone captures this problem and articulates it so clearly, it realigns your vision. Rob Walker writing about the struggles of Bang & Olufsen captured it perfectly:

"Audiophiles lost out to audio files."

I hope the struggle continues.

Why I hate Conan O'Brien

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew Meyer) — Tue, 14 Jun 2011 22:11:00 +0000

You want to know why I don't watch Conan O'Brien and think he's an idiot? He's invited to make the Dartmouth Commencement address and he offers this bit of brilliance:

"Today, you have achieved something special, something only 92 percent of Americans your age will ever know: a college diploma. That’s right, with your college diploma you now have a crushing advantage over 8 percent of the workforce. I'm talking about dropout losers like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and Mark Zuckerberg."

Actually, Conan, no. Only about 19% of Americans get college degrees. But, I understand, you were trying to make a joke. However, it wasn't funny. Sort of like you weren't funny on the Tonight Show, which is why you got cancelled (after getting $30mm and crying endlessly). Just like your show now isn't funny.

How do some people manage to have so many unproductive lives?

On Becoming a Leader

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew Meyer) — Wed, 19 Jan 2011 18:13:00 +0000

Image from: 1.00 FTE

One of my favorite bloggers, Art Petty, has a post about the Nine Key Professional Capabilities Required by Our Times. While I agree that all of his capabilities are important, they miss what has to come first. Developing a hard skill. In this brave new world, managers need to develop (or better yet, have developed before they become managers) a hard skill.

Let me define what I mean. A hard skill is the ability to do something that takes time to learn (I'll go with Gladwell's 10,000 hours), some measure of talent and some exposure to something that prevents you from being exposed to other things.

For example, coding. It probably takes about 10,000 hours to become a competent developer. Also, you need some mental ability and intelligence. And finally, cultivating your coding skills prevents you from doing other things. [Editor: For you, that would be dating.]

Carpentry, plumbing, wiring a network, becoming a CPA, learning the sales process etc. are all examples of skills. The days of being a manager (or leader) who has an MBA and can do some analysis in Excel are gone. The days of middle management are gone.

If you want to be a manager or a leader in this brave new world, you have to be able to deliver something which requires cultivated skills in addition to being an authentic, empathetic manager/leader.

Facts are facts. Between China, India, the Philippines, Brazil and the rest of the developing world, there are about 3 billion more people that you have to compete with to be a manager/leader. Americans and Europeans have a much higher standard of living, however, people from the developing world are willing to work much harder and will happily adjust you out on your keister.

If you want to become a leader, first develop a skill.

Progress and Prudence

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew Meyer) — Fri, 07 Jan 2011 22:31:00 +0000

To move forward, an organization must set goals and and execute projects with confidence. However, this must be balanced with prudence, the possibility that you could be wrong. This prudence cannot present itself as waffling or the inability to make a decision. Nor can it manifest itself in an endless run of started, but abandoned projects. Instead, it must balance the requirements to drive progress with prudence. That's why I like Richard Rorty's quote so much:

"To accept our own fallibility is to embrace ‘the permanent possibility of someone having a better idea.’"

— Richard Rorty

Move forward with the best current idea, but be permanently open to the possibility of someone having a better idea.

Writing Knowledge

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew Meyer) — Tue, 04 Jan 2011 19:49:00 +0000

Bas de Bar has a great post about context. Context has so much to do with meaning and the knowledge a reader gains.

Is the measure of quality writing the measure of transfering context?

If you think about the hierarchy of knowledge:

1. Data
2. Information
3. Knowledge
4. Wisdom

Data and information are supplied by the writer, but the reader has to do the interpretation.

As a creator, you create/write the information. The better the writer, the easier it is for the reader to clearly interpret and gain knowledge. You can't write context, but a good writer supplies it.

For example, Ernest Hemingway won a bet in the 20's about who could write the shortest story. His complete story was six words:

"For sale: baby shoes, never worn"

Everything you need to know is conveyed in those six words, even though all he supplied was information. He did it in such a way that the reader supplies everything else, yet everyone understands what happened.

Maybe the better one becomes as a writer, the better one can pass context along with the information. And the better one can pass context, the better chance the reader has of gaining knowledge.

Difference between Building Something and Managing Something

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew Meyer) — Wed, 01 Dec 2010 03:28:00 +0000

The ever enlightening Art Petty has a post over at Tanveer Naseer's blog that got me thinking. What is the difference between building something and managing something?

To me, when you're building something that hasn't existed previously, there are a series of steps what you're building goes through:

Ok - what ever you're building is "Ok", meaning it solves the problem for which you're building a solution.
Better - The thing you've built solved the problem and now you've improved it.
Well - You thing does the job well. For all practical purposes, that means you show it to people without apologizing.
Good - People are impressed enough with what you've built that they show it to other people and say it's good.

There are levels above good, but they are refinements that are distinct without necessarily being different.

Now, if you are managing something, it already exists. Hopefully it's "Good", more likely it's "Ok" and could be made "better". The import point is that it's purpose for existing has already been identified.

In this case, managing something is about refinement and continuity. Maybe there are parts that are replaced, tuned or refined, but continuity is the defining characteristic.

Maybe it can be better thought of like this: Building is about creation, managing is about continuing.

Things That are Near Though Distant

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew Meyer) — Thu, 18 Nov 2010 00:58:00 +0000

Sei Shonagon wrote "The Pillow Book" between 989 and somewhere a little after 1,000 AD. She offers a picture of what life was like in the Japanese Royal Court and what life was like for an ambitious woman a thousand years ago. You also get a clear picture of what she was like. She was good looking, and knew it. She was intelligent and not shy about competing with men or women to prove it. She enjoyed her lovers, rarely passed up entertaining experiences and could be a little bitchy when the spirit moved her. My kind of woman! [Editor: Get to the point. Let's be honest, you have no more chance with a woman who died a thousand year ago than you do with one alive today...]

What's interesting is what has changed and what hasn't. I offer two of her entries as examples:

109. Tthings That are Distant Though Near
- Festivals celebrated near the palace. *
- Relations between brothers, sisters and other members of a family who do not love each other.
- The zigzag path leading up to the temple at Kurama.
- The last day of the Twelfth Month and the first of the First. **

110. Things That are Near Though Distant
- Paradise
- The course of a sail boat.
- Relations between a man and a woman.

I would add one more to the list of "Near Though Distant" - Project completion.

It's What They Do Know that Just Ain't So

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew Meyer) — Thu, 21 Oct 2010 17:01:00 +0000

Maison Fleury had a fantastic post about how people misunderstand mortgage laws in America and are making bad decisions because of it. He reminded me of the American humorist, Will Rogers statement: "It's not what people don't know that hurts them. It's what they do know that just ain't so."

In our brave new world, how is that idea going to effect individuals making financial decisions, supra-national organizations like the European Union making financial-political-structural decisions, countries working out the economics of fiat money or central bankers dealing with currency manipulation?

In all each of these situations, people grew up with a particular paradigm for interacting the world. And surely they were successful because they made good decisions working within that paradigm. However, what if the world has changed and the old paradigms are no longer helpful?

To be successful today, will we not only have to escape the old paradigms, but also understand new ones before we can move ahead.

Those who see the world more clearly have an advantage over those who don't. Which individuals, countries or organizations will adjust more rapidly and appropriately?

"It's not what people don't know that hurts them. It's what they do know that just ain't so."

Why Are You Reaching that Conclusion?

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew Meyer) — Mon, 11 Oct 2010 14:38:00 +0000

A friend of mine's roof has a hole in it. I was talking with him the other day and he commented that the upcoming season is supposed to be the driest on record. Maybe he researched weather patterns, looked at prediction analysis and cross-referenced that with the Farmers Almanac. Or maybe he reached that conclusion because if anything else happens, he has a real problem.

Why I love RFPs

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew Meyer) — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 21:13:00 +0000

Dave Bressler has a wonderful post about fixing the RFP process. He looks at it from the vendor perspective. While I agree with many of Dave's suggestions, I'd like to offer my reasons for loving RFPs. Of course, I'm predominately looking at it from the client perspective.

Clearly Defined Project Purpose
RFPs force the stakeholders to think about, write out, order and agree what the goals are for the project/software/etc. Companies will often have very vague reasons for wanting to do something and even less understanding of how to evaluate if its successful. Forcing executives to agree to and state the purpose of the exercise is critical. Believe it or not, RFPs are a great way of doing this, if for no other reason than the fact that stakeholders usually have to go to the CFO or Board to get approval to spend that kind of money. (Note: The longer I've worked in software, the more I've come to love CFOs.)

Checklist for Decision Making
RFPs provides a checklist that stakeholders have to agree to and then use to justify why they want to go with a particular solution. Many times on the client side, you only get limited amounts of time from critical stakeholders. Whatever they profess, key stakeholders rarely devote the type of time a major project needs.

First having the meeting to agree to the checklist and discuss the importance of different items is key from an education perspective. Then when it comes for vendor evaluations, which is often months later, the checklist provides structure from which to have discussions and make evaluations/decisions.

Lacking the structure of a checklist with which to evaluate multiple solutions, stakeholders will often latch onto the first solution they see that seems to address their needs. **please see note below.

Understanding what You're Buying
RFPs go a long way towards addressing the asymmetries in understanding and product expertise. Vendors know infinitely more about the products and market space than prospective clients. Hearing different vendors answer the same questions is extremely educational for stakeholders. For example, often times a stakeholder won't understand answers being given, but if three vendors answer a question in one way, while one vendor provides a completely different answer; one gets an opportunity to have real discussion about why.

Determing the Price to Pay
Price is rarely a deciding factor, but having multiple bids is critical for getting a good price from the vendor you do select. Especially if the selection period covers one vendor's year-end or quarter-end. Often times one vendor will drop their price to a ridiculous level because that salesperson needs the sale for some reason.

There's a great line from Warren Buffett: "You can't be any smarter than the dumbest competitor you're competing against." When there are equivalent products and one vendor is willing to drop their price by say 80%, even if you'd never select that vendor, other vendors have to drop their price to an equivalent level.

Understand, price has nothing to do with selecting who you're going to go with, but having multiple bids has everything to do with how much you pay for the product you've selected.

I hope this helps you understand why I love RFPs so much.

**Note: I don't think people working for vendors fully understand the importance of presenting first. Most often in client firms, there's really only one way discussed to do something. So the first person who can suggest a viable way to do it gets to do it that way. So managers/executives are "trained" to go with whatever way they see that works first and move forward rapidly with it. There is a huge advantage to being the first vendor who presents.

The Real Reason Twitter is Business Critical

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew Meyer) — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 13:44:00 +0000

Dilbert answered the question of why Twitter is mission critical.

Innovation - Not Always all it's Cracked Up to Be

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew Meyer) — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 03:47:00 +0000

People sing the praises of innovation like it's going to save the world, answer all our problems and grow our markets. There's only one problem, there isn't necessarily a correlation between innovation and growth. Let me give you an example.

The Japanese cell phone maker, Sharp, is currently selling the Aquos 912SH. It comes with an LCD screen that swivels 90 degrees, GPS, a bar-code reader (for researching and comparing products), digital TV, credit card functionality, video conferencing, a camera and it is unlocked by facial recognition.

It is an amazingly innovative phone that is years ahead of anything else, all except for one problem - they can't sell them anywhere outside of Japan. For years Japanese phones have innovated ahead of the world. In 1999 they had cameras, 3G networks in 2001, full music downloads in 2002, electronic payment in 2004 and digital TV in 2005. And what has all their innovation got them? Squat.

Japan has innovated at least 5 years ahead of the US and their market is shrinking. They've developed standards the rest of the world is not adopting. Innovation is only beneficial if there are growing markets that are demanding your innovations. Next time someone starts prattling on about how great innovation is, ask them why their not buying the most innovative cell phones in the world?

Can Software Save Money in Health Care?

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew Meyer) — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:14:00 +0000

Phillip Longman has an article Code Red in the Washington Monthly talking about how to make health care more cost effective. James Kwak provides an excellent summary of the points in the always informative "Baseline Scenario".

The health care cost problem is largely caused by overtreatement.
The answer is software: "Almost all experts agree that in order to begin to deal with these problems, the health care industry must step into the twenty-first century and become more computerized."
Software implementation projects can go horribly, horribly wrong.
The solution is open-source software.

Point one makes sense, but there is no reason to believe that software will solve this problem. If anything, software will make the problem worse. Why?

Computerization is like paving the cow path. People gather requirements, find ways to do things more efficiently and then, ideally, implement software systems to do this. i.e. they pave the cow path. So now cows move more quickly, one has more visibility to where they are and more people can interact with them in more ways. How will this reduce cost?

Someone is in a medical facility for a certain period of time. Paving the cow path will enable fifty people to interact with them as opposed to five. So now fifty people can over treat and over bill as opposed to five. And anybody believes this is going to reduce overtreatement and cost?

It's like trying to trap a mouse in a house of cheese.

What Kind of Rock Band is Your Team?

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew Meyer) — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 12:34:00 +0000

Rock bands accomplish different things. The people and their personalities determine the structures and working arrangements. If the structure is right for the personalities involved, the band will probably be successful for a long time - think U2. If the structures and working relationships are not right - think The Police, it probably won't work, no matter how successful you are.

Does your team resemble any of these bands?

U2 - This band has one superstar and three supporting members. This is not to say that all members don't contribute, but one of them is a superstar and the other three are not. What is interesting is that the superstar has never shown an interest in leaving the team, working separately or conflicting with the team. Also, other members have never shown jealousy or resentment. What are the structures and working relationships necessary to keep the superstar and other team members happily engaged? Are you using them?

The Beatles - This band had two superstars and two supporting members. The competition delivered some amazing deliverables, but it also destroyed them. If you have a competitive group that produces great deliverables, maybe it's best to cultivate the competition, enjoy the outputs and move on when the gig is over.

The Chieftains - This group had no easily recognizable members, rotated people through and delivered the goods for 40 years. If you have a group that is founded around a good idea, consistently produces and has the structures to rotate personal for many years, maybe it's best to keep tuning the instruments and letting them make music.

The Police - This band grew to be the biggest band in the world and yet the members personal animosities were so great that they couldn't find a way to stay together. No matter how successful a group is, if the members can't get along there's nothing that can entice them to work together. Have you ever traded off relationships for success? I have and it didn't work for me either.

Jane's Addiction - This band got itself together, produced an amazing album and song and then fell apart. Much as people have tried to put them back together again and recapture the magic, maybe it's better to enjoy it for what it was, enjoy what they delivered and move on.

Most project teams I've been on resembled Jane's Addiction more than any other. They were good for what they were, accomplished what could be accomplished and never successfully got back together again. Maybe their biggest hit was prophetic: Been Caught Stealing

Whatever team you're putting together, do the structures and working relationships match the personalities and goals?

He who shall not be named

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew Meyer) — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 12:52:00 +0000

Have you been on a team where one person had an idea they were so passionate about, it almost prevented other discussion? A situation where you could name the person and everyone knew just what you were talking about or you could introduce the topic by saying "He who shall not be named."

We extole passion in classes and in theoritical discussion. We say "It changes the world." We link it to great athletes. How often do we enjoy it everywhere but in our own realities? Isn't it easier to deal with the reasonable, the level-headed and the practical rather than the passionate?

Newspapers and Their Changing Environment

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew Meyer) — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 16:58:00 +0000

A lot of people are complaining that newspapers are dieing. That's not completely true. Newspapers with an advertising based revenue model are dieing. Companies that didn't depend upon that model are not. Consumer Reports, Stratfor and Seeking Alpha didn't choose to follow that model, and they are doing fine.

What happened is that newspapers grew up in a particular business environment, did well and expanded. A couple things changed that are contributing to their problems. The economic environment changed and newspapers were/are too big to be supported by their revenue model. This economic environment changed necessitates a business change that newspapers do not want to accept. If newspapers were a quarter their current size, their revenue model would be fine. For people running newspapers, that is not an acceptable solution.

The Roman's had a saying, "Times change, we change with them." Until people running Newspapers are willing to change, they will continue to bleed a slow death. More interestingly, other organizations, the Stratfor's, the Seeking Alpha's etc. will emerge and offer a better product with a sustainable business model that is aligned with the new economic environment.

Alignment in IT Management

noreply@blogger.com (Andrew Meyer) — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 13:24:00 +0000

Glenn Whitfield over at his excellent blog IT Business Alignment ask an interesting question CIO,

No Leader Wanted. While I agree with a lot of what Glenn says, here is asking about alignment and

alignment is a management issue. Is everybody going in the same direction? Leaders, by definition, do not go in the same direction as others.

My point isn’t to get into an argument about semantics, but one of direction. Company ‘leaders’ need a little management. When there are good times and everyone is flush with cash, it is easier to let people go in their own direction and not worry about the trade offs. We have had almost 25 years where that has been true and discussions were about possibilities that could recover any cost. That time is gone.

Now, discussions will be about trade offs. How much is something going to cost, where is the money going to come from and what has to be cut to pay for the project we go forward with. Many projects (over 60%) need to be cut. Considerations will revolve around what are the core initiatives that will move the business forward as a successful, ongoing enterprise. Those are the ones that will be funded. That will drive alignment.

Cutting 60% of the projects means people will not be spread so thin and the projects will actually succeed. Successful people will be judged on their ability to make projects succeed, not the possibilities they promise. Also, it means that many of the people with their own agendas will be corralled. Finances will dictate that there will be much more alignment than there is today.

Understanding what’s of core importance to the business and how to deliver it efficiently and effectively will be the calling card of the successful CIO. The successful executive CIO will talk about ROI and NPV in analyzing which project go forward aligned with the business. ROI and how project will be paid for and pay for itself are what need to be discussed. That is what leads to alignment.