MORE ENTRIES
- Outing Cruella de Ville
- Project management non-best-practices
- Whey you're "they" but want to be "we"
- Process change without formal process redesign
- Playing the budget game to win
- How long should you give a new employer?
- Bare Bones Project Management
- More on bypassing the chain of command
- Engaging the business
- Surviving a fast mover
Advice Line | Bob Lewis »
September 2006
Dear Bob ...
I have been thrust, willy-nilly, into a kind of business-consultant role for a large organization. I know many of the staff in this organization at various levels. I am on a team of employees and other outside people who are working on a strategic plan for the organization. We are working on things like "mission statement," "vision statement", "values", etc. Soon we will get to measurable outcomes.
In the process, I have heard from several sources that the operational head of the organization, a VP equivalent, is a horrible, abusive boss. I have observed that the people who report to her appear beaten down, defensive or even terrified. And naturally the organization is not creative, passionate or flexible.
This VP, like all the employees at this organization, is unfireable. She is even being promoted, though it isn't clear if it is a substantive promotion or not. She gives the impression of being sweet and reasonable, but she gets people in her office, closes the door, and destroys them. She also uses and discards people heartlessly. She may be an actual sociopath.
So my question is: are there things I can propose at the strategic level that can stop this monster from abusing her people? I don't think "values" like "nurturing a culture of openness and respect" will do it. It needs to be as concrete and objective as possible (or so I feel.)
The best idea I have come up with so far is the "strategic goal" of everybody having clear, explicit criteria for whether they are doing a good job. My idea was that if everybody knows what they are being judged for, they don't have to worry about being jumped on for something random. But that is pretty weak, it seems to me. How about a solid grievance procedure? Not allowing her, and therefore anybody, to be alone with an employee?
It is possible that Cruella could subvert anything in this strategic plan, regardless of whatever wisdom it contains, but I am giving it my best shot. Thoughts? I would appreciate anything.
- Strategizing
Dear Strategizing ...
You face three challenges in a situation like this.
The first is keeping all of your suggestions at a strategic level when your goal here is tactical - important because solving the situation doesn't address the structural deficiencies that allowed it to happen, and (of course) because if you don't, you'll be working outside of your charter.
The second is being subtle enough that Cruella doesn't recognize the connection between what you propose and the way she treats people so she can subvert or kill it.
The third is keeping yourself out of her crosshairs ... and sociopathic executives are often paranoid enough to look at every action of every employee through an is-it-a-threat-to-me lens.
Here are a few possibilities that seem promising:
* Establish an organizational listening strategy - a way for the executive team to get a better handle on What's Going On Out there. Organizational listening strategies employ multiple employee feedback channels that typically complement the chain of command with (for example) employee surveys, an open door policy, executive lunches with small groups of line employees, and balanced scorecard reporting (yes, metrics are simply one organizational listening channel among many).
It's hard for anyone to argue against getting a better handle on what's going on our there, and any professional in the field knows that the chain of command is a dreadful listening channel since it almost guarantees that all undesirable messages will be filtered out. And between the open door policy, employee surveys and balanced scorecard, Cruella's management style should become evident pretty quickly. (If it isn't evident how the balanced scorecard fits in, these always include employee measures; among the employee measures is staff turnover; and if Cruella's staff don't leave for greener pastures more often than those in other parts of the company I'd be very surprised.)
* Include a culture change plan as part of the strategy, or if not, include it as part of the implementation plan for the strategy (if you aren't supposed to develop an implementation plan, you might as well stop work on the strategy because it will be nothing more than a three-ring binder that sits, ignored, on the shelf).
Culture change plans have a bad reputation as soft-and-fuzzy foolishness, and many are. They don't have to be: Good ones describe how employees respond to different sorts of identifiable situations in very concrete terms. They also include mechanisms for monitoring progress in the culture change ... which gets back to organizational listening and provides yet more ammunition for needing it. The best begin with concrete changes in leadership behavior, and mechanisms for determining the extent to which the company's leaders consistently act in accordance with the defined changes.
* Engage an outside consulting firm to perform a situation analysis. Yes, I'm being self-serving in making this point. It's valid nonetheless, and easy for you to defend: All you have to point out is that (a) unlike anyone who works in the company, outside consultants can listen to everyone so they can assemble a complete picture of what's going on; (b) they can promise confidentiality more persuasively than can anyone inside the company; and (c) without a reliable situation analysis, it's difficult to plan the implementation strategy because you won't be sure where you're starting from.
This is by no means an exhaustive list of possibilities. It should give you a sense of how to go about your task. Just remind yourself that aren't trying to solve the one problem. You're trying to fix a system that allowed the problem to happen and, if left as it is, will allow it to happen again.
- Bob
Dear Bob ...
Regarding your last two columns on project management ("Don't supersize. Chunakize," and "People first, methodology second. Or perhaps third," Keep the Joint Running, 9/18/2006 and 9/25/2006) ...
At this point, I'd just like to hear about software projects that work.
There are so many people doing so many things in so many languages, yet I rarely hear of anyone that's happy with any results. Have we really made any progress in the last 25+ years (other than prettier screens)?
I see many articles about failures, but I find myself reacting to such things as the new back-of-the-book column in InfoWorld with thoughts like "Duh," "Been there, done that," and "What did you expect?"
There seem to be as many "best practices" methodologies as there are religions, and about as compatible. And each is broken by major revisions of the underlying languages or tools every couple of years.
Good luck stopping the madness....
- Maddened
Dear Maddened ...
While I don't have access to the research, second-hand reports of the Standish Group's annual Chaos study suggest that we are making some progress. Better, I'm hearing of at least a few enlightened companies that understand that there's no such thing as an IT project, and are bringing in methodologies or redesigning the business, not just the software.
Don't get me started on "best practices." There are no such things, only practices that work better in specific, defined situations. When various punicrats say "best practice," they usually mean "basic professionalism" - the bare minimum that's to be expected to demonstrate simple competence. Except that "basic professionalism" doesn't sound anywhere near as authoritative. Or expensive.
Oh ... I guess I did let you get me started on best practices.
- Bob
Dear Bob ...
I enjoyed Bare Bones Project Management. In it you emphasize the importance of "defining we" - selecting who (at least the roles) is actually on the core team and the extended team for a project. I work in a group of specialists who are often called in on short notice to provide consulting, analysis, and work on projects. Our role is very similar to your "subject matter experts". We are very good at the short-notice hired gun thing, but we could be much more productive for the company if we were actually part of the team from the beginning- even if our input is relatively small. The situation is complicated in that we are a "charge-out" group and visibly cost any project in which we participate.
How do we become "we" more often?
- Always They
Dear They ...
Your question illustrates once again that charge-backs are at best a mixed blessing; usually they do more harm than good.
Since you're in a charge-back environment ... and by the way, to impress people you should use the more modern buzz-phrase, "transfer pricing" ... you really do have internal customers and really are selling. That means your manager should pay a call on every project manager and business sponsor during every project's pre-launch period, to explain the value of lightweight involvement throughout a project. If he/she can demonstrate that for the cost of attending the launch meeting and monthly extended team meetings, consultants will be able to be productive more quickly, provide better work, and be better-able to influence results, it shouldn't be a tough sell.
And since you're in a charge-back environment, it's really no skin off your nose if nobody buys. Bad for the company yes, but the company has already decided that it wants you and your colleagues to behave as an outsourcer, not as an internal collaborator.
Who are you (or I) to argue?
- Bob
Dear Bob ...
Thanks. (1) Your answer is helpful especially in that it confirms that someone (it may be me instead of my manager) needs to be involved in the "pre-launch" time period. Perhaps in regular reviews rather than anything which is project-specific. We don't currently have a seat at the table, but I've been thinking of how to insert one. (2) It IS skin off my/our nose if nobody buys, because in general the group is under pressure to be charged out to a large degree.
- Still Always They
Dear They ...
On the nose-to-skin ratio: Yes, your manager's selling ability is skin off your nose. Whether you end up in at the last minute, charging a premium for your rescue services (I'm guessing on this point) or are brought in earlier in a more programmatic way ... that's what has no nasal/dermal impact, I'd think.
- Bob
Dear Bob ...
I just read Keep the Joint Running for this week ("Don't supersize. Chunkanize." 9/18/2006) about modifying business procedures to go along with "IT" projects. I quote (probably paraphrased as I have a lousy memory) your line all the time: "There are no I.T. projects ... only business change projects of which IT is a part."
I understand this perfectly and it's my #1 reason IS projects fail: because over and over and over and over we roll out new software, the users whine and complain until we change it to work like the old software to support their (usually outdated) processes, and the sum effort results in making life worse rather than better. They don't get any of the benefits of the new software, they long for their wonderful old software back, and the IS staff is demonized as the monsters that ruined their lives. oy.
Yet, here I am in the middle of another multi-year project with a few dozen people working on it (contrary to the "chunkinzation" theory of actually getting something done). I've tried as hard as I know how (as a consultant) to get the users to understand they need to change their processes to match what the new software adds for them ... and I get Bambi-in-the-headlights from the entire room. I'm not looking forward to next year when we turn this monster on (mission-critical; four locations on the same day. It's the Big Bang theory - it will not be pretty).
- Trapped in a monolith
Dear Trapped ...
There isn't a lot you can do (pointing out that the Big Bang was a universe-sized explosion will just annoy everyone).
I do have one suggestion for you: Stop telling the users that they have change their processes - probably, they have no idea what that means in any practical sense. Instead add process change to the project plan.
Yes, it's scope creep, and radical scope creep at that. The good news is that you can probably hide it, since it will take a relatively small amount of your time, and redirect the time of the end-users already assigned to the project team. One way of doing this is to redefine the software quality assurance methodology so it includes a "conference room pilot" - an environment for the end-users to figure out their new processes using the new software without being intimidated by the thought of process redesign.
You start by showing them the capabilities of the new software, then have them bring in a few hundred test cases to run through it. They figure out how to handle the test cases using the new software; your developers learn what they need to change to adapt the software to the cases, and it's all automatically outside the constraints of the old process because what the users are bringing in are the test cases, not their old processes. You get to work with them to explore how to handle the test cases using the capabilities of the new software.
- Bob
Dear Bob ...
I submitted my budget the other day - the result of considerable research and modeling, which I fully documented in spreadsheet I provided.
Then the phone rang – my boss and the finance guy were looking at my portion of a rolled up departmental budget. After several guesses, I went down to his office. That is when I discovered that no one had ever looked at the 2nd sheet where I documented my assumptions and research and had formulas tied to those assumptions. So I finally got them to tell me what the "realistic" number was and now I'm trying to figure out how to do what I am asked to do for that amount.
Any suggestions?
- Unrealistic
Dear Realistic ...
I presume mayhem is out of the question?
Welcome to the wonderful world of budgeting, also known as "Pin the Tail on the Donkey for Adults." The only question is, who gets to be the donkey, because the way the game is played they blindfold you, hand you the pin, and let you wander all over the place trying to find the right spot. When you don't, all they do is criticize you for failing to find the critter's backside.
What you should do depends on the type of budget you administer. A friend who was responsible for repairs once defended his spare parts budget this way: He said, "I gave you my number. Go ahead and put any number you want in the budget, and I'll spend whatever I need to spend to keep the computers up and running. If you think I'm wrong, it doesn't matter to me in the slightest."
"No, I want this to be your number," his boss replied.
"I gave you my number," my friend answered. "But please - submit any budget number you want."
That's an appropriate way of dealing with non-discretionary spending. If your budget covers discretionary spending, try this: "No problem - what I suggest we do is go over my planning assumptions together. If we need to spend less, let's figure out what you don't want me to do and we'll make the numbers come out where they need to come out."
It will take some persistence on your part, because your boss and the finance guy both are expecting that you're playing the other side of the game - the one where you artificially pad your budget on the assumption that it will get cut. They have no experience working with numbers that are grounded in evidence and logic, so you'll have to teach them how that game is played. The first step is persuading them to try playing it.
And the first step of the first step is to avoid being as sarcastic about it as I'm being here. Sarcasm is fun, but it's rarely persuasive. Ain't it a shame?
- Bob
Dear Bob ...
I recently was let go from a job, but lucky enough to find myself choosing my next move as I had multiple options with new companies. I made, at the time, what seemed like the best choice, but now, a few weeks later, I am second guessing.
Basically, during the time I have been here, I have done what I consider to be nothing. I spend about 20 minutes a day doing actual work and the rest of the time doing whatever I want. I know this sounds like a dream job to most, but the reality of it is that I am bored and eager to continue my career. I have repeatedly asked my boss for work and he is very well aware that I am doing nothing, but the respsonse I always get is to just be patient - I will be swamped before too long.
So my question is simple: How long do you wait at a new job before determining if you made the right decision? I still have other offers on the table... but not for too much longer.
- Waiting
Dear Waiting ...
Before answering your question, I'm going to answer a question you didn't ask, and perhaps should have: With no official responsibilities, how should a new employee fill his or her day?
Right now you have a terrific opportunity to learn the company, assuming your boss will approve of your doing so. If you do, you'll create a double win: First, if your boss is right and you do end up swamped, you'll be in much better shape to do your work. And second, if your boss isn't right, you'll be in a great position to swamp yourself with work, because you'll have learned any number of places in the company for which you can generate your own assignments and successfully fulfill them.
That doesn't, however, answer the more general question - how long should you give a job before deciding it's just a bad fit. My best advice on this: Give it enough time to be certain, and not a day longer. You can simply leave a one- or two-month job off of your resume altogether without creating a gap, so that isn't an issue.
But be certain. Just because you're temporarily idle doesn't mean either the company or your position is a bad bet.
- Bob
It's time for sheepish self-promotion:
Once per newly published book I allow myself the luxury of giving it a plug in Advice Line. This is the plug for Bare Bones Project Management: What you can't not do. I'm pretty sure it's the shortest book you'll ever read on the subject. At 54 pages, I'm confident that everything I've included on the subject is essential.
And if you don't have time to read all 54 pages, each chapter wraps up with a quick summary. To give you a sense, and some advice at the same time (which is, after all, what Advice Line is about), here's an example from the first chapter, which covers sponsorship and governance:
Thanks for indulging me.
- Bob
In response to a recent Advice Line posting ("Bypassing the chain of command, or not," 9/3/2006), one commenter was quite harsh in his assessment of whether a DNA lab technician - who had doubts about a man's guilt but wasn't able to persuade higher-ranking authorities - should have taken further action on behalf of the accused such as contacting the defense attorneys or the press. His comment:
Get real: "you could make the case" (?!) that the analyst should have contacted the innocent guy's attorney. Let's be plain here: Holding onto a job does not justify imprisoning an innocent man for 11 years.
Got it?
Since an innocent man sat in jail for eleven years as a result, the point is well worth debating. Advice Line isn't generally about matters with such serious consequences. The general question of when and how to bypass the chain of command is an important one, though, and the severity of the consequences is an important consideration.
Here's my response, for whatever it's worth: If the employee who performed the analysis considered himself/herself to be more expert and authoritative than the investigator in charge, or suspected corruption or malfeasance, then my critic is, I think, right, although the personal consequences of doing so aren't trivial, do matter, and should be weighed against the outcome.
Take my critic's thought process to its end-point, though: Any time anyone working on any case disagrees with the conclusion reached by the lead investigator, that individual bypasses not just the chain of command but the entire organization and its decision-processes. I'm not sure that's a great answer either.
- Bob
Dear Bob ...
What are your tools of choice for actively involving upper management or "executives with vision" in constructive work? What I'm looking for must effectively involve high-level people who don't have a lot of time or patience, without devolving into showing them Powerpoints and giving them multiple-choice decisions to make.
- Business-oriented
Dear Oriented ...
Simple, practical tools for involving upper management? There are two basic elements to the toolkit - relationship management, and the governance process.
The relationship management piece is one I've mentioned lots of times. Without it, all you have at your disposal are facts and logic, and an audience with no patience to hear either of them. With it, you get the time you need to make your case.
The governance piece is straightforward, and I've also mentioned it from time to time: IT signs up for the costs; the business sponsor signs up for the benefits; the project manager and business sponsor take joint responsibility for the project's success or there's no project.
Nuthin' to it, other than getting companies to buy into it.
- Bob
Dear Bob ...
I still feel like there is a disconnect somewhere. I can't put my finger on it, though.
Unless it's this: the two elements to the toolkit may be "basic" but they're not actually "simple"; the devil is still in the details of this particular toolkit, just as it would be in implementation of any plan.
- Business-oriented
Dear Oriented ...
I never meant to say they were simple as in easy. I meant to say they're simple as in uncomplicated.
Both require hard work, consistency, and diligence.
The also require that someone makes sure that behind all the relationship-building and governance processes are solid delivery mechanisms, so that IT can keep the promises it makes. That's far from easy.
Or simple.
- Bob
Dear Bob ...
Do you have any good tactics for getting a moving-too-fast-just-do-it exec to slow down and think? I've resorted to the default "yes them to death then try to manage to do the right thing when they are not looking and don't worry about it if you never get recognized for the good you are doing".
I'm lucky enough that my peers see the same issue and work with me to try and affect change at our level in the organization, but sometimes I feel like I'm being sneaky or failing some part of my responsibility for doing it the way I'm doing it.
Any thoughts or comments?
- Works for a Nike admirer
Dear Tired ...
Good tactics? If you define "good" to mean "work reliably" then no, for the simple reason that in many cases, what has made these characters successful is that (1) they move too fast and just do it; and (2) getting their way is what they're best at.
And by the way, OODA theory (Colonel John Boyd's formulation: Observe, Orient, Decide, Act; then rinse and repeat) says that in any time-bound combat domain, speed trumps "being correct." Just doing it beats careful analysis in tennis or fencing; careful analysis beats just doing it in chess or golf.
Office politics is a time-bound combat domain. And what these executives are best at is ducking accountability. They generally delegate execution to others, but on their timetable, and when it all blows up they become exasperated at how the delegatee messed up something so simple.
How to combat this? The best solution is to stay far away and watch them fail from a distance. You have no moral obligation to save your boss from him or herself. OODA masters win every battle; their failing is that they often choose the wrong battles to fight. If everyone keeps their distance it eventually becomes clear whose name is on all the fiascoes.
If you can't stay far away ... if your success is tethered to their success, or even worse if you actually like them ... then the best tactic I know of is to always start with the words, "That's a great idea. Tell me the details."
Of course, there aren't any details, but you've opened the conversational door to start developing them. You can either flesh out the basics then and there, or offer to take a few days to put some flesh on the bones.
If the exec persists, saying that it isn't that complicated; let's just get started and figure it out as we go along, you can try the pilot project gambit. It goes like this: You agree, deliberately misunderstanding "just do it" to mean "just do a pilot project so we can learn our way into this."
Often, by the way, "just doing" a pilot project or prototype is superior to careful thought when it comes to figuring something out. So you might find that you aren't limiting the damage - you're collaborating in a success.
And if not, you will at least limit the damage.
- Bob
Dear Bob ...
A Chicago DNA lab analyst's doubts about a man's guilt wasn't enough to move higher ranking authorities to get an FBI test for DNA (considered more reliable than the police lab's testing). Why not? Detectives already had a confession.
The accused was convicted and spent 11 years in jail before being exonorated. Chicago has agreed to pay him $9 million for that wrongful conviction.
The hierarchy didn't produce the desired result in this case, the correct outcome. How could the lab analyst have addressed the chain of command without violating the chain's requirements?
- Concerned citizen
Dear Concerned ...
The short answer is that there's nothing the analyst could have done. Even moving into whistleblower-land would have been uncertain, with the certainty of a high cost.
We're in a society where for many prosecutors, and citizens, the goal is to convict someone ... anyone ... of the crime. In particular, it's easy to understand how it might be that a prosecutor's office would be prone to conflating the intermediate result of getting a conviction with the correct goal of getting the guilty party into jail.
(When I was growing up in the Chicago area, it was well-known that when no suspect was in sight, more than a few detectives would happily grab someone they "knew" was a bad person, put him in a room, and hit him over the head with a phone book until he confessed to the crime. The result, from their perspective: One crime solved; one bad guy off the streets. What's not to like?)
How does my annoying social commentary apply to IT and the world of office politics? Quite directly, as there are no shortage of circumstances where businesses conflate intermediate results with true goals.
One example among many is project management. Projects have objectives - the point of it all. They have goals - the business outcomes that lead to achieving the point of it all. And they have deliverables - their tangible work products. In most companies, project managers are responsible for completing all deliverables on time and within the original budget. Achieving the project's goals is someone else's problem, let alone achieving the actual objective.
Say you're a project manager and realize that the stated deliverables are insufficient for achieving the goals and objective. What's your best course of action - recommending an increase in scope and commensurate increases in budget and staffing, or to keep your mouth shut and get the deliverables done?
In most companies, that's a purely rhetorical question.
How should either proceed (the project manager and lab analyst)? In each case I'd say they had a responsibility to raise the issue with the responsible party - the business sponsor in the case of the PM; the lead investigator in the case of the lab analyst. From an organizational perspective, after that it's someone else's decision.
From an ethical perspective you could make the case that the lab analyst should have contacted the accused party's attorney. But that definitely violates the chain of command, and probably makes the lab analyst unemployable for, at a minimum, several decades.
- Bob
September 27, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Dear Bob ...
I have been thrust, willy-nilly, into a kind of business-consultant role for a large organization. I know many of the staff in this organization at various levels. I am on a team of employees and other outside people who are working on a strategic plan for the organization. We are working on things like "mission statement," "vision statement", "values", etc. Soon we will get to measurable outcomes.
In the process, I have heard from several sources that the operational head of the organization, a VP equivalent, is a horrible, abusive boss. I have observed that the people who report to her appear beaten down, defensive or even terrified. And naturally the organization is not creative, passionate or flexible.
This VP, like all the employees at this organization, is unfireable. She is even being promoted, though it isn't clear if it is a substantive promotion or not. She gives the impression of being sweet and reasonable, but she gets people in her office, closes the door, and destroys them. She also uses and discards people heartlessly. She may be an actual sociopath.
So my question is: are there things I can propose at the strategic level that can stop this monster from abusing her people? I don't think "values" like "nurturing a culture of openness and respect" will do it. It needs to be as concrete and objective as possible (or so I feel.)
The best idea I have come up with so far is the "strategic goal" of everybody having clear, explicit criteria for whether they are doing a good job. My idea was that if everybody knows what they are being judged for, they don't have to worry about being jumped on for something random. But that is pretty weak, it seems to me. How about a solid grievance procedure? Not allowing her, and therefore anybody, to be alone with an employee?
It is possible that Cruella could subvert anything in this strategic plan, regardless of whatever wisdom it contains, but I am giving it my best shot. Thoughts? I would appreciate anything.
- Strategizing
Dear Strategizing ...
You face three challenges in a situation like this.
The first is keeping all of your suggestions at a strategic level when your goal here is tactical - important because solving the situation doesn't address the structural deficiencies that allowed it to happen, and (of course) because if you don't, you'll be working outside of your charter.
The second is being subtle enough that Cruella doesn't recognize the connection between what you propose and the way she treats people so she can subvert or kill it.
The third is keeping yourself out of her crosshairs ... and sociopathic executives are often paranoid enough to look at every action of every employee through an is-it-a-threat-to-me lens.
Here are a few possibilities that seem promising:
* Establish an organizational listening strategy - a way for the executive team to get a better handle on What's Going On Out there. Organizational listening strategies employ multiple employee feedback channels that typically complement the chain of command with (for example) employee surveys, an open door policy, executive lunches with small groups of line employees, and balanced scorecard reporting (yes, metrics are simply one organizational listening channel among many).
It's hard for anyone to argue against getting a better handle on what's going on our there, and any professional in the field knows that the chain of command is a dreadful listening channel since it almost guarantees that all undesirable messages will be filtered out. And between the open door policy, employee surveys and balanced scorecard, Cruella's management style should become evident pretty quickly. (If it isn't evident how the balanced scorecard fits in, these always include employee measures; among the employee measures is staff turnover; and if Cruella's staff don't leave for greener pastures more often than those in other parts of the company I'd be very surprised.)
* Include a culture change plan as part of the strategy, or if not, include it as part of the implementation plan for the strategy (if you aren't supposed to develop an implementation plan, you might as well stop work on the strategy because it will be nothing more than a three-ring binder that sits, ignored, on the shelf).
Culture change plans have a bad reputation as soft-and-fuzzy foolishness, and many are. They don't have to be: Good ones describe how employees respond to different sorts of identifiable situations in very concrete terms. They also include mechanisms for monitoring progress in the culture change ... which gets back to organizational listening and provides yet more ammunition for needing it. The best begin with concrete changes in leadership behavior, and mechanisms for determining the extent to which the company's leaders consistently act in accordance with the defined changes.
* Engage an outside consulting firm to perform a situation analysis. Yes, I'm being self-serving in making this point. It's valid nonetheless, and easy for you to defend: All you have to point out is that (a) unlike anyone who works in the company, outside consultants can listen to everyone so they can assemble a complete picture of what's going on; (b) they can promise confidentiality more persuasively than can anyone inside the company; and (c) without a reliable situation analysis, it's difficult to plan the implementation strategy because you won't be sure where you're starting from.
This is by no means an exhaustive list of possibilities. It should give you a sense of how to go about your task. Just remind yourself that aren't trying to solve the one problem. You're trying to fix a system that allowed the problem to happen and, if left as it is, will allow it to happen again.
- Bob
Posted by Bob Lewis on September 27, 2006 04:43 AM
September 26, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Project management non-best-practices
Dear Bob ...
Regarding your last two columns on project management ("Don't supersize. Chunakize," and "People first, methodology second. Or perhaps third," Keep the Joint Running, 9/18/2006 and 9/25/2006) ...
At this point, I'd just like to hear about software projects that work.
There are so many people doing so many things in so many languages, yet I rarely hear of anyone that's happy with any results. Have we really made any progress in the last 25+ years (other than prettier screens)?
I see many articles about failures, but I find myself reacting to such things as the new back-of-the-book column in InfoWorld with thoughts like "Duh," "Been there, done that," and "What did you expect?"
There seem to be as many "best practices" methodologies as there are religions, and about as compatible. And each is broken by major revisions of the underlying languages or tools every couple of years.
Good luck stopping the madness....
- Maddened
Dear Maddened ...
While I don't have access to the research, second-hand reports of the Standish Group's annual Chaos study suggest that we are making some progress. Better, I'm hearing of at least a few enlightened companies that understand that there's no such thing as an IT project, and are bringing in methodologies or redesigning the business, not just the software.
Don't get me started on "best practices." There are no such things, only practices that work better in specific, defined situations. When various punicrats say "best practice," they usually mean "basic professionalism" - the bare minimum that's to be expected to demonstrate simple competence. Except that "basic professionalism" doesn't sound anywhere near as authoritative. Or expensive.
Oh ... I guess I did let you get me started on best practices.
- Bob
Posted by Bob Lewis on September 26, 2006 06:00 AM
September 24, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Whey you're "they" but want to be "we"
Dear Bob ...
I enjoyed Bare Bones Project Management. In it you emphasize the importance of "defining we" - selecting who (at least the roles) is actually on the core team and the extended team for a project. I work in a group of specialists who are often called in on short notice to provide consulting, analysis, and work on projects. Our role is very similar to your "subject matter experts". We are very good at the short-notice hired gun thing, but we could be much more productive for the company if we were actually part of the team from the beginning- even if our input is relatively small. The situation is complicated in that we are a "charge-out" group and visibly cost any project in which we participate.
How do we become "we" more often?
- Always They
Dear They ...
Your question illustrates once again that charge-backs are at best a mixed blessing; usually they do more harm than good.
Since you're in a charge-back environment ... and by the way, to impress people you should use the more modern buzz-phrase, "transfer pricing" ... you really do have internal customers and really are selling. That means your manager should pay a call on every project manager and business sponsor during every project's pre-launch period, to explain the value of lightweight involvement throughout a project. If he/she can demonstrate that for the cost of attending the launch meeting and monthly extended team meetings, consultants will be able to be productive more quickly, provide better work, and be better-able to influence results, it shouldn't be a tough sell.
And since you're in a charge-back environment, it's really no skin off your nose if nobody buys. Bad for the company yes, but the company has already decided that it wants you and your colleagues to behave as an outsourcer, not as an internal collaborator.
Who are you (or I) to argue?
- Bob
Dear Bob ...
Thanks. (1) Your answer is helpful especially in that it confirms that someone (it may be me instead of my manager) needs to be involved in the "pre-launch" time period. Perhaps in regular reviews rather than anything which is project-specific. We don't currently have a seat at the table, but I've been thinking of how to insert one. (2) It IS skin off my/our nose if nobody buys, because in general the group is under pressure to be charged out to a large degree.
- Still Always They
Dear They ...
On the nose-to-skin ratio: Yes, your manager's selling ability is skin off your nose. Whether you end up in at the last minute, charging a premium for your rescue services (I'm guessing on this point) or are brought in earlier in a more programmatic way ... that's what has no nasal/dermal impact, I'd think.
- Bob
Posted by Bob Lewis on September 24, 2006 06:04 PM
September 20, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Process change without formal process redesign
Dear Bob ...
I just read Keep the Joint Running for this week ("Don't supersize. Chunkanize." 9/18/2006) about modifying business procedures to go along with "IT" projects. I quote (probably paraphrased as I have a lousy memory) your line all the time: "There are no I.T. projects ... only business change projects of which IT is a part."
I understand this perfectly and it's my #1 reason IS projects fail: because over and over and over and over we roll out new software, the users whine and complain until we change it to work like the old software to support their (usually outdated) processes, and the sum effort results in making life worse rather than better. They don't get any of the benefits of the new software, they long for their wonderful old software back, and the IS staff is demonized as the monsters that ruined their lives. oy.
Yet, here I am in the middle of another multi-year project with a few dozen people working on it (contrary to the "chunkinzation" theory of actually getting something done). I've tried as hard as I know how (as a consultant) to get the users to understand they need to change their processes to match what the new software adds for them ... and I get Bambi-in-the-headlights from the entire room. I'm not looking forward to next year when we turn this monster on (mission-critical; four locations on the same day. It's the Big Bang theory - it will not be pretty).
- Trapped in a monolith
Dear Trapped ...
There isn't a lot you can do (pointing out that the Big Bang was a universe-sized explosion will just annoy everyone).
I do have one suggestion for you: Stop telling the users that they have change their processes - probably, they have no idea what that means in any practical sense. Instead add process change to the project plan.
Yes, it's scope creep, and radical scope creep at that. The good news is that you can probably hide it, since it will take a relatively small amount of your time, and redirect the time of the end-users already assigned to the project team. One way of doing this is to redefine the software quality assurance methodology so it includes a "conference room pilot" - an environment for the end-users to figure out their new processes using the new software without being intimidated by the thought of process redesign.
You start by showing them the capabilities of the new software, then have them bring in a few hundred test cases to run through it. They figure out how to handle the test cases using the new software; your developers learn what they need to change to adapt the software to the cases, and it's all automatically outside the constraints of the old process because what the users are bringing in are the test cases, not their old processes. You get to work with them to explore how to handle the test cases using the capabilities of the new software.
- Bob
Posted by Bob Lewis on September 20, 2006 08:11 AM
September 19, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Playing the budget game to win
Dear Bob ...
I submitted my budget the other day - the result of considerable research and modeling, which I fully documented in spreadsheet I provided.
Then the phone rang – my boss and the finance guy were looking at my portion of a rolled up departmental budget. After several guesses, I went down to his office. That is when I discovered that no one had ever looked at the 2nd sheet where I documented my assumptions and research and had formulas tied to those assumptions. So I finally got them to tell me what the "realistic" number was and now I'm trying to figure out how to do what I am asked to do for that amount.
Any suggestions?
- Unrealistic
Dear Realistic ...
I presume mayhem is out of the question?
Welcome to the wonderful world of budgeting, also known as "Pin the Tail on the Donkey for Adults." The only question is, who gets to be the donkey, because the way the game is played they blindfold you, hand you the pin, and let you wander all over the place trying to find the right spot. When you don't, all they do is criticize you for failing to find the critter's backside.
What you should do depends on the type of budget you administer. A friend who was responsible for repairs once defended his spare parts budget this way: He said, "I gave you my number. Go ahead and put any number you want in the budget, and I'll spend whatever I need to spend to keep the computers up and running. If you think I'm wrong, it doesn't matter to me in the slightest."
"No, I want this to be your number," his boss replied.
"I gave you my number," my friend answered. "But please - submit any budget number you want."
That's an appropriate way of dealing with non-discretionary spending. If your budget covers discretionary spending, try this: "No problem - what I suggest we do is go over my planning assumptions together. If we need to spend less, let's figure out what you don't want me to do and we'll make the numbers come out where they need to come out."
It will take some persistence on your part, because your boss and the finance guy both are expecting that you're playing the other side of the game - the one where you artificially pad your budget on the assumption that it will get cut. They have no experience working with numbers that are grounded in evidence and logic, so you'll have to teach them how that game is played. The first step is persuading them to try playing it.
And the first step of the first step is to avoid being as sarcastic about it as I'm being here. Sarcasm is fun, but it's rarely persuasive. Ain't it a shame?
- Bob
Posted by Bob Lewis on September 19, 2006 06:19 AM
September 17, 2006 | Comments: (0)
How long should you give a new employer?
Dear Bob ...
I recently was let go from a job, but lucky enough to find myself choosing my next move as I had multiple options with new companies. I made, at the time, what seemed like the best choice, but now, a few weeks later, I am second guessing.
Basically, during the time I have been here, I have done what I consider to be nothing. I spend about 20 minutes a day doing actual work and the rest of the time doing whatever I want. I know this sounds like a dream job to most, but the reality of it is that I am bored and eager to continue my career. I have repeatedly asked my boss for work and he is very well aware that I am doing nothing, but the respsonse I always get is to just be patient - I will be swamped before too long.
So my question is simple: How long do you wait at a new job before determining if you made the right decision? I still have other offers on the table... but not for too much longer.
- Waiting
Dear Waiting ...
Before answering your question, I'm going to answer a question you didn't ask, and perhaps should have: With no official responsibilities, how should a new employee fill his or her day?
Right now you have a terrific opportunity to learn the company, assuming your boss will approve of your doing so. If you do, you'll create a double win: First, if your boss is right and you do end up swamped, you'll be in much better shape to do your work. And second, if your boss isn't right, you'll be in a great position to swamp yourself with work, because you'll have learned any number of places in the company for which you can generate your own assignments and successfully fulfill them.
That doesn't, however, answer the more general question - how long should you give a job before deciding it's just a bad fit. My best advice on this: Give it enough time to be certain, and not a day longer. You can simply leave a one- or two-month job off of your resume altogether without creating a gap, so that isn't an issue.
But be certain. Just because you're temporarily idle doesn't mean either the company or your position is a bad bet.
- Bob
Posted by Bob Lewis on September 17, 2006 04:05 PM
September 13, 2006 | Comments: (0)
It's time for sheepish self-promotion:
Once per newly published book I allow myself the luxury of giving it a plug in Advice Line. This is the plug for Bare Bones Project Management: What you can't not do. I'm pretty sure it's the shortest book you'll ever read on the subject. At 54 pages, I'm confident that everything I've included on the subject is essential.
And if you don't have time to read all 54 pages, each chapter wraps up with a quick summary. To give you a sense, and some advice at the same time (which is, after all, what Advice Line is about), here's an example from the first chapter, which covers sponsorship and governance:
Thanks for indulging me.
- Bob
Posted by Bob Lewis on September 13, 2006 07:59 AM
September 12, 2006 | Comments: (0)
More on bypassing the chain of command
In response to a recent Advice Line posting ("Bypassing the chain of command, or not," 9/3/2006), one commenter was quite harsh in his assessment of whether a DNA lab technician - who had doubts about a man's guilt but wasn't able to persuade higher-ranking authorities - should have taken further action on behalf of the accused such as contacting the defense attorneys or the press. His comment:
Get real: "you could make the case" (?!) that the analyst should have contacted the innocent guy's attorney. Let's be plain here: Holding onto a job does not justify imprisoning an innocent man for 11 years.
Got it?
Since an innocent man sat in jail for eleven years as a result, the point is well worth debating. Advice Line isn't generally about matters with such serious consequences. The general question of when and how to bypass the chain of command is an important one, though, and the severity of the consequences is an important consideration.
Here's my response, for whatever it's worth: If the employee who performed the analysis considered himself/herself to be more expert and authoritative than the investigator in charge, or suspected corruption or malfeasance, then my critic is, I think, right, although the personal consequences of doing so aren't trivial, do matter, and should be weighed against the outcome.
Take my critic's thought process to its end-point, though: Any time anyone working on any case disagrees with the conclusion reached by the lead investigator, that individual bypasses not just the chain of command but the entire organization and its decision-processes. I'm not sure that's a great answer either.
- Bob
Posted by Bob Lewis on September 12, 2006 07:32 AM
September 11, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Dear Bob ...
What are your tools of choice for actively involving upper management or "executives with vision" in constructive work? What I'm looking for must effectively involve high-level people who don't have a lot of time or patience, without devolving into showing them Powerpoints and giving them multiple-choice decisions to make.
- Business-oriented
Dear Oriented ...
Simple, practical tools for involving upper management? There are two basic elements to the toolkit - relationship management, and the governance process.
The relationship management piece is one I've mentioned lots of times. Without it, all you have at your disposal are facts and logic, and an audience with no patience to hear either of them. With it, you get the time you need to make your case.
The governance piece is straightforward, and I've also mentioned it from time to time: IT signs up for the costs; the business sponsor signs up for the benefits; the project manager and business sponsor take joint responsibility for the project's success or there's no project.
Nuthin' to it, other than getting companies to buy into it.
- Bob
Dear Bob ...
I still feel like there is a disconnect somewhere. I can't put my finger on it, though.
Unless it's this: the two elements to the toolkit may be "basic" but they're not actually "simple"; the devil is still in the details of this particular toolkit, just as it would be in implementation of any plan.
- Business-oriented
Dear Oriented ...
I never meant to say they were simple as in easy. I meant to say they're simple as in uncomplicated.
Both require hard work, consistency, and diligence.
The also require that someone makes sure that behind all the relationship-building and governance processes are solid delivery mechanisms, so that IT can keep the promises it makes. That's far from easy.
Or simple.
- Bob
Posted by Bob Lewis on September 11, 2006 07:11 AM
September 05, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Dear Bob ...
Do you have any good tactics for getting a moving-too-fast-just-do-it exec to slow down and think? I've resorted to the default "yes them to death then try to manage to do the right thing when they are not looking and don't worry about it if you never get recognized for the good you are doing".
I'm lucky enough that my peers see the same issue and work with me to try and affect change at our level in the organization, but sometimes I feel like I'm being sneaky or failing some part of my responsibility for doing it the way I'm doing it.
Any thoughts or comments?
- Works for a Nike admirer
Dear Tired ...
Good tactics? If you define "good" to mean "work reliably" then no, for the simple reason that in many cases, what has made these characters successful is that (1) they move too fast and just do it; and (2) getting their way is what they're best at.
And by the way, OODA theory (Colonel John Boyd's formulation: Observe, Orient, Decide, Act; then rinse and repeat) says that in any time-bound combat domain, speed trumps "being correct." Just doing it beats careful analysis in tennis or fencing; careful analysis beats just doing it in chess or golf.
Office politics is a time-bound combat domain. And what these executives are best at is ducking accountability. They generally delegate execution to others, but on their timetable, and when it all blows up they become exasperated at how the delegatee messed up something so simple.
How to combat this? The best solution is to stay far away and watch them fail from a distance. You have no moral obligation to save your boss from him or herself. OODA masters win every battle; their failing is that they often choose the wrong battles to fight. If everyone keeps their distance it eventually becomes clear whose name is on all the fiascoes.
If you can't stay far away ... if your success is tethered to their success, or even worse if you actually like them ... then the best tactic I know of is to always start with the words, "That's a great idea. Tell me the details."
Of course, there aren't any details, but you've opened the conversational door to start developing them. You can either flesh out the basics then and there, or offer to take a few days to put some flesh on the bones.
If the exec persists, saying that it isn't that complicated; let's just get started and figure it out as we go along, you can try the pilot project gambit. It goes like this: You agree, deliberately misunderstanding "just do it" to mean "just do a pilot project so we can learn our way into this."
Often, by the way, "just doing" a pilot project or prototype is superior to careful thought when it comes to figuring something out. So you might find that you aren't limiting the damage - you're collaborating in a success.
And if not, you will at least limit the damage.
- Bob
Posted by Bob Lewis on September 5, 2006 04:00 PM
September 03, 2006 | Comments: (0)
Bypassing the chain of command, or not
Dear Bob ...
A Chicago DNA lab analyst's doubts about a man's guilt wasn't enough to move higher ranking authorities to get an FBI test for DNA (considered more reliable than the police lab's testing). Why not? Detectives already had a confession.
The accused was convicted and spent 11 years in jail before being exonorated. Chicago has agreed to pay him $9 million for that wrongful conviction.
The hierarchy didn't produce the desired result in this case, the correct outcome. How could the lab analyst have addressed the chain of command without violating the chain's requirements?
- Concerned citizen
Dear Concerned ...
The short answer is that there's nothing the analyst could have done. Even moving into whistleblower-land would have been uncertain, with the certainty of a high cost.
We're in a society where for many prosecutors, and citizens, the goal is to convict someone ... anyone ... of the crime. In particular, it's easy to understand how it might be that a prosecutor's office would be prone to conflating the intermediate result of getting a conviction with the correct goal of getting the guilty party into jail.
(When I was growing up in the Chicago area, it was well-known that when no suspect was in sight, more than a few detectives would happily grab someone they "knew" was a bad person, put him in a room, and hit him over the head with a phone book until he confessed to the crime. The result, from their perspective: One crime solved; one bad guy off the streets. What's not to like?)
How does my annoying social commentary apply to IT and the world of office politics? Quite directly, as there are no shortage of circumstances where businesses conflate intermediate results with true goals.
One example among many is project management. Projects have objectives - the point of it all. They have goals - the business outcomes that lead to achieving the point of it all. And they have deliverables - their tangible work products. In most companies, project managers are responsible for completing all deliverables on time and within the original budget. Achieving the project's goals is someone else's problem, let alone achieving the actual objective.
Say you're a project manager and realize that the stated deliverables are insufficient for achieving the goals and objective. What's your best course of action - recommending an increase in scope and commensurate increases in budget and staffing, or to keep your mouth shut and get the deliverables done?
In most companies, that's a purely rhetorical question.
How should either proceed (the project manager and lab analyst)? In each case I'd say they had a responsibility to raise the issue with the responsible party - the business sponsor in the case of the PM; the lead investigator in the case of the lab analyst. From an organizational perspective, after that it's someone else's decision.
From an ethical perspective you could make the case that the lab analyst should have contacted the accused party's attorney. But that definitely violates the chain of command, and probably makes the lab analyst unemployable for, at a minimum, several decades.
- Bob
Posted by Bob Lewis on September 3, 2006 08:26 AM
|
Three books. Three ways to change the world, your life, or at least Bob Lewis' bank account. Leading IT: The Toughest Job in the World distills the world of IT leadership into eight learnable skills and gives you concrete, practical techniques for each one of them. Bare Bones Project Management: What you can't not do makes project management manageable, even for first-time project managers with no formal training in the discipline. ManagementSpeak: What managers say/What they mean … well, it won't help your career, and won't make you a better manager. Mostly, it will make you chuckle, guffaw, and maybe even chortle. Make friends - it's the perfect gift for anyone who has ever suffered through one of those meetings. Order your copies today! |
TOP STORIES
Top 10 stories of the weekA new place to hide rootkits
Sun exec on OpenSolaris, Linux
AT&T: No free iPhone Wi-Fi info
MS to appeal E.U. fine
XP SP3 causes endless reboots
Vista as insecure as Win 2000
Google grilled on human rights
Java ubiquity an edge in RIA battle
The InfoWorld news quiz
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
- Virtualization: A Step by Step Approach to Success
- Dialing up Agility with Business Transformation
- 5 Things You Need to Know About Storage Virtualization
- Virtual Test Lab Automation: Manage development infrastructure
- Improve Resource Utilization and Lower Operating Costs
- Protect Your Data with SSL
