MORE ENTRIES
- Safe computing and related matters
- When you become an organizational orphan
- Some thoughts on time management
- A supervisory challenge
- Dealing with burnout
- Making a forced reorganization work
- They like praise - why can't they take criticism?
- How to interpret COBOL statistics
- Making each slide tell a story
- Disagreement on a style of management, or a disagreeable style of management?
Advice Line | Bob Lewis »
January 2007
Dear Bob ...
Two questions for you that don't have anything at all to do with each other, even though it probably sounds like they do. :-)
First, I've been tasked with writing a policy for safe computing practices, which policy is to be sent to everyone at this site once a month. I know how to compute safely, of course, but I find myself at something of a loss for drawing up a list of basic do's and don'ts. Do you know of anyplace that has any kind of "template" I might be able to follow?
Second. not long ago, a user brought his laptop to me, saying he was having trouble connecting to the corporate WiFi connection. I investigated the settings until it appeared I had corrected the problem, then, to test it, I maximized the browser window that he had left minimized on the task bar. This window was full of porn. (And I mean porn, not just Playboy centerfolds or the like.)
I did my job and reported him, but that got me wondering -- what exactly is the difference between that and a formal complaint? If I were any other type of employee and saw that on a user's computer, I'd definitely complain, and I'd even be complaining to the same people with whom I filed the report because of the corporate structure. But I somehow get the feeling that, as the one who is tasked with reporting network usage violations, I don't have the right to complain about network usage violations. I'm not sure I'm phrasing this question clearly enough, but I hope you can see what I'm getting at.
- Exposed to yuck
Dear Exposed ...
Just an opinion: If you know how to compute safely, you'd find the exercise of figuring out what you know to be very worthwhile. Watch yourself work and look at what you do and don't do.
If you are looking for on-line resources, you shouldn't have much trouble finding lists that correspond to your own thought processes. I Googled "safe computing practices" and found quite a few sources. My suggestions here are:
1. Don't just get one. Choose based on your actually agreeing with what's said.
2. Don't just cut-and-paste. That's plagiarism, unless your source agrees to let you do so.
3. Assuming your source doesn't, find two more, combine them, re-write the exact phrasing, and footnote them. This follows the rule that copying from one source is plagiarism but borrowing from three is research.
To your other question:
Ewwww! What kind of moron would leave a computer with a browser window open to a porn site?
I guess that's a self-answering question.
My question is, what is your complaint? Yes, yes, I know employers are supposed to protect employees from this sort of thing, but really they aren't. They're supposed to expend a reasonable effort to minimize the chance of it happening. There is no such thing as eliminating the risk.
I'd say that reporting the occurrence and the employee was the right step. Filing a complaint is only appropriate if you report it and the response you receive is, "What are you complaining about, you prude! And what was that URL again?"
- Bob
Dear Bob ...
Our parent company is consolidating IT functions and recently transferred all of our IT staff under the corporate umbrella. Except a few of us who have been left behind, such as security, DR and change control. My director says we still report locally so we can "keep control" and that I need to figure out how to make this work. Any ideas on how we can be effective in managing our local IT support when we are organizational orphans? Or do I need to get the résumé out?
- Oliver
Dear Mr. Dickens ...
There's a general question here, and some specifics. First the general:
How are you supposed to be effective in a decentralized situation like this? My general-purpose, one-size-fits-all solution to the question is to use your authority where you have it and your ability to influence and persuade where you don't.
That is, of course, oversimplified: Having authority doesn't mean using it is always a good idea. Usually, you're still better off persuading, even if you do have the organizational power to say, "Because I said so, that's why."
The other half always applies - just because you don't report to corporate IT doesn't mean you can only communicate with it through service requests. Identify everyone in corporate who has the potential for being either a bottleneck or facilitator and build strong relationships so they usually decide that facilitating is what they prefer to do.
It's the specific questions that puzzle me.
Decentralizing the implementation of security makes sense to me. Even localizing some aspects of security policy makes sense, because security policy isn't a one-size-fits-all proposition. Security policy is all about establishing the proper balance point between mitigating risk and being able to pursue opportunities that require it. Large corporations aren't homogeneous, which means different business units or divisions might easily have different risk profiles.
Decentralized disaster recovery also makes sense: A division in California needs to plan for earthquakes and brush fires; one in Minnesota must plan for blizzards and floods. Different risks, different plans.
It's change control that puzzles me. Since you didn't tell me that either application support or operations has remained decentralized, and since change control is the conduit that connects the two, I'm at a bit of a loss as to how that's supposed to work. Luckily, I don't have to know. You do ... so ask, through those relationships you're going to build. All you really need here is to know the procedure and you're good to go.
In the end, what's important is that you change your metaphor. You aren't an orphan. Orphans have no parents and have to scrounge food off the streets. Also, they're kids.
You're in a different situation: You're simply living in a different part of town.
- Bob
Dear Bob ...
I just finished reading an article from Forrester, dated December 29th, 2006 by Lewis Cardin titled "How CIOs Should Spend Their Day." In the article it says that we should set aside 30% of our time to work with or in the interest of those above us in the organization, 30% for those at our level in the organization, 30% with our Department to strengthen it, and 10% of our time should be spent on ourselves.
What are your thoughts on the division or management of our time?
- Franklin Covey
Dear Franklin ...
I'm guessing what Cardin really meant was that CIOs shouldn't forget to actively deal with each of these areas. Fixed percentages are so ... inflexible.
I don't disagree with Cardin - the idea is fundamentally sound. We do use a different slice-and-dice, though, which I've written about before: the "Management Compass" ("Which say are you facing?" Keep the Joint Running, 12/12/2005).
The Management Compass has four directions: North (to those you report to), East (to your organizational peers), West (to those in the company who make use of what your organization delivers), and South (to those reporting to you). CIOs need to manage and build strong relationships in each of these directions, and that takes time.
I also agree with Cardin's point that CIOs (and not only CIOs, but everyone) should reserve some time during the day for personal improvement, priority-setting, and planning. Otherwise, you'll find yourself doing things out of habit, not because they're still a good idea.
- Bob
Dear Bob ...
Like so many people in IT jobs, my box on the org-chart has a number of lines leading to it -- I split my time across 3 different projects, with essentially 3 different bosses.
Within one of those projects, I also supervise one employee -- in addition to doing my "real work" for the project. I barely have enough time to plan out, assign, and then verify his work, much less look over his shoulder to see that he isn't wasting time, surfing the web, chilling out with co-workers. And believe me, he needs some looking over. Yes, I've had the talk about professional conduct and building trust in one's abilities.
So as a manager, I want to help him improve his performance. But I really don't have the time to do so. I need the work to be done, and I need to be able to trust that it will be done in a timely manner, to the best of his ability.
Any options other than the obvious?
- Prospective PHB?
Dear PPHB ...
Only the obvious ones occur to me.
A point I'll make to you is this: Even when you have too little time, you still have to decide where to invest it. That means deciding whether investing more time in the employee will result in a net improvement in the total work output the two of you are capable of. If so, take more time, even if your direct tasks suffer as a result. In the end, the project will finish more quickly.
If not, don't.
I'll also ask how direct you've been with the employee about what succeeding looks like, how big the gap is, and what's going to happen if he doesn't close it.
Very important: Contact your company's HR department and have them walk you through exactly what you need to do when a possible outcome is termination. Almost certainly they have specific procedures and documentation. This is something you'll want to do by the numbers, not by figuring it out on your own.
- Bob
Dear Bob ...
I need some advice. My effectiveness is not 100% at the moment in my work. I believe I am suffering from what is called burnout from a long 2006. Now I am at a cross roads in thinking, which is how to distinguish 'burnout' from demotivation. And how do I handle either of them more effectively in the workplace?
- Crispy
Dear Crispy ...
According to various sources, burnout has a formal definition: "An extreme emotional state characterized by emotional exhaustion, a diminished sense of personal accomplishment, and cynicism." Not sure if you're all the way there, or if you're in the sort of less-extreme state many of us experience from time to time, which consists of, "I'm tired of this nonsense and can't figure out why I'd want to work so hard."
While I'm certainly not an expert (and if you're seriously concerned you should consult a professional psychologist), here's what I'd consider to be a fairly reliable test: Tomorrow, see if you're capable of putting in an intense, productive workday. If you can, then you're de-motivated. If you can't, then you're suffering from some level of burnout.
How do you handle them? If it's burnout, I think you need to spend some time with a professional to help you get on track. True burnout has (I think) quite a bit in common with depression - it's in control of you and you need to find a way clear of it. If you're simply stressed and demotivated, it probably means you're working in an environment in which you don't think you can succeed.
If that's the case, you need to make some changes. If the reason you can't succeed is because you lack some of the skills required for success, talk to your manager about what it will take to acquire them - training, coaching, appropriate books or whatever. If the reason is that the job is structured in such a way that success isn't possible (or is only possible through ridiculous heroics, like perpetual 80-hour work weeks) then you need to find a different job in which you can succeed.
I hope this helps. Good luck.
- Bob
Dear Bob ...
I've read your column with much interest in the past, and now I'd like to ask for some advice.
I work at a medium-sized company (about 150 employees). Our IT area was recently split up - long story short, the CEO made the decision without consulting anyone, and we have to live with it. Now we've got 8 staff reporting to three different managers, and things are starting to fall through the cracks. For example, one group was dealing with a systemic network issue, which may have been causing problems for another group - and neither knew what the other was doing.
The directors of the three new departments report to the COO. The COO promoted the split as a way to have the staff focus on three different functional areas: one on 'typical' IT duties like network support, one on developing the infrastructure for a new hosted service we are offering, and the third on Web application development. Physically, we sit in three separate areas of one office (again, a decision of the COO).
But the departments couldn't hope to be completely independent. When I asked the COO how we were supposed to define exactly where one department ended and the next began, the COO just said that was something the department heads could work out.
Once the COO makes a decision, it's nearly impossible to get him to change his mind, even if there's evidence the decision wasn't a good one. He made the decision without my input, which obviously has me a little rankled. But at this point, I just want to try to make the best of the situation - and if I can't, then maybe it's time to go elsewhere.
Once upon a time, all the IT folks actually sat near one another, and it was easy to keep everyone in the loop. And it was easy to gather everyone around a table to brainstorm about current projects. Those days are gone.
It would be difficult to have everyone document everything they do, and logging everything in our ticketing system would only be a partial solution. I think the solution has to start with addressing some communication issues first, and then possibly finding a technology solution to assist. I'd appreciate your comments on where to start.
- Reorganized
Dear Reorganized ...
Okay, the CEO and COO blew it. From your description it sounds like they made one of the most common mistakes in management - expecting a reorganization to solve a problem without first thinking through what's broken in how the old organization performed the work, whether the new structure would fix the problems, and what problems the new structure would be likely to create.
In addition, they created an unnecessary layer of management - something that's guaranteed to cause problems. Three managers for eight employees (I presume you mean two of you manage three employees each; the other manages two) is a lot of people riding coaches pulled by too few horses.
The COO also gave you explicit instructions on what to do about it. He told you to work it out with the other two department heads. It's excellent advice.
To put some meat on the bones, I'd suggest the three of you lock yourselves in a conference room with a whiteboard for a day. What you have to solve isn't, however, communication assisted by technology. It's to figure out who's supposed to do what. So:
Start by taking inventory. Make a list of all of the work that has to get done. You're probably best off starting with some major categories, like "Administration and Governance," "Application Support" (projects and enhancements) and "Operations."
Once you have a reasonably complete inventory, divvy it up. One convenient format for this is called a "RACI" chart, for "Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, Informed" (you can probably combined "responsible" and "accountable" to simplify life). Make the columns the departments, the rows are the responsibilities, and the cell entries are R, C or I.
For some responsibilities you'll find that more than one department must be responsible. If that's the case, either:
- Bob
Dear Bob ...
I recently got promoted as a middle manager. My workplace has a very high employee turnover. My predecessor was very sweet to the present employees as most of them were in their honeymoon period (new recruits when she was the boss) as a result of which they expect the same kind of treatment from me. Besides, they do have a problem accepting me as I was their colleague until last year.
My immediate boss is very snobbish and encourages me to crack the whip, while she herself loves to play the 'good guy'. I often use motivational strategies to boost employee morale and they love that. The problems occur when I point out flaws about their work, or when deadlines are not met. I am totally confused.Why would they not accept me as their critic when they have no problem with me being their cheerleader?
I have spent 7 years in this organization. Each day I dread going back to work. I'm already looking at a change of jobs. Is it time for me to move on?
- New manager
Dear New ...
From your description, here's what I think might be going on: You don't yet have enough tools in your explain-to-my-employees-how-they're-doing toolkit. Neither cheerleading nor criticizing is particularly valuable. You have better alternatives.
Cheerleading, by which I think you mean relatively unspecific praise ("You're a terrific group of people and you're doing great things!") is a bit like serving cake icing. It tastes really good, but its primary nutritional impact is to encourage development of adult-onset diabetes.
Criticizing, by which I think you mean pointing out deficiencies, does let employees know their work isn't what it should be, but without helping them understand what "what it should be" looks like, let alone how to get there. They feel bad without much guidance about what it will take to feel good again.
Here are the alternatives, which might initially seem like the same tactics under different names but are really quite distinct: Offering approval and coaching.
The difference between cheerleading and approval is the difference between generality and specificity. "That's terrific," is cheerleading - vague and general. "That was a terrific report. Your evidence was comprehensive, your logic was airtight, and what I especially liked is that your recommendations are entirely practical," is clear and specific. Employees respond to approval in very positive ways. In particular, since you're clear about what it is that you approve of, the individual or team it's directed at knows (a) that it's sincere, and (b) what they'll have to do to receive more of it. Meanwhile, everyone else who hears you give it knows that (a) it's possible to receive your approval; and (b) what they need to do to get some.
An important dimension of approval is that it is isn't just specific in terms of subject matter - it's specific in terms of who it's directed to. You cheerlead the entire group. You provide approval only to those who have earned it.
Now for coaching. The difference between it and criticism is immense. When you criticize, your true intentions don't matter - what the person criticized will experience is unproductive fault-finding. When you coach, you first offer more balance - you find and comment on what's good and valuable along with what needs to be improved. And second, you make clear that your goal is to help employees improve. So:
"I know all of you have been working very hard, and it's clear we're making progress. That's the good news. What concerns me is that too much of our effort goes to what I have to call improvisation - to whatever tasks happen to occur to someone that day, instead of our working to a plan. I'm going to guess that if we did a better job of planning we could cut our workload by ten percent and still move forward faster."
"My part of this is to work with our business counterparts to improve our governance process, so you spend less time distracted by telephone calls that interrupt important work with priorities that are only high because of who is on the other end of the line. Your part of this is to make sure you're working to a plan and a design, or following and perfecting well-defined procedures when that's the right answer. We have to stop making things up as we go along and start working in ways that help us become more efficient at what we do."
One other coaching technique that's important for achieving the best results: Help employees coach themselves. "I see a problem and I'd like everyone's thoughts on what we can do about it," works much better than, "I see a problem - here's what we should do about it," for two reasons.
The first is that it creates a sense of empowerment among employees - the knowledge that the have some influence over their environment. The second is that you'll end up with better answers.
- Bob
Dear Bob ...
Consider the following items allegedly gathered from various Gartner reports:
* There are 310 billion lines of legacy code operating in the world (65% of all software).
* Five billion lines of new COBOL code are being written every year.
* Fifteen percent of new application development is written in COBOL.
* Thirty-four percent of coding activities are in COBOL.
* Seventy-five percent of the world's business data resides on mainframe systems.
* There are 38,000 legacy systems at more than 10,000 mainframe sites worldwide.
* COBOL developers are retiring much faster than they are being replaced as educational institutions emphasize more cutting edge technologies.
I am a 20 year software developer (IBM midrange, RDBS, OLAP, Windows) who happens to love what he does and has no aspirations to move into management. However the impact of globalization on the field seems to be driving more and more of the development work overseas. Would I be crazy to consider moving into COBOL development to keep doing what I love best? What recommendations or alternatives would you suggest?
- Planning my career
Dear Planning ...
Like so many published statistics, what's there can serve to conceal what isn't there. For example:
* Five billion lines of new COBOL code are being written every year.
* Fifteen percent of new application development is written in COBOL.
What's the trend line - is the number of new lines of COBOL code declining? The percent of all application development? And assuming it's declining, how steep is the decline? If Gartner were to subtract the COBOL work that's been taken offshore, how much is and will be left for developers located in the U.S.?
* COBOL developers are retiring much faster than they are being replaced as educational institutions emphasize more cutting edge technologies.
Are they retiring faster than the rate of decline of new COBOL development, and especially the rate of decline within the U.S.?
* Fifteen percent of new application development is written in COBOL.
* Thirty-four percent of coding activities are in COBOL.
Put these two statistics together and you reach a fascinating inference - it appears that COBOL coding is almost exactly half as efficient as coding in other languages. That is, the amount of coding is double the amount of development.
Which leads to another unknown - how much of the COBOL work is adaptive rather than truly new - that is, how much of it is going into interface maintenance and minor enhancements, to support new functionality being created using Java, Visual whatever, SOA development tools and so on?
My opinion: COBOL is in decline. If you're looking for job security, you can probably achieve it in the COBOL domain for at least another decade. My expectation is that wages will be stagnant, and most of the new, challenging, enjoyable work will be in more modern development environments.
I'll also say this: More than the technology, the future lies with versatile developers who can interact productively with the end-user community at all levels to understand what they need to do and can translate that into working software without creating volumes of documentation artifacts.
Just my opinion, of course.
- Bob
Dear Bob ...
From "Presenting smarter," (Keep the Joint Running, 12/11/2006): "That, in fact, is the only hard-and-fast rule of using presentation software correctly: Make each page tell a story."
Could you explain further regarding "Make each page tell a story?" In my mind, the whole presentation would be the "story."
Thanks,
- Presenting and accounted for
Dear Presenting ...
The two aren't incompatible, other than making for a confusing metaphor. Each page should tell a complete story by itself. The pages together make a larger story.
Imagine you're putting together a presentation to explain enterprise architecture. In it, you might have slide that explains portfolio management and how it fits in.
The portfolio management slide should be complete - a stand-alone account of what that means. It should fit into the presentation so that it flows logically from the previous slide (which might be an agenda slide) and should flow logically to the next slide (which might discuss integration architecture). Each slide covers its titled subject in a complete way. They fit together to cover the presentation subject.
- Bob
Dear Bob ...
PowerPoint tips? Geezzeee Bob, material must be getting thin.
How about "How to deal with a manager who can't spell Internet, but is promoted to be the Director of Internet Communications?" Or, "How to manage a corporation with no CEO?" (meaning one that makes the "pointy-haired boss" look great!)
I don't have any great words of wisdom except if you are like me, you have learned to keep your mouth shut and don't trust anyone.
I'm the type who doesn't call a spade a spade - I call it a friggen shovel so pick it up and get some work done. My business mentality grew up in the early 1980's, under a VP who people cowered before. A screamer, a cusser, a downright b____ to work for.
But year after year, we had the #1 rated service organization in the business. He and I got along fine. Because I didn't take his tantrums to heart - I turned them on him and screamed and cussed right back. We got along great. And so did our organization. The guy asked me to house-sit for him when he went on vacation!
Then, two terrible things happened. He died tragically in a car crash. And I never got over his style of management. Needless to say, that style is totally taboo these days. I have lost more than one job by just speaking my mind in a professional fashion. I'd have been handcuffed and led away by a SWAT team if I would have talked like I was used to talking!
I will always remember him for the guts and compassion he showed. And I will always be disappointed that his style of management has gone the way of the dodo. Countless organizations would be better off today if they had the benefit of someone who kicked tail and took names. Alas, it leaves me and probably some others,
- Stuck in the 80s"
Dear Stuck ...
I had a dozen requests to cover PowerPoint in response to my columns on good writing.
To answer the rest of your letter, I don't think you'll like what I have to say. I'm going to start with a semi-rhetorical question: What is most important to you in the people who report to you? Rank the traits:
1. Competence to do the work assigned to them.
2. Creativity in developing solutions to difficult challenges.
3. Ability to work with others productively and constructively.
4. Thick skin and an ability to blow off bullies.
If #4 is what's most important to you, then management by screaming and cussing is just fine. If, on the other hand, you want employees who are merely good at what they're supposed to do, this sort of self-indulgent, bullying management is just about the worst way possible to attract them and keep them. I've worked for screamers. I've yelled back, insulted back, and otherwise blown off their nonsense.
And in every case I've left as soon as practicable, on the theory that I'd prefer to work for a competent leader and manager.
You say you've lost more than one job by speaking your mind as a professional. It's entirely possible - more than one business culture prefers getting along to dealing with the evidence unflinchingly.
I've also run across any number of people who conflate "the truth" with their own personal perspective. If you've lost more than one job by "speaking your mind," you might want to ask yourself whether the problem was with the organization, or with your message, or with how you delivered it.
In particular, I'd ask these two questions:
1. When you speak your mind, do you keep your focus on the issue at hand as opposed to the people in the room? and
2. When you speak your mind, do you present your opinion as just one perspective, among many others that might also be valid when viewing the situation from other perspectives?
If the answer to either of these questions is no, I'd advise you to re-think how you go about speaking your mind. Among the many reasons for doing so, this one stands out: You aren't paid to be right. All that achieves is to allow you to say, "I told you so," later on.
You're paid to help the organization be right enough, and that means learning to be persuasive instead of merely forceful.
- Bob
Dear Bob ...
I'm responding to your December 11th Keep the Joint Running ("Presenting smarter"). Very little irritates me more than the misuse of PowerPoint presentations. Many less than persuasive people take your point about each slide telling a story too literally, and write a novel on each slide. Presentation software is a speaking tool. It doesn't tell the story for you, it only helps. The burden still falls on your spoken words.
I find that the human mind reacts best to graphics and spoken words. The written word is best used for documentation. I find that presentation software works best for me to show a graphic representation (graph, chart, picture, diagram) of my point that I speak to. Having the occasional bullet point slide is useful, to keep focused on the agenda or to summarize.
I'm sure that this topic could start some real religious wars, not unlike EMACS vs VI, Linux vs Windows, Shiite vs Sunni, Catholic vs Protestant ... well you get the point.
- Crabby from bad PowerPoint
Dear Crabby ...
You aren't the only one (and for more on the topic, see this week's KJR, ("Is PowerPoint intrinsically evil?", 1/1/2007).
Your point is the crux of the biscuit, isn't it? My opinion, for whatever it's worth: Presentation software isn't restricted to supporting presentations. Often, the presentation also has to stand by itself when there's no presenter to go with it.
No argument, there are those who wonder why you should use a picture when a thousand words will do. They create text-filled slides, which are usually a waste of everyone's time. Except, that is, in the case of a presentation that has to stand by itself with no presenter to go with it. Then there are situations where a multi-paragraph slide is the best solution.
- Bob
Dear Bob ...
I am working for an IT department in a medium-sized company and have a very basic query. I would appreciate any pointers, earlier columns or any book to help clear my confusion.
The question: If IT only exists to support Business Functions, how is IT strategic? What I mean to say is if Business Functions decide what needs to be done and IT needs to follow or at best recommend different options, what is strategic about that?
- Wondering
Dear Wondering ...
I'd call your question more than merely basic. It's fundamental.
Far too many IT organizations of all sizes see their role as passive order-takers. You're quite correct in wondering how someone who receives work-orders and processes them is in any way strategic. The answer is that they aren't. CIOs who run this variety of IT department are playing it safe.
Strategic IT organizations are on a constant lookout for IT-driven threats to the business and opportunities for it. Their CIOs encourage managers and staff at all levels to form productive, collaborative relationships with managers and staff elsewhere in the business, to find out what's going on out there - what they'd like to achieve, how they'd like their parts of the business to operate, what competitors are doing and so on.
Most important of all, they stop asking, "What would you like the software to do?" and start asking, "How do you envision your operation running better over the next few years?"
I've written a lot about this over the past ... eleven! ... years. If you're looking for just one, perhaps the single most useful was the "KJR Manifesto - Core Principles," (Keep the Joint Running, 4/10/2006).
- Bob
January 31, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Safe computing and related matters
Dear Bob ...
Two questions for you that don't have anything at all to do with each other, even though it probably sounds like they do. :-)
First, I've been tasked with writing a policy for safe computing practices, which policy is to be sent to everyone at this site once a month. I know how to compute safely, of course, but I find myself at something of a loss for drawing up a list of basic do's and don'ts. Do you know of anyplace that has any kind of "template" I might be able to follow?
Second. not long ago, a user brought his laptop to me, saying he was having trouble connecting to the corporate WiFi connection. I investigated the settings until it appeared I had corrected the problem, then, to test it, I maximized the browser window that he had left minimized on the task bar. This window was full of porn. (And I mean porn, not just Playboy centerfolds or the like.)
I did my job and reported him, but that got me wondering -- what exactly is the difference between that and a formal complaint? If I were any other type of employee and saw that on a user's computer, I'd definitely complain, and I'd even be complaining to the same people with whom I filed the report because of the corporate structure. But I somehow get the feeling that, as the one who is tasked with reporting network usage violations, I don't have the right to complain about network usage violations. I'm not sure I'm phrasing this question clearly enough, but I hope you can see what I'm getting at.
- Exposed to yuck
Dear Exposed ...
Just an opinion: If you know how to compute safely, you'd find the exercise of figuring out what you know to be very worthwhile. Watch yourself work and look at what you do and don't do.
If you are looking for on-line resources, you shouldn't have much trouble finding lists that correspond to your own thought processes. I Googled "safe computing practices" and found quite a few sources. My suggestions here are:
1. Don't just get one. Choose based on your actually agreeing with what's said.
2. Don't just cut-and-paste. That's plagiarism, unless your source agrees to let you do so.
3. Assuming your source doesn't, find two more, combine them, re-write the exact phrasing, and footnote them. This follows the rule that copying from one source is plagiarism but borrowing from three is research.
To your other question:
Ewwww! What kind of moron would leave a computer with a browser window open to a porn site?
I guess that's a self-answering question.
My question is, what is your complaint? Yes, yes, I know employers are supposed to protect employees from this sort of thing, but really they aren't. They're supposed to expend a reasonable effort to minimize the chance of it happening. There is no such thing as eliminating the risk.
I'd say that reporting the occurrence and the employee was the right step. Filing a complaint is only appropriate if you report it and the response you receive is, "What are you complaining about, you prude! And what was that URL again?"
- Bob
Posted by Bob Lewis on January 31, 2007 06:39 PM
January 30, 2007 | Comments: (0)
When you become an organizational orphan
Dear Bob ...
Our parent company is consolidating IT functions and recently transferred all of our IT staff under the corporate umbrella. Except a few of us who have been left behind, such as security, DR and change control. My director says we still report locally so we can "keep control" and that I need to figure out how to make this work. Any ideas on how we can be effective in managing our local IT support when we are organizational orphans? Or do I need to get the résumé out?
- Oliver
Dear Mr. Dickens ...
There's a general question here, and some specifics. First the general:
How are you supposed to be effective in a decentralized situation like this? My general-purpose, one-size-fits-all solution to the question is to use your authority where you have it and your ability to influence and persuade where you don't.
That is, of course, oversimplified: Having authority doesn't mean using it is always a good idea. Usually, you're still better off persuading, even if you do have the organizational power to say, "Because I said so, that's why."
The other half always applies - just because you don't report to corporate IT doesn't mean you can only communicate with it through service requests. Identify everyone in corporate who has the potential for being either a bottleneck or facilitator and build strong relationships so they usually decide that facilitating is what they prefer to do.
It's the specific questions that puzzle me.
Decentralizing the implementation of security makes sense to me. Even localizing some aspects of security policy makes sense, because security policy isn't a one-size-fits-all proposition. Security policy is all about establishing the proper balance point between mitigating risk and being able to pursue opportunities that require it. Large corporations aren't homogeneous, which means different business units or divisions might easily have different risk profiles.
Decentralized disaster recovery also makes sense: A division in California needs to plan for earthquakes and brush fires; one in Minnesota must plan for blizzards and floods. Different risks, different plans.
It's change control that puzzles me. Since you didn't tell me that either application support or operations has remained decentralized, and since change control is the conduit that connects the two, I'm at a bit of a loss as to how that's supposed to work. Luckily, I don't have to know. You do ... so ask, through those relationships you're going to build. All you really need here is to know the procedure and you're good to go.
In the end, what's important is that you change your metaphor. You aren't an orphan. Orphans have no parents and have to scrounge food off the streets. Also, they're kids.
You're in a different situation: You're simply living in a different part of town.
- Bob
Posted by Bob Lewis on January 30, 2007 06:53 PM
January 27, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Some thoughts on time management
Dear Bob ...
I just finished reading an article from Forrester, dated December 29th, 2006 by Lewis Cardin titled "How CIOs Should Spend Their Day." In the article it says that we should set aside 30% of our time to work with or in the interest of those above us in the organization, 30% for those at our level in the organization, 30% with our Department to strengthen it, and 10% of our time should be spent on ourselves.
What are your thoughts on the division or management of our time?
- Franklin Covey
Dear Franklin ...
I'm guessing what Cardin really meant was that CIOs shouldn't forget to actively deal with each of these areas. Fixed percentages are so ... inflexible.
I don't disagree with Cardin - the idea is fundamentally sound. We do use a different slice-and-dice, though, which I've written about before: the "Management Compass" ("Which say are you facing?" Keep the Joint Running, 12/12/2005).
The Management Compass has four directions: North (to those you report to), East (to your organizational peers), West (to those in the company who make use of what your organization delivers), and South (to those reporting to you). CIOs need to manage and build strong relationships in each of these directions, and that takes time.
I also agree with Cardin's point that CIOs (and not only CIOs, but everyone) should reserve some time during the day for personal improvement, priority-setting, and planning. Otherwise, you'll find yourself doing things out of habit, not because they're still a good idea.
- Bob
Posted by Bob Lewis on January 27, 2007 10:00 AM
January 23, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Dear Bob ...
Like so many people in IT jobs, my box on the org-chart has a number of lines leading to it -- I split my time across 3 different projects, with essentially 3 different bosses.
Within one of those projects, I also supervise one employee -- in addition to doing my "real work" for the project. I barely have enough time to plan out, assign, and then verify his work, much less look over his shoulder to see that he isn't wasting time, surfing the web, chilling out with co-workers. And believe me, he needs some looking over. Yes, I've had the talk about professional conduct and building trust in one's abilities.
So as a manager, I want to help him improve his performance. But I really don't have the time to do so. I need the work to be done, and I need to be able to trust that it will be done in a timely manner, to the best of his ability.
Any options other than the obvious?
- Prospective PHB?
Dear PPHB ...
Only the obvious ones occur to me.
A point I'll make to you is this: Even when you have too little time, you still have to decide where to invest it. That means deciding whether investing more time in the employee will result in a net improvement in the total work output the two of you are capable of. If so, take more time, even if your direct tasks suffer as a result. In the end, the project will finish more quickly.
If not, don't.
I'll also ask how direct you've been with the employee about what succeeding looks like, how big the gap is, and what's going to happen if he doesn't close it.
Very important: Contact your company's HR department and have them walk you through exactly what you need to do when a possible outcome is termination. Almost certainly they have specific procedures and documentation. This is something you'll want to do by the numbers, not by figuring it out on your own.
- Bob
Posted by Bob Lewis on January 23, 2007 06:13 AM
January 22, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Dear Bob ...
I need some advice. My effectiveness is not 100% at the moment in my work. I believe I am suffering from what is called burnout from a long 2006. Now I am at a cross roads in thinking, which is how to distinguish 'burnout' from demotivation. And how do I handle either of them more effectively in the workplace?
- Crispy
Dear Crispy ...
According to various sources, burnout has a formal definition: "An extreme emotional state characterized by emotional exhaustion, a diminished sense of personal accomplishment, and cynicism." Not sure if you're all the way there, or if you're in the sort of less-extreme state many of us experience from time to time, which consists of, "I'm tired of this nonsense and can't figure out why I'd want to work so hard."
While I'm certainly not an expert (and if you're seriously concerned you should consult a professional psychologist), here's what I'd consider to be a fairly reliable test: Tomorrow, see if you're capable of putting in an intense, productive workday. If you can, then you're de-motivated. If you can't, then you're suffering from some level of burnout.
How do you handle them? If it's burnout, I think you need to spend some time with a professional to help you get on track. True burnout has (I think) quite a bit in common with depression - it's in control of you and you need to find a way clear of it. If you're simply stressed and demotivated, it probably means you're working in an environment in which you don't think you can succeed.
If that's the case, you need to make some changes. If the reason you can't succeed is because you lack some of the skills required for success, talk to your manager about what it will take to acquire them - training, coaching, appropriate books or whatever. If the reason is that the job is structured in such a way that success isn't possible (or is only possible through ridiculous heroics, like perpetual 80-hour work weeks) then you need to find a different job in which you can succeed.
I hope this helps. Good luck.
- Bob
Posted by Bob Lewis on January 22, 2007 05:33 AM
January 18, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Making a forced reorganization work
Dear Bob ...
I've read your column with much interest in the past, and now I'd like to ask for some advice.
I work at a medium-sized company (about 150 employees). Our IT area was recently split up - long story short, the CEO made the decision without consulting anyone, and we have to live with it. Now we've got 8 staff reporting to three different managers, and things are starting to fall through the cracks. For example, one group was dealing with a systemic network issue, which may have been causing problems for another group - and neither knew what the other was doing.
The directors of the three new departments report to the COO. The COO promoted the split as a way to have the staff focus on three different functional areas: one on 'typical' IT duties like network support, one on developing the infrastructure for a new hosted service we are offering, and the third on Web application development. Physically, we sit in three separate areas of one office (again, a decision of the COO).
But the departments couldn't hope to be completely independent. When I asked the COO how we were supposed to define exactly where one department ended and the next began, the COO just said that was something the department heads could work out.
Once the COO makes a decision, it's nearly impossible to get him to change his mind, even if there's evidence the decision wasn't a good one. He made the decision without my input, which obviously has me a little rankled. But at this point, I just want to try to make the best of the situation - and if I can't, then maybe it's time to go elsewhere.
Once upon a time, all the IT folks actually sat near one another, and it was easy to keep everyone in the loop. And it was easy to gather everyone around a table to brainstorm about current projects. Those days are gone.
It would be difficult to have everyone document everything they do, and logging everything in our ticketing system would only be a partial solution. I think the solution has to start with addressing some communication issues first, and then possibly finding a technology solution to assist. I'd appreciate your comments on where to start.
- Reorganized
Dear Reorganized ...
Okay, the CEO and COO blew it. From your description it sounds like they made one of the most common mistakes in management - expecting a reorganization to solve a problem without first thinking through what's broken in how the old organization performed the work, whether the new structure would fix the problems, and what problems the new structure would be likely to create.
In addition, they created an unnecessary layer of management - something that's guaranteed to cause problems. Three managers for eight employees (I presume you mean two of you manage three employees each; the other manages two) is a lot of people riding coaches pulled by too few horses.
The COO also gave you explicit instructions on what to do about it. He told you to work it out with the other two department heads. It's excellent advice.
To put some meat on the bones, I'd suggest the three of you lock yourselves in a conference room with a whiteboard for a day. What you have to solve isn't, however, communication assisted by technology. It's to figure out who's supposed to do what. So:
Start by taking inventory. Make a list of all of the work that has to get done. You're probably best off starting with some major categories, like "Administration and Governance," "Application Support" (projects and enhancements) and "Operations."
Once you have a reasonably complete inventory, divvy it up. One convenient format for this is called a "RACI" chart, for "Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, Informed" (you can probably combined "responsible" and "accountable" to simplify life). Make the columns the departments, the rows are the responsibilities, and the cell entries are R, C or I.
For some responsibilities you'll find that more than one department must be responsible. If that's the case, either:
- Assign it arbitrarily.
- Figure out how to separate it into two separate responsibilities (web operations vs WAN operations).
- Clearly define where one department's responsibility ends and the other's begins, or,
- Establish a cross-functional team to deal with it.
- Bob
Posted by Bob Lewis on January 18, 2007 04:32 AM
January 15, 2007 | Comments: (0)
They like praise - why can't they take criticism?
Dear Bob ...
I recently got promoted as a middle manager. My workplace has a very high employee turnover. My predecessor was very sweet to the present employees as most of them were in their honeymoon period (new recruits when she was the boss) as a result of which they expect the same kind of treatment from me. Besides, they do have a problem accepting me as I was their colleague until last year.
My immediate boss is very snobbish and encourages me to crack the whip, while she herself loves to play the 'good guy'. I often use motivational strategies to boost employee morale and they love that. The problems occur when I point out flaws about their work, or when deadlines are not met. I am totally confused.Why would they not accept me as their critic when they have no problem with me being their cheerleader?
I have spent 7 years in this organization. Each day I dread going back to work. I'm already looking at a change of jobs. Is it time for me to move on?
- New manager
Dear New ...
From your description, here's what I think might be going on: You don't yet have enough tools in your explain-to-my-employees-how-they're-doing toolkit. Neither cheerleading nor criticizing is particularly valuable. You have better alternatives.
Cheerleading, by which I think you mean relatively unspecific praise ("You're a terrific group of people and you're doing great things!") is a bit like serving cake icing. It tastes really good, but its primary nutritional impact is to encourage development of adult-onset diabetes.
Criticizing, by which I think you mean pointing out deficiencies, does let employees know their work isn't what it should be, but without helping them understand what "what it should be" looks like, let alone how to get there. They feel bad without much guidance about what it will take to feel good again.
Here are the alternatives, which might initially seem like the same tactics under different names but are really quite distinct: Offering approval and coaching.
The difference between cheerleading and approval is the difference between generality and specificity. "That's terrific," is cheerleading - vague and general. "That was a terrific report. Your evidence was comprehensive, your logic was airtight, and what I especially liked is that your recommendations are entirely practical," is clear and specific. Employees respond to approval in very positive ways. In particular, since you're clear about what it is that you approve of, the individual or team it's directed at knows (a) that it's sincere, and (b) what they'll have to do to receive more of it. Meanwhile, everyone else who hears you give it knows that (a) it's possible to receive your approval; and (b) what they need to do to get some.
An important dimension of approval is that it is isn't just specific in terms of subject matter - it's specific in terms of who it's directed to. You cheerlead the entire group. You provide approval only to those who have earned it.
Now for coaching. The difference between it and criticism is immense. When you criticize, your true intentions don't matter - what the person criticized will experience is unproductive fault-finding. When you coach, you first offer more balance - you find and comment on what's good and valuable along with what needs to be improved. And second, you make clear that your goal is to help employees improve. So:
"I know all of you have been working very hard, and it's clear we're making progress. That's the good news. What concerns me is that too much of our effort goes to what I have to call improvisation - to whatever tasks happen to occur to someone that day, instead of our working to a plan. I'm going to guess that if we did a better job of planning we could cut our workload by ten percent and still move forward faster."
"My part of this is to work with our business counterparts to improve our governance process, so you spend less time distracted by telephone calls that interrupt important work with priorities that are only high because of who is on the other end of the line. Your part of this is to make sure you're working to a plan and a design, or following and perfecting well-defined procedures when that's the right answer. We have to stop making things up as we go along and start working in ways that help us become more efficient at what we do."
One other coaching technique that's important for achieving the best results: Help employees coach themselves. "I see a problem and I'd like everyone's thoughts on what we can do about it," works much better than, "I see a problem - here's what we should do about it," for two reasons.
The first is that it creates a sense of empowerment among employees - the knowledge that the have some influence over their environment. The second is that you'll end up with better answers.
- Bob
Posted by Bob Lewis on January 15, 2007 07:22 PM
January 13, 2007 | Comments: (0)
How to interpret COBOL statistics
Dear Bob ...
Consider the following items allegedly gathered from various Gartner reports:
* There are 310 billion lines of legacy code operating in the world (65% of all software).
* Five billion lines of new COBOL code are being written every year.
* Fifteen percent of new application development is written in COBOL.
* Thirty-four percent of coding activities are in COBOL.
* Seventy-five percent of the world's business data resides on mainframe systems.
* There are 38,000 legacy systems at more than 10,000 mainframe sites worldwide.
* COBOL developers are retiring much faster than they are being replaced as educational institutions emphasize more cutting edge technologies.
I am a 20 year software developer (IBM midrange, RDBS, OLAP, Windows) who happens to love what he does and has no aspirations to move into management. However the impact of globalization on the field seems to be driving more and more of the development work overseas. Would I be crazy to consider moving into COBOL development to keep doing what I love best? What recommendations or alternatives would you suggest?
- Planning my career
Dear Planning ...
Like so many published statistics, what's there can serve to conceal what isn't there. For example:
* Five billion lines of new COBOL code are being written every year.
* Fifteen percent of new application development is written in COBOL.
What's the trend line - is the number of new lines of COBOL code declining? The percent of all application development? And assuming it's declining, how steep is the decline? If Gartner were to subtract the COBOL work that's been taken offshore, how much is and will be left for developers located in the U.S.?
* COBOL developers are retiring much faster than they are being replaced as educational institutions emphasize more cutting edge technologies.
Are they retiring faster than the rate of decline of new COBOL development, and especially the rate of decline within the U.S.?
* Fifteen percent of new application development is written in COBOL.
* Thirty-four percent of coding activities are in COBOL.
Put these two statistics together and you reach a fascinating inference - it appears that COBOL coding is almost exactly half as efficient as coding in other languages. That is, the amount of coding is double the amount of development.
Which leads to another unknown - how much of the COBOL work is adaptive rather than truly new - that is, how much of it is going into interface maintenance and minor enhancements, to support new functionality being created using Java, Visual whatever, SOA development tools and so on?
My opinion: COBOL is in decline. If you're looking for job security, you can probably achieve it in the COBOL domain for at least another decade. My expectation is that wages will be stagnant, and most of the new, challenging, enjoyable work will be in more modern development environments.
I'll also say this: More than the technology, the future lies with versatile developers who can interact productively with the end-user community at all levels to understand what they need to do and can translate that into working software without creating volumes of documentation artifacts.
Just my opinion, of course.
- Bob
Posted by Bob Lewis on January 13, 2007 08:08 AM
January 10, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Making each slide tell a story
Dear Bob ...
From "Presenting smarter," (Keep the Joint Running, 12/11/2006): "That, in fact, is the only hard-and-fast rule of using presentation software correctly: Make each page tell a story."
Could you explain further regarding "Make each page tell a story?" In my mind, the whole presentation would be the "story."
Thanks,
- Presenting and accounted for
Dear Presenting ...
The two aren't incompatible, other than making for a confusing metaphor. Each page should tell a complete story by itself. The pages together make a larger story.
Imagine you're putting together a presentation to explain enterprise architecture. In it, you might have slide that explains portfolio management and how it fits in.
The portfolio management slide should be complete - a stand-alone account of what that means. It should fit into the presentation so that it flows logically from the previous slide (which might be an agenda slide) and should flow logically to the next slide (which might discuss integration architecture). Each slide covers its titled subject in a complete way. They fit together to cover the presentation subject.
- Bob
Posted by Bob Lewis on January 10, 2007 06:01 AM
January 07, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Disagreement on a style of management, or a disagreeable style of management?
Dear Bob ...
PowerPoint tips? Geezzeee Bob, material must be getting thin.
How about "How to deal with a manager who can't spell Internet, but is promoted to be the Director of Internet Communications?" Or, "How to manage a corporation with no CEO?" (meaning one that makes the "pointy-haired boss" look great!)
I don't have any great words of wisdom except if you are like me, you have learned to keep your mouth shut and don't trust anyone.
I'm the type who doesn't call a spade a spade - I call it a friggen shovel so pick it up and get some work done. My business mentality grew up in the early 1980's, under a VP who people cowered before. A screamer, a cusser, a downright b____ to work for.
But year after year, we had the #1 rated service organization in the business. He and I got along fine. Because I didn't take his tantrums to heart - I turned them on him and screamed and cussed right back. We got along great. And so did our organization. The guy asked me to house-sit for him when he went on vacation!
Then, two terrible things happened. He died tragically in a car crash. And I never got over his style of management. Needless to say, that style is totally taboo these days. I have lost more than one job by just speaking my mind in a professional fashion. I'd have been handcuffed and led away by a SWAT team if I would have talked like I was used to talking!
I will always remember him for the guts and compassion he showed. And I will always be disappointed that his style of management has gone the way of the dodo. Countless organizations would be better off today if they had the benefit of someone who kicked tail and took names. Alas, it leaves me and probably some others,
- Stuck in the 80s"
Dear Stuck ...
I had a dozen requests to cover PowerPoint in response to my columns on good writing.
To answer the rest of your letter, I don't think you'll like what I have to say. I'm going to start with a semi-rhetorical question: What is most important to you in the people who report to you? Rank the traits:
1. Competence to do the work assigned to them.
2. Creativity in developing solutions to difficult challenges.
3. Ability to work with others productively and constructively.
4. Thick skin and an ability to blow off bullies.
If #4 is what's most important to you, then management by screaming and cussing is just fine. If, on the other hand, you want employees who are merely good at what they're supposed to do, this sort of self-indulgent, bullying management is just about the worst way possible to attract them and keep them. I've worked for screamers. I've yelled back, insulted back, and otherwise blown off their nonsense.
And in every case I've left as soon as practicable, on the theory that I'd prefer to work for a competent leader and manager.
You say you've lost more than one job by speaking your mind as a professional. It's entirely possible - more than one business culture prefers getting along to dealing with the evidence unflinchingly.
I've also run across any number of people who conflate "the truth" with their own personal perspective. If you've lost more than one job by "speaking your mind," you might want to ask yourself whether the problem was with the organization, or with your message, or with how you delivered it.
In particular, I'd ask these two questions:
1. When you speak your mind, do you keep your focus on the issue at hand as opposed to the people in the room? and
2. When you speak your mind, do you present your opinion as just one perspective, among many others that might also be valid when viewing the situation from other perspectives?
If the answer to either of these questions is no, I'd advise you to re-think how you go about speaking your mind. Among the many reasons for doing so, this one stands out: You aren't paid to be right. All that achieves is to allow you to say, "I told you so," later on.
You're paid to help the organization be right enough, and that means learning to be persuasive instead of merely forceful.
- Bob
Posted by Bob Lewis on January 7, 2007 02:55 PM
January 06, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Dear Bob ...
I'm responding to your December 11th Keep the Joint Running ("Presenting smarter"). Very little irritates me more than the misuse of PowerPoint presentations. Many less than persuasive people take your point about each slide telling a story too literally, and write a novel on each slide. Presentation software is a speaking tool. It doesn't tell the story for you, it only helps. The burden still falls on your spoken words.
I find that the human mind reacts best to graphics and spoken words. The written word is best used for documentation. I find that presentation software works best for me to show a graphic representation (graph, chart, picture, diagram) of my point that I speak to. Having the occasional bullet point slide is useful, to keep focused on the agenda or to summarize.
I'm sure that this topic could start some real religious wars, not unlike EMACS vs VI, Linux vs Windows, Shiite vs Sunni, Catholic vs Protestant ... well you get the point.
- Crabby from bad PowerPoint
Dear Crabby ...
You aren't the only one (and for more on the topic, see this week's KJR, ("Is PowerPoint intrinsically evil?", 1/1/2007).
Your point is the crux of the biscuit, isn't it? My opinion, for whatever it's worth: Presentation software isn't restricted to supporting presentations. Often, the presentation also has to stand by itself when there's no presenter to go with it.
No argument, there are those who wonder why you should use a picture when a thousand words will do. They create text-filled slides, which are usually a waste of everyone's time. Except, that is, in the case of a presentation that has to stand by itself with no presenter to go with it. Then there are situations where a multi-paragraph slide is the best solution.
- Bob
Posted by Bob Lewis on January 6, 2007 06:08 AM
January 01, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Dear Bob ...
I am working for an IT department in a medium-sized company and have a very basic query. I would appreciate any pointers, earlier columns or any book to help clear my confusion.
The question: If IT only exists to support Business Functions, how is IT strategic? What I mean to say is if Business Functions decide what needs to be done and IT needs to follow or at best recommend different options, what is strategic about that?
- Wondering
Dear Wondering ...
I'd call your question more than merely basic. It's fundamental.
Far too many IT organizations of all sizes see their role as passive order-takers. You're quite correct in wondering how someone who receives work-orders and processes them is in any way strategic. The answer is that they aren't. CIOs who run this variety of IT department are playing it safe.
Strategic IT organizations are on a constant lookout for IT-driven threats to the business and opportunities for it. Their CIOs encourage managers and staff at all levels to form productive, collaborative relationships with managers and staff elsewhere in the business, to find out what's going on out there - what they'd like to achieve, how they'd like their parts of the business to operate, what competitors are doing and so on.
Most important of all, they stop asking, "What would you like the software to do?" and start asking, "How do you envision your operation running better over the next few years?"
I've written a lot about this over the past ... eleven! ... years. If you're looking for just one, perhaps the single most useful was the "KJR Manifesto - Core Principles," (Keep the Joint Running, 4/10/2006).
- Bob
Posted by Bob Lewis on January 1, 2007 05:12 PM
|
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
