MORE ENTRIES
- A Pioneer collides with Metropolis
- "Neither here nor there" followup
- More on offshore
- How much does a manager need to know?
- Thoughts about the economics of offshoring
- Making IT projects less painful
- When your position evaporates
- When to become angry
- Recovering interviewing expenses
- Problems with project estimation
Advice Line | Bob Lewis »
February 2007
Dear Bob ...
Referring to this week's Keep the Joint Running, ("Office biogeography," 2/26/2007), just yesterday I was put on "Administrative Leave" because I am a "Frontier Person" (aka, Pioneer) living in the corporate equivalent of New York City.
I think it would be interesting and very beneficial if companies both recognized what kind of "Environment" they were; clearly state that in the hiring process; the type of citizens they wanted; and probable consequences of miss-match.
Not to be unduly harsh, but the "City" usually breeds a "Gestapo" mentality, where everyone not in lock-step with the "Zero Tolerance" mentality faces the full weight and oppression of the organization for even seemingly trivial deviations. I've know for years that "Pioneers" are easy to identify. They are the ones with arrows in both the front and the back.
Back around '85, H. Ross P. compared EDS and GM. If an EDS Manager spotted a rattlesnake, he'd shoot it. If a GM Manager spotted a rattlesnake, he'd form a committee to study snakes.
After over 40 years in business, I know what I am. Unfortunately, I didn't realize how rigid my company was. Maybe this way of looking at businesses will help warn others away from a potentially bad choice.
- Pioneer
Dear Pioneer ...
At the risk of losing a friend, I'll point out that you'd find some value trying to understand the other side. People are as they are for good reasons. Frontier and Metropolis are different, not because one is better and one is worse but because each is adaptive to particular situations.
So to you, Urban living breeds a Gestapo mentality. To city-dwellers, Frontier living breeds a to-hell-with-you mentality - the mentality that leads to using one's backyard as a garbage dump because "it's my property and I can do what I like on it."
Which might be just fine in rural Nebraska (I don't know, not having lived in rural Nebraska), but is unacceptable in the Bronx.
I completely agree that during the interviewing process, both parties should spend time discovering whether their styles are compatible.
BTW: Having worked for Perot Systems I'm hesitant to comment directly. I will say that taken literally this attitude leads to at least as many problems as having committees studying situations to death.
It's the ready/fire/aim mentality, and it results in draining the swamp without first assessing the environmental impact.
Which is how we've ended up having such bad flooding every time we have heavy snowfalls and spring rains nowadays.
- Bob
Two weeks ago I posted a question from "Neither here nor there," whose position was, apparently, going to go away as the result of his company being acquired ("When your position evaporates," Advice Line, 2/13/2007). He was kind enough to provide a progress report.
I'm posting it in its entirety - it should be of interest to everyone who works in corporate IT and will ever be on one side or another of a takeover.
- Bob
A few weeks ago, I had written for advice regarding what to do when a small business IT manager finds his department being absorbed when a larger company purchases his small company.
After ten years of frustration working in large corporate America (some of the companies had the word "General" as part of their name), I seemed to have found my dream job in a small company. No more corporate BS, a manageable level of politics, low mileage commute, good pay, adequate benefits, etc. After ten years at this small company, we were purchased by a large firm, and the corporate stuff I thought I had left behind began to flow into my work life again.
Things looked pretty bleak. Much of the technical foundation I had built over twenty years was to be scrapped, and with it my specific technical expertise. Staff resources were to be re-allocated, and my boss kept telling me not to panic, that he had plenty of technical work that needed to be done - which sounded a whole lot like "central IT doesn't have any use for you."
Representatives from the central IT organization set up a two day meeting to discuss what was going to happen. The weekend before, I was nearly sick with anxiety.
The senior person in the meeting did a very smart thing. He presented a six level chart identifying the performance of an IT Organization, from zero = "chaos" to level six = "IT As a value added partner of the business". His goal was to get IT to level six. Currently, he rated the organization as a whole being at level one. He said that my group was at a high level two, possibly three. "Everybody else in the company is taking a step forward, for you, it's a step sideways." That simple acknowledgment opened up a dialogue. His position in the organization meant that we wouldn't be exactly equals, but I was now ready to listen.
Over the course of two days, we went over the corporate strategic goals, the IT projects that supported those goals, and the IT projects that each business unit was seeking to get done. We agreed that my ability to speak both technical and business language, my experience, and my somewhat unconventional nature was an orientation best suited to bringing IT to business projects, and there were plenty of projects that needed my skillset.
At the end of the meeting, I was relieved. Have I been "assimilated into the collective", "drunk the Kool-Aid", "gone corporate", etc.? To the degree that I understand what the organization is trying to do, and support those goals, yes. To the degree that I believe that my job will be "safe" simply because I follow the corporate rules, or that I completely agree with all the corporate methods, no.
I came out of this experience with the following observations:
First, big companies buy small companies for business reasons. If your company gets bought, you need to find out what you will be doing to fulfill the promise of those business reasons - otherwise, you're an unneeded expense. If someone doesn't tell you how you fit into the plan, start asking people, and if you can't get an answer, start planning to get out.
Second, a primary goal of IT is to drive the time out of business process, best accomplished with consistency, and if possible, uniformity. If you have multiple business units, and each has its own IT environment, you immediately have a bottleneck at the point where information has to pass from one environment to the next. Bridges and gateways are likely to exist, but you still end up slowing down the movement of information. Bottom line, central IT not only has the right, it has the responsibility to issue and enforce standards.
Third, IT provides decision related information as close to the point of decision as possible. This is the place where "one size fits all" isn't likely to work. Accounting decisions are very different from Sales decisions, which in turn are different from Manufacturing decisions. Helping a business get the information needed to make decisions quickly and effectively may be technologically dependent, but the understanding of the informational needs is more important than the knowledge of a specific technology. In other words, given the choice between understanding the business or understanding technology, choose both.
Fourth if someone makes the time to present, explain and discuss the corporate IT plan in plain language with only the occasional buzzword slipping in (if I had a nickel every time said the the word "synergy"...), recognize that you represent some value to the organization. Whether it's a couple of hours or a couple of days, the company is paying everybody to basically just sit and talk. Not a small thing in these days of constantly measuring ROI, yet an activity that IT people should likely engage in more often.
Fifth, a professional is someone who gets the job done. However, a professional might end up in a place where their profession is no longer practicable. If a pipe bursts when an electrician is working in the bathroom, it's probably best that they stop being an electrician for a bit. If your business changes to the extent that your skillset won't get the job done, you have to change the skillset or change jobs.
Finally, I have to respond to the comments about attitude. In my experience, when someone says, "you don't have a good attitude", it means "you aren't behaving the way that I expect or I want, so I'm going to end this conversation". That's a cop out. If someone is demonstrating a bad attitude, they're probably feeling threatened, and sometimes those threats are very real.
I've never seen an example of someone being told that they have a bad attitude has helped anyone.
Ever.
If you can, you might help them identify the nature, reality and proximity of the perceived threat. Otherwise, you might find a way to tactfully bring the conversation to a close.
My thanks to you and everyone who had input - it was very helpful. I'm still neither here nor there, but at least now I'm on my way.
My recent posting about offshoring ("Thoughts about the economics of offshoring," Advice Line, 2/19/2007) resulted in quite a few comments. Two common threads deserve a reply.
The first is the common complaint about job loss. It's a very real worry. It's also a worry with precious little evidence to support it. Employment in the United States is quite high at the moment, including employment in among IT professionals.
I have little doubt that IT employment, like employment in other sectors, has become more volatile than it used to be, and competition from offshore service providers certainly has contributed to this trend. My best advice is this: Expect to be laid off.
Plan your finances on the assumption that for every three months you are gainfully employed you'll be unemployed for another month. It's a pessimistic outlook that will have, as a useful side-effect, better finances when you retire.
The other set of comments were in response to my statement that we aren't shipping jobs offshore; rather, offshore companies are outcompeting onshore IT professionals for the work.
The commonly stated response is that they aren't outcompeting us. What they're doing is working for a fraction of what American workers are willing to accept, because they're willing to live in much simpler conditions than we are (conditions our grandparents or great-grandparents, would, I suspect, have taken for granted).
Well, yes, exactly. I imagine IBM and Compaq felt much the same way about Dell when it got started. It was willing to live with a simpler lifestyle - a leaner management structure and thinner margins. Before that, IBM had a beef with open systems, whose manufacturers were willing to live with a leaner management and thinner margins.
And, right now, many commercial software providers complain about open source software providers, who are willing to live with the leanest imaginable management structure (none) and exceptionally thin margins (none).
That's the nature of competition. Sometimes it's on price, sometimes on features, sometimes on quality, sometimes on convenience. Nothing about this changes, just because you're the product.
Want to sell your services at a good price? Stop complaining that your offshore competitors are willing to charge less than you are.
Instead, start thinking of yourself as a business. Take a clear-eyed view of the competitive landscape and figure out what you have to offer that your offshore competitors don't, that justifies the higher price you want to charge.
Once you can clearly articulate the answer, you'll be in an excellent position to receive the salary you want. If you can't, you'd better think harder, because "That's what I want to earn," just isn't compelling logic for an employer looking for the best value.
- Bob
Dear Bob ...
Not really an Advice Line issue, but I'd appreciate your thoughts:
Society is learning about economics and outsourcing. Lose high paying jobs, lose tax revenue, etc. The experiment continues and a few profit at the expense of the many. Of course, China is doing well right now, but at what cost?
I remember from an analysis of why Asian-American communities succeed, and African-American communities stay mired in poverty is that it's because 9 out of 10 dollars spent in the Asian-American community stay within it, while 1 out of every 10 dollars spent in the African-American community stay within it. If such economics scale, then offshoring jobs and factories will not succeed in generating wealth for many but will have the opposite result.
What goods and services will be left? Half the graduates in my department were mainland Chinese. We drained the best minds from around the globe and only the top 10% could get funding as research scientists, and those were the ones without jobs waiting for them in China.
We are now offshoring computer programming and certain other highly skilled professions. Most of our manufacturing jobs that aren't defense related are offshore. With computer hardware, software, textile, shipbuilding, steel, and other industries offshore, what goods can we provide China to balance the trade imbalance except maybe aerospace?
Loral is no more because they sold defense aerospace secrets to China which will improve their ICBMs. That's about the only thing they want from us now, and Russia gives them better deals if not always expertise. With more of our money going offshore and higher paying jobs migrating offshore to be replaced by lower wage jobs, I can't see any good coming from it. Our cities and states lose tax revenue and a vicious cycle ensues.
Texas only builds tollways now. That's the only way local and some state roads get built or maintained and revenue generated. It used to not be that way 20 years ago. The schools hold fund raisers to obtain funding for public school activities and projects.
College tuition has skyrocketed in Texas in spite of a huge oil funded multibillion dollar endowment. The state pays less and less for public education every year even though the endowments can only pay half the costs.
Maybe it's me, though. I don't always remember being so disillusioned and cynical. But I have to worry when oilmen start buying up water rights throughout the state.
- Concerned
Dear Concerned ...
Whew! Okay, if everyone agrees that I'm just another citizen with no pretensions to specific expertise on any of the subjects you raised, here are some thoughts:
I'm not sure the how-much-money-stays-in-the-neighborhood analysis has parallels to the economics of offshoring. The difference is that by creating more wealth offshore, proponents claim it increases the size of the market for American goods and services. There is no such dynamic at work when the subject is small communities within the US.
The whole offshoring/wealth-creation issue is much more difficult than either globalization's cheerleaders or its naysayers generally acknowledge. Not necessarily better or worse, but more complicated.
We have (as I might have pointed out before) two economies - the investment economy and the labor economy. So far as anyone can tell our investment economy is doing fine. It's the labor economy that has trouble. Even manufacturing is doing well in the US. It's simply that with the level of factory automation successful companies employ, manufacturing jobs are in decline with no reason to ever expect a recovery.
I agree that our trade deficit is probably the biggest economic worry we have. We still might find, though, that building better markets and more stable economies abroad ends up helping us in the long run.
There's one other aspect of this to consider: We aren't shipping jobs offshore. Companies in other countries are outcompeting us for the work. The solution is for American workers to make sure they provide better value than their Chinese and Indian competitors.
In that vein, a point I've also made before: In our industry, the most important step any manager can take who wants to preserve American jobs is to promote the use of iterative, high-involvement, collaborative software development and integration methodologies. Traditional waterfall methodologies are tailor-made for shipping work elsewhere.
When you enshrine requirements and software specifications in detailed documents which are supposed to be the primary (or sole) means for communicating what's needed among participants, the location and time zone from which developers code is irrelevant.
When, on the other hand, you ask end-users and business managers to take a look at what you think might work a few times a day, there is no such thing as shipping the work to a remote location.
- Bob
The following appeared as a comment, by "Steve," in response to "Problems with project estimation," Advice Line, 2/5/2007:
I feel really guilty. I live in that ideal company, small (90 people), outrageously fast paced, but ALWAYS looking to IT to find better, more effective ways to accomplish more work (and higher loan volumes) with the same number of people.
IT has a staff of five (one department head who also does web development, a network guy, an analyst who also is an expert in our CRM package, a web designer and a data administrator who both help with floor support). We have two major commercial packages that we use and those databases are used to extract and consolidate data for presentation in web pages, which reduces how much data collection we have to do.
We do minimal project planning (high-level only and only for larger projects...a six man-month project might have ten line items) and most of what passes for documentation occurs after the fact.
After a quick specification-gathering meeting, we respond with an email that describes what we heard to make sure we said/heard the same things...usually the toughest part of any technical project. After that, we put together a prototype, demonstrate what we have, then go into revise/test/demo iterations until our users are satisfied.
Afterwards, we write instructions, do training, and users come back over time with enhancement requests. Because they eventually get almost exactly what they want, they are very forgiving about bugs (our rule is that bugs are OK as long as they don't damage data) and delays in delivery when higher-priority items bump them down.
We don't ignore project planning entirely (I'm actually a certified PMP...but only so I can be employable elsewhere...you never know), but we keep most of our projects small enough that we don't need it. Our company president is totally in support of IT (although several of our second-level managers are somewhat suspicious of it), but the majority of the company treats us like rock stars.
I agree that much of the desire for in-depth project planning comes from CYA environments (and I've worked at many of those). I've been in IT for 25 years and have found that folks don't give a d@mn about project planning, if you get them something they can use quickly and get it right soon after (and work with everybody to decide priority).
Dear Bob ...
As IT Manager in a small company, I did it all, from application development, to LAN architecture, to help desk, to managing the budget, to telephony, to managing a small staff, to replacing the burned out light bulbs. I taught myself programming in Lotus Notes, and have applied ideas and technology wherever it would help. We're in a beautiful location, I live under ten miles from work, and never see a highway in my commute.
I've loved it!
After ten years of working in pretty much a dream job, my boss sold the company. The first two years were pretty good. They left us alone, and we kept working on our merry way, admittedly, with less stress because the cash flow issues of a small business were now covered by the corporate entity.
Now we're in a wave corporate imperialism. Processes are now being substantially formalized. (All well and good, but they require everything in Word documents. I literally haven't written a procedure in Word in nine years. We're a Notes/Domino shop, and we have databases that hold our documentation.)
Our little NetWare and Notes shop (only one unplanned outage in ten years, and never a virus, thank you very much), must comply with the corporate architecture of Windows Server and MS-Exchange.
Next week, big boss super (the CEO) and the head of Human Resources will be here to go over the company's "Vision, Values and Purpose" - which just sounds like a perfect setup for a Dilbert cartoon about PowerPoint poisoning, drive by management and, to put it politely, "buzzword Bingo".
We aren't the only acquisition, of course, and I've been told that part of my staff will now report to another of the acquisitions - one that's nearby, and with a larger IT organization. My boss says I've nothing to worry about, that I'll still report to him, working on special assignments where ideas and technology are needed.
Which sounds to me like I've just been quietly shown out of the door of IT. So here's the problem: I'm too young to retire but too old to easily find a new position in IT.
I'm feeling a lot of anxiety. I left big corporate America precisely for the same reason - the constant feeling that I'm in way over my head. I'm an introverted kind of a guy - don't like meeting new people, don't like meetings where there are more than five people at the table. Bad at politics and "the game"? You bet.
I'd jump if I had a place to land. Searching the web for opportunities hasn't turned up anything for my odd collection of skills and experience. I've managed to cross the six figure salary line while at this company, and I'm the sole bread winner at home. Starting at an entry level in a new career isn't going to work out very well.
Staying or going both seem to lead to a bad place.
Any guidance would be much appreciated.
- Neither here nor there
Dear Locationless ...
Before anything else, I'd like to offer you a perspective: The new owners aren't evil and aren't stupid either. What they are is bigger and more diverse. That means their goals of consistent architecture and documented processes are entirely rational. They've decided that the holding company structure - where they own you but leave you completely alone - doesn't provide as much business advantage as tighter integration.
So here are your choices. You can:
* Express interest in becoming part of the bigger world, ask to join the IT organization from the affiliate down the road, and carve out a logical place for yourself in it.
* Talk to your boss about the likelihood that "don't worry" and "special projects" belong in the same sentence, to start a conversation about a career change within his organization. That puts you out of IT but still in the company and location you like.
* Find a new employer with characteristics much like those you used to like with your current one - the characteristics that are going away.
You've had a good long run in a phenomenal situation. That's more than most people get.
So welcome to the world of business change. It isn't true that all change is good for you - in WWII we called the good guys the Resistance, after all. What is true is that you have to recognize the difference between resisting change and just resenting it.
If you think you can successfully resist this change, more power to you ... but realistically, you don't have a chance in a million. Resenting it will mostly get you unemployed. So accept it as the way the world is going to happen, and figure out your best course of action for the world as it is.
One other piece of advice: You listed a number of personal characteristics as barriers. Don't. They are certainly preferences, but that's another matter. Remember the definition of a professional - someone who has no problems, causes no problems, and solves someone else's problems. If you accept your preferences as limitations, how will you present yourself as a professional to your next employer?
Oh, by the way ... I do sympathize with your situation. It's always tough to be in. It's just that my sympathy and a quarter together are worth no more than five nickels.
- Bob
Dear Bob ...
Your logic (in "The mathematics of organizational dysfunction," Keep the Joint Running, 1/22/2007) is impeccable. Unfortunately, managers don't care for logic. It usually comes down to ego which means that they can't be seen as being wrong ( which makes no sense from a business standpoint
- organizations should be without ego ). This has been a painful lesson for me on more than one occasion since one can follow procedure and guidelines and still be "wrong" according to a manager. I have to learn not to get angry at them. I need to remember the following:
"It is natural for the immature to harm others. Getting angry with them is like resenting a fire for burning." — Shantideva
- Seriously annoyed
Dear Annoyed ...
Interesting quote. It leaves one to wonder ... with whom is it appropriate to become angry?
Not really a serious question. The answer is, nobody, because (a) anger makes people stupid; and (b) usually, when someone becomes angry, it's because someone else has encouraged them to do so as a way to manipulate them.
- Bob
Dear Bob ...
I get angry when managers above me do dumb things such as tell me I wrote a "weak" ticket last week about an insecure system when in fact the consensus is that it was a valid ticket (He blanket emailed his negative response to the whole business unit. My immediate supervisor got shot down appealing the ticket due to politics.).
If I act during that angry impulse, I risk a backlash from them. But if I use logic against them and I'm not angry, the effect seems to be the same. It seems to be a lose/lose scenario for the employee. It seems the Dilbert Principle is in full swing in corporations these days.
Anger can be a good thing when applied in the right situations. Wars are born from anger against governments and successful wars change things. Actions stemming from quick angry responses seem to be fruitless in general though, as you point out.
It is definitely justified to become angry with the collective stupidity of people, governments and institutions, although how to channel that anger constructively is a challenge itself. Gandhi and MLK successfully channeled their anger into successful strategies that were, ironically, peaceful pursuits.
- Still annoyed
Dear Annoyed ...
I sympathize - ugly situation. My analysis is unchanged. Anger does serve a useful evolutionary purpose. In most of the situations we face, though, anger is something that controls us, and results in our acting ineffectively.
Here's the challenge I'd pose to you: You're trapping yourself by only considering two alternatives. If you use anger and it's ineffective, and you use facts and logic and it's ineffective, then stop using either anger or facts and logic.
Try a third course: Game out the situation and plan strategy and tactics that give you a chance to achieve your goals.
- Bob
Dear Bob ...
I have a good one for you. Have you ever heard of a company that makes you use your credit card for traveling to an interview and use their travel company and pay their administrative fees? Is this common now?
Well, this happened to me. A gut feeling told me that this was fishy but I ignored it.
I had an out of town interview scheduled for Friday and had planned on leaving sometime on Thursday. My trip to the airport is 70 miles and the flight approximately one hour. However, the weather turned treacherous, a semi overturned and blocked the freeway for five hours, and I could not make my flight. The company tole me it was OK to cancel and proceeded to reschedule for the following week at their convenience.
Meanwhile, an offer came through which was too good to pass up and I did not wish to lose this opportunity. I called the other company and canceled (with 4 days to spare) and told them that I was no longer interested in pursuing the position. Well, they stuck me with the airline ticket, the change fee, hotel, and their travel agency administrative fees.
The question is, is this professional? They certainly are not fostering any type of goodwill. It is a small world out there .... I was being completely honest. Should I have lied, taken the trip, and then told them I was no longer interested?
In the past, (or is that past era) my interview situations with other companies have never asked me to use my own credit card and they took care of every expense. All I had to do was show up. I asked this company to reimburse me, but they said that I canceled twice so I had to pay. Half of the folks who were scheduled to interview me did not show up on the first interview due to the bad weather as well. Only one person was flying in and they had no problem with weather and their proposed timeframe made it convenient for their weekly meetings. So no one was inconvenienced on their part.
Do I have any recourse? What is the best way to remedy this other than taking a couple of swigs of alcohol? I'm just so glad I joined another company that is first class.
- Accidental loan officer
Dear Loaner ...
That's a new one. No, I've never heard of a company that asks prospective employees to bear the up-front cost of travel for employment interviews. And yes, that should have raised some red flags. It's one thing for an employer to ask employees to pay their expenses up front and file expense reports. It's quite another for a prospective employer to do so.
You should have asked this: If this is what the first date is like, what kind of marriage might you expect?
You might, out of academic interest, do some just-too-late research to see if the company has an unsavory reputation or if this was simply an anomaly. It's possible the whole company is scummy. It's just as possible that its HR department has experienced budget pressure, that someone in HR thought this would be a painless way to cut costs, and that the rest of the company is actually a good place to work.
Not that it matters now.
I think that in your situation I would have asked the company that made the offer you accepted for a week to decide, and shown up for the interview, for two reasons. First, you might have received an even more attractive offer - you never know. And second, since you were the one out-of-pocket, it would have been a simple way to protect yourself from a problem that wasn't difficult to anticipate.
So far as recourse, theoretically you could always take these folks to small claims court. I think you'd be wasting your time. Even if you win, it is as you say a small world out there and the last thing you need is to get a reputation for suing employers or potential employers.
Have a drink to celebrate your new opportunity and newly-acquired valuable experience and ask your tax accountant if the lost money is deductable.
- Bob
Dear Bob ...
I observed several challenged IT projects over the years. The developers' estimates were low. The project managers scheduled based on the estimates. Needless to say, the projects were late. Are there reliable ways to estimate? Are there sound ways to track project status so you can tell your user community with confidence that their system will be ready by a certain date?
You said in a recent newsletter: the future lies with versatile developers who can create working software without creating volumes of documentation artifacts. Without detailed documentation, how do you determine who agreed with what requirements? When you are testing the software, how do you determine if a problem is a defect or a change? I guess if people involved have a great deal of mutual trust, then it may work.
--Managing
Dear Managing ...
Project estimation is one of those black arts I try to avoid. In addition to the karmic burden created by having to perform the required rituals, having to sacrifice the occasional chicken makes a terrible mess in my office.
My "solution" is to avoid estimating. When pressed I'm willing to give a "smells like" guesstimate for large efforts. The only estimates I'll provide are for next-phase projects I have the time and staff to properly plan. Then it isn't an estimate anymore - it's the computed cost of executing a project plan.
Sound ways to track project status? Of course: Weekly status meetings, where all participants report the status of their assignments (assignments are no longer than a week and status is either done or not done). Couple this practice with a discipline of keeping projects short and teams small and you can start to finish projects reliably.
Your question about documentation is harder to answer, because nothing works in all situations. Sometimes, especially in CYA sorts of environments or situations where different stakeholders have conflicting needs, you can need more. Nonetheless ...
Projects of any size and scope should always be about helping one or more parts of the business operate differently, not about delivering software that meets specifications. That being the case, the whole process of collecting software requirements from various stakeholders and reconciling it is bogus. Start the conversation by asking how the business should operate and everything about what follows changes. In particular, software requirements stop being a matter of finding compromises among various statements of "I want" and start being a simple account of the role software plays in new or changed business processes.
Testing also becomes something different in this sort of situation: It moves to a "Conference Room Pilot" where business users execute the new or changed process under controlled conditions. It doesn't much matter then whether a defect is the result of incorrect design, faulty programming, or end-users failing to anticipate their needs properly. All that matters is that the business can't run its process as it wants, which means the software must be tweaked to permit it.
And yes, all of this does require trust. Without it, a business has much bigger fish to fry than fixing software defects.
- Bob
Dear Bob ...
Your topic (in "Non-Boolean governance," Keep the Joint Running, 1/29/2007) gave me an idea, so I thought I would try a practical application to test the theory. I floated a bad idea on purpose in a project meeting just to see how many of my subordinates would agree, and the results were astonishing – out of about 6 in the meeting, only one refuted the logic.
Afterwards, when I explained that it was a test there were some red faces. It shows how, even in an organization where free-thinking is encouraged, many are erroneously trying to earn favor by being agreeable. My comment was that if I wanted robots, we'd buy robots to agree with everything we say/do. We need people ready to challenge the status quo and push service delivery to the next level.
Thoughts?
- Experimentalist
Dear Experimenter ...
I'm not sure I agree with the tactic of mousetrapping your direct reports. On the other hand, you did make a telling point with them. So long as they didn't end up feeling like you set them up, it sounds like a win.
So here's my question to you: You say it's an environment that encourages free thinking. How do you encourage it? You might have accidentally encouraged uncritical thinking, as is the case if you've brought in the "professionals" who teach that when brainstorming, the group has to dully pass the conversational baton clockwise, in sequence, without anyone ever making a comment on anyone else's ideas.
It's also possible that you simply don't discourage free thinking. Certainly, not shooting people when they disagree with you is a positive. Still, it's different from active encouragement.
Understand, I'm not criticizing - I have no facts with which to do so (and I realize I'm bucking the trend by letting that stop me ... but I digress).
My advice, for whatever it's worth, is to look hard at whether, and how, you're actively encouraging critical thinking and open discussion. It isn't easy to get started, but once you have it creates an immensely rewarding environment.
- Bob
February 28, 2007 | Comments: (0)
A Pioneer collides with Metropolis
Dear Bob ...
Referring to this week's Keep the Joint Running, ("Office biogeography," 2/26/2007), just yesterday I was put on "Administrative Leave" because I am a "Frontier Person" (aka, Pioneer) living in the corporate equivalent of New York City.
I think it would be interesting and very beneficial if companies both recognized what kind of "Environment" they were; clearly state that in the hiring process; the type of citizens they wanted; and probable consequences of miss-match.
Not to be unduly harsh, but the "City" usually breeds a "Gestapo" mentality, where everyone not in lock-step with the "Zero Tolerance" mentality faces the full weight and oppression of the organization for even seemingly trivial deviations. I've know for years that "Pioneers" are easy to identify. They are the ones with arrows in both the front and the back.
Back around '85, H. Ross P. compared EDS and GM. If an EDS Manager spotted a rattlesnake, he'd shoot it. If a GM Manager spotted a rattlesnake, he'd form a committee to study snakes.
After over 40 years in business, I know what I am. Unfortunately, I didn't realize how rigid my company was. Maybe this way of looking at businesses will help warn others away from a potentially bad choice.
- Pioneer
Dear Pioneer ...
At the risk of losing a friend, I'll point out that you'd find some value trying to understand the other side. People are as they are for good reasons. Frontier and Metropolis are different, not because one is better and one is worse but because each is adaptive to particular situations.
So to you, Urban living breeds a Gestapo mentality. To city-dwellers, Frontier living breeds a to-hell-with-you mentality - the mentality that leads to using one's backyard as a garbage dump because "it's my property and I can do what I like on it."
Which might be just fine in rural Nebraska (I don't know, not having lived in rural Nebraska), but is unacceptable in the Bronx.
I completely agree that during the interviewing process, both parties should spend time discovering whether their styles are compatible.
BTW: Having worked for Perot Systems I'm hesitant to comment directly. I will say that taken literally this attitude leads to at least as many problems as having committees studying situations to death.
It's the ready/fire/aim mentality, and it results in draining the swamp without first assessing the environmental impact.
Which is how we've ended up having such bad flooding every time we have heavy snowfalls and spring rains nowadays.
- Bob
Posted by Bob Lewis on February 28, 2007 05:19 AM
February 26, 2007 | Comments: (0)
"Neither here nor there" followup
Two weeks ago I posted a question from "Neither here nor there," whose position was, apparently, going to go away as the result of his company being acquired ("When your position evaporates," Advice Line, 2/13/2007). He was kind enough to provide a progress report.
I'm posting it in its entirety - it should be of interest to everyone who works in corporate IT and will ever be on one side or another of a takeover.
- Bob
A few weeks ago, I had written for advice regarding what to do when a small business IT manager finds his department being absorbed when a larger company purchases his small company.
After ten years of frustration working in large corporate America (some of the companies had the word "General" as part of their name), I seemed to have found my dream job in a small company. No more corporate BS, a manageable level of politics, low mileage commute, good pay, adequate benefits, etc. After ten years at this small company, we were purchased by a large firm, and the corporate stuff I thought I had left behind began to flow into my work life again.
Things looked pretty bleak. Much of the technical foundation I had built over twenty years was to be scrapped, and with it my specific technical expertise. Staff resources were to be re-allocated, and my boss kept telling me not to panic, that he had plenty of technical work that needed to be done - which sounded a whole lot like "central IT doesn't have any use for you."
Representatives from the central IT organization set up a two day meeting to discuss what was going to happen. The weekend before, I was nearly sick with anxiety.
The senior person in the meeting did a very smart thing. He presented a six level chart identifying the performance of an IT Organization, from zero = "chaos" to level six = "IT As a value added partner of the business". His goal was to get IT to level six. Currently, he rated the organization as a whole being at level one. He said that my group was at a high level two, possibly three. "Everybody else in the company is taking a step forward, for you, it's a step sideways." That simple acknowledgment opened up a dialogue. His position in the organization meant that we wouldn't be exactly equals, but I was now ready to listen.
Over the course of two days, we went over the corporate strategic goals, the IT projects that supported those goals, and the IT projects that each business unit was seeking to get done. We agreed that my ability to speak both technical and business language, my experience, and my somewhat unconventional nature was an orientation best suited to bringing IT to business projects, and there were plenty of projects that needed my skillset.
At the end of the meeting, I was relieved. Have I been "assimilated into the collective", "drunk the Kool-Aid", "gone corporate", etc.? To the degree that I understand what the organization is trying to do, and support those goals, yes. To the degree that I believe that my job will be "safe" simply because I follow the corporate rules, or that I completely agree with all the corporate methods, no.
I came out of this experience with the following observations:
First, big companies buy small companies for business reasons. If your company gets bought, you need to find out what you will be doing to fulfill the promise of those business reasons - otherwise, you're an unneeded expense. If someone doesn't tell you how you fit into the plan, start asking people, and if you can't get an answer, start planning to get out.
Second, a primary goal of IT is to drive the time out of business process, best accomplished with consistency, and if possible, uniformity. If you have multiple business units, and each has its own IT environment, you immediately have a bottleneck at the point where information has to pass from one environment to the next. Bridges and gateways are likely to exist, but you still end up slowing down the movement of information. Bottom line, central IT not only has the right, it has the responsibility to issue and enforce standards.
Third, IT provides decision related information as close to the point of decision as possible. This is the place where "one size fits all" isn't likely to work. Accounting decisions are very different from Sales decisions, which in turn are different from Manufacturing decisions. Helping a business get the information needed to make decisions quickly and effectively may be technologically dependent, but the understanding of the informational needs is more important than the knowledge of a specific technology. In other words, given the choice between understanding the business or understanding technology, choose both.
Fourth if someone makes the time to present, explain and discuss the corporate IT plan in plain language with only the occasional buzzword slipping in (if I had a nickel every time said the the word "synergy"...), recognize that you represent some value to the organization. Whether it's a couple of hours or a couple of days, the company is paying everybody to basically just sit and talk. Not a small thing in these days of constantly measuring ROI, yet an activity that IT people should likely engage in more often.
Fifth, a professional is someone who gets the job done. However, a professional might end up in a place where their profession is no longer practicable. If a pipe bursts when an electrician is working in the bathroom, it's probably best that they stop being an electrician for a bit. If your business changes to the extent that your skillset won't get the job done, you have to change the skillset or change jobs.
Finally, I have to respond to the comments about attitude. In my experience, when someone says, "you don't have a good attitude", it means "you aren't behaving the way that I expect or I want, so I'm going to end this conversation". That's a cop out. If someone is demonstrating a bad attitude, they're probably feeling threatened, and sometimes those threats are very real.
I've never seen an example of someone being told that they have a bad attitude has helped anyone.
Ever.
If you can, you might help them identify the nature, reality and proximity of the perceived threat. Otherwise, you might find a way to tactfully bring the conversation to a close.
My thanks to you and everyone who had input - it was very helpful. I'm still neither here nor there, but at least now I'm on my way.
Posted by Bob Lewis on February 26, 2007 05:05 AM
February 25, 2007 | Comments: (0)
My recent posting about offshoring ("Thoughts about the economics of offshoring," Advice Line, 2/19/2007) resulted in quite a few comments. Two common threads deserve a reply.
The first is the common complaint about job loss. It's a very real worry. It's also a worry with precious little evidence to support it. Employment in the United States is quite high at the moment, including employment in among IT professionals.
I have little doubt that IT employment, like employment in other sectors, has become more volatile than it used to be, and competition from offshore service providers certainly has contributed to this trend. My best advice is this: Expect to be laid off.
Plan your finances on the assumption that for every three months you are gainfully employed you'll be unemployed for another month. It's a pessimistic outlook that will have, as a useful side-effect, better finances when you retire.
The other set of comments were in response to my statement that we aren't shipping jobs offshore; rather, offshore companies are outcompeting onshore IT professionals for the work.
The commonly stated response is that they aren't outcompeting us. What they're doing is working for a fraction of what American workers are willing to accept, because they're willing to live in much simpler conditions than we are (conditions our grandparents or great-grandparents, would, I suspect, have taken for granted).
Well, yes, exactly. I imagine IBM and Compaq felt much the same way about Dell when it got started. It was willing to live with a simpler lifestyle - a leaner management structure and thinner margins. Before that, IBM had a beef with open systems, whose manufacturers were willing to live with a leaner management and thinner margins.
And, right now, many commercial software providers complain about open source software providers, who are willing to live with the leanest imaginable management structure (none) and exceptionally thin margins (none).
That's the nature of competition. Sometimes it's on price, sometimes on features, sometimes on quality, sometimes on convenience. Nothing about this changes, just because you're the product.
Want to sell your services at a good price? Stop complaining that your offshore competitors are willing to charge less than you are.
Instead, start thinking of yourself as a business. Take a clear-eyed view of the competitive landscape and figure out what you have to offer that your offshore competitors don't, that justifies the higher price you want to charge.
Once you can clearly articulate the answer, you'll be in an excellent position to receive the salary you want. If you can't, you'd better think harder, because "That's what I want to earn," just isn't compelling logic for an employer looking for the best value.
- Bob
Posted by Bob Lewis on February 25, 2007 07:40 AM
February 20, 2007 | Comments: (0)
How much does a manager need to know?
Dear Bob ... As an applications manager, I often wonder exactly how much detail should I know about an application. I get hundred of questions about application design, functionality, servers, files, and databases, most I can answer, but there are a couple that I may have some difficulty with and it starts me to wonder, how much should I know? Any thoughts? - Insufficiently expert Dear Expert ... There is no blanket answer to your question. It depends on: How big an IT organization you have; how the organization is structured; whether the applications were developed in-house or are commercial packages; who is asking; and why (among other variables). Much of what you describe should be described in the documentation. Should your knowledge of the documentation be comprehensive? No. Should you be entirely ignorant, so that you have to rely on the documentation for everything? Again, no. Re-reading your question, you might be asking me about knowledge of the discipline rather than knowledge of your company's IT environment - in other words, how much should you know about SOA, blades, methodologies, products and so on. Again there's no single answer. Some application managers focus their attention on team-building, some on methodology; some on architecture, some on being able to deal with company politics (and always a combination - nobody should rely on a single strength). Here's a short answer to your question: You aren't obligated to be a human encyclopedia. You are required to master the discipline sufficiently to provide leadership to your team - to paint a credible and compelling account of where you want to take the organization. Now let me answer the question you didn't ask: How should you decide what you should concentrate on? The answer to that depends on what is working well in your organization and what needs improvement. Many managers make the decision based on their personal style and aptitudes. My opinion is that this is a mistake. Start with what the organization needs instead, and acquire whatever skills and knowledge you need so that you can provide it. - BobPosted by Bob Lewis on February 20, 2007 06:27 PM
February 19, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Thoughts about the economics of offshoring
Dear Bob ...
Not really an Advice Line issue, but I'd appreciate your thoughts:
Society is learning about economics and outsourcing. Lose high paying jobs, lose tax revenue, etc. The experiment continues and a few profit at the expense of the many. Of course, China is doing well right now, but at what cost?
I remember from an analysis of why Asian-American communities succeed, and African-American communities stay mired in poverty is that it's because 9 out of 10 dollars spent in the Asian-American community stay within it, while 1 out of every 10 dollars spent in the African-American community stay within it. If such economics scale, then offshoring jobs and factories will not succeed in generating wealth for many but will have the opposite result.
What goods and services will be left? Half the graduates in my department were mainland Chinese. We drained the best minds from around the globe and only the top 10% could get funding as research scientists, and those were the ones without jobs waiting for them in China.
We are now offshoring computer programming and certain other highly skilled professions. Most of our manufacturing jobs that aren't defense related are offshore. With computer hardware, software, textile, shipbuilding, steel, and other industries offshore, what goods can we provide China to balance the trade imbalance except maybe aerospace?
Loral is no more because they sold defense aerospace secrets to China which will improve their ICBMs. That's about the only thing they want from us now, and Russia gives them better deals if not always expertise. With more of our money going offshore and higher paying jobs migrating offshore to be replaced by lower wage jobs, I can't see any good coming from it. Our cities and states lose tax revenue and a vicious cycle ensues.
Texas only builds tollways now. That's the only way local and some state roads get built or maintained and revenue generated. It used to not be that way 20 years ago. The schools hold fund raisers to obtain funding for public school activities and projects.
College tuition has skyrocketed in Texas in spite of a huge oil funded multibillion dollar endowment. The state pays less and less for public education every year even though the endowments can only pay half the costs.
Maybe it's me, though. I don't always remember being so disillusioned and cynical. But I have to worry when oilmen start buying up water rights throughout the state.
- Concerned
Dear Concerned ...
Whew! Okay, if everyone agrees that I'm just another citizen with no pretensions to specific expertise on any of the subjects you raised, here are some thoughts:
I'm not sure the how-much-money-stays-in-the-neighborhood analysis has parallels to the economics of offshoring. The difference is that by creating more wealth offshore, proponents claim it increases the size of the market for American goods and services. There is no such dynamic at work when the subject is small communities within the US.
The whole offshoring/wealth-creation issue is much more difficult than either globalization's cheerleaders or its naysayers generally acknowledge. Not necessarily better or worse, but more complicated.
We have (as I might have pointed out before) two economies - the investment economy and the labor economy. So far as anyone can tell our investment economy is doing fine. It's the labor economy that has trouble. Even manufacturing is doing well in the US. It's simply that with the level of factory automation successful companies employ, manufacturing jobs are in decline with no reason to ever expect a recovery.
I agree that our trade deficit is probably the biggest economic worry we have. We still might find, though, that building better markets and more stable economies abroad ends up helping us in the long run.
There's one other aspect of this to consider: We aren't shipping jobs offshore. Companies in other countries are outcompeting us for the work. The solution is for American workers to make sure they provide better value than their Chinese and Indian competitors.
In that vein, a point I've also made before: In our industry, the most important step any manager can take who wants to preserve American jobs is to promote the use of iterative, high-involvement, collaborative software development and integration methodologies. Traditional waterfall methodologies are tailor-made for shipping work elsewhere.
When you enshrine requirements and software specifications in detailed documents which are supposed to be the primary (or sole) means for communicating what's needed among participants, the location and time zone from which developers code is irrelevant.
When, on the other hand, you ask end-users and business managers to take a look at what you think might work a few times a day, there is no such thing as shipping the work to a remote location.
- Bob
Posted by Bob Lewis on February 19, 2007 05:25 AM
February 16, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Making IT projects less painful
The following appeared as a comment, by "Steve," in response to "Problems with project estimation," Advice Line, 2/5/2007:
* * *
I feel really guilty. I live in that ideal company, small (90 people), outrageously fast paced, but ALWAYS looking to IT to find better, more effective ways to accomplish more work (and higher loan volumes) with the same number of people.
IT has a staff of five (one department head who also does web development, a network guy, an analyst who also is an expert in our CRM package, a web designer and a data administrator who both help with floor support). We have two major commercial packages that we use and those databases are used to extract and consolidate data for presentation in web pages, which reduces how much data collection we have to do.
We do minimal project planning (high-level only and only for larger projects...a six man-month project might have ten line items) and most of what passes for documentation occurs after the fact.
After a quick specification-gathering meeting, we respond with an email that describes what we heard to make sure we said/heard the same things...usually the toughest part of any technical project. After that, we put together a prototype, demonstrate what we have, then go into revise/test/demo iterations until our users are satisfied.
Afterwards, we write instructions, do training, and users come back over time with enhancement requests. Because they eventually get almost exactly what they want, they are very forgiving about bugs (our rule is that bugs are OK as long as they don't damage data) and delays in delivery when higher-priority items bump them down.
We don't ignore project planning entirely (I'm actually a certified PMP...but only so I can be employable elsewhere...you never know), but we keep most of our projects small enough that we don't need it. Our company president is totally in support of IT (although several of our second-level managers are somewhat suspicious of it), but the majority of the company treats us like rock stars.
I agree that much of the desire for in-depth project planning comes from CYA environments (and I've worked at many of those). I've been in IT for 25 years and have found that folks don't give a d@mn about project planning, if you get them something they can use quickly and get it right soon after (and work with everybody to decide priority).
* * *
Steve ...
You demonstrate a point I've tried to make over and over again for the better part of a decade: Documentation exists to remind people of what was said in face-to-face interactions, not to substitute for it. Also that the best way to create software that satisfies end users is to show it to them often while you're building it.
I sure appreciate the testimony of someone else who has done it this way. Thanks.
- Bob
You demonstrate a point I've tried to make over and over again for the better part of a decade: Documentation exists to remind people of what was said in face-to-face interactions, not to substitute for it. Also that the best way to create software that satisfies end users is to show it to them often while you're building it.
I sure appreciate the testimony of someone else who has done it this way. Thanks.
- Bob
Posted by Bob Lewis on February 16, 2007 04:38 AM
February 13, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Dear Bob ...
As IT Manager in a small company, I did it all, from application development, to LAN architecture, to help desk, to managing the budget, to telephony, to managing a small staff, to replacing the burned out light bulbs. I taught myself programming in Lotus Notes, and have applied ideas and technology wherever it would help. We're in a beautiful location, I live under ten miles from work, and never see a highway in my commute.
I've loved it!
After ten years of working in pretty much a dream job, my boss sold the company. The first two years were pretty good. They left us alone, and we kept working on our merry way, admittedly, with less stress because the cash flow issues of a small business were now covered by the corporate entity.
Now we're in a wave corporate imperialism. Processes are now being substantially formalized. (All well and good, but they require everything in Word documents. I literally haven't written a procedure in Word in nine years. We're a Notes/Domino shop, and we have databases that hold our documentation.)
Our little NetWare and Notes shop (only one unplanned outage in ten years, and never a virus, thank you very much), must comply with the corporate architecture of Windows Server and MS-Exchange.
Next week, big boss super (the CEO) and the head of Human Resources will be here to go over the company's "Vision, Values and Purpose" - which just sounds like a perfect setup for a Dilbert cartoon about PowerPoint poisoning, drive by management and, to put it politely, "buzzword Bingo".
We aren't the only acquisition, of course, and I've been told that part of my staff will now report to another of the acquisitions - one that's nearby, and with a larger IT organization. My boss says I've nothing to worry about, that I'll still report to him, working on special assignments where ideas and technology are needed.
Which sounds to me like I've just been quietly shown out of the door of IT. So here's the problem: I'm too young to retire but too old to easily find a new position in IT.
I'm feeling a lot of anxiety. I left big corporate America precisely for the same reason - the constant feeling that I'm in way over my head. I'm an introverted kind of a guy - don't like meeting new people, don't like meetings where there are more than five people at the table. Bad at politics and "the game"? You bet.
I'd jump if I had a place to land. Searching the web for opportunities hasn't turned up anything for my odd collection of skills and experience. I've managed to cross the six figure salary line while at this company, and I'm the sole bread winner at home. Starting at an entry level in a new career isn't going to work out very well.
Staying or going both seem to lead to a bad place.
Any guidance would be much appreciated.
- Neither here nor there
Dear Locationless ...
Before anything else, I'd like to offer you a perspective: The new owners aren't evil and aren't stupid either. What they are is bigger and more diverse. That means their goals of consistent architecture and documented processes are entirely rational. They've decided that the holding company structure - where they own you but leave you completely alone - doesn't provide as much business advantage as tighter integration.
So here are your choices. You can:
* Express interest in becoming part of the bigger world, ask to join the IT organization from the affiliate down the road, and carve out a logical place for yourself in it.
* Talk to your boss about the likelihood that "don't worry" and "special projects" belong in the same sentence, to start a conversation about a career change within his organization. That puts you out of IT but still in the company and location you like.
* Find a new employer with characteristics much like those you used to like with your current one - the characteristics that are going away.
You've had a good long run in a phenomenal situation. That's more than most people get.
So welcome to the world of business change. It isn't true that all change is good for you - in WWII we called the good guys the Resistance, after all. What is true is that you have to recognize the difference between resisting change and just resenting it.
If you think you can successfully resist this change, more power to you ... but realistically, you don't have a chance in a million. Resenting it will mostly get you unemployed. So accept it as the way the world is going to happen, and figure out your best course of action for the world as it is.
One other piece of advice: You listed a number of personal characteristics as barriers. Don't. They are certainly preferences, but that's another matter. Remember the definition of a professional - someone who has no problems, causes no problems, and solves someone else's problems. If you accept your preferences as limitations, how will you present yourself as a professional to your next employer?
Oh, by the way ... I do sympathize with your situation. It's always tough to be in. It's just that my sympathy and a quarter together are worth no more than five nickels.
- Bob
Posted by Bob Lewis on February 13, 2007 05:06 AM
February 12, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Dear Bob ...
Your logic (in "The mathematics of organizational dysfunction," Keep the Joint Running, 1/22/2007) is impeccable. Unfortunately, managers don't care for logic. It usually comes down to ego which means that they can't be seen as being wrong ( which makes no sense from a business standpoint
- organizations should be without ego ). This has been a painful lesson for me on more than one occasion since one can follow procedure and guidelines and still be "wrong" according to a manager. I have to learn not to get angry at them. I need to remember the following:
"It is natural for the immature to harm others. Getting angry with them is like resenting a fire for burning." — Shantideva
- Seriously annoyed
Dear Annoyed ...
Interesting quote. It leaves one to wonder ... with whom is it appropriate to become angry?
Not really a serious question. The answer is, nobody, because (a) anger makes people stupid; and (b) usually, when someone becomes angry, it's because someone else has encouraged them to do so as a way to manipulate them.
- Bob
Dear Bob ...
I get angry when managers above me do dumb things such as tell me I wrote a "weak" ticket last week about an insecure system when in fact the consensus is that it was a valid ticket (He blanket emailed his negative response to the whole business unit. My immediate supervisor got shot down appealing the ticket due to politics.).
If I act during that angry impulse, I risk a backlash from them. But if I use logic against them and I'm not angry, the effect seems to be the same. It seems to be a lose/lose scenario for the employee. It seems the Dilbert Principle is in full swing in corporations these days.
Anger can be a good thing when applied in the right situations. Wars are born from anger against governments and successful wars change things. Actions stemming from quick angry responses seem to be fruitless in general though, as you point out.
It is definitely justified to become angry with the collective stupidity of people, governments and institutions, although how to channel that anger constructively is a challenge itself. Gandhi and MLK successfully channeled their anger into successful strategies that were, ironically, peaceful pursuits.
- Still annoyed
Dear Annoyed ...
I sympathize - ugly situation. My analysis is unchanged. Anger does serve a useful evolutionary purpose. In most of the situations we face, though, anger is something that controls us, and results in our acting ineffectively.
Here's the challenge I'd pose to you: You're trapping yourself by only considering two alternatives. If you use anger and it's ineffective, and you use facts and logic and it's ineffective, then stop using either anger or facts and logic.
Try a third course: Game out the situation and plan strategy and tactics that give you a chance to achieve your goals.
- Bob
Posted by Bob Lewis on February 12, 2007 05:21 AM
February 09, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Recovering interviewing expenses
Dear Bob ...
I have a good one for you. Have you ever heard of a company that makes you use your credit card for traveling to an interview and use their travel company and pay their administrative fees? Is this common now?
Well, this happened to me. A gut feeling told me that this was fishy but I ignored it.
I had an out of town interview scheduled for Friday and had planned on leaving sometime on Thursday. My trip to the airport is 70 miles and the flight approximately one hour. However, the weather turned treacherous, a semi overturned and blocked the freeway for five hours, and I could not make my flight. The company tole me it was OK to cancel and proceeded to reschedule for the following week at their convenience.
Meanwhile, an offer came through which was too good to pass up and I did not wish to lose this opportunity. I called the other company and canceled (with 4 days to spare) and told them that I was no longer interested in pursuing the position. Well, they stuck me with the airline ticket, the change fee, hotel, and their travel agency administrative fees.
The question is, is this professional? They certainly are not fostering any type of goodwill. It is a small world out there .... I was being completely honest. Should I have lied, taken the trip, and then told them I was no longer interested?
In the past, (or is that past era) my interview situations with other companies have never asked me to use my own credit card and they took care of every expense. All I had to do was show up. I asked this company to reimburse me, but they said that I canceled twice so I had to pay. Half of the folks who were scheduled to interview me did not show up on the first interview due to the bad weather as well. Only one person was flying in and they had no problem with weather and their proposed timeframe made it convenient for their weekly meetings. So no one was inconvenienced on their part.
Do I have any recourse? What is the best way to remedy this other than taking a couple of swigs of alcohol? I'm just so glad I joined another company that is first class.
- Accidental loan officer
Dear Loaner ...
That's a new one. No, I've never heard of a company that asks prospective employees to bear the up-front cost of travel for employment interviews. And yes, that should have raised some red flags. It's one thing for an employer to ask employees to pay their expenses up front and file expense reports. It's quite another for a prospective employer to do so.
You should have asked this: If this is what the first date is like, what kind of marriage might you expect?
You might, out of academic interest, do some just-too-late research to see if the company has an unsavory reputation or if this was simply an anomaly. It's possible the whole company is scummy. It's just as possible that its HR department has experienced budget pressure, that someone in HR thought this would be a painless way to cut costs, and that the rest of the company is actually a good place to work.
Not that it matters now.
I think that in your situation I would have asked the company that made the offer you accepted for a week to decide, and shown up for the interview, for two reasons. First, you might have received an even more attractive offer - you never know. And second, since you were the one out-of-pocket, it would have been a simple way to protect yourself from a problem that wasn't difficult to anticipate.
So far as recourse, theoretically you could always take these folks to small claims court. I think you'd be wasting your time. Even if you win, it is as you say a small world out there and the last thing you need is to get a reputation for suing employers or potential employers.
Have a drink to celebrate your new opportunity and newly-acquired valuable experience and ask your tax accountant if the lost money is deductable.
- Bob
Posted by Bob Lewis on February 9, 2007 01:29 PM
February 05, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Problems with project estimation
Dear Bob ...
I observed several challenged IT projects over the years. The developers' estimates were low. The project managers scheduled based on the estimates. Needless to say, the projects were late. Are there reliable ways to estimate? Are there sound ways to track project status so you can tell your user community with confidence that their system will be ready by a certain date?
You said in a recent newsletter: the future lies with versatile developers who can create working software without creating volumes of documentation artifacts. Without detailed documentation, how do you determine who agreed with what requirements? When you are testing the software, how do you determine if a problem is a defect or a change? I guess if people involved have a great deal of mutual trust, then it may work.
--Managing
Dear Managing ...
Project estimation is one of those black arts I try to avoid. In addition to the karmic burden created by having to perform the required rituals, having to sacrifice the occasional chicken makes a terrible mess in my office.
My "solution" is to avoid estimating. When pressed I'm willing to give a "smells like" guesstimate for large efforts. The only estimates I'll provide are for next-phase projects I have the time and staff to properly plan. Then it isn't an estimate anymore - it's the computed cost of executing a project plan.
Sound ways to track project status? Of course: Weekly status meetings, where all participants report the status of their assignments (assignments are no longer than a week and status is either done or not done). Couple this practice with a discipline of keeping projects short and teams small and you can start to finish projects reliably.
Your question about documentation is harder to answer, because nothing works in all situations. Sometimes, especially in CYA sorts of environments or situations where different stakeholders have conflicting needs, you can need more. Nonetheless ...
Projects of any size and scope should always be about helping one or more parts of the business operate differently, not about delivering software that meets specifications. That being the case, the whole process of collecting software requirements from various stakeholders and reconciling it is bogus. Start the conversation by asking how the business should operate and everything about what follows changes. In particular, software requirements stop being a matter of finding compromises among various statements of "I want" and start being a simple account of the role software plays in new or changed business processes.
Testing also becomes something different in this sort of situation: It moves to a "Conference Room Pilot" where business users execute the new or changed process under controlled conditions. It doesn't much matter then whether a defect is the result of incorrect design, faulty programming, or end-users failing to anticipate their needs properly. All that matters is that the business can't run its process as it wants, which means the software must be tweaked to permit it.
And yes, all of this does require trust. Without it, a business has much bigger fish to fry than fixing software defects.
- Bob
Posted by Bob Lewis on February 5, 2007 06:13 PM
February 03, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Encouraging critical thinking, or not
Dear Bob ...
Your topic (in "Non-Boolean governance," Keep the Joint Running, 1/29/2007) gave me an idea, so I thought I would try a practical application to test the theory. I floated a bad idea on purpose in a project meeting just to see how many of my subordinates would agree, and the results were astonishing – out of about 6 in the meeting, only one refuted the logic.
Afterwards, when I explained that it was a test there were some red faces. It shows how, even in an organization where free-thinking is encouraged, many are erroneously trying to earn favor by being agreeable. My comment was that if I wanted robots, we'd buy robots to agree with everything we say/do. We need people ready to challenge the status quo and push service delivery to the next level.
Thoughts?
- Experimentalist
Dear Experimenter ...
I'm not sure I agree with the tactic of mousetrapping your direct reports. On the other hand, you did make a telling point with them. So long as they didn't end up feeling like you set them up, it sounds like a win.
So here's my question to you: You say it's an environment that encourages free thinking. How do you encourage it? You might have accidentally encouraged uncritical thinking, as is the case if you've brought in the "professionals" who teach that when brainstorming, the group has to dully pass the conversational baton clockwise, in sequence, without anyone ever making a comment on anyone else's ideas.
It's also possible that you simply don't discourage free thinking. Certainly, not shooting people when they disagree with you is a positive. Still, it's different from active encouragement.
Understand, I'm not criticizing - I have no facts with which to do so (and I realize I'm bucking the trend by letting that stop me ... but I digress).
My advice, for whatever it's worth, is to look hard at whether, and how, you're actively encouraging critical thinking and open discussion. It isn't easy to get started, but once you have it creates an immensely rewarding environment.
- Bob
Posted by Bob Lewis on February 3, 2007 08:50 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
