"Bad meetings exact a tool on the human beings who have to endure them."
In his book, Death by Meeting, Patrick Lencioni discusses issues that make most meetings ineffective and an approach to improve the effectiveness of meetings by clearly defining five different types or formats of meetings and how and when they can be used. Patrick explains that the typical ineffective recurring meeting can be considered "meeting stew" because the organizer tries to achieve too many objectives. These include, status updates, tactical discussions important to the tasks for the week, and strategic discussions important for long term planning.
The conflicting nature of these discussions requires that they are better separated into meetings at different intervals more appropriate to the time critical nature of the topic. The separation also gives the participants the opportunity to reset their mental mode for either the tactical or strategic discussion.
Patrick suggests daily stand-up status meetings(where appropriate to the organization), weekly tactical meetings, monthly strategic meetings, and quarterly or semi-annual off-site meetings. The tactical meetings begins with a lightning round where each participant discloses the top 3 tasks they are working on for the week. After this, an agenda is formed based on hot tactical issues for the week. Any more strategic issues are taken off of the table and placed on a list for discussion at a strategy meeting.
The agenda for monthly strategy meetings is formed by choosing 2-3 top issues on the strategy issues list for discussion. This should be done far enough in advance for the participants to prepare by researching related information. If a strategic issue arises that is too important to wait for the monthly strategic meeting, then an adhoc strategic meeting can be held. Emphasis is placed on maintaining a distinction between tactical(weekly) issues and strategic(longer term) issues.
Like many of Patrick's books, this is a quick and easy read, and the audio verion is enjoyable and can be listened to in a single long walk.
On Amazon On Kindle On Audible
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Innovation = Invention + Adoption
I have been interested in evangelism since I read my first book by Guy Kawasaki. It struck a chord with me because I have worked on some great and now patented technologies that failed to flourish in the marketplace.
Helen introduced me to a paper from the ACM 2006 "Innovation as a Language". The thesis is that often the notions of invention and innovation are confused as the same. This article distinguished innovation by saying it required a behavioural change of adoption. So in order to qualify as an innovation, people had to start using the innovation.
Indeed reading various definitions of innovation, there are some that call out an innovation is the introduction of something in into customs, rites, etc.
Though semantically the argument is on weak ground, I do see the value in distinguishing between that those new things that are invented and left to sit on the shelf, and the ones that are invented, then refined and packaged to be marketable, taken to market, and driven to ubiquity in adoption.
Edison had invented a couple thousand light bulbs before he had invented the first one that could stay lit for the prolonged period of time needed to be feasible in daily commercial use. If he had stopped before the concept were refined, packaged, and ubiquitous we might well think of someone else name in relationship the the light bulb.
Patrick said one common technique in research is to simply invent as many new ideas one can and let the, sit on a shelf until someone comes along and finds a use for it. I suspect that the number of inventions sitting out in the long tail of non-adoption so greatly outweighs the number of inventions in the short head of highly adopted technology that one might better win by buying a lottery ticket than by inventing en-bulk and skipping product focus, refinement, and evangelism.
Helen introduced me to a paper from the ACM 2006 "Innovation as a Language". The thesis is that often the notions of invention and innovation are confused as the same. This article distinguished innovation by saying it required a behavioural change of adoption. So in order to qualify as an innovation, people had to start using the innovation.
Indeed reading various definitions of innovation, there are some that call out an innovation is the introduction of something in into customs, rites, etc.
Though semantically the argument is on weak ground, I do see the value in distinguishing between that those new things that are invented and left to sit on the shelf, and the ones that are invented, then refined and packaged to be marketable, taken to market, and driven to ubiquity in adoption.
Edison had invented a couple thousand light bulbs before he had invented the first one that could stay lit for the prolonged period of time needed to be feasible in daily commercial use. If he had stopped before the concept were refined, packaged, and ubiquitous we might well think of someone else name in relationship the the light bulb.
Patrick said one common technique in research is to simply invent as many new ideas one can and let the, sit on a shelf until someone comes along and finds a use for it. I suspect that the number of inventions sitting out in the long tail of non-adoption so greatly outweighs the number of inventions in the short head of highly adopted technology that one might better win by buying a lottery ticket than by inventing en-bulk and skipping product focus, refinement, and evangelism.
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Keeping Connected: People First
Some years ago I realized that my focus on technology was a suboptimal ordering of my priorities. Sure technology is excited and new and such, but this is exactly why it should be prioritized lower than relationships with people.
Consider the longevity of the people, companies, and products/technologies we are working on today. The people will outlast the companies. The companies will outlast the technologies. In 20 years most of the technologies and companies we are working with today will be long gone. The many of the people we will continue to run into. Why? Well, each person is an independent being with a will and motivation to adapt as necessary to stay relevant in the industry. Companies try to do this and many succeed. And many fail. People are so much more resilient.
One challenge I have seen is keeping in touch with people as they move and switch companies. I rely on LinkedIn.com greatly. It stores information about what companies I worked at and when. It also stores acquaintances I have made and these connections are verified by both people.
Why is this useful? A few weeks ago I reconnected with someone I worked with 18 years ago. How did this occur? We had both entered in the company and years we worked there. LinkedIn offered a suggested that we might know one another, and sure enough we did. A week later I reconnected with Larry who I worked with 14 years ago.
This morning I was riding my bike as a test commute to the office. I stopped at Starbucks and bumped into Paul who I worked for last year. He had received a patent plaque from my last patent and had not been able to locate contact info for me. I reminded him that we are connected through LinkedIn and that gives him access to my profile including contact email, CV/Resume URL, blog URL, and my current status. He had not though of LinkedIn as a resource in that way.
So how much effort does linked in take to maintain? About one per month, I spend perhaps 30 minutes looking to see if there is anyone new I should send requests to. In email footers I display my LinkedIn public profile URL. And I encourage people to use it as a tool to stay connected with people and show people that you value your connect to others.
Consider the longevity of the people, companies, and products/technologies we are working on today. The people will outlast the companies. The companies will outlast the technologies. In 20 years most of the technologies and companies we are working with today will be long gone. The many of the people we will continue to run into. Why? Well, each person is an independent being with a will and motivation to adapt as necessary to stay relevant in the industry. Companies try to do this and many succeed. And many fail. People are so much more resilient.
One challenge I have seen is keeping in touch with people as they move and switch companies. I rely on LinkedIn.com greatly. It stores information about what companies I worked at and when. It also stores acquaintances I have made and these connections are verified by both people.
Why is this useful? A few weeks ago I reconnected with someone I worked with 18 years ago. How did this occur? We had both entered in the company and years we worked there. LinkedIn offered a suggested that we might know one another, and sure enough we did. A week later I reconnected with Larry who I worked with 14 years ago.
This morning I was riding my bike as a test commute to the office. I stopped at Starbucks and bumped into Paul who I worked for last year. He had received a patent plaque from my last patent and had not been able to locate contact info for me. I reminded him that we are connected through LinkedIn and that gives him access to my profile including contact email, CV/Resume URL, blog URL, and my current status. He had not though of LinkedIn as a resource in that way.
So how much effort does linked in take to maintain? About one per month, I spend perhaps 30 minutes looking to see if there is anyone new I should send requests to. In email footers I display my LinkedIn public profile URL. And I encourage people to use it as a tool to stay connected with people and show people that you value your connect to others.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Frugal vs. Cheap
I've heard the term frugal used often to justify decision making. I have also witnessed employees eyes rolling rants start, and morale dip after some uses. In the past couple months I have asked many people how they would differentiate frugal and cheap.
Frugal holds positive connotations and cheap holds negative ones. Frugality can trigger conservativeness and money saving traits in employees whereas cheapness often has the opposite effect.
In describing the difference many people gave examples. Such as a manager talking to an employee for 15 minutes about how a $7 parking fee on an expense report should have been avoided as an example of cheap. Or that buying a generic brand of pen for company office supplies resulting in employees having one or more frustrating episodes per week where their work is interrupted by a pen that just ceases to write.
Examples of frugal tend more in the direction of encouraging employees to turn off lights when not in use or removing lights from vending machines where the advertising is not necessary.
Most people are unable to give a tangible definition. One visceral explanation is that cheapness makes us feel bad, whereas frugality still involves sacrifice but makes us feel good. When I shared this it received plenty of affirmative nods.
Tori suggested where cheapness and frugality are similar in that they represent saving money, they differ in the quality of the result. A frugal decision saves money and does not reduce quality in substantive areas. (i.e. buying a quality product at a discount) A cheap decision has a final lower quality result. (i.e. buying a lower quality product)
Ken offered an example that made a key distinction that cheapness might only consider the short term cost savings whereas frugality considers longer term costs. Cheapness might always lead us to buy the least expensive option whereas frugality could lead us to spend a little more money for a solution that has greater longevity.
A handy exercise is to make a list of 3 events that reflect cheapness and 3 that reflect frugality in the workplace from your own experience. Reflect on that list and think of how it made you and other employees feel. Encourage others to make their own lists. And strive to a higher standard in future decisions to preserve morale and long term productivity over short term minor cost savings.
Frugal holds positive connotations and cheap holds negative ones. Frugality can trigger conservativeness and money saving traits in employees whereas cheapness often has the opposite effect.
In describing the difference many people gave examples. Such as a manager talking to an employee for 15 minutes about how a $7 parking fee on an expense report should have been avoided as an example of cheap. Or that buying a generic brand of pen for company office supplies resulting in employees having one or more frustrating episodes per week where their work is interrupted by a pen that just ceases to write.
Examples of frugal tend more in the direction of encouraging employees to turn off lights when not in use or removing lights from vending machines where the advertising is not necessary.
Most people are unable to give a tangible definition. One visceral explanation is that cheapness makes us feel bad, whereas frugality still involves sacrifice but makes us feel good. When I shared this it received plenty of affirmative nods.
Tori suggested where cheapness and frugality are similar in that they represent saving money, they differ in the quality of the result. A frugal decision saves money and does not reduce quality in substantive areas. (i.e. buying a quality product at a discount) A cheap decision has a final lower quality result. (i.e. buying a lower quality product)
Ken offered an example that made a key distinction that cheapness might only consider the short term cost savings whereas frugality considers longer term costs. Cheapness might always lead us to buy the least expensive option whereas frugality could lead us to spend a little more money for a solution that has greater longevity.
A handy exercise is to make a list of 3 events that reflect cheapness and 3 that reflect frugality in the workplace from your own experience. Reflect on that list and think of how it made you and other employees feel. Encourage others to make their own lists. And strive to a higher standard in future decisions to preserve morale and long term productivity over short term minor cost savings.
Review: The Dip
Rob recommended, The Dip, to me. And I have since bought and given multiple copies away. Though the subtitle of the book is "A Little Book That Teaches you When to Quit (And When To Stick)." This creates a impression that it is more about quitting than sticking. It also makes it a sensitive book to carry at work.
In reality, the book is about helping us identify different situations so we can better choose a course of action. The Dip also attempts to motivate us to try some new course of action if we are not achieving traction in our current activity. Perhaps we need to work harder or with an increased focus in get past some hurdles. Or perhaps we need to engage new techniques or people to achieve progress. And finally, we might evaluate the situation and decided that the potential gains do not justify the costs of getting past the dip.
This book is a quick and easy read and the audio book is quite enjoyable as well. Thanks Rob for the great recommendation! I have also realized that I need to check out the other books by Seth Godin (pronounced: go-din hey audio books are great for learning how to properly pronounces names)
On Amazon On Audible
In reality, the book is about helping us identify different situations so we can better choose a course of action. The Dip also attempts to motivate us to try some new course of action if we are not achieving traction in our current activity. Perhaps we need to work harder or with an increased focus in get past some hurdles. Or perhaps we need to engage new techniques or people to achieve progress. And finally, we might evaluate the situation and decided that the potential gains do not justify the costs of getting past the dip.
This book is a quick and easy read and the audio book is quite enjoyable as well. Thanks Rob for the great recommendation! I have also realized that I need to check out the other books by Seth Godin (pronounced: go-din hey audio books are great for learning how to properly pronounces names)
On Amazon On Audible
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Review: Big Think Strategy
I just finished reading Big Think Strategy: How to Leverage Bold Ideas and Leave Small Thinking Behind. Another excellent book, it discusses the behaviors of people who achieve bold accomplishments. Specifically what he calls the "the big three of Big Think": guts, passion, and perseverance. And my favorite quote in the book: "Leading a Big Think project requires guts, passion, and perseverance; you must have an agenda and consult various people by moving in different circles."
Unfortunately it is not availible on Kindle. The audio version was a great and easy listen.
On Amazon On Audible
Unfortunately it is not availible on Kindle. The audio version was a great and easy listen.
On Amazon On Audible
Monday, March 24, 2008
Currently Reading: The Back of the Napkin
The Back of the Napkin is a book that I am just starting and it is already impressing me. It explains techniques everyone can use to create pictures and diagrams that help solve problems.
I'll post more when I am done.
On Amazon On Kindle
I'll post more when I am done.
On Amazon On Kindle
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
