"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
Policies vs. Principles
I had a great conversation on Friday with Mark and Ian about how smaller companies often have almost no policy manuals and employees are often expected to "do the right thing." When companies grow, this tends to get supplanted by lengthly books that attempt to capture the right behaviors in detailed rules that capture every scenario.
A better approach would be to hold onto the culture of "doing the right thing." This could be augmented with a book that captures stories and anecdotes of right and wrong behaviors that can occur. In his series of books, Patrick Lencioni teaches concepts through the use of fables.
Teaching with stories has the distinct advantage of being memorable. Many studies show that we remember information and concepts much better when they are wrapped into stories.
Another advantage is that when resented with a clear set of rules, people will tend to change their behavior just enough to circumvent rather than break the rule. Often this is not completely intentional. They don't want to break the rule so they read it throughly and figure out how they can achieve BOTH their desired outcome AND obey the rule. We often refer to this as obeying the letter of the rule but not the spirit.
When expectations are principle based rather than rule based, people tend to act in such a way as to respect the principle, then formulate their own behavioral guidelines that fit the moment much better than any black-and-white rules written years earlier. We might even think of these principles as capturing the condensed "spirit of the rules," since that seems to be what we really want followed anyway.
In a sense, this method treats employees as intelligent people who, when given guidance and ownership over the outcome, can act in a principled way that also agilely adapts to new situations as they arise.
In his book Stirring It Up, Gary Hirshberg speaks often about how they used a few simples principles to guide then in their decision making while they created and grew Stonyfield Farms.
We can achieve some amazing things when we simply raise our expectations.
A better approach would be to hold onto the culture of "doing the right thing." This could be augmented with a book that captures stories and anecdotes of right and wrong behaviors that can occur. In his series of books, Patrick Lencioni teaches concepts through the use of fables.
Teaching with stories has the distinct advantage of being memorable. Many studies show that we remember information and concepts much better when they are wrapped into stories.
Another advantage is that when resented with a clear set of rules, people will tend to change their behavior just enough to circumvent rather than break the rule. Often this is not completely intentional. They don't want to break the rule so they read it throughly and figure out how they can achieve BOTH their desired outcome AND obey the rule. We often refer to this as obeying the letter of the rule but not the spirit.
When expectations are principle based rather than rule based, people tend to act in such a way as to respect the principle, then formulate their own behavioral guidelines that fit the moment much better than any black-and-white rules written years earlier. We might even think of these principles as capturing the condensed "spirit of the rules," since that seems to be what we really want followed anyway.
In a sense, this method treats employees as intelligent people who, when given guidance and ownership over the outcome, can act in a principled way that also agilely adapts to new situations as they arise.
In his book Stirring It Up, Gary Hirshberg speaks often about how they used a few simples principles to guide then in their decision making while they created and grew Stonyfield Farms.
We can achieve some amazing things when we simply raise our expectations.
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Getting to Know Candidates: The interview flipped upside down.
During interviews it is common for a candidate to have between 3 and 6 one hour interviews. Often the purpose of each session is to determine if that person is right for "the position" or has the "right technical background" for the group. At some organizations the interviews are scripted or outlined to ensure each area is covered. In practice these efforts are short sighted. Consider another objective and method.
If instead of thinking of the interview process as trying to access the correct "binary result", hire or no hire. I propose the interview is an opportunity to get to "know who the candidate is professionally." What kind of jobs can they handle? Where are their passions? Where do they excel? And where do they falter? Rather than asking "Does this candidate fit in the role or group?" instead ask "What kinds of roles and groups would this candidate fit into?" I will explain further.
At times a candidate "bombs" an interview which means he has shown that he is not a good fit for the position availible. Now, significant expense has already been invested in scheduling time, preparation, etc. If we fail to figure out where the candidate might be useful, the effort has been a complete loss. The further interviewing time is either canceled or fails to gather any more data at all.
Getting to know the candidate means instead of "beating a dead horse," we use our intellect and agility to shift the interview to locate the areas the candidate shines. This will require a willingness to explore a bit. The end result is that you will be able to make valuable recommendations that the candidate might fit another role, or group, or company, or that he might consider brushing up on certain technologies or concepts.
Another benefit is that the candidate leaves the interview feeling like he had a positive experience. It is important that candidates feel known during the interview. in The Three Signs of a Miserable Job author Patrick Lencioni says that anonymity is a major factor in people being dissatisfied with their jobs. This feeling of anonymity can start right in the interview if the interviewer does not ask about the things the candidate feels is most important about their experiences and abilities.
Certainly in the tech industry, companies can become so focused on hiring someone who might be able to do ColdFusion, or MegaSort, or whatever, that they fail to realize that even though the candidate did that once in a role, it is not where they are focusing and not where they intend to focus. I have turned down offers before at companies that were interviews were completely focused on the companies needs and did not appear interested in my needs or interests.
So my advice to interviewers is get to know your candidates. My advice to interviewees, is if your interviewers are not interested in finding out who you are and who your are trying to become, move on. Great employees are in demand and it is a job hunters market. Find a place to work that is focused on people more than technology and more interested in who you are than what cog you can be in their machine.
If instead of thinking of the interview process as trying to access the correct "binary result", hire or no hire. I propose the interview is an opportunity to get to "know who the candidate is professionally." What kind of jobs can they handle? Where are their passions? Where do they excel? And where do they falter? Rather than asking "Does this candidate fit in the role or group?" instead ask "What kinds of roles and groups would this candidate fit into?" I will explain further.
At times a candidate "bombs" an interview which means he has shown that he is not a good fit for the position availible. Now, significant expense has already been invested in scheduling time, preparation, etc. If we fail to figure out where the candidate might be useful, the effort has been a complete loss. The further interviewing time is either canceled or fails to gather any more data at all.
Getting to know the candidate means instead of "beating a dead horse," we use our intellect and agility to shift the interview to locate the areas the candidate shines. This will require a willingness to explore a bit. The end result is that you will be able to make valuable recommendations that the candidate might fit another role, or group, or company, or that he might consider brushing up on certain technologies or concepts.
Another benefit is that the candidate leaves the interview feeling like he had a positive experience. It is important that candidates feel known during the interview. in The Three Signs of a Miserable Job author Patrick Lencioni says that anonymity is a major factor in people being dissatisfied with their jobs. This feeling of anonymity can start right in the interview if the interviewer does not ask about the things the candidate feels is most important about their experiences and abilities.
Certainly in the tech industry, companies can become so focused on hiring someone who might be able to do ColdFusion, or MegaSort, or whatever, that they fail to realize that even though the candidate did that once in a role, it is not where they are focusing and not where they intend to focus. I have turned down offers before at companies that were interviews were completely focused on the companies needs and did not appear interested in my needs or interests.
So my advice to interviewers is get to know your candidates. My advice to interviewees, is if your interviewers are not interested in finding out who you are and who your are trying to become, move on. Great employees are in demand and it is a job hunters market. Find a place to work that is focused on people more than technology and more interested in who you are than what cog you can be in their machine.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
A full bag-o-scrum
I just completed a two day scrum master training class. Between classes I was also reading a book on my Kindle called "User Stories Applied: For Agile Software Development." Now because I was reading it on the Kindle and I wanted to know more about the work scrum, I used the lookup feature. I selected a line of text that included "scrum" and chose "lookup" this resulted in a list of the words on that line with a brief definition. Selecting "scrum" I was given a thorough definition of the word. I knew it was a huddle of sorts in rugby. I did not know that it included people from both opposing teams. Nor did I know that the game ball is dropped into the middle and players struggle to get the ball out toward their side of the scrum. Scrum is used in British slang to mean a disorderly group of rowdy people. And the word "scrum" is an abbreviation of "scrummage." I have not yet confirmed if there is any correlation to the American football term "scrimmage."
So, a humorous elevator pitch for scrum can be "With scrum, our team will become a disorganized crowd of people who will start of by dropping the ball then fight to retrieve it."
More seriously, the training was an eye-opener in the sense that I have been doing scrum on teams for 6 years, and yet have never experienced scrum in its full implementation. The training has shown me that there are parts of scrum that get omitted in one team or another. These omissions are often the result of key decision makers not understanding or being resistant to scrum. Two key roles in the system are the Scrum Master and the Product Owner. In my experience, the product owner has either not existed, has been filed by the team manager or scrum master, or has been filed by a product manager who does not understand the product owner role or does not buy off on scrum.
Th product owner in scrum is part of the agile process, and must expect that the objectives in each sprint may not all be achieved. The sprint is a 1-4 week iteration of development, verification, and delivery. The benefit of managing the priorities of the next features in an agile way is to maximize the effectiveness of each sprint deliverable. The delivery will be more compelling if the features are related to some unifying story or experience from the users perspective.
One agile aspect of this role involves organizing the features such that if some are pushed out of the sprint and not completed the deliverable is still compelling. Also that if more items are pulled into the sprint that ones which improve the experience or at least don't detract from the theme are chosen.
So, a humorous elevator pitch for scrum can be "With scrum, our team will become a disorganized crowd of people who will start of by dropping the ball then fight to retrieve it."
More seriously, the training was an eye-opener in the sense that I have been doing scrum on teams for 6 years, and yet have never experienced scrum in its full implementation. The training has shown me that there are parts of scrum that get omitted in one team or another. These omissions are often the result of key decision makers not understanding or being resistant to scrum. Two key roles in the system are the Scrum Master and the Product Owner. In my experience, the product owner has either not existed, has been filed by the team manager or scrum master, or has been filed by a product manager who does not understand the product owner role or does not buy off on scrum.
Th product owner in scrum is part of the agile process, and must expect that the objectives in each sprint may not all be achieved. The sprint is a 1-4 week iteration of development, verification, and delivery. The benefit of managing the priorities of the next features in an agile way is to maximize the effectiveness of each sprint deliverable. The delivery will be more compelling if the features are related to some unifying story or experience from the users perspective.
One agile aspect of this role involves organizing the features such that if some are pushed out of the sprint and not completed the deliverable is still compelling. Also that if more items are pulled into the sprint that ones which improve the experience or at least don't detract from the theme are chosen.
Saturday, February 9, 2008
Reviews: Crucial Conversations and Crucial Confrontations
It's been a few years since I've last read these books, and rereading these again this week reminds me just how awesome they both are. From helping us understand ourselves, to helping us better understand others, these both give us the communication tools we need to navigate very challenging conversations.
Crucial Conversations
On Amazon On Kindle On Audible
Crucial Confrontations
On Amazon On Kindle On Audible
Crucial Conversations
On Amazon On Kindle On Audible
Crucial Confrontations
On Amazon On Kindle On Audible
Friday, February 8, 2008
Reviews: Meatball Sundae & Chasing Cool
These two books discuss recent trends in product design and marketing. More current companies understand their customers intimately, design products that appeal to these customers, and allow these customers to evangelize the products to others. More traditional companies tend to design products, sprinkle on some internet viral marketing techniques and "cool sub-culture" slang and endorsement.
Both books endorse following path of genuine customer connection, cooperative product creation, marketing, and support.
Meatball Sundae
On Amazon On Kindle On Audible
Chasing Cool
On Amazon On Kindle On Audible
Both books endorse following path of genuine customer connection, cooperative product creation, marketing, and support.
Meatball Sundae
On Amazon On Kindle On Audible
Chasing Cool
On Amazon On Kindle On Audible
Review: Made To Stick
This book is filled with great stories and explore why some stories and products remain stuck in our memories. This was without a doubt one of my favorite reads last year.
On Amazon On Kindle On Audible
On Amazon On Kindle On Audible
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Review: The Speed of Trust
When trust in relationship goes up, efficiency rises and costs are reduced. Trust refers to both intentions, actions, and competency. The Speed of Trust discusses these categories and their related actions, the observable evidence as a person or organization build or erodes a sense of trust.
The Speed of Trust is filled with tangible and memorable examples and stories. In each area is explicitly calls out each behavior that delivers a complete void of the desirable trust building behavior, such as an out-right lie. As well as the 'counterfeit behavior,' such as giving a false impression by telling part of the truth or misleading.
Another notable aspect of this book is the correlation between trust and the lower cost of doing business when business can operate with higher trust of employees and other businesses.
On Amazon On Kindle On Audible
The Speed of Trust is filled with tangible and memorable examples and stories. In each area is explicitly calls out each behavior that delivers a complete void of the desirable trust building behavior, such as an out-right lie. As well as the 'counterfeit behavior,' such as giving a false impression by telling part of the truth or misleading.
Another notable aspect of this book is the correlation between trust and the lower cost of doing business when business can operate with higher trust of employees and other businesses.
On Amazon On Kindle On Audible
Review: The Perfect Thing
This is an awesomely entertaining book about the creation of the iPod and the effect is has had on our culture. The Perfect Thing discusses technology, design processes, vision, marketing, and viral cultural phenomenon. It has instant credibility in that it focuses on what happened rather than on extracting patterns of reuse that might lead to a repeatable success. The iPod has an interesting history and makes a great story.
On Amazon On Kindle On Audible
On Amazon On Kindle On Audible
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Review: Emotional Design: Why We Love (or Hate) Everyday Objects
This book does an excellent job of describing the three levels which the human mind processes experiences. The purpose is to design products and experiences so they are enjoyable for each for each level, visceral, behavioral, and reflective.
The visceral experience occurs at a pre-conscious level. This is where first impressions are formed dictated by appearance. The behavioral level is where the experience of use in function (does the product work), performance (how well is the function is done), and usability (does the user understand how to make the product work). These two levels experience only affect without interpretation of the feelings. The reflective level assigns interpretations to the feelings (does using this product satisfy me?).
The skydiving experience challenges us to achieve awareness of and discipline over our visceral fears so we can focus on our performance. The photo to the left shows myself and a couple friends (Ben and Barry) skydiving in Washington state. (Photo taken by another friend, Ken)
This book continues to offer great explanations of these three levels and how designs can account the needs of each level.
Intentional Hiring
There are as many hiring practices out there as there are managers. In order to excel at hiring the right people we must continuously improve our process and the way we think.
When asked what their intention is in recruiting, the most common answer managers give me is to hire the "best people." Here is where the first problem starts. If there are 10 people interviewing and they are all below our desired level of competency, we are better not to hire any of them unless we can afford to place them in an intensive training program.
Second, I suggest that hiring the "right person" is better than hiring the "best person." "Hiring big" is a practice where an employer hires people who are much more skilled and experienced than needed for the job presently available. Where this can be beneficial to have overly talented people, it can work against the company when those new hires get bored.
When hiring-big the job is "small" compared to the persons current talents. Combine this with a need to sell the job and this fact may be lost resulting in a new employee expecting to be challenged end up being bored and frustrated instead.
The Innovator's Dilemma discusses the need for a new business development to be within an organization that will be excited by the potential size of the business. Likewise, new employees should be hired into roles that will provide challenge and growth opportunities. This is why we strive to hire the "right person" for the job.
What should we do if we find a big-candidate when we are hiring for a small role? If you feel the person is strong and a self starter and you'd like to find a role for them, consider hiring them into the role of finding their own job within the company. Explain where some of the opportunities are and that they should spend the first 30 days meeting groups and discussing opportunities. Then decide the group and role they are most passionate about.
This strategy can also work very well for businesses that are working on very secretive projects. Since few details of the work can be disclosed to an interviewee, the person must be sold on the "kind" of work being performed. Once the person is hired, let the person meet the teams, see the work and the business vision, and choose the group they want to work on.
When asked what their intention is in recruiting, the most common answer managers give me is to hire the "best people." Here is where the first problem starts. If there are 10 people interviewing and they are all below our desired level of competency, we are better not to hire any of them unless we can afford to place them in an intensive training program.
Second, I suggest that hiring the "right person" is better than hiring the "best person." "Hiring big" is a practice where an employer hires people who are much more skilled and experienced than needed for the job presently available. Where this can be beneficial to have overly talented people, it can work against the company when those new hires get bored.
When hiring-big the job is "small" compared to the persons current talents. Combine this with a need to sell the job and this fact may be lost resulting in a new employee expecting to be challenged end up being bored and frustrated instead.
The Innovator's Dilemma discusses the need for a new business development to be within an organization that will be excited by the potential size of the business. Likewise, new employees should be hired into roles that will provide challenge and growth opportunities. This is why we strive to hire the "right person" for the job.
What should we do if we find a big-candidate when we are hiring for a small role? If you feel the person is strong and a self starter and you'd like to find a role for them, consider hiring them into the role of finding their own job within the company. Explain where some of the opportunities are and that they should spend the first 30 days meeting groups and discussing opportunities. Then decide the group and role they are most passionate about.
This strategy can also work very well for businesses that are working on very secretive projects. Since few details of the work can be disclosed to an interviewee, the person must be sold on the "kind" of work being performed. Once the person is hired, let the person meet the teams, see the work and the business vision, and choose the group they want to work on.
What is in a name? work+flow=workflow
More than 10 years ago Rhonda and I both worked on software platforms designed to coordinate activities within companies. Such systems have gone by many names such as "workflow," "process management," and "routing management."
I have yet to see a single marketing campaign capture the essence of the products or benefits. The focus all to often is on the technology; the work queues, reporting, control logic, rules engine, etc. This is akin to selling a car by focusing on the metallurgy of the piston heads.
The problem is that companies have three primary ways of communicating: verbal, email, and database records. With verbal communications the number of possible outcomes is infinite, limited only by the creativity of the people involved. Given a conversation about any piece of work the needs to move forward, the conversation could result in that piece of work going to literally any single person in the company. Where that is powerful on one hand, that power should only be wielded in a rare few occasions when warranted. A second problem with verbal communications is that there is no preserved historical record of the decision.
Email presents the same infinite possible outcomes as verbal conversations, though it does have the advantage of leaving a historical record for some amount of time. Often that record is limited by legal document retention guidelines which cause old email to be deleted after 6 months or 1 year.
Infinite outcomes works against what people want most companies to accomplish: consistent and repeatable outcomes. Reliability and efficiency are characteristics we look for in the companies we choose to trust with our business. We want to trust that the company will get the work done without us calling multiple times. We also want to trust the company will get the work done in a predicable amount of time.
To reign in this infinite flow of work, database systems are used for holding work requests and tracking what state the work is in. These systems often also track the history of state changes for the work. An order for a car might go through prospect, sales presentation, order received, awaiting delivery, and delivered states. The software in these systems restricts how a request changes from one state to another. These are referred to as business rules.
Companies frequently undergo strikingly similar learning curves as they mature. They first learn they are too big to operate exclusively in verbal and email communications. Work gets "lost" and customers complain. So the companies add a database to track customer requests and add states for the requests as each situation is uncovered. Next some customer issue arises that they cannot explain what happened, and the company realises the need for a change history on the customer requests. This audit trail will help them understand the history of a future request when a problem arises.
This is the point which many company systems plateau. Why try to improve from here?
First consider that to understand the progress of the company, this database can be a great asset. Reports can be created to demonstrate the amount of work the company or each department are achieving over time.
Second consider that the databases now implemented look very similar across a multitude of companies. Yes, the specific order details, materials, etc. are specific to the companies needs. The similarities exist in the request tracking and reporting. In short, there are work requests, work states, and work transitions. There is a work transition history, and reporting. This accounts for a lot of custom design and code that could be generic and cheaper.
Third consider that the business logic that controls the transition of work from one state to another is sometimes written in source code, and sometimes is a completely manual process. These both are difficult for managers to review and improve upon. In order to improve the company, we must be able to understand how the company works. We must be able to answer the question, "How does work flow through our company?"
To address this we need a system that allows us to describe the business logic that controls the transition of work from one state to another. This description would be in a format that is close to what managers are familiar with while at the same time can be interpreted by the software. This results in their only being a finite number of ways work can flow through a company.
Why has workflow management software not become a part of the standard suite of business software?
First the companies that need it don't realize the need until the are several years into the development of their own custom software. They are heavily invested down the path of implementing and using proprietary database software. Change is a daunting prospect.
Second, the companies offering workflow solutions do not promote and demonstrate solutions that can augment existing database solutions. The products are often sold as all or nothing packages.
An easier to adopt workflow system would include web service calls to denote actions on work items. The services would simply track work items, states, and transitions as arbitrary entries relating back to the customer's database. The existing database reports would still show the static state of the work, while the workflow system would offer reports to show rates of progress. Over time, business rules can be added to the service as well as small bit of user interface implemented as HTML/AJAX code snippets.
In essence, the workflow management, reporting, business rules, and workflow specific user interface components can be offered as a light weight web service based product that is easy to try out, buy, and use increasingly over time.
I have yet to see a single marketing campaign capture the essence of the products or benefits. The focus all to often is on the technology; the work queues, reporting, control logic, rules engine, etc. This is akin to selling a car by focusing on the metallurgy of the piston heads.
The problem is that companies have three primary ways of communicating: verbal, email, and database records. With verbal communications the number of possible outcomes is infinite, limited only by the creativity of the people involved. Given a conversation about any piece of work the needs to move forward, the conversation could result in that piece of work going to literally any single person in the company. Where that is powerful on one hand, that power should only be wielded in a rare few occasions when warranted. A second problem with verbal communications is that there is no preserved historical record of the decision.
Email presents the same infinite possible outcomes as verbal conversations, though it does have the advantage of leaving a historical record for some amount of time. Often that record is limited by legal document retention guidelines which cause old email to be deleted after 6 months or 1 year.
Infinite outcomes works against what people want most companies to accomplish: consistent and repeatable outcomes. Reliability and efficiency are characteristics we look for in the companies we choose to trust with our business. We want to trust that the company will get the work done without us calling multiple times. We also want to trust the company will get the work done in a predicable amount of time.
To reign in this infinite flow of work, database systems are used for holding work requests and tracking what state the work is in. These systems often also track the history of state changes for the work. An order for a car might go through prospect, sales presentation, order received, awaiting delivery, and delivered states. The software in these systems restricts how a request changes from one state to another. These are referred to as business rules.
Companies frequently undergo strikingly similar learning curves as they mature. They first learn they are too big to operate exclusively in verbal and email communications. Work gets "lost" and customers complain. So the companies add a database to track customer requests and add states for the requests as each situation is uncovered. Next some customer issue arises that they cannot explain what happened, and the company realises the need for a change history on the customer requests. This audit trail will help them understand the history of a future request when a problem arises.
This is the point which many company systems plateau. Why try to improve from here?
First consider that to understand the progress of the company, this database can be a great asset. Reports can be created to demonstrate the amount of work the company or each department are achieving over time.
Second consider that the databases now implemented look very similar across a multitude of companies. Yes, the specific order details, materials, etc. are specific to the companies needs. The similarities exist in the request tracking and reporting. In short, there are work requests, work states, and work transitions. There is a work transition history, and reporting. This accounts for a lot of custom design and code that could be generic and cheaper.
Third consider that the business logic that controls the transition of work from one state to another is sometimes written in source code, and sometimes is a completely manual process. These both are difficult for managers to review and improve upon. In order to improve the company, we must be able to understand how the company works. We must be able to answer the question, "How does work flow through our company?"
To address this we need a system that allows us to describe the business logic that controls the transition of work from one state to another. This description would be in a format that is close to what managers are familiar with while at the same time can be interpreted by the software. This results in their only being a finite number of ways work can flow through a company.
Why has workflow management software not become a part of the standard suite of business software?
First the companies that need it don't realize the need until the are several years into the development of their own custom software. They are heavily invested down the path of implementing and using proprietary database software. Change is a daunting prospect.
Second, the companies offering workflow solutions do not promote and demonstrate solutions that can augment existing database solutions. The products are often sold as all or nothing packages.
An easier to adopt workflow system would include web service calls to denote actions on work items. The services would simply track work items, states, and transitions as arbitrary entries relating back to the customer's database. The existing database reports would still show the static state of the work, while the workflow system would offer reports to show rates of progress. Over time, business rules can be added to the service as well as small bit of user interface implemented as HTML/AJAX code snippets.
In essence, the workflow management, reporting, business rules, and workflow specific user interface components can be offered as a light weight web service based product that is easy to try out, buy, and use increasingly over time.
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Review: Change The Way You See Everything
This visually awesome book was given to me by Jon at Microsoft. It uses a series of stunning photos, visual effects, and inspiring quotes to motivate the reader to try a more positive approach to thinking about challenges as opportunities.
Though the message is not extremely new or deep, the rich visuals make this a book worth sharing.
Blue Ocean Strategy and Positioning
Both of these books discuss how avoiding competition by selling products that are distinct from competing products makes competition irrelevent. Positioning takes a more marketing driven approach whereas Blue Ocean Strategies presents a methodology for analysing what the characteristics are of existing products including a technique for drawing the profile. This allows us to draw a unique profile then define a product that delivers on the new profile shape.
Positioning: The Battle for Your Mind
On Amazon On Audible
Blue Ocean Strategies: How to Create Uncontested Market Space and Make Competition Irrelevant
On Amazon On Audible
Positioning: The Battle for Your Mind
On Amazon On Audible
Blue Ocean Strategies: How to Create Uncontested Market Space and Make Competition Irrelevant
On Amazon On Audible
Monday, January 14, 2008
iWoz and "The Second Coming of Steve Jobs"
I am not really interested in famous people per se. I am quite interested in what traits allow people to succeed. These two books complement each other quite nicely. Both books discuss the trials and tribulations of building products and organizations. They also capture a variety of personality traits and conflicts that are interesting to see develop and play off of each other.
In iWoz I particularly enjoyed Steve's accounts of developing electronics as a kid. I brought back fond memories of the excitement I felt in building electronic devices at age 8.
I enjoyed both of these books, and find myself wanting to hear more stories of the creation of great products. Having created a couple great products and quite a few mediocre ones, and a couple phenomenal flops I'd like to know more about what work environments succeed at building bold innovative products.
iWoz
On Amazon On Kindle On Audible
The Second Coming of Steve Jobs
On Amazon On Kindle On Audible
In iWoz I particularly enjoyed Steve's accounts of developing electronics as a kid. I brought back fond memories of the excitement I felt in building electronic devices at age 8.
I enjoyed both of these books, and find myself wanting to hear more stories of the creation of great products. Having created a couple great products and quite a few mediocre ones, and a couple phenomenal flops I'd like to know more about what work environments succeed at building bold innovative products.
iWoz
On Amazon On Kindle On Audible
The Second Coming of Steve Jobs
On Amazon On Kindle On Audible
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
