Sponsored Links

jobs!

Online Chat

Use the window below to chat with me (if I'm online ...)

Use the edit nick field above to let me see your name.

cazh1: on Business, Information, and Technology

Thoughts and observations on the intersection of technology and business; searching for better understanding of what's relevant, where's the value, and (always) what's the goal ...

Monday, June 29, 2009

Over / Under Communication for Project Managers

It is often said that you can't over-communicate, but I'm willing to bet most folks - and especially your project sponsors - underestimate the cost and effort of this critical component of project management. Consider this fair warning - and a good checklist for folks wanting to get into IT, project, or functional management.

Media

To achieve any decent amount of success, you have to be a good communicator with both face-to-face and written / published media.

And by "good" I mean both "comfortable" and "effective". You should feel good in your own skin, confident that you can carry a conversation at all levels of an organization. And you also have to be an effective communicator - able to get your point across with the right amount of detail, not too much or too little. Another effectiveness challenge is the ability to balance between personalized, one-on-one written & oral communication, and insightful, understandable mass communication.

Translations

You may not realize how many different "languages" you speak - and effective managers must be reasonably fluent ...
  • Languages - Finance, Operations, Sales & Marketing; business groups have just as many confusing specialty words as the techies in IT
  • Dialects - Do you speak Oracle or SAPanese? Experienced in small companies or large corporations? Public vs. private? Entrepreneurial or slow growth? High volume low profit FERTs, or low volume, high margin custom products? The concepts are all the same, but sometimes the specific words are different.
  • Slang - Slightly different than dialects - all companies, organizations have local shorthand term so that over the years in their particular organization to mean very specific, nuanced things.
  • Sound Bites - A form of speech where a complicated topic is reduced to a single word or phrase. For example; ATP. Are we talking about master data, settings on time fences, the process of checking for availability, or the policies around A, B, C and D companies? Sound bites can sneak into conversations and you could be discoursing for 15 minutes before you realize you're talking about two vastly different things.
  • Strata - Management v. line, Middle v. executive management. Depending on what level of the organization you're talking to, you will need to change the level of detail that you go into. Typically, higher up in the company means a lower level of detail that they want to wade through.
Change Management

Volumes have been written on this topic, but most people have trouble coming up with a concise definition of what this means. To oversimplify - but drive right to point: change management is typically about delivering "bad news".

However, "bad" can mean different things. It can be "disappointment": the date will slip, we're over budget, or we can't fit this feature request into the schedule. However, adjusting expectations as early as possible is one of the basic skills of a good project manager. You need to be willing to deliver bad news like this as early as possible.

The other significant area of "bad" - walking into an organization, a group of people, or a individual's cube, and letting them know that the way they have been doing things for years is about to change. Sure, it's easy to say that "change is hard" and "change is inevitable", but you yourself probably don't like change in your established rituals. Empathy is the key here.

Lessons Learned

As with many other things, the more project communication you do, the better you get. Some of the more common lessons learned:
  • Defensive project teams will often negotiate for delay by asking for / waiting for More Communication, and complaining about Not Enough Communication
  • In any project plan, you will underestimate the time required for communication, the number of times you'll have to repeat the message, and the ability of the team to consume your communication in various forms of delivery media
  • You will definitely underestimate the time required for follow-up and follow-through to make sure it's Done
  • You will overestimate the amount and quality of existing documentation, and the ability of the project team to bridge the gap to the required level of documentation
Here's the killer -
  • If you try explaining to management about the problems / challenges of communication, they won't listen and/or won't understand (yes, that is a tight loop)
Machines will never replace us - but this is one case where sometimes, you might wish they could.

Previously ...

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , ,

Invisible Technorati Tags:
, , , ,



Labels: , , , , , ,

Sunday, June 14, 2009

Failing Faster

Here is a simple question to ask yourself: do I insist on solving problems myself? A noble goal, until it takes too long to get the answer. Why don't we fail fast enough to ask the question to someone who knows? Remember, we pay a ton of money for annual maintenance to our enterprise software providers, so we should [more quickly] be "giving up", and submitting the question to the "experts" to get to answers quickly.

In an earlier post, I asked Would you like me to Google that for you?, which is kind of a sideways slam - IT people can and should be able to get questions answered on their own. So, why is it that some folks search Google or consult other experts, and get their questions answered quickly - versus insisting on figuring things out for themselves? My personal theory is that they're not "lazy" enough; I've got many other things to do, so I want to find a quick way to answer those questions. (Note that laziness also makes me want to find the good, solid solution and not the quick-and-dirty one, because I don't want to have to come back later - I'm proactively lazy.)

It possibly has something to do with maintaining face in front of your manager ("I think someone expects me to figure this out …"). Corporate culture may tend towards a desire to get something "done to quality"; I have to get 100% of my requirements into the finished project, and if it takes a long time - so be it. Or, it could just be that you are lost in the problem, and are not aware that time is flying and nothing is happening.

It may take a bit of humility, but the truth is often more humbling - folks don't care if you solve the problem, they just want the problem solved.

However, it is also true that when the dust settles, people will remember that you got the problem resolved - method is less important than results.

Previously ...

Technorati Tags: , , , , , ,

Invisible Technorati Tags: , , ,

Labels: , , , ,

Saturday, May 30, 2009

Who owns Master Data in your company?

I've had to respond to this question, inside and outside of the company, in a number of different conversations over the past few days. It's interesting, because this is one of those conversations where semantics mean a lot - what people say is just as important as what people don't say. I only mean that people assume their listeners have precisely the same understanding of the concepts - which is often a mistake.

Case in point - who owns the Master Data? It seems obvious to many IT folks, having dealt with ERP and data warehousing in the past,  that the business owns the Master Data - it's their business, right? Then why so often does the business look to IT to take the lead on cleansing / populating / defining / loading Master Data?

Business owns the Master Data

... they make the decisions on specifics. What should the next item number be? How should we structure the routings?  Who defines the standards for bin / storage location / building / plant / campus identifiers? What is the desired format for capturing customer street addresses consistently? How will we set up the chart of accounts?

The business knows that who and the why of Master Data.

On the other hand, and in most companies ...

IT pwns the Master Data

Yes that is the correct spelling. For those who don't know, it’s a hacker term; when I pwn the system, I have a root, I have a system admin access. I understand the technical underpinnings and details - I know how everything fits together. I know how to do anything I want with the system.

In Master Data terms - IT understands the data architecture and the interdependencies. They know all the transactions required to enter data into the system, and what security roles are in place to limit access to those transactions. IT also has tools and knowledge on how to extract data from the database and batch import data en masse.

IT knows the what, when, and how of Master Data.

What does that mean?

When an organization needs to get its Master Data in shape, it's going to be a team effort between business and IT. The business must take the lead, making and clarifying decisions and driving the details. But IT absolutely needs to be right by their side, helping with the mechanics. 

Previously ...

Technorati Tags: , , , , , ,

Invisible Technorati Tags: , , ,

Labels: , , , , , ,

Saturday, May 16, 2009

Notes from SAPPHIRE 09

Yesterday at work was "catch-up day" from a week at SAPPHIRE 2009, the annual user conference for SAP. As with the JDA/Manugistics conference earlier this year, there were concerns that attendance was going to be low, because so many companies are limiting travel expense. At the conference, I did hear that attendance was only was 60% lower than last year.

Conferences like this are great opportunities for IT to do a ton of learning - about the specific technology, of course, but also about the state of mobile computing and collaboration, tools that we are apparently trying to get the rest of the business world to adopt. Experiential learning, real-world experience - always better to talk about something that you know works / doesn't work in a practical setting. (No, I don't suggest you replace Quicken with SAP at home, although that might be a growth area for BbD).

Twitter at a Conference

I wrote up my trip report / internal blog entry yesterday (Friday), but I was twittering a lot during some of the sessions, so it was an easy write up - I just cut-and-paste from my personal timeline. Using the Blackberry during the conference was a pretty good experience; I could take fairly detailed notes on what was being said - plus, I can throw out passing Tweets on the way. Near-real time knowledge sharing - very nice for folks in the Tweeterverse, watching the information go by.

Unfortunately, it's a bit difficult to engage in a Tweet-versation with these client devices; the screen is too small, and you only see what you are typing. I did, however, latch on to the #sapphire09 hash tag to come up with a workable monitoring process. I found that search.twitter.com presents a decent RSS feed, one that the Blackberry browser consumes quite nicely. I don't know if this is a "native" RSS reader in the blackberry, but it worked amazingly well - I made a passing mention of one of the sessions I attended, and someone asked for more detail - so I ended up tweeting almost every slide.

Apotheker

The Tuesday morning address by Leo Apotheker started with some doom and gloom about the economy, but that was just a lead-in to SAP's new branding message of promoting "clarity" for the enterprise; making pertinent business information easy to access, easy to see. Some of my tweets from the speech … I clearly (sic) have a different editorial style ...
  • Apoetheker starting with the doom and gloom #sapphire09 7:38 AM May 12th
  • My inner cynic is subsiding - I actually like the appeal for "clarity" #sapphire09 7:42 AM May 12th
  • Are "clear enterprises" like "glass houses"? (Sorry, cynic is back) #sapphire09 7:44 AM May 12th
  • Is he about to say sap could have prevented the economic collapse? #sapphire09 7:56 AM May 12th
  • Ah, just the story of how goldman sachs did ok because they actively manage risk #sapphire09 7:57 AM May 12th
  • We need a simple example of how a manufacturer manages risk #sapphire09 7:58 AM May 12th
  • SUGEN KPI Framework for enterprise support - nice focus on transparency #sapphire09 7:59 AM May 12th
  • Props - a pretty effective live demo of a blackberry enabled work process #sapphire09 8:03 AM May 12th
  • The carbon footprint app looks interesting - this is a recurring theme for recent presentations for me #sapphire09 8:17 AM May 12th
  • I think its a harsh. retroactive self criticism when this "speedy query" demo admits that a simple query would take 'weeks' #sapphire09 8:27 AM May 12th
  • SRO crowd at presentation for information "dashboards" - yet another recurring topic, still unmet need #sapphire09 1:11 PM May 12th
  • Sap guy was apparently unable to say "eat our own dogfood", too closely related to microsoft hhh #sapphire09 1:19 PM May 12th

The most interesting areas of Leo's conversation had to do with the metrics being created by SUGEN (not), a collection of all the national user groups (like ASUG). SAP continues to get lots of pushback from the customer base about their increased support fees, and these metrics are going to allow us all to see how SAP is performing.

Plattner

The Wednesday morning address by Hasso Plattner, one of the founders of SAP and a pretty interesting guy, started out like a technical lecture at engineering school about in-memory databases and columnar data. By the end, it had transitioned to a Business Objects demo and a tool "easy enough that a CEO can use it".  Here are some tweets from that speech …

  • Hasso on speed [sic] - spotlighting the reams of data and the need for decent access tools #sapphire09 7:44 AM May 13th
  • Hasso is very professorial - if it weren't for the subject matter, methinks more would pass on the talk #sapphire09 7:53 AM May 13th
  • Ok, reading other #sapphire09  tweets now - is a shoe dropping right now? Re sap and hardware ... #sapphire09 7:57 AM May 13th
  • Someone should register spaghettibeforecooking.com #sapphire09 7:59 AM May 13th
  • Maybe hasso's point is that clarity / speed yap from yesterday is not smoke and mirrors - solid tech supporting this sales stuff #sapphire09 8:16 AM May 13th
  • Insert only - like the old one-write accounting systems - ledgers in pen. Make a mistake, back it out. Complete auditability #sapphire09 8:19 AM May 13th
  • Is insert only / read only db stuff analogous to RISC chips? Who needs elegance when you think Real Fast. #sapphire09 8:20 AM May 13th
  • Head-snapping shift from professor to jester #sapphire09 8:23 AM May 13th
  • Hasso rips on EIE processing (everything in excel) #sapphire09 8:24 AM May 13th
  • Oh, I think he just said he is talking about t-rex #sapphire09 8:29 AM May 13th
  • Hasso is definitly tech at heart, rips into classic demo style of demo on mini data set #sapphire09 8:30 AM May 13th
  • hasso's enthusiasm is honest, like the literate engineer given a moment of exec management's attention #sapphire09 8:34 AM May 13th
  • Awesome animated pipeline #sapphire09 8:41 AM May 13th
  • Boy he started slow but has he hit stride in last 10 min #sapphire09 8:43 AM May 13th
  • Table scans not considered harmful #sapphire09 8:48 AM May 13th
This was pretty interesting technology - high-speed, insert only databases. Not sure what that means for the long term of our existing databases, data warehouses, and hardware. But hey, it's only capital - right?

Elsewhere On the Web
Previously ...

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , ,

Invisible Technorati Tags: , , ,

Labels: , , , , , ,

Sunday, May 03, 2009

Wikis in High School

Last month, Vinson wrote about the use of wikis in school projects, and it reminded me to dust off some notes I took from a conversation with my daughter Sean MacLennan, late last year. It was a history project about World War II, and the class was asked to compose their reports on a wiki. Sean is a pretty good writer, and she likes to write, so I was interested in her thoughts on the wiki as a medium, and the collaborative process ...

Since there were so many parts of WWII, the wiki format helped, because you could break it down into categories - chunk up the tasks into parts. Plus, we could create the categories we wanted, under the outline [stubbed out by] the teacher.

There were 24 kids in the class, but this was a project across multiple history classes [4], so we're talking about 100 authors. All were split into groups of 3-4, each had to do part of the shared paper. Each group had their own subset of the assignment, and built their own mini-wiki - a home page plus 10 pages of "categories" or topics.

We literally started with a blank sheet. The assignment handout had the high-level outline, but we had to key it into the wiki / web site to get things started.

So, much of the lesson was about the mechanics of the new medium.
Q: How did you carve up the assignment?

We used the sidebar to create the sub pages and a table of contents. Everybody got in a workgroup, discussed how to divvy up the categories, and then started to work on their own pages - add the page, then fill it out. We got to give feedback, too - we had to critique each other's work, but it was more like "ooo, stop, you are adding too much text". I noticed some competition / peer pressure starting, to add as much as the other people.

We could add pictures, links to other web pages, and references to Wikipedia with a hot link to it.

One challenge I noticed: some were copying and pasting from the web, and adding no value or reading what they were copying (ex "... if you look at the picture below ..."). Some were not putting a lot of effort into it, and the others thought this might bring the group's grade down; we were definitely nervous about it.

"Peer review" extended to looking at other pages in your own group and grading them.

So, participative collaboration is part of the lesson as well - the group dynamic, and the idea that not everyone wants to be an author. She also hit the issue where one person needed additional training, and hands-on assistance with some of the mechanics (ex. how do I make a table?) - yet another form of collaboration, and plus awareness of the need for web 2.0 tools to be easy to use (transparent vs opaque?)

What about grading?

There was no coordination on look/feel of the overall structure - once the groups had their subset, they just did their own thing. However, the grade for the group was partially based on whether or not all the information came across. No bonus for the group grade on style points; one person's page could include images, maps, even videos, and another page could just be text cribbed from elsewhere. The individuals got points on their content, but the only part of the group grade was simply whether or not the list of categories was covered. There was some part of your grade for content, however - had to include at least one image, table, graphic, etc., and those had to be spread out reasonably well. There was a target list of 10 content add-on elements, and they had to be spread evenly across the group.

So it was a technical learning event - how to build a page and add content (text and other) - but not a qualitative thing (how good was the writing?).

Any last comments?

No, just get this done and go set up the Wii to the internet, so I can Mario Kart with my friends!

Clearly, there is more than one way to collaborate!

Previously ...

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Invisible Technorati Tags: , , ,



Saturday, April 25, 2009

Business Benefits of Social Networks Exist, but ...

When I see / read articles like this, or hear the breathless claims of vendors, pundits, and True Believers, I'll privately chuckle to myself. All of this stuff - social networking, collaboration, and innovation - are 21st century takes on good old Knowledge Management (KM), circa 1998.

Do these sound like presentations from your recent Enterprise 2.0 conference?
  • Managing Cultural Change to Create a Knowledge Sharing Environment
  • Effectively Managing Information Overload in the Information Age
  • Information Content and Security in Document Management Systems
  • Using Technology and the Project Management Workbench to Accelerate Product Development Efforts
  • Shifting the Burden of Knowledge Sharing to All Employees
I dug up an old copy of the proceedings from a KM conference from 1998; if I did a global replace on "Innovation" for "Knowledge", I could probably get a bunch of folks to sign up today!

Ok, a little sarcasm is fun, but once you realize the similarities, there are other parallels with 1990's KM efforts - not the least of which is the identification of business benefits. Anyone involved with projects back then can testify to the difficulty in predicting hard benefits - clearly quantifiable impact on top line or bottom line, derived in a predictable, measurable manner. Sorry, it just didn't work out that way for KM - and it won't for Social Networks, either! The hype cycle will prevail ...

Hard Benefits of Social Networks Do Not Exist, but ...

Why do people insist on expecting a hard business benefit from social networks, or a payback from a project to implement a funny-sounding technology (wiki/blog/tweet) inside the enterprise? Has anyone ever gotten a quantifiable business benefit from participating on Facebook, LinkedIn, mySpace?

Well, yes, actually - plenty of folks have connected with friends / colleagues, collaborated on business ideas, come up with innovative new approaches - actually monetized all the goofy sounding tools. I myself have written about successes, and have made connections I could never have anticipated. Heck, the old KM conference guide has a couple of case studies as well.

Ah, but do you see the pattern? Business benefits are not predictable, they are always opportunistic and anecdotal. Success is characterized by stories of the home runs (rarely accompanied by comparable stats on strikeouts, by the way). You can't implement a social network within a company or a group, and predict how much and when the profits / savings / growth with start rolling in. You are setting up an environment of opportunity - nothing more.

When I hear people talk about business value or business return of social networks as if they could predict it, I cringe. They're trying to apply financial controls on something that's governed by chance - you can't do it. The incorrect assumption is that you can control good luck - but you can tweak your chances.

Active networkers know - I'm talking about people that have been networking for years, when connections were made face to face. Career coaches would exhort us to get out there and build our professional network - make the office visits, get on their calendar, develop some connections. You have no idea what could happen from any one connection or conversation - nothing might happen or something might happen - you trying to make your own luck.

What is it they say, luck is 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration? Social networking is just automation for some of that 90%. And benefits will happen - just don't ask me when.

Previously ...

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , ,


Invisible Technorati Tags: , , , ,



Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Five Stages of Twitter Relevance

I'm already fielding internal (as well as external) questions about the application of Twitter in a manufacturing company, and I'm developing a reasonably good model, I think - one that will apply to the hard-core, salt-of-the-earth, manufacturing business leader that I've worked with at many organizations. This "maturity model" approach has been used before; back in December of 2008, Bhagarva sketched out the Five Stages of Twitter Acceptance - but that model only helps existing bloggers and social networkers understand this terse little idea spitter. Kind of like explaining OOP to a COBOL developer - I get the general idea of coding (communicating), but you've changed some of the basic rules like procedural vs. event handling (short and immediate vs. in depth and permanent). This doesn't help explain YACMTTCDFE (Yet Another Communication Method That They Can't Distinguish From Email) for those still struggling with Web 2.0 and Social Networks. If it doesn't arrive in their Outlook inbox, I'm still facing an uphill struggle getting them to understand the mechanism, let alone the concept. However, I'm getting a decent level of results when I draw parallels to concepts that these folks "grew up" with. The level of understanding and acceptance directly correlates to the level of relevance that the Twitterverse might have for their current information sharing needs. They typically ask ... How exactly do I understand Twitter and it's relevance to my work day?
  1. Pointless: This has absolutely no value add, a complete waste of time - get back to work!
  2. Cute: An interesting and different communication medium, but I gotta get back to work. Maybe over lunch ...
  3. Web-Based Texting: Conversations about nothing in particular, but at least you're starting to connect. Not sure how it is better than IM, but some don't even use that ...
  4. A Cocktail Party (or maybe the corner bar): Twitter is filled with cliques that are easy to eavesdrop / butt in on - a chance to develop your skills and awareness, and engage larger, targeted networks with pointed conversations about specific topics that I deal with every day. But no pressure, we're just hanging out ..
  5. A Community: Like a trade group, guild, or local Chamber of Commerce, one that requires and rewards participation. At this highest level, Twitter is both a source and a use of awareness, knowledge and understanding; conversations are multi-directional, real business value is being generated.
I can illustrate these levels with examples from my favorite Twitter Search columns in my Tweetdeck (Search:SAP)
  1. Do I really care if the sap is running this spring?
  2. Funny, I get hits when people watch sap-py movies. Oh, those wacky homonyms ...
  3. Twitter as a job board - every SAP job listing pops up. Wait, did I just see a trend tweet by?
  4. Hmm, lots of interesting SAP practioners are talking about live projects and cutting edge programming work ...
  5. Interesting conversations pop up when Oracle buys Sun, or SAP announces the latest product enhancements - I can get a near-real time pulse on market sentiment
I've piqued their interest, but now they want to know what "real business value" really means. I'll post on that next time ... stay tuned! Previously ...

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Invisible Technorati Tags: , , , ,

Labels: , , , , , ,

Thursday, April 16, 2009

Practical Innovation Lessons from Software Vendor R&D

I recently had the chance to listen in on a roundtable discussion involving a software developer's R&D group, discussing some of their thoughts on architecture. Some interesting ideas around "innovation" ...

Innovation vs. Cost Control

A question from the floor - how sensitive are the R&D arms of major vendors to existing investments in infrastructure for their installed base? Response was framed with a pair of quotes: "Innovation without disruption" is apparently one of their goals. However, is that just fancy talk? Doesn't true innovation only come from disruptive technology? And "Invention only happens once or twice, in the lab. Innovation is about taking Invention up to scale". This last one, I think, is the powerful bridge to reality; good ideas are just that, until you can make it a reality for the whole corporation, given limitations of scale plus existing policies / standards.

Innovation vs. Resistance to Change

This line of discussion also made me think that new IT tools / initiatives should be sensitive to our internal user's existing investments in knowledge / understanding. For internal IT, maybe an important, required conversation would be to agree on the layer / level down to which you will allow "disruption from innovation". A sensitive balance, and a tough level to identify.

Measuring Success

How does this R&D lab at a software developer measure success? "Productive end-customer adoption" - how many current customers are adopting this stuff in production? It's one of their KPI's, and a potential learning for corporate IT - could an internal development group's KPIs include metrics for internal rate of adoption / use of new stuff we put out into production? They also quoted "Crossing the Chasm", saying that 80% of innovation is "wasted" - never gets into production, sees the light of day. Is this bad? Nope, the nature of R&D is that a majority of the interesting ideas "fail".

Corporate IT rarely thinks of themselves like a software developer, but there are many lessons to be learned from those folks.

Previously ...

Technorati Tags: ,

Invisible Technorati Tags: , , , , ,



Labels: ,

Saturday, April 11, 2009

Location, Location, Location: Terminology Confusion in ERP Projects

Have you ever experienced the clash of terminology that results when supply chains are brought together, due to acquisition or merger? The typical scenario: different groups using multiple terms to describe where product is manufactured at and shipped from; folks use terms like "location", "plant", and "site" interchangeably, and confusion can result - are we talking about SAP configuration? Wide-area network architecture? Rollout plans?

To communicate effectively, it helps to clarify things. Here is a starter list of terms from projects I've been involved with. Care to add / edit the list?

Generic Terms

A building is what it sounds like - four walls and a roof.
A facility could refer to one or more buildings.
A campus is a generic term for a group of buildings.

Specific Terms - ERP

In SAP, a Plant is a place where materials are produced, or goods and services are provided. A Plant is made up of one or more buildings.
In some Warehouse Management Systems (WMS), a Warehouse refers to a single building. In SAP, a Warehouse is a collection of Storage Areas; a building can contain multiple storage areas, and a warehouse can span multiple buildings.

Specific Terms - WAN

A Site typically designates a point-of-presence to the Wide Area Network (WAN) - a cluster of WAN devices that connects one or more buildings to the network.

Details!

A Chinese proverb states, "Wisdom begins with calling things by their right names." When bringing companies and cultures together, project managers need to pay special attention to the words; we must be very precise with our language, so everyone understands that we are all talking about the same thing.

Previously ...

Technorati Tags: , , , , ,

Invisible Technorati Tags: , , , ,



Labels: , , ,

Sunday, April 05, 2009

Practical Applications of Twitter in Manufacturing?

Over the past few weeks I've had a couple of interesting discussions about the introduction of Twitter to Manufacturing. When someone poses a question like this to me, it throws me for a minor loop, because for very basic, practical reasons, it just doesn't seem to apply. More keyboards & data entry on the floor? Not likely.

However, a few months ago I wrote this rather breathless item, expounding on a brainstorm regarding the use of YouTube and Twitter in a manufacturing setting. Back then, my summary point was about the value of alternative mechanisms for capturing and distributing process documentation. I noted that Twitter was less intimidating than other documentation tools - it's all about capturing status or best practices. But after the past few months of heavier use (@jpmacl), I typically explain Twitter as a keyboard-enhanced conversation - a "false path" for Lean aficionados if you are trying to capture knowledge (the Archaeopteryx of Manufacturing KM?)

But Twitter as an alternative communication medium for folks on the floor? I really don't think it's a good fit - and this is based on practical experience as well as a little common sense.

The Tweeter as Information Source

Are you trying to understand how Twitter would work in your environment? Don't think you can get it right without some decent hands-on time. You'll find that it's very intrusive - not something that you want on 100% of the time. For me, it makes sense when I'm catching up on notes for the day, clearing e-mails, scheduling meetings, or other lighter work that doesn't suffer greatly from periodic chirps from my Tweetdeck. It's running on the second monitor; every once in while I will glance over to scan the latest potentially valuable conversations to jump into.

This scenario would never work on the manufacturing floor. There's no way the Environmental Health & Safety folks will allow anything to distract folks from completing the tasks at their workstation.

Besides, hitting the keyboard for status updates is exactly the kind of non-value-adding data entry that Lean mavens are working to eliminate.  Note that when I say "non-value-adding", I am referring to Finished Goods; standard work, training and knowledge retention are important in a Lean world, but not while you're actually getting work done.

The Tweeter as Information Consumer

On the other hand, if there is a Tweetdeck-style application available, running on a screen that is visible to an entire workcenter - well, maybe the folks on the floor can be _consumers_ of Tweets. Then again, it's just another RSS application, nothing Twitter-specific.

Web 2.0 Technology and Manufacturing

Are manufacturing firms using Twitter? I'd say that few are - and it's based on the "personality" of a typical manufacturing company.
  • IT is typically <3% of total revenue - not an environment that fosters experimentation / cutting edge IT work
  • Lean is a growing force in manufacturing, and Lean is decidedly anti-computer - so no one will have a keyboard at the ready to start Tweeting!
Now, to be fair, you could cherry pick high-tech manufacturers; certainly, there are many engineering departments that are sharing information and communicating real time. But when I hear "manufacturing" I'm thinking line managers, shift supervisors ... not typically the keyboard types. They like their push-to-talk phones, and that's really all the instant communication they need.

Aren't there any potential benefits of Twitter for manufacturing? Directly - not much, I'm afraid. However, as with any area of the business that traffics in knowledge capital, the Design Engineering and Manufacturing Engineering folks might find benefit in information-sharing collaborative networks and "real-time" connections.

Note, however, that I am greatly interested in hearing counter-examples of the above. Anyone aware of interesting Twitter-ing on the floor?

Previously ...

Technorati Tags: , , ,
, , , , , , , ,

Invisible Technorati Tags: , , , ,



Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, March 22, 2009

Field Notes: Video Conferencing for Business Conversations

This past week saw my first experience with video conference calling - something obvious to consider in these tight economic times. Some observations -

  • I got quick feedback that my original camera position was disconcerting for the others. I had put it off to the side, which made me look “off camera”, almost in profile, while in conversation. As I thought about it, I agreed - because if I was looking at me, it would be weird / annoying. I do not like it when the person I am talking with is not looking me in the eyes.
  • On that note - when we're in a conversation, I'm typically looking at a 6” circle around your  eyes. When on a business / working video conference, however, I’m looking at a 2 x 2 inch square picture of the speaker - because we all have other windows open, looking at documents / programs under review. It’s feels more like a “talking headsnewscast than a conversation ...
  • … but you have to take the good with the bad. The ability to bring up a spreadsheet or presentation or application on a shared screen is quite powerful - participants can “see what I see”. You just need to understand that this is a multimedia conversation, and not simply a replacement for a phone call.
    • On the other hand - my family uses Skype to stay connected with our daughter away at college. When we make the call, we’ll flip the video feed to full screen - and since the web cams on our respective laptops are perched right above the screen, our eyes are focused reasonably close to the other person's face. Simple conversational video calls, without the multitasking overhead, are reasonably effective.
  • Microphone configuration is also very important; some folks are using headsets, while I use the microphone incorporated in the video camera. I prefer this arrangement; I’m already comfortable with using a speakerphone on normal calls, and prolonged use of an earpiece gets a bit annoying. The key, however, is to get everyone to correctly configure microphone settings. Everyone's volume was a little different, and it impacted the smooth flow of conversation.
  • We are using inexpensive web cams, not highfalutin’ conference calling hardware. In this scenario, the system does a reasonably brilliant job of flipping camera control to whoever is speaking. This seems obvious, but I noticed that when I was speaking, your remote view doesn't bother flipping to your feed - it stays on the last speaker. This can be a tad disconcerting if that person reverts to typical conference call habits, and looks away / does a little multi-tasking.
  • I also noticed that people were much more cautious, or overly polite, about talking over one another. I assume that as we get used to holding conference calls in this format, we’ll get more comfortable with the interruptions.
Later in the week, I had a long conversation with a colleague in Germany. Here, the video call format is very effective. Typically, I prefer face-to-face conversations to phone calls - you can react when someone's facial expressions signal a lack of agreement or comprehension. Of course, this is not practical with meine freunde in Deutschland, where language differences exacerbate the situation. The video call solves that problem immediately and effectively - I found myself communicating in face-to-face mode now, with hand gestures (ex. air quotes) and facial expressions indicate agreement, keep the conversation moving along.

Like any bit of technology, reality is not as smooth as the sales pitch makes it out to be, but still a very effective tool, and something that can be experimented with quite inexpensively.

Experimentation leads to experience, leads to effectiveness.

Previously ...

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Invisible Technorati Tags: , , ,



Labels: , , , ,

Saturday, March 14, 2009

Low Tech SharePoint Hack: Project Status Indicator

I'm doing a little hacking in SharePoint that is pulling together a few ideas from the past:
Apparently, I'm also trying to answer a question that is meaningful to many others, as it is used as an example in the Help files for Microsoft's online SharePoint guides, the add-on Web Parts we use here, and many other places. Why doesn't Microsoft make something like this a standard feature?

Note that I had some fairly specific requirements in mind for something that I would consider "low tech". this should be an approach that the average (read: non-IT) SharePoint site admin could use. I don't want to require third-party controls, nor do I want to require the use of SharePoint Designer. I'm also shying away from image files - little GIFs to show red, green, and yellow icons; I have established a style for displaying project status in that works great with PowerPoint and Excel, and I want to use the same images consistently on the collaboration space.

Of course, I wanted to get to a solution in a reasonable amount of time (ie. Speed to Value, or being proactively lazy). A few Google searches turned up a number of resources with different approaches. The best resource was this site, loaded with excellent SharePoint hacks - including one simple concept that requires me to tweak my ground rules, just a bit. To get this to work, I have to include a JavaScript routine on the page; however, I learned a nifty trick, one of those things that is fairly straightforward, but still has to be pointed out to you before you "get it".

The JavaScript Trick

You don't need SharePoint Designer to install JavaScript routines or special CSS on the page. All you need to do is install a Content Editor Web Part (CEWP) somewhere on the same page as your list. You can bring up the Source Editor and insert any scripts, you want, nothing will display about the routines will be available to the other controls / web parts on the same page. I'm not going to copy the code here - these guys deserve the web traffic for their work, so, go to this page to copy the script.

A Lot of HTML for a Little Indicator

The actual HTML for the "green" indicator (~) looks like this: .

Unfortunately the font changes based on which indicator you need - this table shows the various components for all of the status indicators.

StatusCodeFontColorResult
Green˜Wingdings 2green
YellowpWingdings 3#FFCC00
RednWingdings#DC143C
CompleteüWingdingsblack

My solution adds three calculated columns to the list. Why three? Well, yes, you could do the whole thing with one computed column, but the nested IF statements would be brutally complex, and I was hoping for something "self-documenting" (ie. clear and simple).

The SharePoint list in question is a typical Issue Tracker - and the first step is to define what the different statuses (statii?) are going to be. Here, I am only allowing Open (Red, Yellow, Green) and Closed - nothing like resolved or in process or proposed - we'tll keep it simple.

I then added three Calculated columns, and defined the formulas like this:
    Status_Char = IF([Issue Status]="Open - Green","˜",IF([Issue Status]="Open - Yellow","p",IF([Issue Status]="Open - Red","n","ü")))

    Status_Font = IF([Issue Status]="Open - Green","Wingdings 2",IF([Issue Status]="Open - Yellow","Wingdings 3",IF([Issue Status]="Open - Red","Wingdings","Wingdings")))

    Status_Color = IF ([Issue Status]="Open - Green","green",IF([Issue Status]="Open - Yellow","#FFCC00",IF([Issue Status]="Open - Red","#DC143C","black")))
I've tweaked the colors - standard yellow and red don't look good with a white background. (I burned at least 30 minutes fiddling with the color tones, to make something that was visibly yet subtle. Gotta know when to go fast and when to dither over the details ...).

Add a fourth column for the actual status indicator; we use the CONCATENATE function to build the HTML string as specified above. The surrounding <DIV> is used by our borrowed JavaScript function to signal the browser to turn this little bit into true HTML.
    Status_Color = CONCATENATE("<DIV><font size=4 color=",Status_Color," face='",Status_Font,"'>",Status_Char,"</font></DIV>")
Effectiveness Testing

Yes, this could have been done with a single calculated field - it's just a little bit easier to debug this way. In any event, it s a relatively large amount of code for a fairly simple effect - was it worth the effort? The ultimate test came when reviewing the list of open issues with the project team - and folks understood what was being communicated immediately. No explanation necessary - the conversation focused on the item marked "red" right away. If we just displayed the words "green", "yellow", or "red", it would take a bit more mental effort to understand what was being communicated. I really want folks to think about the solutions, and not waste brain power trying to understand the problems. A little extra effort in the code is just right.

Previously ....

Technorati Tags: , , , , , ,

Invisible Technorati Tags: , , ,



Labels: , , , , , ,

Wednesday, March 11, 2009

Would you like me to google that for you?

Got some rare Re-Tweets today on a techie insult - so snappy, I had to write a post to use it for a title!

Deep in the problem analysis and debugging process, the typical IT hack experiences counter-balancing pressures that impact decision making - Capable Independence vs. Speed to Value.

Capable Independence is just fancy-talk for the idea that I should know what I'm doing.
  • Ego 1 - Who needs manuals, I wrote this thing from the ground up?
  • Ego 2 - Vendor support is useless, I teach them stuff whenever I call ...
  • Delusions of Center - I've been working on this ERP, for this company, for 15 years - I should know how this works!
  • Paranoia - If I have to ask for help, they might think I'm not worth keeping around ...
  • Pride - I should be able to figure this out myself ...
Actually, I think the truth is a bit more mundane; everybody is really busy, and it just seems quicker to figure it out for yourself than to search for some other resource, that might have a ready answer. Bottom line is, the rate-determining factor is the idea that I should be able to solve this problem - so the problem won't get solved until I figure it out!

Speed to Value is the idea that I need to get an answer quickly - time is of the essence. Unfortunately, taking the "I can(must) do this myself" option may seem quicker, but in practice, folks will jump to what they know vs. really understanding the root issue - and (more often than not) come up with a less-than-optimal solution.

I want the optimal solution - quickly, but implemented with the least amount of effort, taking advantage of standard product functionality, and (therefore) easiest to support in the long run.

Know What You Don't Know

One of my favorite war stories involves Amit, the brilliant (truly) analyst with 10+ years experience on our ERP, in multiple companies supporting multiple business models. He's seen it all, right?

We were trying to send nightly extracts to a data warehouse, so I asked Amit if he could identify all records that had been changed in the last 5 days. Amit said No (almost immediately), and I was Skeptical (just as quickly). IMNSHO, most transaction systems mark records with something like a ModifiedDate field (one of my favorite triggers ...), and I was assuming that our ERP, being a solid mid-tier platform with a long history and a lot of customers, would have also implemented this basic idea.

I knew Amit was super busy, and suspected he was answering off the top of his head - but I also knew him to be humble, open-minded, and down-to-earth  "Look," I said, "I know you are a terrific programmer, with deep knowledge of the system, and I don't want to insult you, but I am going to ask what seems to be a very basic question. I don't mean to insult your capabilities, I just need you to answer very specifically ..."

    Do you know categorically that the system cannot do that,
    or do you not know how to do that in the system,
    or have you never heard of that being done with the system?
The answer-off-the-top-of-my-head is a way for me to quickly address a question just to get it out of my way. Sometimes "no" means "I don't know how to do that, and I don't have any time to research this". I was pretty sure my good friend Amit was trying to slough off the question, because he was already working on 50 other things for me ...

Irregardless, I asked Amit to take the time and research the question, because I was sure that any decent ERP would have this field. Next day, Amit came back to me in said "thanks for asking so specifically; I actually did not know if the system could do this, and so I did the research". Unfortunately, he was right - lo and behold, the system did not have a LastModifiedDate in one of the tables I was looking for, so we had to hack and an alternative method.

But it was still worthwhile to ask the question.

Failing Faster, Getting Lazy

Why do we insist on solving problems ourselves, and limiting the solution set to what we know? Why can't we let our self-directed searches fail fast enough to ask around for someone who might know more? Remember, your company is probably paying plenty for annual maintenance on the big software platforms - we all should [more quickly] be "giving up" and "failing", submitting the question to the experts to quickly get some answers.

In an internal blog, someone posted a brutal techie diss - Would you like me to Google that for you? The source was frustrated that the rate-determining analysts weren't even taking this basic step. My personal theory is that they're not "lazy" enough - I've got many other things to do, so I want to find a quick way to answer those questions.

The business doesn't care if we know the answers - we get credit for solving the problem!

ps. Note that "laziness" also makes me want to find a good solid solution and not a quick and dirty solution, because I don't want to have to come back later - I'm proactively lazy.

Previously ...

Technorati Tags: , , , , , ,

Invisible Technorati Tags: , , ,



Sunday, February 22, 2009

PMO Nirvana is a Conversation, not a Schedule

We continue to iterate on our PMO processes - managing too few resources and too many project requests, an environment I have consistently seen in every IT group I have ever worked with. Our latest discussion concerned the concept of FIFO work on projects ...
    ... when presented with five things to do, I will only [emphasis added] work on them in the order received.
This is an exceedingly poor assumption for your personal run-rules, and a short-sighted objective for a PMO that needs to be aligned with the business.

You can't assume or aspire that your PMO can be a finite scheduler for IT. There is too much variability, softness, lack of clarity, process, etc. on most projects – especially at the Application Layer. Once you get anywhere close to business process and the fluid nature of business requirements, you have to have a strong element of agile, flexible resource scheduling and response.
    <aside> One might say that the lower you go in the seven-layer stack, you have a better chance of finite scheduling this stuff – projects can and should be more highly predictable, highly engineered. </aside>
Another bit of the conversation uncovered an interesting insight; is there "too much" communication overhead? The effort involved to document something completely, to build a detailed work plan, to create a detailed, multi-line resource forecast – yes, these all represent large chunks of work that do little to make something happen on the screen / in the database. However, the value of such effort is quite high, because the results facilitate complicated conversations in the future. It’s just like the idea of capturing requirements early on – saves tons of rework later.
    <aside> That last analogy begs a contrast to agile development - but agile values and requires focused communication and rapid iterations, which can be tough in an environment of thin resources and a high volume of "open" projects. Some elements of the classic waterfall are helpful when keeping multiple plates spinning. </aside>
A final quote - actually heard someone summarize the situation as "we just have a lot of slow projects". There are two important problems contained in that sentence - "a lot", and "slow". You have more control over quantity and duration than you may think ...

Previously ...

Technorati Tags: , , , ,


Invisible Technorati Tags:
,
,
,
,



Labels: , , , , , ,