www.itminddesign.com

Eric Brown wrote a piece about Meetings & Trust in his blog Eric Brown’s Blog discussing how a manager had a pre-meeting to a meeting to “shape” what information was to be discussed during that meeting with the boss’s superiors.  I agree there are some trust issues with that manager and numerous meetings requested by the boss can be a sign of a lack of trust.  Additionally,  it could be a control issue.  I know that control and trust are related, but the manager may be trusting of his people but be a micro-manager/dominant control freak who just can’t help himself.  The manager could also just like to hear himself talk or feel he can justify his job more by these “important” meetings.  It could be some kind of departmental power play to show everyone who’s the boss.  Also, I know people who think that holding meetings will convince others how important and powerful they are (they aren’t, but they overcompensate for their inadequacies).

I have to say that I am lucky that I haven’t experienced that kind of manager that Eric discusses in his posting.  However, I do work at a company who is in love with meetings.  Sometimes we do have meetings to discuss having meetings. Very few meetings have a listed agenda, about 1-2% I would say.  It never starts on time and the participants usually wander off topic –if we even know what the topic is.  If I could cope with it, I could attend enough meetings every week that I wouldn’t ever get anything else done but attend meetings and be fully justified in doing so.   However, I think we talk too much and do too little. 

It seems that some people actually do like meetings.  In this LA Times article the author discusses a study about people’s feelings toward meetings.  Okay, maybe I shouldn’t say that I hate all meetings, just the unproductive ones.  Regrettably, the unproductive ones outnumber the productive ones.  The article as lists some suggestions to make meetings more productive.  I know we could do better with our meetings by taking this advice.

• Always provide an agenda and distribute it before the meeting.
• Set realistic goals and objectives for each meeting.
• Don’t include everyone. Attend the meeting, or require attendance for the meeting, only if the information is relevant.
• Reduce the number of meetings, meet only when necessary and make it easy for employees to opt out of participating if their attendance is not critical.
• Provide meeting feedback and reflect on that feedback as a group.
• Record and distribute minutes for each meeting.
• Break into smaller groups for brainstorming.
• Distribute appropriate information before the meeting via e-mail, instead of during the meeting.
• Pay attention to timing and impose a time limit; meetings that are shorter and that start and end on time are less disruptive for employees.

On the effectivivemeetings.com website the have a 10 commandments section of meeting basics.  The site’s “commandments” are similar to the ones from the LA Times article with a few good additions.

• Praise in Public, Criticize in Private
• Do Not Convene Meetings Outside of Normal Business Hours
• Do Not Use Group Pressure to Logroll Conclusions
• Do Not Use Meetings to Destroy Others’ Careers
• Keep the Personal and the Corporate Distinct
• Remember that the Best Model for Meetings Is Democracy, Not Monarchy
• Terminate a Regularly Scheduled Meeting When Its Purpose for Being No Longer Exists

 Check out the related articles on Eric’s page because they have some good points about managing meetings and calculating the costs of those meetings.  I have actually heard that some companies require an agenda, justification, and a total cost for the meeting be provided for a meeting to be approved.  I’m not sure how productive that whole process is, but I’m sure it will make having useless meetings much harder.

In an effort to define, to me, what have been some abstract terms in the business and IS/IT world, I thought I would start posting some reference material. I have discovered some of this through one of the classes I am currently taking on Information Systems Management.  Feel free to comment, suggest additions, etc.

There is a lot of turmoil with the transfer pricing (chargebacks) in my company.  Being that we are in a responsibility accounting model and the commercial and internal IT department is a cost center, we seem to be somewhat limited in the flexibility of our chargeback method.  I did read an excellent article from Management Accounting Quarterly describing an activity based costing model which would be a more effective method for us.  I will preface this by saying that a change to a profit center may be the easiest way to make this idea work. Currently, we over-recover, but that recovery is not been seen as “real money” that can be spent and it does not transfer from one year’s budget to another.

Additionally, there are some practices that I see from hardware(OEMs) and software vendors that the company should put into practice. We have applications that continue to reside on equipment that is end of life or end of service life.  All during the periods of end of life, the cost of maintenance is going up significantly.  The vendors don’t want to support the hardware and software, so you pay dearly until they no longer want to support it all.  Why can’t our IT department take the same stance?  Once hardware or software reaches the point of unsupportable (end of service life) we still have applications deployed on it.  From a recharge perspective, the IT department has not put enough pressure (in this case financial) on the business unit to evacuate the equipment. Priorities would change if the BUs would start seeing absorbent cost increases to their P&L besides the increases in maintenance costs.  I’m not even going into the risk management issues of being on equipment that isn’t being updated and could be exposed to security issues due to the lack of upgrades to the software.

I once did some side work for an independent contractor.  He once told me of a customer that was such a pain to manage that every time they called, he would continue to raise his hourly rate.  He hoped that they would think the amount was too crazy to pay and would leave him alone.  I’m not sure they ever went away.  However, I don’t think he thought they were over a barrel and wanted to fleece them.  I think he just wanted them to go away.  So, I don’t propose we raise chargebacks to the point the BUs want to go outside our own company, but I think adopting the OEM approach to support would be appropriate.  It’s the general carrot and the stick approach.  The IT department must define what the preferred paths and behaviors are for the BUs and then making it “unattractive” to want to do it any other way.  I think this model will work for more than just chargebacks.  It can work for their selections of development software and technologies and equipment that these solutions can run on. 

The key to making this successful is to define the path well.  If it isn’t, I am afraid the IT department will discover the business end of the law of unintended consequences.

I was reading this blog over at Inter-Sections (blog: Inter-Sections » Blog Archive » How to recognize a good programmer) and some of the topics brought up I thought could be of value. I also thought that I would apply it SysAdmins and Technical Architects. I think these are good food for thought items People, jobs, and companies have all their own idiosyncrasies and these items are not the beginning or the end on hiring people.

Let’s start with some excerpts from Daniel’s blog entry.

#1 : Passion

Can you get this guy to excitedly chat up a technology that he’s using, for a whole half hour, without losing steam?

#2 : Self-teaching and love of learning

If you’re thinking of hiring someone as a programmer, and he ever utters the words “I can work with that, just send me on a training course for a week and I’ll be good at it”, don’t hire that guy. A good programmer doesn’t need a training course to learn a new technology.

#3 : Intelligence

In fact, good programmers are usually among the smartest people you know. Many of them will actually have pretty good social skills too. The cliché of the programmer who’s incapable of having a conversation is just that - a cliché.

#4 : Hidden experience

A good question to ask a potential “good programmer” in an interview would be “can you tell me about a personal project - even or especially one that’s completely irrelevant - that you did in your spare time, and that’s not on your CV?” If they can’t (unless their CV is 20 pages long), they’re probably not a good programmer.

#5 : Variety of technologies

Learning a new technology is one of the most fun things a programmer with any passion can do. So they’ll do it all the time, and accumulate a portfolio of things they’ve “played around with”. They may not be experts at all of them, but all decent programmers will be fluent in a large inventory of unrelated technologies.

#6 : Formal qualifications

The key point to outline here is that formal qualifications don’t mean squat when you’re trying to recognize a good programmer. Many good programmers will have a degree in Computer Science. Many won’t.

I have to say that these six points are very good and apply similarly to System Administrators and Technical Architects.  I want to add more thoughts around some of Daniel’s points and add some of my own as well. 

Passion & Hidden Experience

I do think that a good geek can talk your ears off about technology.  I also believe for the best, it is the continuation of a hobby or something they are good at.   This plays in line with #1 and #4 above.  I also think there has to be some amount of perfectionism or OCD as well.  I’m not talking about to the unhealthy levels, but a little bit of wanting it done 100% correct.  In my mind, the difference between a true geek and a manager is a geek doesn’t want to settle with something being 90% correct and a manager knows that with all projects, compromises will be made and nothing with 100% right.  The geeks that get into trouble are the ones that are so fixated on the getting to 100% that nothing else matters.  I have seen geeks lose good jobs because they were okay with “burning a village in order to save it”.  Needless to say that these types of geeks would never survive in a management role.

Passion also comes out in discussing around choices on how to do something and how well they can convince others as well.  It can go too far with fixation about being “right” and wanting to beat people into submission but the exuberance about the choices is usually a positive trait.  You want a person that cares about quality of work and taking care of others.  The individuals who are, don’t want to discuss with or convince others and will settle for the path of least resistance is the people who shouldn’t be hired.  Nothing frustrates me more than those who ,“have turned being unengaged into a Zen-like thing.” , a quote from one of my favorite fictional characters. 

In regards to hidden experience, good Systems people tend to don’t view being a SysAdmin or Architect as a “day job” it is more like a part of them or more than just a vocation.  I would be cautious about the passion levels or commitment levels of those who aren’t interested or fiddle around with technologies outside the office.

Self-teaching and love of learning

I totally agree with point #2.  With the tempos of projects individuals who insist on always having a training class before wanting to work with something typically is going to be trouble.  I do believe in training classes and believe that a company should provide people with training.  However, my experience has taught me that most people use this as an excuse as a crutch so they do not have to support or learn something.  I have found that I always want to learn something about and how to use technologies before I go to the training classes.  I have found that understanding many aspects of the technology before hand helps get the most value for me out of a training class.  I have also seen some of the “gotta have the classes” individuals are the same that have more initials after their name than my medical doctor does.  It could be that they want to milk the company for as many certifications as possible so they can go somewhere else and get paid more.

Variety of Technology

I think senior people should have a variety of experiences.  I think that some experience in different disciplines is excellent as well. (e.g. SysAdmin, Security, Network Admin, Management, Project Management)  For more of my thoughts and pontifications on career paths see this post.  I also want to place technology biases in this category as well.  We all use technologies and products that we are all comfortable with and the natural tendency is for us to reach for those tools whenever we have a problem to solve.  That’s normal and natural but that is not exactly what I’m talking about.  It’s the folks who flat refuse to work with Microsoft Windows, or think that mainframes are dinosaurs that need to be put out to pasture.  Talented people like exposure to all kinds of technologies and feel like any technology can be the correct fit given it meets the requirements.  If someone wants to run their data centers off of a bunch of Blackberry phones chained together, if it meets the business requirements and can be supported properly, what is the problem?  Ultimately, you are looking for someone who feels that they can provide the most cost effective solutions that are in line with business requirements.

Self-confidence vs. Hubris

Often times there is a thin line between self-confidence and hubris. Self-confidence is the thing that gives one the ability to take on challenges and new technologies.  It’s the positive part that fuels #1 through #6.  However, hubris is the biological weapon of mass destruction that will eventually destroy everything it comes in contact with.    It manifests itself in numerous ways. I’ve seen it come out in “smart people” who called the less knowledgeable or people with less memory capacity, STUPID!  I have also seen it people who think they are above doing certain types of work because of their title.  I have also seen it appear wearing the disguise of “efficiency” .  It sounds harmless as, why can’t someone else do this, I’m paid $100/sec and wouldn’t it be more efficient for someone else that is paid less to do instead of me.  I’m not knocking efficiency, but come on, what company thinks it normal to breaks down every task down to who is the cheapest person to the job.  I’m sorry, if they want me to take out the trash, I agree that it’s not an efficient use of the company’s money, but that is their call and I’m not above taking out the trash.  Here is both sides of that argument, the company pays for my time and I should be willing to do whatever the job requires(as long as it’s legal and moral) but I also have the choice to continue to work there as well if I don’t feel challenged or like what I’m being asked to do.

The Star Trek test

This one is mostly for a bit of humor, but I have noticed some correlation between how ”geeky” a person is by discovering how much they were into Star Trek (original series, spin-offs, and movies) and or other Scifi shows,  Dr. Who, Battle-star Galactica, etc.  I’m curious if others have seen this too.

This is only part one, I have so many different topics to discuss. I was afraid that if I added too many more characters that this post would require a warning statement about reading it why operating heavy machinery.

As all ways, if you have feedback or comments, either comment below or email me:  feedback at itminddesign dot com.   If you found it useful or entertaining please share it.

Frederick the Great said, If you try to hold everything, you hold nothing I want to modify that a little bit to say, if you try to do everything, you do nothing.   When it comes to the all the projects and efforts placed on a Technology team you have to fall back to a list of agreed priorities.  I am currently watching my fearless leader trying to be every thing to everyone.   Don’t get me wrong, he is a super guy.  However,  he is going to run himself into the ground and I will need more than an oven mitt to clean up the post nuclear fallout from pieces of what will be left of his sanity.

This is isn’t an article pitching project management or time management. It’s about focus triage.  We are under siege, love that movie by the way, and we must repel borders. It is warfare and we must apply some military tactics.  A fight to the end is being waged for your time and attention by others. There is only so much one person can do and being pulled in to many directions simultaneously is very tiring and unproductive say nothing of the impacts to one’s quality of work product.

Know thy enemy — real time distractions have to be contended with (IM, phone, SMS, people stopping by to talk, etc).  I often have to combat some of these intrusions by just working from home a few days a week. Not that I don’t have a few interruptions at home from time to time.  Also, we are being barraged by “normal” distracting activities such as ill purposed meetings. These are a little more subtle, like having a meeting with no written agenda and the famous meeting to discuss having meetings.  Everyone has their jobs and priorities but we have to focus only the top ones.  I see one little one hour meeting here and there turn into 10-15 hours a week of idleness.  Then there is the endless followup meetings which seem to just become perpetual.

Since I have deemed the year 2008 as the year of “getting real”, we need to cut out the low-priority/useless meetings and interactions that we participate in.  We feel like we need to appease our friends/co-workers, contribute, or be a part of the issues.   We have to stop pretending that we can be all to everyone.  It’s just not real.  But if we choose not to recognize it  or continue to rationalize it we are going to look around and it will be September or October and we won’t really have completed anything but have started many.

We will always get taken to task for those things that we didn’t accomplish or play out the should’a woulda, coulda’s  but if I’m going to get my ass spanked for not doing everything, then I’m damn well going to get beaten for the little insignificant things.