Phil Simon » Management

Channeling My Inner Bulldog: The Case for Stubbornness

philsimon — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 10:47:03 +0000

Without question, my favorite animal is the English Bulldog. Known for their affinity for slobbering, massive heads, stubborn demeanors, and undeniable sweetness, I’ve been told that I tend to resemble them on a number of levels. (Insert big head joke here.) I could write for hours about these little creatures but, for now, I’ll just tell you one little story. In Manhattan a few years ago, I once saw a small woman of no more than 100 pounds trying to walk her bulldog (Billy) across the street. Billy wasn’t having any of it; he liked where he was, thank you. I laughed as the woman gave up trying to move him after about five minutes. (For those who don’t know, fully grown English Bulldogs are very strong and compact; they can easily weigh 55 pounds.)

So, why am I writing about bulldogs?

Because I can relate to them, especially the stubborn part. Once bulldogs set their mind to something (like not moving), it’s pretty much a fait accompli. For better or worse, I tend to exhibit similar characteristics while writing and consulting. And in this post, I’m going to argue that this is generally a good thing.

The Costs of Multitasking

We’ve all seen people make mistakes at work because they were trying to juggle ten things at once. I’m certainly no exception here and I’m not going to claim to be perfect. But I worry about the increasing number of interruptions that we all face every day and the consquences of those distractions. My fears are being confirmed as I read Maggie Jackson’s excellent book Distracted: The Erosion of Attention and the Coming Dark Age. For now, let’s just say that we are increasingly unable to focus on one thing at a time. Jackson argues (and I concur) that this is a net negative.

I remember an incident from a few years ago. I was on a project in upstate NY and we had manifested a problem on a system upgrade. It was around lunchtime and two of my clients wanted to grab a bite with me. We sat at the table as we got to know each other a bit better. I knew that our problem had to have a solution and I was determined to figure it out. After about five minutes of eating, one of the women looked at me, smiled, and said, “You’re thinking about the solution to the problem, aren’t you?”

I just smiled and said, “Guilty.”

This is just how I’m wired, I suppose.

Simon Says

Look, I’m no completely detached from reality here. I can certain recognize that people have many things to do, especially as companies have cut back in light of recent economic turmoil. I’ll also cop to the benefits of being able to quickly move from one thing to another. I’ll even argue that, when faced with a particularly vexing problem, some time away from your computer is entirely beneficial. I can’t tell you how many problems I’ve solved on a treadmill listening to Rush or Dream Theater. But I find it hard to believe that many people can solve complex problems while answering emails, phone calls, texts, tweets, IMs, etc.

Feedback

What do you think?

Channeling My Inner Bulldog: The Case for Stubbornness is a post from: Phil Simon

The World of No

philsimon — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 10:30:15 +0000

Without question, my least favorite word in the English language is usually “no.” I’d tell James Lipton as much if asked on the sometimes pretentious show Inside The Actors’ Studio. Now, there’s a reason that I qualify that statement with “usually.” In this post, I’ll tell you why not all “no’s” are created equal.

Appropriate No’s

Sometimes, no is the only legitimate response to a question. Consider the following:

It’s alright to steal music, right?
Are you going to miss Rush on this tour? (Hells no!)
Will you shoot par today?
Did you sleep past 5 am today?

These are examples of “appropriate no’s.” In each case, “no” is the only answer.

But alas, dear reader, there are other kinds of no’s.

Contemplative No’s

Let’s say that I propose a solution to a problem on a consulting gig that seems to make sense–at least to me. The decision maker listens to me and considers the idea. After careful thought, though, she decides against it and tells me why my idea won’t fly. She thanks me for the effort and appreciates my enthusiasm.

Contemplative no’s don’t bother me much. After all, I’m a consultant with no real authority. It’s their world; I’m just playing rent. They know what’s best. My advice is always theirs to take or leave.

Reflexive No’s

Again, let’s say that I’m trying to solve a problem. Maybe I’m trying to do something productive or try to make one of my partners, publishers, or clients money. Here are a few specific examples:

While working with one of my publishers, I have routinely proposed what I considered to be good ideas to promote our book. These include greater use of social media, book signings, other events, and book reviews.
When confronting an issue on a new system implementation, I’d figure out a “work-around” that would in no uncertain terms solve the problem.
Often I’ve dealt with wholly inefficient business processes and suggested reasonable alternatives to expedite things.

In each case, the decision maker didn’t bother to fully consider my ideas, often barely listening to my suggestions. The response was almost always something along the lines of “that’s not how we do things around here.” I call these “reflexive no’s” and I’ve come across them many times in my career.

And these bother me the most because those who give me “the reflexive no” just don’t try. They don’t care. They’re apathetic. They don’t want to learn or experiment. These people are stuck in their comfort zones and, as my friend Scott Berkun has written many times, this is exactly how mediocrity persists. That mentality stifles innovation and, ultimately, success.

Feedback

Am I just stubborn, cranky, and cantankerous? Does the reflexive no bother you as much as it does me?

The World of No is a post from: Phil Simon

How To Manage Divas

philsimon — Sun, 16 May 2010 10:30:39 +0000

I’m a bit of a sports nut. Ever since I was a kid, I played, watched, and to varying degrees obsessed over different sports. Even to this day, I watch SportsCenter just about every morning. It’s a nice escape from the daily grind.

These days, the folks in Briston, CT stories are bringing us a full menu of Tiger Woods’ travails, PEDs, and the NBA playoffs. These stories are dominating the headlines. And, of course, there’s the annual Brett Favre saga, distilled into one question: Will he play next year or won’t he?

At the risk of playing amateur shrink, it seems to me that each year Favre is honestly conflicted. He sees the pros and cons of playing vs. retiring and genuinely has a difficult time deciding what to do. What’s more, to his credit, Favre seems to have a sense of humor about his shtick, as evinced by this recent Sears’ commercial.

At the same time, though, I’ve felt a bit sorry for Favre’s last three employers: the Packers, the Jets, and the Vikings. They have had to put up with his annual rite of passage, making staffing decisions (via free agency and the draft) based on one huge unknown: Will their quarterback show up for mini camp?

While I can’t claim to have ever managed a professional sports team (fantasy sports don’t count), I was thinking about the most effective ways of managing a diva.

Short-term: Admit that you need divas

We’ve all seen organizations beholden to key employees at specific times. I’ve watched companies scramble to keep a high performer who has received an offer to go across the street. Many factors result in an employee having a unique set of skills essential to the continued success of an organization. I’m not talking about an administrative assistant or HR person who knows where the bodies are buried. Rather, there are often operational, marketing, sales, R&D, or business development folks without whom a company may not be able to survive.

Simon Says

While policies are procedures are important, sometimes rules need to be broken and exceptions need to be made. For example, having worked in HR during the early part of my career, sometimes compensation “adjustments” were necessary apart from the annual review cycle. Organizational policies should allow for the requisite flexibility to deal with exceptional circumstances; rigid conformity to standard operating procedures ultimately does more harm than good.

Near-term: Plan for backup

As a friend of mine used to say, the burnt hand teaches best. Appeasing a diva with a promotion and/or raise might stop the bleeding, but it may not significantly reduce organizational risk. What’s more, some employees’ demands just can’t be met.

Here are a few questions to consider:

Are there other “high potential” employees in need of “stretch” roles? GE made this practice common and, to my knowledge, still uses it today.
If budgets are tight and hiring “bench strength” is not an option, do you have a list of targets outside of the organization in the event that the diva leaves?

Simon Says

Far too often, HR departments, hiring managers, and organizations take an exclusively reactive approach to recruiting. They wait until someone gives notice (or not) before starting the process of replacing a key departure. Assess the risks associated with essential positions and use social networks such as LinkedIn to monitor the availability of viable candidates as contingencies. Be prepared to act quickly when the “right’ candidate has been indentified.

Long-term: Change the culture

Often, people are too quick to look at divas in isolation. They’ll make often incorrect assumption that the diva is a pain in the ass for exclusively internal reasons. Bad childhood, maybe? While that might be the case on an individual level, take a look at the culture that may very well enable diva-like behavior. Consider the following questions:

Are employees in a company or department so overworked that they can’t collaborate and share knowledge?
Is the environment simply not conducive to working well together and cross-pollination?
Does the organization’s performance management system reward the right type of behaviors or simply results?
Does the organization routinely reward “game winning drives” because of lack of proper planning and risk management?

Simon Says

This one’s the toughest. To some extent, people have always been out for themselves, but things have changed. We’re no longer in the 1950s, those halcyon days in which employees and employers exhibited strong degrees of loyalty to each other. That social contract has eroded over the last twenty years to the point at which more and more employees are asking, “What’s in it for me?” I just don’t see that changing anytime soon. Realize this and plan accordingly.

Feedback

How do you deal with divas? I’m sure that you have stories.

How To Manage Divas is a post from: Phil Simon

The Technology Adoption Life Cycle

philsimon — Thu, 06 May 2010 10:00:44 +0000

I have spent time this week working on a new piece for Cutter on emerging technologies such as cloud computing and MDM. Interestingly, I returned to a tried and true concept: Technology Adoption Life Cycle (TALC). For those of you unfamiliar with TALC, Wikipedia defines it as a model that

…describes the adoption or acceptance of a new product or innovation, according to the demographic and psychological characteristics of defined adopter groups. The process of adoption over time is typically illustrated as a classical normal distribution or “bell curve.” The model indicates that the first group of people to use a new product is called “innovators,” followed by “early adopters.” Next come the early and late majority, and the last group to eventually adopt a product are called “laggards.”

While enterprise technologies have certainly changed in my fifteen years of working with them, one question continues to intrigue me:

Which type of organization is most likely to be on the left side of TALC?

To simplify matters, I’ll place all organizations into three categories:

The Struggling Organization
The Self-Sufficient Organization
The Adventurous Organization

Note that economic conditions mean that all bets are off. Many successful organizations these days lack the funds for many desirable or even necessary technological improvements.

The Struggling Organization

Over the course of my career, I’ve had many discussions with people about the challenges that their organizations face implementing new systems and why so many projects failed to hit their marks. While by no means a definitive list, consider the following:

the difficulty of gathering comprehensive system requirements during the discovery phase
the dynamic nature of requirements
the inevitable scope creep and resultant problems during IT projects

Issues like these have plagued both organizations for years. What’s more, they continue to manifest themselves during many (if not most) major IT projects. As a result, organizations that have historically struggled with enterprise systems will rarely—if ever—be on the left of TALC. If anything, they are the very definition of laggards.

The Self-Sufficient Organization

Often I’ll assist organizations begrudgingly upgrading systems. In these cases, the motivation is clearly the stick, not the carrot. For these organizations, previous implementation issues and future enhancements to their apps just don’t matter now (as well as in the short- and mid-terms). These types of organizations are going live in a few weeks and the focus is very much on what needs to happen to continue paying employees, running financial reports, and the like. Only well after the dust settles will “future enhancements” be broached.

In terms of TALC, organizations “getting by” are usually reluctant to take the lead on a new but largely untested technology. You’ll most likely find them in the early to late majority of TALC.

The Adventurous Organization

Then there are organizations that want to be on the leading edge–or perhaps need to be, based on some business reason. They have the following:

sufficient financial resources
sufficient human resources
a “risk-tolerant” culture
a compelling business need

These organizations are more likely to implement a largely untested technology and be on the left side of TALC. As an added incentive, at times, software vendors are willing to work with “beta clients” by providing free or heavily discounted resources. In exchange, the vendor will be able to promote the product’s implementation as a successful case study.

Conclusion

Organizations that have had problems implementing and maintaining their systems tend not to be early adopters. In other words, financial, cultural, and political reasons place the vast majority of organizations squarely in the middle of the curve. When walking is a challenge, it’s hard to imagine running.

Feedback

What do you think? Are there are other reasons that organizations often take a “wait and see” approach?

Photo from Wikipedia.

The Technology Adoption Life Cycle is a post from: Phil Simon

Interview with Dylan Jones on Data Issues

philsimon — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 14:53:02 +0000

My friend Dylan Jones has posted interview in which I discuss my data issues and my first book, Why New Systems Fail.

Here’s an excerpt:

Data Quality Pro: Bloor Research uncovered some interesting findings in their industry survey recently. They found that the failure rate was extremely high. What do you feel is preventing these companies learning from their mistakes?

Phil Simon: In a word, experience. Many of my clients have never been through a major new system implementation before. Most have never replaced their legacy back office systems with one integrated solution, at least with current staff members and levels. Such a project is obviously much more time-consuming than a minor upgrade of a stand-alone application that isn’t really connected to anything else.

To read the entire interview, click here.

Interview with Dylan Jones on Data Issues is a post from: Phil Simon

Interview with William McKnight on Why New Systems Fail

philsimon — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 10:08:23 +0000

My friend and fellow author William McKnight has posted interview in which I discuss my first book, Why New Systems Fail.

Here’s an excerpt:

McKnight: Why did you title the book “Why New Systems Fail” when I think it really tells you how to succeed?
Simon: Thank you for saying that. I agree with you; I believe that the book is largely about making projects succeed. However, foolish is the person who refuses to recognize the abysmal success rate on IT projects and system implementations specifically.

I believe that the book’s title is short and descriptive. I tried to write a book that ultimately provides both general and specific advice for avoiding failure. Particularly in a recession, many organizations are going to get one bite at the apple. It’s important that they get projects right the first time.

To read the entire interview, click here.

Interview with William McKnight on Why New Systems Fail is a post from: Phil Simon

Enterprise 2.0 and Collaboration: Come on, HR!

philsimon — Thu, 08 Apr 2010 12:13:55 +0000

I recently read Jacob Morgan’s excellent post, Does Collaboration Impact Business Performance? Morgan reviews an updated Frost and Sullivan report that assesses impact of collaboration on overall business performance. (To read the entire report, click here.) In a nutshell, collaboration is catching on. Big time.

Reactions

The report has its limitations. As Morgan writes, “keep in mind that this (report) only speaks to tool deployment and says nothing about strategy, results, adoption, or effectiveness.”

Very true. Go back 15 years and think about the number of companies doing ERP, BI, or CRM. That didn’t mean that they were implementing and utilizing these technologies well. In fact, many of these projects were suboptimal, at best. Also, it’s interesting how The Great Recession has spurred adoption of some emerging technologies. Often, organizations and people only do things when essentially forced. This has always been the case.

Note the introduction (at least to me) of the term ROC: Return on Collaboration. This could be both very important and very amorphous, rife with unrealistic or undocumented discussions. It will be interesting to see if ROC catches on.

Perhaps the most shocking revelation from the report is the breakdown of collaborators by function. It is here that I’ll go off on a Dennis Miller-type rant. (He’s always been one of my favorite comedians.)

See Figure 5 from the report:

Simon Says

Now, one report certainly does not reflect every HR function at every organization at every industry. Without debating the methodology, data collection, and analysis of the Frost & Sullivan report, HR’s position relative to other functions appears to be appalling. HR should be at the forefront of collaborative technologies, not trailing the pack. To the extent that HR is still intimately involved in the hiring process for many key positions most organizations, how can HR successfully weed out “posers” if it barely uses such important tools? Look at the other functions in the graph. It’s extremely clear that R&D, Sales, etc. all value collaborative tools. HR just doesn’t get it.

Beyond that, I’d also argue that largely ignoring collaborative tools does a number of other inimical things:

Increases the chances that a new hire is unfamiliar with both specific collaboration tools and, more important, a related mindset.
Decreases the trust that line management has in HR as a function (as well as individual employees).
Reinforces HR’s traditional role as the Personnel department and not a truly important partner.

It’s high time that you get on board the Enterprise 2.0 train, HR.

To quote Mr. Miller, “Of course, that’s just my opinion. I could be wrong.”

Am I?

Enterprise 2.0 and Collaboration: Come on, HR! is a post from: Phil Simon

Do Tech Companies Wield Too Much Power?

philsimon — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 19:30:01 +0000

One of my favorite technology sites is ReadWriteWeb and the good folks there recently let me guest post.

I’m a big fan of maxims and technology. It should be no surprise, then, that Melvin Kranzberg’s six laws of technology really speak to me. Perhaps my favorite is, “Technology is neither good nor bad; nor is it neutral.” There have always been–and will always be –winners and losers. Lately I have been wondering if there have been too many of the latter and not enough of the former.

To read the entire post, click here.

Do Tech Companies Wield Too Much Power? is a post from: Phil Simon

Book Trailer for Why New Systems Fail

philsimon — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 05:01:21 +0000

The book trailer for Why New Systems Fail is now up. Click on the short video below to see a brief description of the next edition of the book.

Major props to Lowell Goodman of Corbomite Productions. He understood my vision for the video and worked closely with me to ensure that I was thrilled with the final product.

Book Trailer for Why New Systems Fail is a post from: Phil Simon

Recently Read – 02/17/2010

philsimon — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 05:01:41 +0000

A few highlights from the blogosphere this week and an incredible book.

Navigating the Many Social Networking Sites

In Attention as a Currency and Noise, Chris Brogan describes the importance of attention and priorities in the context of limited time.

Simon Says

I can see why Brogan is, like me, a bit skeptical about Google Buzz. I also agree with him that Google Wave is so much more than just another IM tool. You can save serious time collaborating and minimizing the amount of email back-and-forth.

Square One

In Microsoft Starts Over in Phone Software, Ashlee Vance of The New York Times writes about how Microsoft has recognized the need to blow up the current version of its mobile operating system. Vance writes:

The revamped software represents a rarity for Microsoft — it scrapped previous versions of its software to build something from scratch. Microsoft spent the last 18 months trying to add gloss and sophistication to a product that had been ridiculed as clunky and too wedded to the company’s PC roots.

Simon Says

Give Microsoft Credit. They know when it’s time to call it a day. Turning your back on a product with so much history (and dollars committed) is much easier said than done. From what I understand, however, the Redmond-based giant couldn’t patch its way out of this one. The decision to go in a different direction is probably the correct one if Microsoft is going to compete in the white-hot mobile market.

The IT/Business Chasm

In his post IT failure? Blame your CEO, Michael Krigsman examines the role of the CEO in IT project failures. Normally, CIOs are the ones held accountable for IT projects gone wild. In a post of a similar vein entitled Charm School: It’s Not Just for IT Anymore, my friend Jill Dyché makes some related points.

Simon Says

Michael’s completely on point. IT is no different than other areas of the business. In his post, Michael writes about the history of IT and the “high priests” who used to develop software. We’re not in the mainframe days anymore, though, and haven’t been for quite some time. It’s time that traditional barriers come down.

Jill’s premise is that IT can’t always be the scapegoat and, as usual, she’s right. If I had a nickel for every time that “business” users couldn’t articulate their requirements during the middle of a project, I’d have at least two bucks. I’d hope that more technical functional folks can meet more business-savvy IT folks in the middle, as the diagram in Jill’s excellent post suggests.

The Greatest Tennis Match Ever Played

OK, this one has nothing to do with technology but I like to pretend to be multidimensional. In Strokes of Genius, L. Jon Wertheim recounts the story of arguably the greatest tennis match of all time: the 2008 Wimbledon final between Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer.

Simon Says

This is easily the best tennis book I’ve ever read and one of my favorites in the last five years. Expertly told and weaved with fascinating anecdotes, Wertheim somehow brings drama to a book whose outcome is already known. Among the best sports’ books out there.

Recently Read – 02/17/2010 is a post from: Phil Simon