On Monday, July 23 I spoke at the Maryland Digital Government summit on the topic of “Greening IT”. This is an area I’ve tried to focus on as much as possible in my role as an IT manager; I think it can have a lot of impact both in terms of savings companies money and in improving the environment.
I’ve posted my slide deck along with presentation notes here (my co-presenter from Cisco let me post his slide deck as well). The next two articles contain supporting material: the first is a list of online resources that can help get you started on green IT initiatives; the second is a discussion of how to start a green IT project.
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Greening IT Resources
In my “Greening IT” presentation, I broke out the concept into six initiatives a company or its IT department can engage in: e-cycling, buying green IT equipment, creating green business processes, server virtualization, improving data center efficiency (a “green makeover”) and renewable energy. The links below are categorized accordingly.
E-Cycling
E-Cycling
- Locations In MD
- Locations In DC
- Locations In VA
- Regional Info
- National
- Responsible Recycling:
- Toner/Ink Takeback Programs:
- Computer Takeback programs:
Buy Green Equipment
- EPEAT
- EPA/EnergyStar
- Dell Green Server Calculator
- Dell Green PC Calculator
- Energy Star computer info
- Energy Star power management info
Green Business Processes
Server Virtualization
Data Center "Green Makeover"
Renewable Energy
- National Renewable Energy Lab
- United Technologies
- Net Metering in the region:
- Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency
Implementing a Green IT Program
If you’re considering implementing a Green IT program, in my mind, there are two basic ways to go: either make this a large-scale, multi-year initiative complete with a project plan and budget, or do a bunch of mini-projects to build interest in something bigger. You’ll have to assess which way works best for your company.
In the first case, you could have a four-phase approach (with some suggested durations):
- Discovery/assessment (4-6 months)
- Develop a plan, get executive buy-in (2-4 months)
- Execute the plan (6-8 months)
- Review & evaluate actual ROI versus projected ROI (2 weeks)
The discovery phase would determine how much your company could benefit from putting one or more of these initiatives into practice. I’ve put together a spreadsheet scorecard that can help you with this process (this is a draft work in progress; if you’re interested in helping me develop this further, email me and I will give you contribute access to this Google document).
Once you know where you are, you can put together a project plan that focuses on those things that will have a high ROI. For example, if you discover that you could virtualize 60% of your servers in the data center, you can realize huge savings and provide better service to your customers. Finally, after getting executive buy-in you would put the plan into action and measure your results. Generating metrics in the first phase will make it easier to determine your realized ROI.
In the second case (a bunch of mini-projects), pick a few initiatives and publicize them internally. For example, start an e-cycling campaign and kick it off with all of your staff in green t-shirts going to other departmental staff meetings to explain it and outline the benefits. Each mini-project should take no more than 60 days to implement, ideally.
Saturday, December 8, 2007
Viral Meetings, Part One
Meetings often suck. They suck so much, going to a meeting has become its own category of cliche. Where I currently work, there's a running joke that we're fulfilling our mission "one meeting at a time". And they really find that funny. They had T-shirts made. I'm not kidding.
However, meetings are also vital to getting some aspects of work done. Presuming no one is an island, at some point you've got to involve others in what you're doing. I think meetings can be viral. By viral, I mean that they achieve specific goals and make participants not only enjoy having been in the meeting but look forward to the next meeting you run. Imagine if you could flip the conversation so that instead of people saying "Oh god, another meeting about X" they would say "Oh, X is having a meeting about Y. This is probably important." Imagine how much more effective you would be.
I've seen a couple of books on the subject of making meetings better, but I haven't found one that's practical to the degree that I would like. I'm the kind of person that likes templates; preferably ones that I can hack and slash sufficiently to make them work for me.
Not satisfied with waiting for the perfect book to be written, I thought I'd use this here blog. I've come up with a few templates I'd like to share, as well as get them written down so I can refer to them myself later.
I'll start with The Power Meeting.
The Power Meeting
Typical Duration: 30 minutes
Purposes: Conduct a single piece of business; get one executive decision; brainstorm a solution
Participants: Often one or more executives; probably no more than six total participants
Description:
The Power Meeting is a template you'll want to use when you need your boss to decide something. It's also good for when you need to get a team together to brainstorm a small number of items, or convey a few pieces of information. It's a useful template when dealing with executives, as you may not get more than 30 minutes on their calendars.
For example: suppose you need your boss to weigh in on a project. The project is technical, and your boss has not been involved in the day-to-day running of it (and may not be technically skilled himself). Without a decision from him, the project's going to get stuck, and it's too complicated to convey in an email.
Tell your boss you want a power meeting to break through a project obstacle.
The Template:
The important thing with a power meeting is to keep the agenda light. Better yet, don't have one. All you want to cover is one item, and you're not going to let the meeting balloon into the thing that ate Cleveland. Invite participants with the message that you need them to get together with you for 30 minutes and no longer, and that you'll be discussing Item X. Be specific, but keep the invitation brief. If you write a lot in the invitation, it sets up the expectation of a complicated mess, which everyone assumes will result in a long meeting.
Keep the invitation list as short as possible. The ideal situation is two people: possibly you and your boss. The invitees are everyone whose opinion or input is ESSENTIAL to the outcome. If you find yourself saying: "Should I invite this person? They always get mad when they're not included" do not invite them. Keep the list to six or less. Less is always better.
When you have the meeting, do not give a long introduction. Simply restate the invite message ("As I wrote in the invite, I called you all here to discuss...") and move right to content. The intro should be 30 seconds. The ideal power meeting topic is one everyone is familiar with, although this is not always possible.
Set up the decision point or brainstorm topic in five minutes or less. This requires preparation. Especially if you're going into a power meeting with your boss - who you know has the attention span of a gnat on crystal meth - practice stating the issue so that it takes as few sentences as possible. Sometimes the practice of trying to state the problem simply will make you realize the solution, obviating the need for a meeting at all. This is also very valuable.
The bulk of the meeting should be focused discussion. If you are with peers of subordinates, it is your job to keep everyone on topic and focused while at the same time not cutting people off unnecessarily. This is tricky, but the better you are as moderator the more likely you will have a satisfactory outcome. Remember that you're all there to achieve something, and everyone needs to be focused on that thing. You can say things like "That's an important point, but we need to stay focused on...", but avoid statements like "You're taking us off-topic" or "That's not important right now". Respect participants opinions as well as their time.
The most important thing is to end on time. Sometimes this means not getting to a resolution, but that may be ok. Get to as satisfactory a conclusion as possible and move on. If you need a follow-up, schedule it immediately. If you end when you said you would, this let's everyone know that you respect their time. There will be times when you want to keep people there because you feel like you're on a roll, but believe me it's better to end it at 30 minutes.
At the end of the meeting, restate briefly what was decided and any action items along with who is responsible for them. If you've been taking notes, reserve a space on the notes page for action items and refer specifically to them when recapping the meeting.
If you get good at power meetings, people will respect you more. That sounds simplistic, but running a tight, short meeting conveys your ability to focus people on the issues that matter and that you're serious about what you do. Some executives will only hold this kind of a meeting, on the theory that anything can be accomplished in 30 minutes and anything longer is necessarily a waste of time.
Your boss may call you to a meeting, perhaps one on one, in which she wants to discuss a single topic. Recognize this as a power meeting, and prepare accordingly. In this case, you're not running the meeting, but if you know the topic to be discussed be as prepared as you can be. Practice answering questions in two or three sentences, focusing on the important information. This doesn't mean being terse or blunt, or omitting information, but rather staying focused on what is being asked.
Power meetings are not good for situations where more than three items need to be covered, or when a very detailed discussion is required. If you try to cram a lot of things into a power meeting, people will feel rushed and you will probably not accomplish anything.
However, meetings are also vital to getting some aspects of work done. Presuming no one is an island, at some point you've got to involve others in what you're doing. I think meetings can be viral. By viral, I mean that they achieve specific goals and make participants not only enjoy having been in the meeting but look forward to the next meeting you run. Imagine if you could flip the conversation so that instead of people saying "Oh god, another meeting about X" they would say "Oh, X is having a meeting about Y. This is probably important." Imagine how much more effective you would be.
I've seen a couple of books on the subject of making meetings better, but I haven't found one that's practical to the degree that I would like. I'm the kind of person that likes templates; preferably ones that I can hack and slash sufficiently to make them work for me.
Not satisfied with waiting for the perfect book to be written, I thought I'd use this here blog. I've come up with a few templates I'd like to share, as well as get them written down so I can refer to them myself later.
I'll start with The Power Meeting.
The Power Meeting
Typical Duration: 30 minutes
Purposes: Conduct a single piece of business; get one executive decision; brainstorm a solution
Participants: Often one or more executives; probably no more than six total participants
Description:
The Power Meeting is a template you'll want to use when you need your boss to decide something. It's also good for when you need to get a team together to brainstorm a small number of items, or convey a few pieces of information. It's a useful template when dealing with executives, as you may not get more than 30 minutes on their calendars.
For example: suppose you need your boss to weigh in on a project. The project is technical, and your boss has not been involved in the day-to-day running of it (and may not be technically skilled himself). Without a decision from him, the project's going to get stuck, and it's too complicated to convey in an email.
Tell your boss you want a power meeting to break through a project obstacle.
The Template:
The important thing with a power meeting is to keep the agenda light. Better yet, don't have one. All you want to cover is one item, and you're not going to let the meeting balloon into the thing that ate Cleveland. Invite participants with the message that you need them to get together with you for 30 minutes and no longer, and that you'll be discussing Item X. Be specific, but keep the invitation brief. If you write a lot in the invitation, it sets up the expectation of a complicated mess, which everyone assumes will result in a long meeting.
Keep the invitation list as short as possible. The ideal situation is two people: possibly you and your boss. The invitees are everyone whose opinion or input is ESSENTIAL to the outcome. If you find yourself saying: "Should I invite this person? They always get mad when they're not included" do not invite them. Keep the list to six or less. Less is always better.
When you have the meeting, do not give a long introduction. Simply restate the invite message ("As I wrote in the invite, I called you all here to discuss...") and move right to content. The intro should be 30 seconds. The ideal power meeting topic is one everyone is familiar with, although this is not always possible.
Set up the decision point or brainstorm topic in five minutes or less. This requires preparation. Especially if you're going into a power meeting with your boss - who you know has the attention span of a gnat on crystal meth - practice stating the issue so that it takes as few sentences as possible. Sometimes the practice of trying to state the problem simply will make you realize the solution, obviating the need for a meeting at all. This is also very valuable.
The bulk of the meeting should be focused discussion. If you are with peers of subordinates, it is your job to keep everyone on topic and focused while at the same time not cutting people off unnecessarily. This is tricky, but the better you are as moderator the more likely you will have a satisfactory outcome. Remember that you're all there to achieve something, and everyone needs to be focused on that thing. You can say things like "That's an important point, but we need to stay focused on...", but avoid statements like "You're taking us off-topic" or "That's not important right now". Respect participants opinions as well as their time.
The most important thing is to end on time. Sometimes this means not getting to a resolution, but that may be ok. Get to as satisfactory a conclusion as possible and move on. If you need a follow-up, schedule it immediately. If you end when you said you would, this let's everyone know that you respect their time. There will be times when you want to keep people there because you feel like you're on a roll, but believe me it's better to end it at 30 minutes.
At the end of the meeting, restate briefly what was decided and any action items along with who is responsible for them. If you've been taking notes, reserve a space on the notes page for action items and refer specifically to them when recapping the meeting.
If you get good at power meetings, people will respect you more. That sounds simplistic, but running a tight, short meeting conveys your ability to focus people on the issues that matter and that you're serious about what you do. Some executives will only hold this kind of a meeting, on the theory that anything can be accomplished in 30 minutes and anything longer is necessarily a waste of time.
Your boss may call you to a meeting, perhaps one on one, in which she wants to discuss a single topic. Recognize this as a power meeting, and prepare accordingly. In this case, you're not running the meeting, but if you know the topic to be discussed be as prepared as you can be. Practice answering questions in two or three sentences, focusing on the important information. This doesn't mean being terse or blunt, or omitting information, but rather staying focused on what is being asked.
Power meetings are not good for situations where more than three items need to be covered, or when a very detailed discussion is required. If you try to cram a lot of things into a power meeting, people will feel rushed and you will probably not accomplish anything.
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Owning the Value Chain
Or: Is the iPhone viral?
Google's Android project, the announcement of which finally let everyone know its true intentions in the mobile phone market, was the right move for the company. There are a lot of reasons why making and marketing a handset would be a mistake even for one of the world's richest firms.
Compare this with Google's seemingly clear interest in bidding in the upcoming 700MHz auction. It's possible that Google will once again show that its actual strategy is different than most people think it is, but I believe they really are going to put up $4.6 billion. Now, it's also possible that this is just a tactic to ensure open access requirements stay in the mix; this would also be in line with the OHA initiative. Let's say, however, that Google bids and wins. It would own a truly valuable piece of real estate, to be sure. What would it do with it? If I had to guess, I would say that in keeping with its desire for open networks it would wholesale the spectrum to other providers and ensure competition.
Thus could Google re-create the wireless world in its own image. As a commercial entity, however, Google would be wrong to take this approach. I say this because Google needs to focus on what it does best: indexing the world's information and making it useful. By resisting (or never really considering) the move into handsets, Google maintained its focus. If it becomes a spectrum licensor/ee, it runs the risk of losing focus.
Google may feel that it has no strategic choice. The truth is, wireless broadband is the new frontier. In five years' time we will all be browsing the Web on our mobiles. It's been the case in Asia for many years already. As the premier Web company (arguably), Google stands the most to gain or lose based on who owns the wireless space. If Verizon wins the auction, although it will be compelled to allow "gPhones" to use the network, it could wield influence on the kinds of content that are allowed or prioritized.
There's a value chain here that I think is worth exploring. It looks something like:
As a company, part of your strategy would be to decide where on this value chain you want to target your products and services. Verizon has staked its claim firmly in the "Transmission Media" camp, although it makes some of its money on "Hardware" as well through reselling handsets and leasing network gear. Google is a "Content" company. Its content is contained in the index of websites and ads it has developed, plus the algorithms to match them up when a search is performed (oversimplifying, obviously). It has also dabbled in hardware, as with the search appliance, and software with its many productivity applications (though it doesn't charge for those).
So far, so good. You can place your own favorite companies on the value chain as well. The problem comes when a company tries to compete in more than one place on the value chain. Let's say Verizon tries to be a content company, possibly by creating its own search engine (it's already dabbling in content, arguably, with IPTV). The business model it has developed would do it no good: running a network is a lot different than creating compelling content to travel on it. It would need to figure out how to compete in the new space. Google would face a similar problem if it tried to run a network, especially if it tried to sell service on that network. Wholesaling the rights to others would be a good step, but it would still have to maintain (in theory) a nationwide network (note that the rules for bidding on the spectrum require the winner to deliver services to 40% of each relevant market in four years and 75% in ten years, thereby requiring the winner to own and operate a network). Google may have some of the largest data centers in the world, but it's one thing to run your own network and another to operate a commercial one.
This is why I think that Google would be ill-advised to bid on the spectrum. I don't think there's much chance that the $4.6 billion threshold will be missed. Although Verizon (which initially sued the FCC in an attempt to remove the open access rule) would probably win the auction without Google to go up against, this is not necessarily a bad thing. The OHA is a much better play for Google; it can control a lot of the Content portion of the value chain by helping to set standards on the Client side, without having to actually build a Client device.
Scanning the rest of the horizon, two other companies are worth mentioning here: Microsoft and Apple. These two have similar strategies, but operate in different areas of the value chain. Microsoft is firmly Software, although it dabbles in Hardware a lot and often gets burned in the process (as with the Zune fiasco (and), but not so far with Xbox). Apple is mostly a Hardware company. It is also a Software company, but has been smart about pulling back and focusing just on operating systems (basing OS X on Linux was paticularly good); which, it could be argued, are hard to divorce from Hardware.
In the mobile space, this shows up clearly. Microsoft has not tried to release a handset so far, but instead focuses on Windows Mobile and mobile versions of its Office Software. Apple made the iPhone, which leverages OS X, but does not try to write Software for it. Instead, the device leverages "Web apps" written by others (granted, a lot of out-of-the-box functionality requires applications that are associated with a mobile, like a calendar, contact list, mail reader, browser, etc). Neither company has any intention of competing in the Transmission Media space as far as I can tell, which is smart.
Obviously the lines between parts of the value chain are somewhat moveable based on your corporate strategy. It's only when your decisions are based solely on a diversification strategy that you run into trouble (i.e.: we need to diversify our offerings, so let's try doing this over here that has nothing to do with our core business model).
Both Apple and Microsoft see the same thing Google and Verizon do: the value chain is heating up because of wireless broadband (also because of fiber to the node plays that are popping up more frequently). Microsoft built the Xbox because it knows that computers as we think of them today are going to change radically. It wants into the living room as well as the home office, because of the blurring lines between entertainment and computing. No one will be buying shrink-wrapped software in ten years' time, which is Microsoft's bread and butter today. But they will use Software over the Network, and Microsoft wants the converged device to be the Xbox. I contend that in the long term Microsoft should sell the Xbox unit or spin it off, after it's established its presence more. This comes back to the notion of focus: know what your company does and what it doesn't do. Microsoft is a Software company, and it can rule that space for years to come.
Apple sees this too. It built the iPhone for similar reasons that Microsoft built Xbox, and Apple is betting heavy on mobile computing. Apple also is only one step away from owning the entertainment/computing convergence space with its Mac products and the iPod. How many parties have you been to where the audio entertainment was somebody's iPod connected to an amp? The final step requires the breaking of Microsoft's de facto Software monopoly.
So with the iPhone, Apple is assuming that you will compute most of the time on your handset. I think some people have focused too much on the WiFi/EDGE issue and fail to see the larger picture: the iPhone is a virus. It makes people want better networks and more Software that can be used over the Network. That, in turn, means more people want to buy Macs if you buy the theory that the Mac is the more pleasurable computer. Another possibility is that the computer is the iPhone and the Mac goes away or becomes a port or dock for the iPhone, enhancing its capabilities and giving the user a larger screen, alternative controls, etc.
Time will tell, obviously, with all of these things. The main lesson is knowing where you want to compete in the value chain and maintain that dogged focus.
Google's Android project, the announcement of which finally let everyone know its true intentions in the mobile phone market, was the right move for the company. There are a lot of reasons why making and marketing a handset would be a mistake even for one of the world's richest firms.
Compare this with Google's seemingly clear interest in bidding in the upcoming 700MHz auction. It's possible that Google will once again show that its actual strategy is different than most people think it is, but I believe they really are going to put up $4.6 billion. Now, it's also possible that this is just a tactic to ensure open access requirements stay in the mix; this would also be in line with the OHA initiative. Let's say, however, that Google bids and wins. It would own a truly valuable piece of real estate, to be sure. What would it do with it? If I had to guess, I would say that in keeping with its desire for open networks it would wholesale the spectrum to other providers and ensure competition.
Thus could Google re-create the wireless world in its own image. As a commercial entity, however, Google would be wrong to take this approach. I say this because Google needs to focus on what it does best: indexing the world's information and making it useful. By resisting (or never really considering) the move into handsets, Google maintained its focus. If it becomes a spectrum licensor/ee, it runs the risk of losing focus.
Google may feel that it has no strategic choice. The truth is, wireless broadband is the new frontier. In five years' time we will all be browsing the Web on our mobiles. It's been the case in Asia for many years already. As the premier Web company (arguably), Google stands the most to gain or lose based on who owns the wireless space. If Verizon wins the auction, although it will be compelled to allow "gPhones" to use the network, it could wield influence on the kinds of content that are allowed or prioritized.
There's a value chain here that I think is worth exploring. It looks something like:
Content <--> Networks <--> Clients
Both "Networks" and "Clients" could be broken into a separate value chain:
[Hardware <--> Software] --> Transmission Media
As a company, part of your strategy would be to decide where on this value chain you want to target your products and services. Verizon has staked its claim firmly in the "Transmission Media" camp, although it makes some of its money on "Hardware" as well through reselling handsets and leasing network gear. Google is a "Content" company. Its content is contained in the index of websites and ads it has developed, plus the algorithms to match them up when a search is performed (oversimplifying, obviously). It has also dabbled in hardware, as with the search appliance, and software with its many productivity applications (though it doesn't charge for those).
So far, so good. You can place your own favorite companies on the value chain as well. The problem comes when a company tries to compete in more than one place on the value chain. Let's say Verizon tries to be a content company, possibly by creating its own search engine (it's already dabbling in content, arguably, with IPTV). The business model it has developed would do it no good: running a network is a lot different than creating compelling content to travel on it. It would need to figure out how to compete in the new space. Google would face a similar problem if it tried to run a network, especially if it tried to sell service on that network. Wholesaling the rights to others would be a good step, but it would still have to maintain (in theory) a nationwide network (note that the rules for bidding on the spectrum require the winner to deliver services to 40% of each relevant market in four years and 75% in ten years, thereby requiring the winner to own and operate a network). Google may have some of the largest data centers in the world, but it's one thing to run your own network and another to operate a commercial one.
This is why I think that Google would be ill-advised to bid on the spectrum. I don't think there's much chance that the $4.6 billion threshold will be missed. Although Verizon (which initially sued the FCC in an attempt to remove the open access rule) would probably win the auction without Google to go up against, this is not necessarily a bad thing. The OHA is a much better play for Google; it can control a lot of the Content portion of the value chain by helping to set standards on the Client side, without having to actually build a Client device.
Scanning the rest of the horizon, two other companies are worth mentioning here: Microsoft and Apple. These two have similar strategies, but operate in different areas of the value chain. Microsoft is firmly Software, although it dabbles in Hardware a lot and often gets burned in the process (as with the Zune fiasco (and), but not so far with Xbox). Apple is mostly a Hardware company. It is also a Software company, but has been smart about pulling back and focusing just on operating systems (basing OS X on Linux was paticularly good); which, it could be argued, are hard to divorce from Hardware.
In the mobile space, this shows up clearly. Microsoft has not tried to release a handset so far, but instead focuses on Windows Mobile and mobile versions of its Office Software. Apple made the iPhone, which leverages OS X, but does not try to write Software for it. Instead, the device leverages "Web apps" written by others (granted, a lot of out-of-the-box functionality requires applications that are associated with a mobile, like a calendar, contact list, mail reader, browser, etc). Neither company has any intention of competing in the Transmission Media space as far as I can tell, which is smart.
Obviously the lines between parts of the value chain are somewhat moveable based on your corporate strategy. It's only when your decisions are based solely on a diversification strategy that you run into trouble (i.e.: we need to diversify our offerings, so let's try doing this over here that has nothing to do with our core business model).
Both Apple and Microsoft see the same thing Google and Verizon do: the value chain is heating up because of wireless broadband (also because of fiber to the node plays that are popping up more frequently). Microsoft built the Xbox because it knows that computers as we think of them today are going to change radically. It wants into the living room as well as the home office, because of the blurring lines between entertainment and computing. No one will be buying shrink-wrapped software in ten years' time, which is Microsoft's bread and butter today. But they will use Software over the Network, and Microsoft wants the converged device to be the Xbox. I contend that in the long term Microsoft should sell the Xbox unit or spin it off, after it's established its presence more. This comes back to the notion of focus: know what your company does and what it doesn't do. Microsoft is a Software company, and it can rule that space for years to come.
Apple sees this too. It built the iPhone for similar reasons that Microsoft built Xbox, and Apple is betting heavy on mobile computing. Apple also is only one step away from owning the entertainment/computing convergence space with its Mac products and the iPod. How many parties have you been to where the audio entertainment was somebody's iPod connected to an amp? The final step requires the breaking of Microsoft's de facto Software monopoly.
So with the iPhone, Apple is assuming that you will compute most of the time on your handset. I think some people have focused too much on the WiFi/EDGE issue and fail to see the larger picture: the iPhone is a virus. It makes people want better networks and more Software that can be used over the Network. That, in turn, means more people want to buy Macs if you buy the theory that the Mac is the more pleasurable computer. Another possibility is that the computer is the iPhone and the Mac goes away or becomes a port or dock for the iPhone, enhancing its capabilities and giving the user a larger screen, alternative controls, etc.
Time will tell, obviously, with all of these things. The main lesson is knowing where you want to compete in the value chain and maintain that dogged focus.
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Anti-Viral Patterns, Part One
From time to time (roughly as I come up with or encounter them), I'll post here some "anti-viral" patterns or activities. Essentially these are practices that, if followed, have a dampening effect on social viruses. The first one I want to write about is called the "Black Box" pattern.
In projects I've seen or been a part of, there are sometimes teams or whole organizations who exhibit a tendency to want to have all of their work done in a dark place, where customers, stakeholders or anyone else who might contradict the team worldview cannot see it get produced. I characterize this as: "Tell me what you want, I'll go away and come back to present you with the final product."
At the risk of being absolutist, this approach will fail. The sensitivity behind the pattern is "If I let you be a part of the production process, you will only mess it up. Only I know what you really want, so let me do my thing and your job is to thank me later." A variant is "I will take your requirements and match them up with my evil scheme to dominate the world, remove all the inconsistencies and present you with a product that resembles what you said you wanted but fits much better into my aforementioned scheme." Even if the truth is the former, many external observers will assume the latter case.
The opposing viral pattern is the "Big Tent" pattern. In the Big Tent, everyone gets to come in and see things getting built; they are involved in the process and as a result own the outcome much more than they would if it was spat out of a Black Box. This requires a much higher development time to requirements ratio: you can reduce requirements or increase development time, but you need to have your assumptions about what will be built when according to the level of involvement you allow. If stakeholders can "stop the line" (as in Toyota's jidoka) at any point regardless of the level of experience the stakeholder has, you might get a great product ten years from now.
Where you draw the line between Black Box and Big Tent should be negotiated with stakeholders as part of a project governance process.
In projects I've seen or been a part of, there are sometimes teams or whole organizations who exhibit a tendency to want to have all of their work done in a dark place, where customers, stakeholders or anyone else who might contradict the team worldview cannot see it get produced. I characterize this as: "Tell me what you want, I'll go away and come back to present you with the final product."
At the risk of being absolutist, this approach will fail. The sensitivity behind the pattern is "If I let you be a part of the production process, you will only mess it up. Only I know what you really want, so let me do my thing and your job is to thank me later." A variant is "I will take your requirements and match them up with my evil scheme to dominate the world, remove all the inconsistencies and present you with a product that resembles what you said you wanted but fits much better into my aforementioned scheme." Even if the truth is the former, many external observers will assume the latter case.
The opposing viral pattern is the "Big Tent" pattern. In the Big Tent, everyone gets to come in and see things getting built; they are involved in the process and as a result own the outcome much more than they would if it was spat out of a Black Box. This requires a much higher development time to requirements ratio: you can reduce requirements or increase development time, but you need to have your assumptions about what will be built when according to the level of involvement you allow. If stakeholders can "stop the line" (as in Toyota's jidoka) at any point regardless of the level of experience the stakeholder has, you might get a great product ten years from now.
Where you draw the line between Black Box and Big Tent should be negotiated with stakeholders as part of a project governance process.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
eNATOA Seminar: Solving Government Business Problems over your Communications Network
Yesterday I spoke at the eNATOA seminar entitled "Solving Government Business Problems over your Communications Network". I was one of three panelists; Denise Brady spoke about work she's done in San Francisco to expand the city's fiber network for three different projects: a 911 data network, a college satellite extension network and an interconnection of 800MHz towers via fiber. Liliana Rambo from the City of Houston talked about an interesting smart parking meter application delivered via WiFi (echoes of Corpus Christi).
I spoke about the National Capital Region's use of government I-Nets to create a dedicated public safety network. My comments are available in PDF here.
I spoke about the National Capital Region's use of government I-Nets to create a dedicated public safety network. My comments are available in PDF here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
