Archive for Management
Tips For Choosing A Quality Vendor
The Denver Public Library recently redesigned its main website. The new site is colorful, updated in looks and design, and appears to be an improvement over its old website. Unfortunately, this is another case of beauty only being skin deep.
The vendor that the library chose to deliver its new library website, which includes searching the card catalog, managing your library account, reserving items, and renewing check out materials, is called Aquabrowser.
The biggest problem with selecting a good, quality, vendor to work with is figuring out before you buy their software offerings and sign a multi-year service contract whether or not their system is a good one. Typically, vendors provide what the industry calls, "dog and pony shows," in which the vendor demos their software. These demonstrations are obviously crafted to show off the strength of the vendor’s offering and to downplay any short comings. Unfortunately, a great many software services purchases are made on the basis of these carefully scripted and artificial demos and big design flaws only become known after installation.
In the case of Aquabrowser and the Denver Public Library the flaws stem from what must be a one-size-fits-all library management system that the company markets as widely as possible to maximize sales and support revenues. In order to limit the resources necessary to install and maintain its library computer system, they resort to any number of cheap programming tricks that degrade the usability of the system in order to maximize its standardization.
The main issue with the new Denver Library website system is that anything beyond superficial interaction with the website requires a pop-up window to open. This requires accessing a new domain name (aquabrowser). Advanced users have blocking software that prevent new websites from randomly opening for no reason, and in this case, aquabrowser will be rightly blocked. This is, of course, a cheap web development hack that keeps the vendor from actually having to support the library’s own website infrastructure. Instead, users are redirected off to the generic systems run by the vendor.
In order to prevent supporting multiple browsers or window sized, the vendor makes the pop-up window static preventing the user from re-sizing the window. This is amateur design at best. With a fixed window, users with bigger monitors cannot take advantage of their larger size by viewing more rows at a time. The number of rows supported for something like viewing your checked out materials is only a dozen or so, far less than the number of items library patrons have checked out on average. Furthermore, the list cannot be sorted by the user’s choosing. Only a due date sort is possible leaving users to scroll individually through a small, unsortable, list to find a specific item.
Making windows that cannot be resized is the hallmark of design decisions made with the software in mind above the user’s needs. By making the windows unresizable, the vendor need not do any coding to dynamically resize columns nor to add additional rows (or vice versa) to larger or smaller windows. The fact that the library card account holder might need something different is of no importance.
The icing on the cake in this instance is that the vendor cynically places their own company information ahead of the library’s information. The windows opened whenever the user hits the vendor’s systems have titles that say, "AquaBrowser Library – Discover Denver Library". That way, the vendor can point to its "successful" installation at the Denver Public Library with easy, proof that it is their system "behind the scenes." As an added bonus, title tags are the key to search engine optimization, so the company has ensured that it will be present in as many web searches as possible.
Time will tell if the Denver Library bought into a bill of goods based on a dog and pony show that leaves the beloved Denver attraction with an uncustomizable user experience that people will just have to "get used to" or if this was only the default installation and that the library will be able to once again deliver a high-quality experience to library patrons.
Factors For Choosing Vendors
Whenever viewing a vendor presentation, look for things that never change, or that are not indicative of a typical experience. Software that looks great with 5 records displayed at a time may be worthless with 20 records shown. Ask to see more.
Also, ask to see less. What happens if there are only 50 records as opposed to the 5,000 in the demo? Is the system too bloated and cumbersome then?
Contact the vendor’s references BEFORE the presentation. In addition to asking what they think, ask what the main complaints were when the system was first installed and how they were dealt with. Then, ask about those same things in the demo. If the vendor starts hemming and hawing, you have a system in front of you that may not be all that it is cracked up to be.
If, on the other hand, the vendor has ready, acceptable answers, then you have a fully workable system.
There is more to vendor selection than just money. Choosing the low cost vendor may prove to be a high cost decision if too many workarounds are required or too many customers disenfranchised.
Giving Credit Where No Credit Is Due
Wired Magazine published a particularly fawning article in its May issue regarding Steve Jobs and Apple Computer. The article concluded that Apple was “evil” for being closed in its development of various products and the way it locks both companies and users either into or out of its products. Far from showing how this model has been (or will prove to be) devastating to Apple, the article seems to praise Apple.
It is no surprise then to find out that the article was written by the man who wrote a ghost blog from “Steve Jobs’ Mind” and then published a book. No doubt, Steve Jobs is the author’s bread and butter, but in the long run perhaps it would be better to keep one’s credibility instead of pumping up a dubious quality CEO.
The article notes that Mr. Jobs was brought back to Apple to turn around the lagging computer maker. The article gives him full marks for doing so noting that market share has doubled to 6%. Like I told a manager who tried to pass off an insulting raise by couching it in percentages, 25% more than nothing is still nothing. I mean, golly gee whiz shucks, a WHOLE 6%! Wow! Honestly, if Google released a new computer architecture tomorrow, it would have a 6% market share by year end. Are we seriously giving a man credit for getting up to 6% market share over a dozen years?
The Firefox browser was released as version 1.0 (though there were several pre-1.0 releases) in November of 2004. As of June 2008, it has a 19% market share against Microsoft (and others). In other words, in less than four years, Firefox has managed to grow to nearly one-fifth of the market without the help of ubiquitous television ads. In contrast, Steve Jobs was re-made CEO of Apple in 1997 and in over 10 years has managed to lead the company to a whopping 6% share. Excuse me if I don’t share the enthusiasm for this level of leadership.
The article, in order to avoid being even more laughable that it is, plays up Apple’s success in the iPod and iPhone. No one can deny the success there. However, it would be more accurate to describe Mr. Jobs as having failed miserably at the stated goal of “bringing Apple back.” However, it is true that Mr. Jobs did a fantastic job of starting a completely new gadget company.
iPod and iPhone Future or Future Kitsch?
Although both the iPod and iPhone have succeeded over the short term despite their secretive locked in strategy, will that translate into long term success? Even now, other players in the phone industry are developing newer better phones. Granted, they still lag the iPhone, but without the lead gained from the surprise attack, are they really that good? Check any forum you want to see the rampant grumbling about being force to use AT & T Wireless. When the inevitable day arrives when another phone that is almost as good, but half the price of the iPhone arrives where will the market share head then?
For the answer, look no further than Apple’s computers. Apple’s operating system is almost universally hailed as being far superior to Windows in every way. And yet, despite a constant flood of TV advertising, Apple languishes as a far distant also-ran. Why? The very secrecy and closed market philosophy the magazine applauds is the answer.
Maybe Apple is better, but when for the same price you can get a lightweight laptop AND a power laptop from any number of Windows systems manufacturers, does the average Joe decided to buy Apple? Without the likes of Dell, Gateway, Lenovo, and hundreds of other manufacturers pushing the limits of features and price, Apple computers are WAY more expensive. Sure, there are benefits, but when your checkbook is out, are those benefits worth $1,000 or more? Especially when you know that in just three to four years, both systems will be on their way to obsolete town?
Even today, there are the rumblings of the coming storm. iTunes is praised for holding the line at 99 cents per song, and justifiably so, but is that it? Sure, it integrates tightly with iPod, but with nothing else. To top it off, iTunes insists on installing and frequently updating QuickTime which no one uses! In fact, yours truly got so fed up with iTunes earlier this year that I used Glary Utilities to delete it AND its cursed QuickTime. Why?
I don’t have an Apple computer, which means I can afford to have both a laptop (for portability) and a desktop (for power and 22” widescreen monitor). So, I want to be able to plug my iPod into both computers depending on if I am home or not. But iTunes won’t allow it! The closed structure insists that I use one computer as the “main” computer regardless of how I actually use my systems.
I get that there are rights issues here, but even the songs that I did not buy through Apple can’t be synced between systems. The result? A single hour of Internet research, and a day or two of software testing, and now I use my iPod with Media Monkey on two systems and iTunes is installed on neither.
My phone is through Sprint thanks to their SERO program which gives me unlimited data (and plenty of voice) for just $30 a month. No amount of Apple cool-ness is worth me shelling out somewhere over $100 per month in addition to whatever I would have to pay for an iPhone. I may or may not be in the minority today, but as the phone providers (who are much better at making good phones with good features than Microsoft is at doing the same with operating systems) catch up to where it those extra goodies that Apple’s iPhone possesses, there will be more and more users who think, “Yeah, but I don’t really need that.”
When that day comes, Apple’s iPhones and iPods will drift back to where their computers are. Beloved by a devoted but small group of fans, and not seriously considered by the rest of us.
Way to miss the boat, Wired.
Dont Save the Good Stuff
I’ve started to come across more and more people on the Internet who also have their own sites. A lot of times they will ask me to check out their site and tell them what I think. Then, before I say (type) anything, they throw in, “I’m still building it though, so I haven’t put up all of my best stuff.” As fast as the things move these days, you can’t ever know when your time will come. It might be now, it might be next year. The point is, when the time comes, don’t you want people reading your “best stuff”? So, whether you are starting a new web site, opening a new business, starting a new ad campaign, or just continuing on with your current successes, don’t hold anything back. If you’ve got good stuff in your head, get it out there, because otherwise all of us without access to your head won’t see it. And, frankly, if we don’t see any good stuff when we come by, why would we come back?
Management is a Skill
Management is a skill. It sounds obvious, but in my years as a consultant at companies both large and small I saw this simple bit of knowledge ignored time and time again.
Take Rob, for instance. Rob is a great engineer. In fact, Rob may be the best engineer the company has ever seen. Rob has been a good employee for ten years and has been responsible for great things over those years. Would Rob make a good manager? Yes or No?
Bzzzt. Trick question. You have no idea if Rob would make a good manager. Sure he’s a great engineer and if he were promoted to manager of the engineering group there is no doubt that he would be able to understand everything going on around him. In fact, when Rob assigns Alice a project he knows it will take about a week. After a week, Alice isn’t done with the project. No problem. Something may have come up or something could have gone wrong or million other things. After two weeks the project still isn’t done. What Rob does now, is what determines if he is a good manager or not, and it has absolutely NOTHING to do with his engineering skills.
Rob talks to Alice. She tells him how the past week was just crazy, plus her kids are freaking out, and that guy in accounting needed something right away. Rob understands and asks if she can get it done this week. Alice says she will try very hard. Then it’s three weeks, four, five, six, and we have our answer, Rob is a bad manager.
Management Skill?
If the project should take one week and if one day after Rob is berating Alice and threatening to fire her, Rob is a bad manager. If the project drags on for six weeks and Rob hasn’t been able to get Alice to get her job done Rob is a bad manager. What is the magic time in that range? That is what being a good manager is all about.
Notice how this particular example has absolutely nothing to do with what Rob’s job was before he was a manager. Whether Rob was an engineer or not is completely moot. The fact that he was an engineer may give Rob better insight into whether or not the time frame for completion was right in the first place, and it could give him insight into any problems that Alice might be having, but actually having to deal with Alice is what being a manager is about. Maybe Alice is one of those workers who just needs a little more supervision. An extra bit of oversight would keep her on target and happily working as one of the company’s most productive engineers. So, Rob sets a daily 11:00 status session with Alice and her projects are completed well and on time. Maybe Rob is a good manager.
Management skills have nothing to do with technical savvy. They have everything to do with people savvy. Dealing with an employee who starts showing up every day at 9:20 instead of 9:00 is management. Dealing with conflicting vacation requests is management. Deciding who can telecommute or work flex-time and how much is management. Being able to whip up the engineering plans for the biggest client in a week is NOT management.
Bad Management Skills
Bad management skills run rampant in many companies. Many bad managers come to rely on bad management skills as crutches to avoid actually having to do the management they are paid for.
Bad management skills include:
- Too Many “Policies” – in an effort to not have to make difficult decisions some managers try to answer all possible questions in advance by issuing policies. This leads inevitably to a ridiculous contrivance. Think about schools that declare any student brining a knife over 4 inches long to school will be suspended for a month, only to find their top honor student in the cafeteria with a 5 inch kitchen knife because Dad packed the child’s lunch box when Mom was sick and thought the child might need to knife to cut up his apple. Clearly the policy was not intended for this circumstance but because the school was unwilling to make tough decisions based on all the facts, they are now in a more ridiculous situation. The same thing happens in the workplace.
- Too Many Meetings – convinced that the problem is simply that either they don’t know enough or that the employees don’t know enough, bad managers schedule constant meetings instead of reaching out individually until no one considers the meetings anything more than a required waste of time during which to drink their coffee.
- Too Many Reports – like too many meetings too many reports causes employees to begin working toward whatever looks best on the report instead of what is most productive.
- Micromanagement – if things are bad it must be because people aren’t being managed enough. More checking in, and more input into trivial issues must be the solution.
- Phony Rewards / Phony Punishments – nothing makes employees roll their eyes more than “contests” or other such nonsense cooked up by management to motivate them. Has anyone in the history of business actually worked one ounce harder in order to get their manager to wear a blue wig to the manager’s meeting?
Worst Management = Uniformity
The worst bad management skill is forced uniformity. Some managers continually confuse “the same” with “fair”. Because Alice needs a daily status session, Rob has decided to implement them across the board. After all, if everyone has a daily status session that is “fair”. This decision makes Betty, another great engineer, very unhappy. Betty, unlike Alice, doesn’t need much oversight. Her projects are done well and on time without any need for extra management hand holding. In fact, Betty spends more time preparing for the daily updates than she does working on her projects. She is actually working on several multi-step projects and before the daily sessions did a fine job of juggling them all. Some days she only worked on one project, other days she worked on several. With the new daily status sessions Betty feels forced to make sure every project advances every day. This isn’t practical and it is actually slowing her down causing her to become even more stressed about her job and her daily meetings.
As a bad manager, Rob can’t see what has happened to Betty. He says that she doesn’t have to have progress on ever project ever day so he doesn’t see what the problem is. The problem, of course, is that Betty used to be happy and productive, now she is neither. In the interest of uniformity Rob has overlooked the fact that he just switched from the management style that Betty prefers to the management style that Alice prefers. When looked at from this perspective such a change is obviously unfair, but Rob clings to “the same is fair” fallacy and is at risk of losing a good employee.
In this instance, not only are Rob’s bad management skills not helping, they are actually hurting his department.
Manager’s Manager
So, what can be done? Well, that rests entirely with Rob’s manager. If Rob’s manager is a good manager he’ll notice the drop off in performance in Rob’s department. If he is a good manager he’ll be able to find out what is going on and perhaps give Rob some direction. If he is a bad manager he may not even notice the decline in Rob’s department for a long time, perhaps not until some annual report comes in. If he is a bad manager even if he does notice the decline he won’t be able to get to the bottom of it. He’ll just ask Rob (who won’t know and won’t tell) or send out some random looking “anonymous” survey that won’t get the answers either. In other words, bad management will simply become entrenched at the company until things get so bad, another bad manger further up orders an “across the board” employee cut. Of course, neither Rob nor his manager will go thanks to their long years with the company. The likely departure is Betty. Now the company has one less good employee with the same number of bad managers.
Actions
To avoid bad management in the first place it is critical to remember that management is its own skill. It is not simply being the highest ranking employee in a group. A manager’s main function is to manage employees not to perform the job of the employees he oversees. The best way to avoid a mistake is to promote employees to managers ONLY OF DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS. In other words, if Rob is such great management material and such a wonderful asset to the company that he would be better utilized as a manager then Rob should be promoted, but NOT to manager of engineering. If Rob doesn’t have the skills to manage another department then he doesn’t have the skills to manage his own department. Keep in mind that Rob’s value as a manager comes not from his ability to perform his department’s function, but to oversee the personnel of that department.
Insist on ongoing management training, Not abstract “How to Motivate” type training, but real world management training. Topics of the training should be things like “How to deal with tardy employees” and “How to solve conflicts over time off”, not things like “How to be a better leader.” With real world skill building under their belts, the managers will grow in skill and ability just like they did when they were first noticed as possible managers.
Most importantly don’t be afraid to fix mistakes. Sometimes it is impossible to know in advance how someone will perform as a manager. If skills are the problem training may be the solution. If not, then a transfer to an easier management position or even to a non-management position is certainly the best move for the company in the long run even if it costs a good employee. One good employee lost is better than dozens of employees tainted by bad management.
