This week in pm-clinic: turning the tide

This week in the pm-clinic discussion forum:

I have just joined as a Project Manager at a software house employing 130 people, 90 of which are involved in software. The engineers are talented but number of PMs is low and failed projects is high. CEO is technical, but sees PM is a discipline he has neglected for too long. Hence the board have hired myself and one other PM to help.

Many engineers are anti-management and believe they don’t need managing, but after 3 weeks I see major problems of out of control work, lost budgets and late schedules. Some engineers fear I’ve been hired to cut headcount and are anxious (though I anticipate that the opposite may be true).

My preliminary moves to add structure to projects has met great resistance: some engineers refused to attend a weekly team meeting.

How can I bring order to the chaos without resorting to the stick method? How can I get engineers to buy in to the Project Management ethos? I already feel I’ve alienated some by my job title, and I don’t want to do more damage.

The motherlode of book writing statistics

I know some of you read this blog because I’m a guy you sort of know who wrote a book, and you’re interested in writing books – If that’s true, say hi or post a link to this entry on your blog, so I know you want more on the book writing process.

Found a page of book industry stats (warning: questionable validity) – link from India, ink:

  • 58% of the US adult population never reads another book after high school.
  • 42% of college graduates never read another book.
  • 80% of US families did not buy or read a book last year.
  • 70% of US adults have not been in a bookstore in the last five years.
  • 57% of new books are not read to completion.
  • 81% of the population feels they have a book inside them.
  • 70% of the books published do not earn out their advance.
  • Most readers do not get past page 18 in a book they have purchased (!).

The rest are here at Para Publishing. Again, I can’t verfiy these stats. And even if I could every genre or book market is different, so YMMV anyway. The page does have sources for most of these links, but they’re of varying quality.

Also see India’s post about how book interiors are designed.

New coke: an innovation case study

newcoke.jpgThere was a report today of Coke employees selling trade secrets, which reminded me of the New coke saga, a tale of failed innovation.

Most who were around in 1985 recall this as a huge fiasco, where a bad drink was rejected by the public. But the details are much more interesting, as Coke did many things right from an “innovation as strategy” perspective.

What went right:

  • Coke chose to move forward in response to real market pressure, rather than defending their existing products.
  • They had their best R&D & flavor people design the new product.
  • Extensive taste testing and veteran approval were sought, and all pointed to them having a better product.
  • They put big $$$ behind a major rollout campaign.

What went wrong:

  • The press conference (April ’85) was a disaster. Coke failed to explain why they made the change and did not acknowledge Pepsi taste test, or any taste testing done by Coke in R&D.
  • Pepsi attacked with counter-ads, including a full page ad in the New York Times.
  • According to Gladwell’s Blink and other sources, the successful taste tests of New coke didn’t suggest people wanted an entire 12 oz. portion of the new formula.

The result:

  • There was initial acceptance and the product did well it’s first weeks, sales up 8% compared to previous year.
  • However public outrage grew, with groups protesting New Coke (especially strong in the south).
  • By June ’85 there was enough public pressure and complaints from bottling suppliers that Coke execs were under pressure.
  • In July ’85 Coke brought Classic Coke back to the market.

It’s a great story of the risks of innovation. Coke did many things right – their greatest mistake was underestimating their customers lack of interest in innovation: they were surprisingly happy with how things were.

(See wikipedia’s excellent entry on the New Coke saga).

What innovation means: a short report

[Post updated: August 2015. Also see the best definition of innovation]

The word innovation is used in so many different ways I’ve categorized them here. As an expert on creativity I will put these common uses in context below.

Innovation is commonly used to mean:

  • A New idea: Innovative = creative thinking. It doesn’t have to necessarily be a good idea, or something that can be made into a product, just interesting, different or creative.
  • A New + Good idea: an innovation has to be new, but also good or better than previous things in some way. Something can be innovative in concept, before it’s a product or a tangible, usable thing.
  • A kind of product: Some people separate ideas from innovations and they draw the line at products. To be an innovation means you not only have an idea, but successfully deliver it to the world as a product. It’s not an innovation if it isn’t out in the world in someones service. So you can take someone else’s ideas, and if you’re the first to make a product out of them, you’re an innovator (e.g. Edison and the lightbulb, Apple and the iPod).
  • A kind of successful product: Some business books mark new ideas that fail commercially as below the innovation bar. So the Apple Newton and The Apple Lisa, wouldn’t qualify as they were commercial failures. But the Macintosh and the iPod qualify as innovations.
  • Something that is cool or perceived as cool. Often this is based on novelty, in that the idea seems new. But as the people making this judgement often aren’t experts in the history of a particular kind of idea, they’re often falsely perceiving an idea as novel.

The mere fact that the word is commonly used to mean so many different things means it’s a poor word to use. Odds are high that if you use it to mean one thing, the person listening to you will think you mean something else.

Innovation vs. Invention:

Some academics define invention as a specific creation, but innovation as the effect the creation has on an industry or culture. So a product can be an invention, but not an innovation, unless it has a profound impact on the world. This is humbler way to use the word as it is based on the impact of your invention, rather than the creation of the invention itself.

Innovative Organizations

Things get even messier when people talk of innovative organizations (another popular trend). Here, innovation means one of three things:

  • Results: An innovative organization is one that produces innovations (whichever definition you pick from the above). Think of research labs or teams of people directed to create new products.
  • Processes: It’s not the results that are necessarily innovative, but the way the group goes about doing it’s work is. So a bank might still use U.S. currency and offer loans, but the way they organize or make decisions is creative, new or different. Of course it is possible to have both innovative processes and results (e.g. IDEO).
  • Strategies: Many books aimed at executives like Seeing what’s next and Dealing with Darwin offer ways to think about business and beat competitors where it’s the strategy that has innovative elements. But here it’s hard to discern between a good strategy, an effective strategy, and one you simply haven’t heard of before.

What does all this mean?

A great place to start is to ask: when in the history of business has there been a time when innovation wasn’t important? Never. There has always been competition and greater rewards for people who could execute on better ideas for things. If you agree, then why has the term, as fragmented as it has become, grown so popular? and what does this means for popular perception of what innovation is, and how it happens? And did I miss any common uses of the word innovation?

Also see: Stop Saying Innovation and Best Definition of Innovation

The lost concept of the holiday

Holidays are important to me, so much so that I invented my own awhile ago. But today I had a strange experience that makes me think in the U.S. we’ve lost the idea completely.

Today is July 4th, Independence day and we’re supposed to be doing fun things to celebrate the birth of the United States (and hopefully remembering times when the world thought better of us).

But surprise, surprise. My local supermarket is open all day. As is the neighboring video rental store, Thai resteraunt and various other stores. And the biggest surprise was how good business was: it was hard to find parking.

What’s going on? Are holidays only holidays for some now?

Hypocracy disclaimer: my wife is sick today and on a lark I called the video place. Since they were open I drove over and picked up some food and a movie for her. But I had the strangest feeling the whole time that things would be better off if all those stores were closed.

The 3 People In a Room Test

Does your head hurt when you read business books? It shouldn’t. I rarely read business books anymore since they’re often so divorced from how the working world actually functions.  It’s one thing to disagree with an author’s ideas, but if comprehending their points feels like running uphill, in the rain, at night, while pelted by icy-cold jargon and sedative-tipped diagrams, it’s hard to imagine there’s enlightenment waiting at the top.

Peter Drucker’s Innovation and Entrepreneurship and The Effective Executive are half as long, twice as honest and three times as good as most new business books, depend on zero jargon, and don’t make the miraculous but empty promises often found in business book sales copy.

As a counterpoint to feeling lost in a book, here’s a test to use.

The 3 people in a room test

All decisions in any organization eventually filter down to the level actual work gets done, the level where it’s 3 or 4 people in a room doing the work.  This is true independent of industry, strategy or the size of an organization.

So when reading a book that loses you in theory and jargon, ask: How does this impact the 3 people in the room?

  • How does this concept change how those 3 people should work?
  • What impact does it have on how they make decisions?
  • Does it change how they relate? Communicate? Their roles?
  • Does it effect how those 3 people get rewarded? How empowered they are?
  • Might it change their goals? Or how those goals are defined?

If what you’re reading has no impact on what goes on with 3 people in the room, go up a level. What impact does this have on the people who manage the 3 people in the room? No impact there? Ok, go up another level, to middle managers. Nothing? Ok, keep going.

If you can’t find a place where, in application, the ideas you’re reading changes something, stop reading. Unless you’re enjoying the book for some other reason, you deserve something better.

So how do you decide when to abandon a non-fiction book you’re reading? Do you have a better method than the 3-people in a room test?

[Edited 2-12-15]

Book research help: rate of tech adoption

It’s a long shot on a holiday weekend here in the U.S., but I’m trying to find good sources for the following:

  1. Comparative rates of adoption for radios, televisions, PCs, Internet and cell phones from 1950-present.
  2. U.S. Data as well as world or by-country data on #1

I’ve found a few sources here and there, but about 80% of the magazine and web material that mentions this data fails to provide any source references, which kind of sucks.

All pointers welcome (Web, book, journals, whatever). Cheers.

This week in ux-clinic: Drive by critiques

This week in the ux-clinic discussion group:

One of the bad habits in my company is the drive-by critique: we throw so much criticism at UI that it’s common for people who show a prototype or new design at a meeting to get pounded on by everyone: tons of questions and criticisms, and downright cynicism. It’s not personal – it’s the flavor of the group, but for folks who have to show creative work it’s just not fun. After a few minutes of critique, the discussion usually moves on to other things, leaving the designer on the floor.

How do you change the flavor of how critiques are done? Or is this just part of working on UI in this industry? We have to show our work to groups, but there has to be a better way.

This week in pm-clinic: mystery of personal goals

This week in the pm-clinic discussion forum:

In the company I work for, we have personal development discussions between manager and developers twice a year. One part of the discussion is goal setting for the next half year period, and I’m a new manager doing this for the first time.

Obviously, we want the goals to be measurable, realistic, specific, and all that. I am not that interested about general properties of good goals as I am confident (ok, arrogant :) about those. Instead, I want to see real examples of goals that have worked well or well written goals that failed. Not team goals, but individual goals.

The whole personal goal thing is shrouded in mystery – no one ever shows real examples from real reviews for real people, and I hoped pm-clinic might have some people willing to anonymize goals from people on their team, prior teams or share some of their own goals.

I realize that goal setting is dependent on context and I don’t expect that looking at other people’s goals would be transferable as such. Instead, I hope to get new ideas and food for thought in this subject that is new to me, and for that reason good and bad examples (with light commentary) would be valuable. Thanks.

Replacing the desktop (not yet)

bumptop.jpgEvery so often the urge surfaces to replace parts of GUI, like Menus, toolbars and the desktop. This popular demo of BumpTop, from the U of Toronto, goes after the desktop.

First, some history: Back on IE4 in 1996 and again on Neptune (and here) in 1999 we brainstormed, prototyped and evaluated all kinds of radical re-inventions of the desktop (and GUI systems). For a time it was our mission, and we tried, read, played with, or prototyped just about everything that had been done. The conclusion (at least mine): The desktop is a ghetto. People spend so little time there during their day that reinvention doesn’t buy you much.

Certainly not enough to deal with re-learning basic tasks. Unless your reinvention carries over to replace File.Open dialogs and their bretheren too, it’s a low mileage revolution. (Not to mention how you get web-apps to follow your new models too). Especially these days with better search and big storage, people don’t suffer much from their messy, poorly organized desktops. Any UI problems there are noise compared to, say, fighting with web-based e-mail apps or on-line banking sites.

One perenial mistake we made in the Windows group was thinking of System UI (Toolbars, desktops, file folders) as a primary place. We spent so much time trying to build the system as a good experience, when the best thing we could have done would have been to get out of the way (admitidly harder than it sounds). Even then, as now, it’s the web and apps that get 90% of people’s time in any OS.

Now, Bumptop: This is fine research work and a great demo. They got an amazing number of details and subtlties right. It is the desktop metaphor to the max: you can shuffle, flip-through, scale, and crumple, just like things on your real desktop.

It’s certainly cool, but what difference does it all make? It’d be easy to run a baseline usability study, and compare human performance with Bumptop vs. Mac or Windows (A note to anyone else doing other GUI reinventions). Does all the visualization and pile manipulation speed finding things? For newbies or for experts? Who knows, but it’d be easy to find out and would cut the hype.

Even if it does – how much time a day do you spend organizing stuff into folders? If you’re like me, as little as possible. I clean things up when it gets too messy, but generally I avoid my desktop, or any file/folder/maintance, as much as possible.

If you do watch the video and get bored, skip to 3:00 in – more advanced manipulations including stuff I hadn’t seen before. If this stuff floats your boat, check out the Data mountain project from MSR, or Maya’s DEC project. There are tons of other visualization projects from the last 2 decades, but I’m too lazy to dig them all up for this post :)

(And now, since it’s 3pm in the peak of summer in Seattle, I’m going to get as far away from desktops as possible, and go outside to play with the dog – you should too).

Mistakes in technical leadership (Hacknot)

For the last half-hour I’ve been jamming on essays at hacknot, on leadership and management in the tech-sector. The essays are somewhere between Joel On Software and Paul Graham in topic and tone, range from ethical challenges, opinion bias, and Delusions of crowds, to critiquing claims of agile methods.

Not sure why but I like finding writers who don’t rush their stuff into daily posts, but wait until they have something solid to say every few weeks and try to say it well.

Hacknot’s latest is a list of Mistakes in technical leadership.

(Link from architect’s linkblog)

How to Prevent Bad Morale Events at Work

theater.jpgThe basic rule for managers who are trying to “build morale” or “team build” is this: any event outside of work does not create morale.

What we commonly call a morale event only allows whatever morale that currently exists to surface, and if it’s healthy, to possibly grow. But if you take a dysfunctional team out to an amazing event, they return to misery. Take a happy team out to a horrible event, they return to happiness. It’s the experience at work that defines morale and you can’t fix a team through events alone.

Real morale requires consistently giving people work they care about, treating them fairly even in difficult situations and creating a culture of trust and shared values. This is harder to achieve in many organizations than obtaining budget to spend, which explains why so many poorly managed organizations spend so much on “morale”.

That said, there are ways to plan events so that they create the most opportunity for morale to grow.

What happens at good morale events?

  • Coworkers get a chance to become friends. By letting people play instead of work together, they have chances to build more natural relationships. They might learn that marketer or engineer that annoys them is fun to be with when they’re on your whiffle-ball team. They won’t be best friends but odds improve they’ll see each other as interesting people, rather than just the annoying coworker down the hall. Those non-work connections are buffers against conflict and hostility while at work.
  • Inject fun into group dynamic. Good morale events create stories: something crazy Fred did, how Sally beat the VPs at Halo, or the comeback the boss had for John’s rendition of his boring speech that morning. Create an event that makes stories possible. Those stories live on as a positive force, forever, in your organization. Think karaoke, an obstacle course, a scavenger hunt, something with seeds for stories. You have to take risks: even if the day is a complete disaster, guess what? That’s a story! Playing it safe never ever provides stories. Alcohol is tempting as a source for fun, but can lead to inappropriate or abusive behavior: don’t use it as the prime catalyst for fun.
  • Experience something new. Challenging (but non-threatening) morale events work because they force memories – They stand out and define that time for everyone there, giving them all a shared memory unique to their working experience. I can’t remember a single morale event on teams that just took us to the movies (see below) – but I can remember running through every building on campus when Windows 95 released, the time our team had a manager vs. programmer water-fight outside building 27, and the insane foodfight at the IE4 ship party (I have $50 for anyone who can find that lost photo of me with a pound of guacamole in my right ear).

By far the worst morale events are movies. There is no chance for interaction. No one gets to share anything about themselves. It’s a parade of mass forced introversion, where people join together to spend two hours staring silently at a screen. I love movies, but it’s not a good way to get to know someone better, unless the movie is followed by a meal where we can talk about what we just experienced.

How to plan a good morale event:

  1. Get the number of people down. If you can’t throw a good morale event for 10 people, why try for 200? Smaller is easier. Bringing 200 people to the movies adds zero morale to your team: but giving 20 a great day, that they’ll spread the word about when they return, adds tons of points. Either rotate teams, do a lottery, or dole out budgets to small teams at a time. And do not make morale events family days – that’s another thing. If people are getting paid for going to the morale event, than it’s a work thing, not a vacation day. Go for 200 only when you’ve figure out smaller events.
  2. Three key elements: fun, interaction, challenge. These elements explain why movies are so terrible for morale. They are not interactive and offer no challenge. How can sitting in the dark, in silence, with people you don’t know well, raise morale? And who wants to see movies in a packed house at 10am on Friday just because that’s the only time you can rent the place? Good morale events hit the trifecta, giving people a fun way to interact with others in the course of challenging themselves. Going to sports events isn’t as bad as movies, as you can talk to and see each other, but you’re watching other people do things instead of doing things together yourselves.
  3. Pick the right person to design the event. Some people are great at throwing parties, but most people are not: know thyself. Pick the person, or people, who are the spirit of your organization, or the organization you want to have, and let them organize the day. (Note: these people rarely have any correlation to the hierarchy). Give them the budget, your high level goals, and get out of the way. If you delegate right the first time and the event’s a success, people will fight over doing the organization work next time around. Never ever let the staff of managers, as a collective, design the day. You’ll get three big scoops of boring: a day no one hates, but no one remembers.
  4. Think cheap but clever. Money is a distraction. If you’re clever you can come up with creative ways to save cash. If it’s spring or summer do something outside: most parks are free or cheap to reserve. Organize carpools instead of having everyone drive (saves gas and time). See if you can barter your companies services to a place you’d like to rent. Ask around: who knows who, and can call in a favor, or offer one in return? Try to spend budget on food and drinks, two things you shouldn’t ever skimp on.
  5. Get away. It’s worth a 20-30 minute drive to wherever. People won’t wander off to check their e-mail at the first sign of boredom, and they’ll be committed to socializing (“Well I’m here, I should stop hiding in the corner and go talk to someone.”) Getting away raises the odds you’re taking them somewhere new and giving them an experience. Rent kayaks at the lake. Do a great BBQ at a really neat park (not the most convenient one). Don’t get suckered in by the convenience of big conference rooms or company spaces: you’ll instantly kill the buzz on whatever clever ideas you come up with. If you schedule wisely, you can dodge traffic both ways. And 5 great hours are better than 8 mediocre ones (and if you go for 5, give everyone the rest of the day off).
  6. Make it mildly competitive. If you’re afraid of low participation, or boredom, play on team rivalry. Organize it as the programmers vs. the testers, the website team vs. the management team, Over 30 vs. under 30 – I don’t know – make up something funny. The management vs. thing has potential for venting frustration in a safe, fun way, just be careful your competition doesn’t slide into war. Ask the folks from #2 to drive formulating how to break this down (Maybe it’s 3 teams? 4?). Throwing down a nice prize for the winning team as bait will get people involved if nothing else will.
  7. Think grade school games. Kickball is hands down the best no-frills, low-cost, easy organization activity to do. The goofyness of the ball (it’s big and red) equalizes just about everyone – there are no rock stars in kickball. It’s fun and, even for the super-competitive, hard to take too seriously. Throw in some good beer, food, music and a made up rivalry or cool prizes for the winners (that’s where your remaining budget can go), and you’ll have an awesome day. Frisbee Golf is runner up, as you can make courses anywhere, with teams of any number or size. (Whirlyball can work, but this has been a morale event staple for years). Semi-athletic things get people moving and change the hierarchy: no matter what happens co-workers become more than just their jobs.
  8. Pull surprises. If you’re in a big org, get a well-liked executive to drop by. If you’re a start-up, make a mystery day or afternoon. But if you go for the surprise, go big. If you say only “bring a swimsuit”, don’t take the team to the pool at the Y. They’ll never bite again at your surprises. But if you take them on a snorkling trip, or out on the lake for waterskiing, they’ll bite every time you offer a surprise in the future.

I’m convinced I’ve got some of the above wrong. There are too many teams with too many different things going on to prescribe morale plans for all of them. But I bet on the spirit: get out of the lame event rut. Take chances and do something interesting. You just might spark a fire, in them or in you, that leads to real morale back at work.

So help me out: What are the best and worst morale events you’ve experienced?

More on preventing innovation

From Tyler Blain, the Top ten tips on preventing innovation: His list goes further than mine in cynicism, in that it’s actually written as a playbook for squashing the creative life out of orgs. Fun read :) Of particular entertainment value:

5. Treat employees like garbage. Yell at them. Whenever possible, call them at midnight to yell at them some more. They work for us. If they get uppity, make them work on the weekends. Make them dig holes and fill them back up again. Threaten them – especially when they need the job. If you can’t yell, at least be condescending in public forums. Remember we are smarter than they are. Punks.

Love and hate: the management of Mark Cuban

cuban.jpg.jpgWhere do you draw the line for passion?

Watching Mark Cuban’s behavior as owner of Dallas Mavericks, currently vieing for the NBA championships, is a love and hate fest for me. There’s are hints of goodness in him, but it’s lost in his choices of expression. He’s an echo of some tech-sector VPs and managers I’ve worked with: a core of good intentions, misguided by imaturity and self-centric egoism.

His passion and emotion about what happens to his team is real and wonderful to see: he’s not a guy in a suit, he’s personally invested in what happens (Seen at right wearing the jersey of a suspended player). It must be a boost for players to work for someone so visibly passionate and interested in what’s going on. Finding that kind of empathy from managers is rare in all businesses, including the NBA.

But the problem is how those emotions are translated into behavior. Cuban complains, vents, rants and draws more negative attention to himself as if working only from the Billy Martin & Bobby Knight (Mr. chair thrower) playbook. He deliberately violates rules, challenges not only officials but the league commisioner, showing little respect for the game. Drawing heat away from the team can be a sweet management move, but his behavior often seems more about his own feelings rather than driven by protecting the emotions of the people that work for him.

A noble man, with respect for himself, his team, and the game, would find an appropriate forum to vent his complaints, but Cuban lacks restraint: there seems little wisdom between his feelings and actions.

Instead of spending $1.5 million in fines over 5 seasons, he could pay to bring every single NBA referee to a training camp of his own design, or driven by a coallition of (other disgruntaled) coaches. He could find some positive way to both bring other people to support his view, and to effectively be an advocate for positive change. Why not found an NBA referee recruiting program? Work with other owners to boost their salaries to draw better talent? Regarless of whether his complaints are valid or not, there are more respectable ways for handling them.

But as of late, he makes it all too easy to pidgeon hole him as the spoiled rich kid who expects the world to circle behind his wake and give him what he wants when he cries. Whether he deserves this stereotype or not, being percieved in this way can’t possibly serve whatever his true ambitions for Dallas are.

Berkun down under: Sept. workshops in Australia

Working out the final details with the fine folks at  Step two designs to teach my workshop on Leading UX teams. More details to follow but tentative dates are:

Sydney, Sept 1st
Canberra, Sept 5th
Melbourne, Sept 8th

The one day workshop will be a crossover between project management and UX design, hiting all the sweet spots folks leading UI efforts often struggle with (including highlights from the ux-clinic list).

If anyone wants to try to meet up for drinks or a bite, leave a comment and I’ll follow up.

Hard conversations

An interesting link from Reforming project management: Harvard Business school writes about Morning meetings – a daily meetup where leaders meet to get in sync. The essay is ok, but one passage caught my eye:

In contrast, two qualities characterize high-functioning leadership teams: (1) hard conversations happen—difficult issues move quickly from people’s heads to the conference table; (2) accountability is shared—individuals on the top team feel a responsibility to the organization as a whole, not just for their piece of the action.

What a great goal – hard conversations happen. I can’t tell you how many teams are stuck in the 5th level of hell for the single reason that leaders never let hard conversation happen. And the kicker is accountability – nothing more fun to work in a team culture that’s proactively accountable, with everyone taking their fair share of heat when things go wrong – suddenly people spend more time working instead pointing fingers.

Now if only someone at Harvard would write an essay on how to make hard conversations and accountability happen :)

This week in pm-clinic: Shifting a culture

This week in the pm-clinic discussion forum:

I’m a development lead in a high powered web development company. We beat competitors on speed and quality technology, and engineers like me do the closest thing to project management. We avoid specs and docs, working in small enough teams that fast communication is pretty easy. There is a strong anti-management vibe in the company, as well as a hyper proactive “do it now and fix it later” mentality, but those attitudes have served us really well – our company has been super successful.

The problem is that our organization has grown from 100 to 2000+ people in a handful of years. Many engineers work on several projects at a time, including lots of remote programmers. We have a high number of virtual teams and a super flat hierarchy – things that are liberating, but are suddenly annoying at times. The consensus driven approach we have isn’t as speedy as it was.

My dilemma has two parts:

Tactics: I’m more willing to try changes than many of my peers and reports. So how do I add in more management-y things, a little more structure and clearer division of ownership, without rocking the boat and being called a weenie? (Our lingo for fuddy-dutty management types). I fear it’s a one way ride: These things I’ll add will never be removed and it’s a downward spiral of over-management (And my team of engineers fears this too).

Strategy: How do you work to shift the culture the company was founded on and take pride in, when it’s not working as well anymore? I can’t say I’ve worked anywhere that handled this successfully – either the success ends, or people leave, whenever leaders try to mature the culture.

This week in ux-clinic: Does help matter?

This week in the ux-clinic discussion forum:

I’m an information designer and developer, aka technical writer. I’ve recently been told that the v1 of our new product will not have context-sensitive help. The engineering team lead says “too bad; no one reads the documentation anyhow.”

I believe it’s impossible to design a totally intuitive UI, since everyone’s intuitive is different, and frankly, we’re not perfect as designers anyway. I think this means documentation has an important role – but since it’s my job, maybe I’m biased :)

So I’m curious about how other organizations either include documentation / support as a first order part of the experience, or how they justify depricating it given how often even the best designs fail their users. Is documentation something easily cut on your projects? How do you justify (or argue against) this?

– Help with help

The Power to Stop Innovation

As part of the research behind The Myths of Innovation, I read a tall stack of books with the word creativity or innovation in the title. Many had the same theme: they make incredible promises. They often say that with just a few simple steps or “secrets”, your competitors will stumble in your wake. Profits and promotions will be your dominion. And if the promises weren’t grand enough, many of these books presume that you have enough power in your organization to make anything you desire happen.

But an important question that’s easily overlooked is: Who has the power to stop progress in your organization?

Before you worry about pitching ideas or leading change, it’s worth considering who the powerful enemies of your, or anyone’s, good idea are. Most books, despite their promises, don’t help much with powerful coworkers who are in love with the status quo. Unless the books are slim enough to fling across the conference table and heavy enough to knock our their targets them out when they strike.

People in power stop progress because they:

  1. Are scared. They’re struggling to lead right now, without introducing more change.
  2. Don’t understand the new idea.
  3. Understand the idea, but see it as mere change, not progress.
  4. Are afraid of the changes the idea represents.
  5. Think the idea conflicts with their organization’s existing goals (which they don’t want to change).
  6. Are generally risk-phobic. They reject most ideas regardless of merit.
  7. Fear they’ll lose control over their organization. Or their empire will shrink in prestige.
  8. They don’t know how to convert the idea into profit, or advantage.
  9. Don’t see how it can help them get promoted.
  10. See the idea as creating more work for them.

Of course sometimes rejecting an idea is a wise move. Change isn’t always progress. But as this lists suggests, there are many strong and private reasons someone in power will reject ideas for reasons that have little to do with the merit of the idea itself. If you want to work with ideas, you need to understand the true landscape of power. And adjust the approach you take for getting support for the ideas on your mind.

[revised 12-7-15]