Showing posts with label organisation development. Show all posts
Showing posts with label organisation development. Show all posts

Mere uniformity does not make for consistency





We often play the consistency card in the support of an argument.
I want this UI (form) to be laid out this way for the sake of consistency.
or
Let's be consistent and use the corporate presentation template.
or
I can't make an exception for you in case of this policy. We'll have to be consistent.
Used as above, consistency is an inappropriate substitute for uniformity. To check, ask "consistency with what?"

I want this UI (form) to be laid out this way for the sake of consistency.
    Consistency with what?
Consistency with the rest of the UI.
    You mean uniformity with the rest of the UI?
Isn't it the same thing?
    Well, laying it out this other way is consistent with the aim of keeping
    the user from making an incorrect assumption about the feature.

Let us all be consistent and use the corporate presentation template.
    Consistent with what?
With corporate guidelines of course.
    Guidelines don't demand uniformity. We could use our own templates as long as they are consistent with the image we want to portray as a company.
   
I can't make an exception for you in case of this policy. We'll have to be consistent.
    Consistent with what?
Consistent with the application of this policy.
    You mean you want to uniformly enforce the letter of the policy on everyone?
Well we certainly don't want to encourage exceptions.
    It seems you have already concluded that my case is an exception and one not worth granting.

Consistency is a higher order goal than mere uniformity. It requires some deliberation to decide if a certain course of action is consistent with broader objectives. On the other hand, uniformity is easily achieved by mechanical application of a rule book. This is what call center agents are trained to do. We know what the resulting user experience feels like. As Emerson said,

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds".

Why then, do we fall for this? Often, it is just laziness to listen and think. Sometimes (as in the case of call centers), it is side-effect of organisation design. Decision makers and policy makers sit on top of corporate hierarchies. They don't devolve discretionary powers to subordinates. The subordinates learn to function uniformly, without regard to context. They unconsciously cultivate a habit of using better sounding words like consistency to defend their actions. The makings of a classic bureaucracy!

tl;dr and visualization abuse

A picture (visual) is worth a thousand words when it is a photograph of the real world. Even in this case, an accompanying narrative can provide valuable context. It is sloppy to try to make sense of something without its context. When the picture (visual) in question is a mere illustration or graphic, the accompanying narrative becomes even more important. And yet, I see a trend of trying to make sense of the visual without providing, asking for or reading the narrative:
  •  Archiving presentation slide decks in document repositories without a supporting narrative.
  • Demanding all sorts of reports in the form of presentations rather than the more traditional form of a document. Tradition makes sense sometimes.  
  • Graphing all manner of metrics without any narrative that provides a context for the measurements.
 Well argued supporting narratives are passé. I suspect this is an example of the Shallows effect. It has become fashionable to say tl;dr. Instead of introspecting if I have lost the ability to focus, I lull myself into believing that I have just run into a wall of text - a newly minted pejorative for what used to be known more honourably until recent times as a page of text. As a result, content creators fear that if their text is any longer than a tweet, it won’t be read. They have to make it interesting with visual effects.

Instead of admitting my newly gained inability to parse a carefully constructed paragraph or argument full of nuances, I smugly proclaim myself a visual thinker. This is not to say visual thinkers don’t exist, just that the rate at which they seem to be proliferating is a little suspicious.

One kind of visual targets the recipient’s analytical faculty. Another kind targets their aesthetic faculty. Aesthetics are in vogue among consumer devices. I suspect this has spilt over to the kind of visuals favoured by us. So we encounter graphs where a table would do, a 3-D visual where 2-D would do and only a visual where a paragraph is called for. The visual is no longer just a means to tap into the pattern recognizing, parallel processing prowess of the analytical brain, rather it is meant to catch the eye and increasingly, only the latter.

How email shapes us... and how to get back into shape


In pre-email days, the inbox was physically separate from the file cabinet. ‘Read’ items were carefully filed away or trashed. The inbox was only meant for fresh arrivals. One didn’t attend to the inbox constantly. Just once a day, maybe twice. People didn’t expect a two hour turnaround for written correspondence. They just used the telephone for urgent matters. Corporate announcements, bulletins, circulars were often stuck on notice boards. Every employee didn’t have a copy of the notice thrust on his face in the middle of the working day.  Communication, although a part of work, was still considered distinct from actual work.

Email has altered the balance of communication and actual work. It was McLuhan who observed that technology shapes us even as we shape it. How has email shaped us?
The inbox is the file cabinet
Say we decide to wrest control from the ever brimming inbox. Check email only twice a day at fixed times, keep it closed otherwise, let’s say. But no, closing our email clients (whether on the laptop, tablet or mobile) also means locking our file cabinet. Thanks to multi-gigabyte inboxes and terrific search algorithms, our email clients are also our file cabinets. And we often need access to our file cabinets during the course of actual work. There we go, looking at our inboxes again. Filters, rules, labels or folders may help us avoid looking at what’s new but now we begin cutting against the grain of the technology. To those who say “don’t blame the technology for your lack of restraint”, think again - “technology isn’t value neutral”. 
Email clients need to evolve, whether browser based or otherwise. They need to provide a ‘go offline’ mode that gives us access to our file cabinets but keeps the inbox away. It should also be possible to specify our email checking times similar to how we already specify our working hours in our calendars. Those eager for a response will be able to lookup these times.

By the truckload, by the minute
Because it is so cheap, we send and get loads of it. Never mind spam, why have corporate notice boards disappeared? All sorts of corporate announcements flood our inboxes through the working day. At the very least, corporates should make it a rule to send announcements near close of business. But then there is no suitable time for a global corporation. So it should be possible to tag an email as a not-so-urgent announcement and have the email servers deliver it near close of business as per the time zone of the receiver. Configurable “delayed delivery” may work better than filters and rules.


A new addiction
Many managers and others spend a big part of their day reading and writing email. Email notifications provide endless distraction for those to choose to be notified of new email. New email provides a psychological kick to many. Some get bored when there is no new email for half an hour. They take a break if they see no new email. Less actual work, more communication, most of it not addressed directly to the reader.

Frivolous Documentation
Email has bred a culture of excessive documentation. The ability to easily get things on record has increased the tendency to do so. This is another reason why people don’t use the telephone for not so important but urgent matters. They write an email to put in on record and wait for a quick reply, even if the recipient is only meters away. This needs to be discouraged. Get them to use the phone. Cost need not be a hindrance. A global corporation requires people to collaborate long distance in near real time. Long distance telephony isn’t cheap but VOIP is.

Privacy
Vocal conversations can be overheard or may disturb others, especially so in open plan layouts. Email affords privacy and doesn’t disturb. Fair enough.

Of luddites and of having access to the latest information
Am I a luddite for refusing access to real time updates, for wanting to go offline? Communications technology is evolving rapidly. Embracing all of it as good has unexpected and undesirable side effects. On the other hand, is it just filter failure?. After all, would we want to miss a relevant email in the midst of our work and then rework? To me, this sounds like an insurance salesman. If we expect new email to have an immediate impact on our work, wouldn’t we just choose to stay online for that piece of work? How often does unexpected new email from the past couple of hours have an impact on our work? Can some of these just-in-time scenarios be avoided by encouraging a change of behaviour at the other end?


Summary
As a reader of email,
1.        Let your colleagues, manager know that you only check email twice a day. Publish your timings.
2.        Disable email notifications.
3.        Ask your email vendor to support an offline mode that screens new email from you (but lets you access old email) when you are working.

As a writer of email,
1.         Don’t expect a two hour turnaround. Call if you need a quick response.
2.        Include just as many people as necessary in your email. Don’t cc the whole department/team.
3.        Don’t send meeting invites without sufficient notice (4 hours at least?)

As a leader,
1.         Encourage styles of working that don’t require people to check email constantly
2.        Encourage people to use VOIP and call their colleagues for things that need a quick response rather than write email.
3.        Regulate the volume and timing of corporate announcements into people’s inboxes.

As a vendor of email software,
1.         Allow people to specify their email checking hours that others can look up.
2.        Provide a ‘go offline’ button that screens new email from the user until she is ready for it.
3.        Provide options for delayed, time zone sensitive delivery that lets corporates send announcements etc. without interrupting the working day
4.       Make notifications opt-in rather than opt-out

Measurements and targets: The use and abuse of metrics

Software development is a social activity. As such, it does not lend itself very well to measurements. Sure, we can measure a whole lot of things about software development but we can never contend that a given set of metrics is exhaustive.  Plus, it is costly to regularly measure and track too many things. So, we restrict ourselves to a subset of feasible measurements.




For instance, although return on investment is a useful metric, it is often not feasible to measure and track it for a piece of software. Thus, in practice, we settle for things that only paint part of the picture. It is important to acknowledge this. Often, enterprise IT loses sight of this truth. It deludes itself that the reported metrics constitute the big picture (From the school of “If you can’t measure it, it doesn’t exist.”).
What is worse, in the name of continuous improvement, these metrics are converted into targets. Teams now have an incentive to work towards local optima. No wonder large swathes of big enterprise IT are in a desperate mess. New causes of failure are discovered all the time. Heads roll and the new heads track a slightly different subset of metrics.
Automatically converting metrics to targets also has adverse psychological effects. Here is an example from day trading. What is more important? Making more winning trades than losing trades or making money? Obviously it is the second. But the moment you start tracking win-loss ratio it may become a target it itself. Emotional conditioning will also come into play and we will try to have less losing trades.

A software team can get severely constrained when a velocity target is imposed on it. At a certain threshold of constraints, team members lose a sense of empowerment. They play it completely safe and lose initiative. We experience this phenomenon sometimes when we deal with call centres. Government sponsored healthcare and education in western economies often exhibits similar characteristics. It is not just bureaucracy. In an effort to scale and centrally control efficient delivery of services, a raft of metrics is imposed on the practitioners. Performance of schools/hospitals is then tracked against these metrics (they now become targets). Teachers and doctors get frustrated, lose initiative and just play by the book much to the exasperation of parents and patients.

This effect is also known as Goodhart's law, after Professor Charles Goodhart who was Chief Adviser to the Bank of England. Restated more succinctly and more generally:
When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.
Measurements should not automatically become targets. When measurements indicate something is wrong, it calls for a conversation in context, not for a rating downgrade. Conversations in context may reveal that things are still ok in the larger scheme of things, the measurements only point to a local sub-optima.

Trouble is, it is easy to scale management by numbers. It is very difficult to scale management by context. Perhaps it is worth asking if scaling is more important than delivering a quality experience. Besides, too much scale creates “too big to fail” monsters that have to bailed out with the money of the innocent in times of crisis. This is not just true of macroeconomics. It is true of macro IT as well.

Tools aren't value neutral

It is accepted that language influences the way we think1. Language is one of the earliest technologies of communication. We don't have to make a big leap to see that all tools and technologies influence the way we think and act2.

 Therefore, it is erroneous to say things like the following:
“The internet isn’t a pro or anti-democratic technology. It is value neutral”
or
“Powerpoint isn’t good or bad. It is how you use it.”
McLuhan understood this very well. He famously said:
“We shape our tools, and thereafter our tools shape us...Our conventional response to all media, namely that it is how they are used that counts, is the numb stance of the technological idiot.”
Why am I writing this in the middle of posts on software excellence? Because I need this for my forthcoming posts :)

1. Language influences the way we think
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/boroditsky09/boroditsky09_index.html
http://www.amazon.com/Language-Thought-Action-S-I-Hayakawa/dp/0156482401

2. Tools (and technologies) influence the way we act
http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Media-Extensions-Marshall-McLuhan/dp/0262631598
http://www.amazon.com/Shallows-What-Internet-Doing-Brains/dp/0393072223

How to do XYZ in Agile?


Clients sometimes ask, "How do you do estimation in Agile?" or, in general "How do you do XYZ in Agile?". Typically, they are people making a transition from non-Agile methods. They often (understandably) want to hold on to some existing ways of functioning. They would like to blend Agile into their existing processes. There is a problem here. To be agile is not about following a different set of prescribed processes or practices. The only things that matter are:
  • Continuous delivery of valuable functionality
  • Happy team (team includes client)
The agile manifesto starts off by saying:

We are uncovering better ways of developing
software by doing it and helping others do it.
The practices codified under XP (or Scrum) is just documentation of how a bunch of practitioners were able to achieve continuous delivery and happy team. The question, "How do you do XYZ in Agile?" misses the point. It is a relic of a process conformance mentality. What's more, I was once asked, "Is it ok to ask for a number of tailorings or deviations from the master process template for agile?" I was speechless. Turned out that the organization still retained the services of a group called SEPG (software engineering process group, a relic of CMM) to define a master process template for agile. Every project was supposed to conform to the template and ask approval for tailorings (tweaking a process/practice) or deviations (omitting a process/practice)!

If you are achieving continuous delivery and happy team, you are obviously doing something right. It doesn't matter how Agile it is. If you aren't achieving continuous delivery and happy team then again it doesn't matter how Agile your processes are. One might argue that this is watered-down agile. Big deal. Granted, it is definitely wise to go by the book first. It is arrogant/foolish to assume that we are smarter than the book before we begin. After all, the book represents distilled wisdom of practitioners. But it is important to keep an eye on the outcomes. All advice is contextual. It is no use wailing that you have done everything by the book and arem't getting results. It is dogma to stick to the book in the face of contrary results.