On the value of identifying problems

There seems to be an unspoken agreement that the person pointing out a weak spot in a given situation, should also take the responsibility to put forward a solution to remedy that situation.

This is wrong.

The two activities are very different in their nature; the identification of a problem involves a sense of how the constituent parts should interoperate, but actually do not. Whereas solving a problem might very well be done within the stated context of that problem, but rarely are the best solutions found here.

The act of identifying the problem requires a person with a sense of the whole. Mind you, mere complaining will not suffice here. You need a thorough, well-analyzed review of what exactly is going on and why it is wrong. Here we are talking about deconstructing the problem

Now the act of solving that problem takes you into the field of how things could be. One needs to be able to mentally take away certainties taken for granted, and rely on envisioning what can be different. Here we are talking about constructing the solution.

There are people who combine both abilities in one person. When you have those, cherish them. However, do not rely on this rarity and certainly do not demand it from your people. In a way, the skills require almost opposing characters.

Instead, when someone approaches you with the identification of a problem, demand of them to lay the fruits of their deconstructive labor before you, so you may see it with your own eyes. Demanding precision, thoroughness and analysis is justified.

Then, having established the problem, it should be determined whether it is worthwhile to pursue a solution -- if such exists! -- and assign resources to this venture.

If that is the case, the next step would be to actually solve the problem. It could very well be that someone very different from the one having identified the problem takes the lead. Insight into human nature, creativity and intuition play a much larger role.

Do not make the mistake of shooting the messenger for bearing bad news, unsolvable by that same person. Be better than that.

Hiring people

If you are a manager and you are in a position to hire people, there is something you can do right really easy and really fast.

Do not be dismayed by people whom you think might be more talented than you yourself are!

Instead, relish the thought of hiring those people, even though the mere thought gives you shivers and breaches your comfort zone. You are now truly laying the foundations for a stronger organization.

In the end, you will be repaid with something much more valuable than a kingdom of mindless zombies, willingly assuming the position, nodding aye to everything you say and laughing to every stupid joke you make. Instead, you are in a position to experience being part of a team that can shape history.

Not only that, but there is no better way to keep you sharp and on-edge than surrounding yourself with those that are likewise equipped and honed.

So next time you are evaluating a candidate and you feel slightly threatened -- hire the person!

On Strategy

World War I is, bare none, the most tragic war fought the last thousand years. Some say the war started in the 1870's era and ended on the eve before World War II. From a technology and strategy point of view, this is true. Nothing quite boosts human mental prowess more than a deep and enduring crisis; the war started with outdated ideas and technology and ended with all the concepts that were used to wage the second tragedy in the same century.

Take, for example, the approach on the battlefield -- long lines of young men, trodding slowly towards their doom. And even those who arrived at the other end of No Man's Land could not hold on. There were no supplies, no backup, no mates to back up their positions. Seldom was terrain conquered for long. Reconquests of trenches bought dearly with the blood of many were the norm.

The British did not innovate their fundamental tactics. Their society at that time was highly stratified with little room for initiative in the lower strata. On the other hand, and contrary to popular belief, Germany was almost the inverse; it had a strong middle class. It invented a concept that nearly blew the Allies away -- Stormtroopers. Soldiers with decentralized decision making authority, often by non-commanding officers (NCOs in jargon, ie those below officer level). The tactics were aimed at deep penetrating units, circumventing tough defenses. New weapons were added to the arsenal; flamethrowers and grenades. The units had a high degree of self-coordination and self-reliance, without overbearing staff interference up to the level that they did not, and indeed, could not, know about. The unit was very successful and mostly due to incompetence of the over-hyped general Ludendorff (suffering from a nerve breakdown after his failed Peace Offensive), was the advantage thrown out of the window and could the Allies win the war.

Strategy permeates everything we do, even though we may not be conscious about it. It is about how we deal with everyday aspects. What do you do if someone treats you unkindly? Will you put up a fight? Offer friendship? Walk away? Strategies are most often not designed. Indeed, they evolve. You try something; doesn't work? Toss it out and try something else.

The best examples are those seen in nature. Think about the arms race between prey and predator, or how parasites and influenza viruses keep on adjusting to outrun what medicine can throw against it. The relentless pressure of evolution is the best evolver of new strategies.

Nor is strategy a single thing. It often consists of a number of characteristics that strengthen a generic theme; in companies, these could consist of culture, processes, skills, technology. The best companies in the world have strategies that work. If you break those down, you will find many, many parts that all interrelate and enforce each other. Do not even bother cherry-picking; it's bound to fail, because you do not have the overall strategy.

It makes me think. Can a really good strategy actually be designed? Can it come into existence without the pressure to change? Can it evolve into the target strategy withouth the cultural preconditions being in place?

I think pressure is essential. And so is the holistic view. Without pressure, no one will feel the need to change and without that energy nothing will happen. Without the holistic view, all the measures are shrapnel shots going nowhere. It needs to be part of a bigger picture, the parts reinforcing the whole.

As for evolution or design; strategy suffers from the same problem as software development. Everyone accept nowadays that the waterfall model of software development does not work and smart people invented the concept of iterative development, which for sure works a lot better. So it is with strategy. I firmly believe that it is not possible to design a 100% sound strategy upfront. You use your instincts and experience to aim as good as you can and then evolve the concept as you go.

Culture might well be the hardest one. How do you know you are not shooting for an impossible target? The Will to Succeed may well be blind to impossibilities. Do you have the right people on board? Are you yourself the right person to pull this through?

Personally, I stick to these rules:

• design and look at the big picture, see how it all interacts
  
• know what not to do and block that out
  
• relish a crisis; it offers the opportunity for change
  
• don't be too harsh on yourself for not seeing the entire picture (yet)
  
• be fair in appraising weaknesses
  
• learn from others, read biographies of successful people
  

Despite an intensive, lifelong fascination for anything that has to do with strategy, I still cannot claim to have mastered the subject, though I do claim to derive a lot of intellectual pleasure just thinking about it.

How the Mighty Fall

Jim Collins, author of Good to Great, is back with another book. Whereas Good to Great focused on what makes companies stand out, How the Mighty Fall inverts the equation by looking at the prime reasons for companies not making it.

The author tries to apply the same sound formula; i) gather a lot of scientific data, ii) discern the patterns, iii) write a good book about it.

Oh, how Jim Collins must have bewailed his fate when he found out there are many, many more ways to fail than to make it.

Good to Great comes back with solid and applicable advice. This made the book an instant hit among the target audience. And rightly so.

How the Mighty Fall's main contribution to understanding failure is the 5-phased lifecycle of a company:

• Hubris born of success; the company grows and starts to adopt an arrogance stance ("We won, because we are better")
  
• Undisciplined pursuit of more; growth becomes the mainstay and strategy (in business mainly the art of not doing something) is thrown out of the window
  
• Denial of risk and peril; warning indicators of imminent doom are ignored
  
• Grasping for salvation; doom is upon the company and anything which might reverse the situation is tried
  
• Capitulation to irrelevance or death; the company is sold or goes bankrupt
  

In other words, a very generic way of describing failure, which has mainly to do with character and culture. Given that there are so many ways to fail, the author falls back on safe ground by invoking Good to Great lessons. The one addition he makes is what you can read from any biography of a great person, like Lincoln or Churchill -- never give up, never give in.

If you are new to Jim Collins' works, skip this one and honor him by starting with Good to Great instead.

The 5 Temptations of a CEO

The other day, Erik pushed a little book into my hand, called The 5 Temptations of a CEO.

The book is written in what is called the business fable style. Ie, storytelling as a way of teaching. More correctly, I would term it a parable, but I think the inventors of the term business fable wanted to steer clear of that one for its religious connotations.

The book follows the soul searching of the protagonist, a failing CEO, who not so much reverses his course, as identifies what the reasons for his failing are.

The author goes forth to summarize these failing under appealing titles:

• Status over Results; when personal agendas, career paths and status symbols prevail over what the company requires to subsist. Suddenly there is a lot of "I" in the team.
  
• Popularity over Accountability; when personal ties are more important than keeping people to their promises, thus holding them accountable. People slacken off and don't take their responsibilities serious anymore. Complacency sets in. This one also has to do with using your reports as allies and venting ground.
  
• Certainty over Clarity; the need for ever more information and procrastrination by a decision maker before making the call. In board game terms, I would call this Analysis Paralysis.
  
• Harmony over Conflict; if people refuse to slug their arguments out to prevent others from getting flushed, there will be a lot of suboptimal decisions. Those who can work the dynamic best by emotionally blackmailing the group hold sway
  
• Invulnerability over Trust; working to be one-up will push others to raise their defences as well. Any argument will now become one of status and survival, immediately tied to personal interests.
  

The text behind the headers is my own interpretation, which will show you that I concur with the author in his conclusions. Powerful stuff for anyone in a leadership position to consider.

Leaving Independent IP

As of September 1st, I will no longer be working as a full-time employee of Independent IP. I will still be involved in an advisory role.

The last three years have been a wild roller coaster ride and I am incredibly proud at the things we achieved together.

I stood at the cradle of little Fuga and saw it grow. I saw it take its first little steps by delivering content to webshops. I smugly noticed how the little kid outran all competing products, gained lots of compliments all around and was generally hailed as THE digital delivery solution for music. I watched the company change to accomodate the maturing of Fuga.

It is a kind of magic to nurture and grow a product like this. Very intensive, but very rewarding, more so if customers are happy and benefits are visible to everyone.

Professionally, when I started out on this venture I had lots of ideas how I wanted to develop the software, such as:

• test-driven development
  
• high test coverage
  
• development team works from home
  
• demanding recruitment criteria
  
• weekly release cycle (short sprints)
  
• clear split development / operations
  
• component-based design
  
• issue tracking
  
• integration / staging / production (similar to OTAP)
  
• proper testdata on staging
  
• testing by developers on integration
  
• testing by non-developers on staging
  
• external code reviews (I heartily recommend Springsource)
  
• process for functional requirements
  
• open culture where process and results can be challenged
  
• topic complexity; easy=text, medium=voice, hard=face-to-face
  
• utilize the strengths of team members to knit a tight team
  
• wrong people off the bus, right people on the bus (read Good to Great if you did not already!)
  

It is good to see that most of these ideas contributed to the success of the product. The value of all of these ideas, however, pales in the shadow of the wonderful and talented people whom I had the honor to serve with. It is a rare occasion to participate in a team that makes you feel like you can take on the world and yet that was exactly what I felt. For all of you, please allow Henry V to put into words my feelings:

And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remembered-
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition;
And gentlemen in England now-a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.

Fare well, my friends.

Predictably Irrational

If you are a programmer, you are bound to see the world and its inhabitants a bit different than most people, more inquisitive, not exactly more rational, but definitely searching for those building blocks. I used to think that was a handicap you just had to cope with, especially in social traffic, since discounting the richness that Humanity itself brings to the fore is usually frowned upon. That is, until I read Predictably Irrational by Dan Ariely. The author demonstrates that Man's mind might be easier to program than a Java Enterprise application, something which I wager will be agreed upon by NLP students out there.

The books shows us that:
- Man is great at comparing things; things which are great but cannot be compared are doomed to fade away
- Man chooses that which is Free; even when a rational human being would choose a more sensible option
- Man anchors new things at a fixed value; the new thing is valued and will forever after gravitate around that value
- Man does not mix social and monetary currency; if something is done on a social basis, monetary compensation devalues it
- Man is beyond reason in heat; despite what people think of themselves, they go much, much further when in a state of arousal
- Man is a procrastinator; if something can be delayed, it will be and sometimes an authority to prod and stir is a good thing
- Man values that which he owns; it will be traded more expensively than its actual worth
- Man does not burn boats; bet hedging is deeply ingrained in our psyche, even when it is not beneficial to do so
- Man lets expectation determine reality; that which is expected as an outcome shapes the actual outcome, not only in the mind, but in the body as well
- Man values that which is expensive; for a certain thing bestowing an effect, its effect will be greater when it is more expensive

Being practical, I think the following would be valuable for a company to adopt:
- on offering a product, make sure a comparable (albeit inferior) product is offered -- if it is a competing product, include it as part of your message
- include something nice for free
- if you want your company to be social, align it so all the way (and forget about demoralizing and demeaning reorganizations -- good companies do not reorganize, they prune ALL the time)
- do not make your product too cheap (every Marketing student will tell you this anyway)
- make it easy for your boat not to be burned (eg, customers who leave can keep their data in your system for free)
- challenge each other vigorously (ban out the procrastinator in yourself!)

A good read, definitely worth spending some time on if you are interested in what makes you tick.

Automating automation

At Independent IP we have made automation a mantra. Wherever we can, we automate manual processes so we can lower our costs, run the show with as few people as possible and ultimately have our customers benefit from all this by paying a competitive fee for a better platform.

Despite this, there are always a couple of stepping stones before reaching the ultimate goal -- an automated process.

DOING; in the first phase, the lifecycle of a process starts out as an activity not formally defined that someone is repeatedly doing. At this point in time, we are not or only partially aware of it.

IDENTIFYING; in the second phase, we are aware of the activity and it will be described in a document or flow diagram. At this point in time we are aware of the costs, both current and when scaling up. This is also the moment that we draft wishes to have the process automated.

STANDARDIZING; the third phase is when the process can be performed by other people as well. Standardization has kicked in.

AUTOMATING; finally, the whole process is automated.

Starting a new process immediately in phase 4 usually never works. This is for various reasons:
- the process has not had the chance to gain real business value because it is still a product of the mind
- the process has not been repeatedly tried and improved upon, so it may not be the best way to do things
- the process does not yet exist, so we do not know very well what we try to accomplish

Move slowly and do not rush through the phases. Respect the ripening of processes to yield the best harvest.

In the end it is about automating automation and doing that in the most effective way.

Truth hurts

"Ignorance is bliss", as Cypher so succinctly put it in the Matrix, after he describes how Knowing spoils his dinners. He was probably inspired by Thomas Gray's "Where ignorance is bliss, 'Tis folly to be wise". Not knowing Cypher lived in an artificial world would have preserved the joy of eating food. Knowing that he did, spoiled it all. He bemoans the fact that he Knows.

The Search for Self is a murky path, full of unpleasantness. You will find things about yourself that you dislike, weaknesses and imperfections, things you did or were done to you and do not want to be reminded of, or choices you made that had unhappy outcomes. It might make you feel depressed, angry or sorrowful, or perhaps even spirals you down into self-destructive behaviour. Compare that with a lot of people who have a skewed Sense of Self, yet are perfectly happy in their bubbles and even perform well in society. Why then do we still doggedly pursue this knowledge? What is so great about it?

There are a couple of reasons. Knowing thyself...
... paves the way for improving yourself
... helps you to prevent disadvantageous situations
... helps you to determine a career path
... makes you stronger, because no one can tell you anything about you that you did not already know
... helps to manage expectations about what you can and cannot do
... allows you to better understand other people

On a company-level, self knowledge becomes even more critical. The temptation to see life through rose-tinted glasses is enormous. Optimism is often seen as the driving force for a venture. I say here and now that optimism is overrated and even dangerous -- a culture of optimism disallows bad news to be merged into painting the big picture, therefore always putting decision makers on the back foot.

Optimists often have short-term success, but know not how to deal with setbacks. They disbelieve, ignore, deny, and do basically anything to keep their world view intact.

Any company is much better served by a good sense of what it can and, more importantly, what it cannot do. It can set ambitious, yet attainable goals for itself, that boost morale in a way that pep talks and speeches could never accomplish. It sets its goal and then does it.

On a society level, the refusal to Explore Self, or discuss that what happens is well known: Political Correctness. An affliction that seeks to, as biologist Matt Ridley puts it, "argue from ought to is". Political Correctness is carried by none less than all those sweet and well-intending people who want the world to be a good place.

To prevent all that nastiness from entering decision making, it is ignored. Euphemisms, censorship, and looking the other way are all manifestations of Political Correctness. The consequences are that a society is unable to deal with wrongs that it even fears to identify.

So instead, we retreat inside a safe bubble that tells us life is good, people are good and we are good. No pain, just bliss.

And that is just the truth of it.