A Good Craftsman Never Blames His Tools

I guess at some point, its inevitable that any large professional organization will realize that if they want projects to be implemented properly, they had better choose a software tool that's somewhat more intuitive than Excel spreadsheets and email. That has happened at my company and lo and behold my organization is making the same mistakes that every company makes when choosing to take on this type of initiative. No project management software tool is perfect. What you get out of them, is what you put into them. If your process is crappy, a shiny new software tool won't magically make the process better. What it does, ironically, is further point out your team's deficiencies. So too with my team today.

We've been trying to implement CA's answer to project management prowess, a product called Clarity. The transition has been slow, so management decided to have everyone take a day and have every Project Manager painstakingly enter in the foundations of their respective projects. It was grueling and it took all day. The bad part, however, is what it did to morale. People all over the place were complaining about Clarity. "Clarity sucks" was the theme of the day. It was sad.

But I didn't buy the devastating attitude. I learned a long time ago that fighting against a manager's initiatives toward a new software project is an easy way to be put on the troublemaker list. So I wandered around with a smile on my face knowing that the only way to get by is to embrace the initiative. Nobody else has the same attitude.

Thanks to blogging, though, I have an outlet. I can vent all I want here and nobody will ever read it. So in the spirit of despising Clarity, I've come up with my top ten nicknames for the cumbersome nightmare of a product.

10. Non-Clarity
9. UnClear
8. No-Clarity
7. Sans Clarity
6. Opaque Clarity
5. Don't vote for Hillary
4. Un-Clarity
3. Clarityless
2. CA? Who the hell bought that shit? Think I don't know that CA was probably the cheapest piece of shit out there? All CA products are cheap pieces of shit. That's why they're products are cheap because their shit. That's why they're called cheap pieces of shit.

And the number one new nickname for Clarity is:

1. Parity

But according to everyone at my company, I'm championing the product. As far as I'm concerned:

"Don't vote for Hillary is the tool that will most likely save the world".

Farewell, My Kidney Stone

Dear Kidney Stone,

You were with me before I knew you. You were growing inside me for a time that only you know. Yet, you were kind enough to grow to only a passable size. You spared me. The pain was only excruciating for 8 days. You spared me. You could have grown bigger, why, with all the dairy products that enter my core and feed your strength. But you chose not to grow bigger.

Thank you.

Your mercy is appreciated. I say this because it's not your fault that my friggin doctors looked at the CAT Scan and thought, "hey, that's not such a big deal". Nor are you responsible for evolution's genius in making human Ureters so goddamn tiny that a grain of sand can't fit through them without causing so much pain that puking is a welcome form of relief. And finally, you can't control your journey. You didn't know where you were going. You kept obstructing very sensitive areas in a desperate attempt to stay with me, and in a way, I appreciate your dedication to my acquaintance.

We did not spend much time together, but you will be remembered. You were my first, after all, and during those dark days of screaming in terror while my wife desperately tried to help me and co-workers lived their lives, you were the only one I could speak to through my thoughts and my prayers. So I say farewell. Godspeed little Ureter havoc wreaker. And remember, if you try it again, I'll piss all over you.

Forever yours,
Ron

It's Time to Start Talking Glocalization

As far as I can tell, glocalization is in its infancy. Not that it's a novel concept. The simple idea of understanding the implications of developing a hybrid of global practices and local practices when running a business seems obvious. But, in practice, it doesn't always turn out that way. If you Google "glocalization", you should tend to notice that the term is being used quite extensively in social science circles. Many professors are taking a look at the global landscape and are trying to argue that the most productive way to tackle many of the problems the world faces today is to not only understand the goals of a global initiative but with those goals in mind, pay attention to the local culture. In other words, as the world peace website, glocal.net preaches, "Think Globally, Act Locally". I love this concept and I don't think that its targeted nearly enough regardless of whether we're talking about world peace or efficient business practices.

In business, glocalization is a term used primarily by the Japanese. They call it "dochakuka". They are using the concept to compete with other "global" companies more efficiently. For instance: Consider a Toyota commercial. In the United States, the latest tag line and theme for Toyota is "Keep Moving Forward". That's pretty good. They can develop an entire advertising campaign around that concept while continuing to plug away at building good cars very efficiently. But. Would the same tag line work as well in Japan? How 'bout Canada? (I like, "Good car, Eh?" much better). How 'bout Germany? (Nicht Schnell). "Keep Moving Forward" may work in these countries, but thanks to cultural (local) differences, it might not work as well. I know companies do this by default. The person who came up with "Keep Moving Forward" most likely works and lives in America. But I'm not qualified nor am I interested in discussing this phenomenon at a truly global level. It seems obvious, but my point here is that companies assume glocalization, but if its the fundamental principle of your actions, then situations will likely crop up where a business can compete while other companies "spin their wheels" implementing things with a purely global or purely local mentality.

Enter Information Technology. If I look back over the landscape of my IT career, I can see multiple attempts at Centralization (globalization) and De-centralization (localization). As my dad would say, it goes in ebbs and flows. With his IT career being twice as long as mine, he's seen those ebb and flows too many times to mention. Management constantly struggles with which concept is best. A centralized system would make administration cheaper and easier to control. Standardized backup, security and software licensing procedures would be a cinch. But what about the customer? Who do they call when Jimmy goes from their LAN guy to one of a group of LAN guys who are so busy that they get there when they get there. And, while we're talking about Jimmy, how do we replace Jimmy's expertise. He knows that the Divisional VP really doesn't know what he's doing when he touches his machine, so Jimmy understands the care it takes to respond to him. The centralized group doesn't know this nearly as well. "Too bad", you say? Tell that to the group of centralized LAN guys who are being downsized because of cost and because the customers don't really like them anyway.

So, then, de-centralize, right? Well, Jimmy is a good LAN guy and his customers love him, but he's not very organized. Trouble calls come right to his cell phone and he doesn't note what he did to fix all of the problems that he fixes. Therefore, if the problem crops up again, he either needs to remember what he did, or he has to troubleshoot the problem again. Jimmy makes changes to his routers at will and he doesn't save a copy of the old configuration files. Why should he? He knows what he did. He loosely concentrates on security and backup standards and he purchases whatever software packages he wants for his network. And forget about Preventative Maintenance. Jimmy is just too darn busy fighting fires to do the work that it would take for him not to have to fight as many fires. So centralize, right? (GOTO paragraph 3).

My question is, why not take the best of both worlds? That's easy to say, but not easy to do unless its the fundamental principle from which you approach your business situations. This concept is so simple, yet so big, yet so elusive, it will take many more blogs to get my point across. But, whether we like it or not, glocalization is not going to go away. It's everywhere. And it's time to start talking Glocalization.

My Tribute to 2006

Dear 2006,

Fuck you.

Love,
Ron

Generation Why

I've been getting lots of slack from one of my 2 readers for not posting. But hey, I'm moving and working and stuff. I'm also going to school. My Organizational Behavior instructor obviously isn't ready for my writing style because I didn't do as well as I thought I should on my Mid-Term. My favorite answer was to a question about Generational Differences, which he took 6 points off of, but I thought my answer was pretty good. Maybe you'll like it:

Question 5. What issues might a Baby Boomer encounter when supervising someone from Generation WHY? (Reference characteristics from both generations). How can the supervisor prevent these potential issues? (25 points)

I love the concept of Generation Why that was introduced to us in class. The Eric Chester website points out quite a few interesting points that people don’t normally take into consideration but should.

We have come a long way since the Baby Boomers took over running the show and we can attribute many of the luxuries that we now enjoy to the Baby Boomer generation. They’ve changed the way that we do business in America. They made business cool. They made work cool. They gave purpose to individuality and have shown us that anything’s possible if you work together. They aren’t afraid of big companies, big paychecks, big stock portfolios and fun, meaningful long-lasting careers. Although I am not a Baby Boomer (Generation X-er, thank you) I appreciate the road that the Baby Boomers have paved in preparation for my own personal career. One of my favorite commercials on TV lately is the Dennis Hopper commercial for a Personal Finance company where he notes that the Baby Boomers were innovative when they were running the show and that they’re not about to change that now as they enter retirement. That’s fantastic.

But Baby Boomers are still very active in the workplace and as if my generation wasn’t bad enough, they have to now deal with Generation Why. It’s interesting to me to recognize that the jump from the Baby Boomers to Generation X wasn’t all that bad. It actually made sense if you think about it. The jump from Baby Boomers to Generation Why, however, is significant, but I think that a Baby Boomer manager in the scenario of working with the Why Generation has to consider how things progressed through Generation X to Generation Why. That said all people who have to consider generation gaps that span more than one generation should do so with the progression in mind. Generation X, by the way, should be the generation that the Baby Boomers understand the most. We’re their babies after all.

So to answer the question, the Baby Boomer should take note to look at the Generation Why employee when supervising them as a result of the world of work that they actually had a hand in creating. Generation Why-ers question authority and have high expectations of employers and of themselves. This could show a lack of discipline and respect to the Baby Boomer, but in a sense it should be embraced. Baby Boomers worked very hard to stake their claim in the world of business and in their individuality. As a result, Generation X-ers continued to be individuals and they taught their kids to take individuality to the next level.

Baby Boomers also worked very hard to understand and embrace diversity. They did such a good job that now Generation Why-ers accept diversity almost by default. Baby Boomers who aren’t used to high expectations from a woman or from someone with cultural differences need to understand this as well. The Generation Why-ers aren’t afraid. They are also used to many different people, including both of their parents, getting a fair shake in the workplace. This is good as well, but may catch a Baby Boomer off guard since it wasn’t always that way.

Generation Why-ers have a large task in front of them. Company loyalty is dead and a new way of working, performing and surviving is in their midst. They would be served well to learn from the Baby Boomers as they embark on this adventure. Baby Boomers would also do well to learn from them as they get ready to take over the world that they worked so hard to create.

Job Searching and Dating

Well, it's been a month since I bored all 3 of my readers with my baseball banter. I haven't been writing lately because I was busy looking for a job.

About 7 weeks ago, I graciously bowed out from my gig in Fort Myers. I thought it was the right thing to do. I worked for the company that built my house. Because I'm moving to another state, I didn't think it would be fair to look for a job while sitting at my desk at my old company while my boss wondered why there was a "For Sale" sign sitting in my front yard. Scruples failed me a little this time. Finding a job didn't turn out to be as easy as I had hoped. Now I sit dejected, depressed and unmotivated... Strangely similar to the way I typically felt while I was dating. Is there a relationship here? (no pun intended).

Think about it. I left this job before having another job with good intentions and now I'm screwed. People who are dating leave relationships before having relations with another because they think its the right thing to do and then they're screwed... err not screwed... however you want to look at it. Even though I didn't have a stellar career path where I was, I was doing well and it would be nice to have that paycheck now. When I've dumped people in the past, I did it because I know the relationship wasn't going anywhere, but I at times regretted it during the dry spell because it would have been nice to have a movie and a pizza on the couch every once in a while.

Beyond that, when we're looking for jobs, it seems like everyone else is. There's so much to choose from but then there isn't. So too with dating. People are critical about our experience, but you know damn well that when the job is filled, whoever fills them will fall into the normal comfortable idiot role. So too with dating. We do our jobs for a time and then long to be in others when we get bored. So too with dating. Then we start looking around and if our bosses catch us posting resumes, our reputation diminishes. So too with dating. While we're in our jobs, we get lazy and stop moving forward, then when it's time to find a new job we wish we had done more to get ready. So too with dating.

Now that I'm job single, I'm struggling with the fact that employers are being so damn picky. If I've never configured a blue and silver Dell server that runs SMS and sits on the floor of a 10x13 sized server room in the far right corner with the OS being installed sometime in the November/December timeframe, there's someone out there that claims they have and they get the job. Or at least the interview.... or date. The bottom line is that it all comes down to MOJO. I've been way overqualified with women and jobs and not gotten them. Conversely, I've been underqualified with women and jobs and pulled through thanks to the way I got along with the interviewer.

The problem is that I'm discovering that I'm not very good at the job game. I wasn't very good at the dating game either and I wasted way too much time worrying about it back then. If I'm not careful, I'm going find myself accepting the ugly job with the mediocre body simply because my needs need to be met. Then I'll regret it and the cycle will start all over again... as long as I don't get anybody pregnant.

Man, I'm glad my relationship with my wife isn't nearly as volatile.

"220, 211; Whatever it takes"4 Ways to Save Baseball

One of the more interesting things that I've come to discover about South West Florida is that the people down here love their football. They talk about football any chance they get. College, Pro, Arena, High School, it doesn't matter. The Bucs, the Gators, the Dolphins, the Noles, the Hurricanes, the draft and yes, even the combines come before all else. So during these god-awful months of post-football tedium, the sports radio talk show people down here search for something else to get their arms around.

Couple that phenomenon with the fact that the Devil Rays (they play in Tampa for those who didn't know that Tampa had a Major League Baseball team) will forever play like an expansion team and the Florida Marlins gave away all of their players this off season and you end up with almost nothing to talk about. This past Wednesday, though, the South West Florida sports talk morning guy, Mark Miller, tried his hand at asking people what it would take to fix baseball. He took suggestions from all of the football-starved listeners and let them suggest anything albeit to pass the time until the NFL training camp. The fact that these suggestions were coming from blood thirsty football fans interested me in its simplicity and I couldn't help but notice that the baseball problem is a very compelling business brainteaser.

Just to let you know, the overwhelming majority made 2 suggestions: make the season shorter and bring in a salary cap, but with that cap include a salary minimum. I know that this topic has been discussed countless times every day all over the country, but for some reason, this day I was glued to my radio thinking about all the wonderful suggestions that the public could make to the eternally aloof baseball owners. So, with blogging at my disposal, here's my 2 cents.

First off, let's not forget about the customer service triangle, or the "triple constraint". A company can produce 2 of the 3; quality, cost, and speed, but never all 3. In other words, if something is of good quality and gets to you in a timely manner, it will be expensive. Conversely, if something is cheap and it gets to you fast, it won't be very good in quality. Finally, if something gets to you cheap and has good quality it won't get to you fast. Good business owners know how to balance this triangle and they can change their strategy at a moment's notice when the market demands it. Go to a fancy restaurant and get quality food fast and pay dearly. Go to a fast food restaurant and get mediocre food fast but cheap.

Take the NFL, for instance. People are constantly comparing the other 3 major sports to the NFL, but the sad truth is that there really is no comparison. Football is darn near perfect, or better said, the NFL has balanced this triangle perfectly (whether they meant to or not). The product gets to you fast with the action of each game and the season being so short. The product is the best in quality from media coverage to player uniforms to beer commercials. And finally the cost is expensive, but under control with a salary cap and tons of effective marketing. Baseball, conversely, does not balance this triangle at all. The game and the season is painfully slow, the quality of the product is not the natural draw it used to be and the spending is out of control, which directly affects the frustrated fans. No wonder the NFL is silently becoming the national pastime... hold on a sec, I have to duck from the lightning headed my way.

Baseball will never be fast. It just isn't. Which may be part of what makes it special. There have been suggestions from pitch clocks to batters not being allowed to leave the batter's box at will, but it would all take away from the game. It also wouldn't make much of a difference if the season is shortened unless they shortened it to 17 weekends like football. Look at hockey and basketball. They have half the games and find the same challenges. Besides, I kind of like being able to turn the T.V. on every day and possibly being able to catch a game, but I'm in the minority. Therefore, baseball, the owners that is, has to concentrate on the other 2 legs of the triangle; cost and quality. I have 4 suggestions. I know the owners are too arrogant to take them, but here they are anyway, my Dad will enjoy them.

First Base: Embrace your Stadiums.

Baseball has something that football doesn't even have and hockey and basketball will never have: the aesthetic allure of a beautiful baseball field. Thank God baseball owners have had the wherewithal to destroy the concrete bowls covered in astro-turf that were built in the 70's. Nobody misses Veteran's Stadium or Three Rivers or the like. We seem to understand that a beautiful stadium will bring fans in, but baseball owners need fans to keep coming back and they need fans from other cities to come take a look. What makes your stadium special? Why would I travel all over the country just to see your stadium? Give me a map of North America and places to hold ticket stubs from all the baseball cities that I've been to. Include your city's stadium in more vacation brochures and tell me why this is a city landmark rather than just saying "the home of the Oakland A's". Give me history. Give me stats. Give me cheesesteaks in Philly from a greasy hole in the wall deli that looks just like the greasy hole in the wall delis all over the city. Give me knockwurst in Milwaukee at the same price I can get it on the street. Give me corned beef in New York, deep dish pizza in Chicago, chili in Cincinnati and something big and beefy in Texas served by someone who smiles and who gives a crap. And then let me sit and enjoy the game while looking at the city skyline and talking to a fan that grew up right down the street and is proud of his stadium. The PGA does a really good job of proving this strategy. I can't tell you how many golf courses I want to visit before I die solely because of what they took the time to show me on T.V. I don't even have to play these courses, I just want to see them. Why can't baseball do that? Tempt me. Lure me in.

Second Base: Make Concessions with your Concessions

If I think about the last 10 baseball games that I've gone to, I can say that 6 of them were free tickets, 3 of the outings were just me and some friends and 1 outing was all expense paid. My point being that I've never gone out of my way to call the stadium, buy 6 tickets for myself, my wife and my kids, paid for parking and spent over $100 on bad, poorly rationed food. I consider myself a more than average fan. Hockey's my first love, but I'll follow the Phillies every year enough to have a conversation about them at a bar. And with that in mind even I wouldn't think about buying everything without something being reasonably priced... or free for that matter. Remember the triangle. Baseball's product isn't good enough or fast enough to be expensive too. Something has to give. Baseball people dismiss expensive hot dogs and $7 beer as just part of what it takes to enjoy a baseball game, but hear me out here. Baseball needs me to take my family to the park. Baseball isn't competing with hockey, basketball and football. Baseball is played in the summer. Baseball is competing with playgrounds and community pools and fireworks at local state parks and carnivals and walks on beaches and city zoo's and everything else families do in the summer. So keep the ticket prices the same and price the food to compete with what I can get on any street corner. Otherwise I won't go. And I don't go. If I could pay $80 to get my family into the park and then spend $1 for a hot dog, $1 for a soda and maybe $2.50 for a beer, I would happily make multiple trips to the concession stand for more. And I would probably spend the same amount in the end anyway. AND I WOULD BE THERE... NOT SOMEWHERE ELSE!! Baseball also needs my family there because it needs my kids there. It's bad enough my generation is shying away, but what makes baseball think that the next generation will take it upon themselves to flock to the stadium having not been raised consistently going? They won't. Baseball doesn't have a choice here. And the sad thing is, if they thought about it, they'd end up getting more butts in seats and making money anyway.

Third Base: Target Women

One of my favorite authors, Tom Peters, has preached extensively about the effect women can, do and will have on business. I can sum up why I wholeheartedly believe him in 2 words: Ladies Night. As much as we hate to admit it, women run the show on so many levels. I cringe to think of what a bar crowd would look like if there was no cover charge for men and women had to pay full price for everything. Neither the women or the men would go. You see "Hooters" restaurants popping up all over the place and women and men alike eating in them, but as far as I know, there's not a restaurant called "Pectorals". If there is it won't be around long. But beyond that, women have a soft, silky smooth leg up on almost everything else important. They are trend setters; we follow them around like puppy dogs. They are creative. They aren't afraid of their feminine side and they are the real consumers, not us guys. What they buy is what's important. So why doesn't baseball target them more? I'm not talking visor night where women 15 and over get an ugly one size fits all half hearted attempt at a stylish hat. I'm talking female creative directors at the top. I'm talking marketing strategies to target getting women of all ages to the park. I'm talking female MBA's who can create a must have jersey, or hat, or halter top. Trust me, the guys will follow. Open your eyes and realize that many of the players are sex symbols. Target that. Do you think that all of the Chipper Jones jerseys that females strut around in were chosen because they too used to play 3rd base and then were asked to move to the outfield? NO. Women wear Chipper's jersey because they happen to find him hot. Bring the personable players out in the open for women's sake. Trust me, the men will follow. NASCAR does this... and it works... quite well. Why can't baseball? Trust me the men will follow.

Home: Owners as One Happy Family

I may be dating myself here, but I can't help but sum all of this up by comparing this situation to the tuna ad in the movie "Mr. Mom". In that movie, Teri Garr played a homemaker turned ad exec who pitched a campaign to a tuna company. Her strategy was to note that stupid incentives and empty promises were not going to make people buy their product. The product was purchased by women (see third base), women who wanted fair prices (see second base) and Teri Garr wanted the tuna company to show how proud they were of their product (see first base). "Mr. Mom" ended with the tuna commercial. The owner of the tuna company testified on camera by admitting that they were wrong, vowing better prices and solidifying pride with a wave of the American Flag. All I can imagine here is a commercial with all the baseball owners sitting in stadium seats as one. Standing in the front is George Steinbrenner speaking for all of them. George says that he wants us back. He notes that all the owners are bringing something to their stadiums that we will all want to see. He mentions that revenue sharing money will pay for 50% of all concessions so that consumers don't have to endure outrageous prices. And he invites women as well as men to the park. And after the commercial airs, the owners come together and make this really happen. They work together as a whole for the good of baseball. They don't just worry about their own stadiums, but all stadiums. They don't just bring prices down in the big arenas but all arenas. And they brainstorm and come up with solutions together. With all its faults, the NHL has done this part semi-right. They are trying to thank the fans and bring them back. There's still quite a bit of work to do, but as long as the NHL owners stick together as a whole, they have a better change of healing old wounds. Baseball owners may think the commoners are too stupid to see what's going on. But I think its the other way around. Baseball isn't good enough for baseball's sake anymore. It can't survive just because its baseball. Even a winner can't keep the interest for long. So something has to be done.

The sad thing is that nothing will be done. Baseball will always be there. It's just a question of how many teams will be able to survive the thin years. My 3-year-old son was looking at some pictures of kids playing sports the other day and he knew that the kid playing soccer was playing soccer. He knew the kid playing hockey was playing hockey and he spotted a football player and a golfer. When he came across the baseball pitcher delivering a pitch, however, he asked me, "Daddy, what's he doing?". I was shocked. Don't American boys just know this stuff? Have I failed as a father? Maybe I have. But frankly, I'm not going to take him to the ballpark this year unless I get a free ticket. Have you ever tried to sit through a 9-inning game with a child who wants to eat but you can't afford the $5 bag of popcorn? Without Mommy there to help? At a stadium that he could care less about because the Phillie Phanatic only makes an appearance for about 4 or 5 innings? Give it a shot. And then budget accordingly. In the meantime, I'll send this article to Mark Miller, the sports talk radio host in South West Florida and see if we can start a revolution. I figure it will last until about August, just in time for the beginning of the football season.