Sunday, September 30, 2012

Which Dog Will You Feed? Choosing Our “Reality” [Kimberly Wiefling]

In 1995 I decided to embrace optimism as a strategy for creating possibilities. It wasn’t a rational choice, it was an intuitive leap of faith. My many years of education as a physicist had taught me to ignore my intuition, but logic was insufficient to overcome my exuberance. You see I’d just had my eyes opened by a truly gifted coach who’d helped me discover that the person holding me back my entire life had been myself. Once I recovered from the shock of that revelation I made a decision to use my enormous power to shape reality to create a more hospitable environment, starting with my own attitude.

Immediately I encountered resistance from those who had benefited from my negativity in the past – namely everyone. My being negative was a comfort to others who were convinced of the darkness in the world. It confirmed their own belief system. And, of course, they were loathe to believe that I’d truly changed. After all, I’d been thoroughly convincing as a naysayer, so they rightly assumed that I was just shining them on, and would return to my old patterns of behavior momentarily.

But I didn’t. Instead I changed jobs, took classes, got a coach, practiced tarot card reading, took meditation classes, and joined a mastermind group, and simultaneously embraced numerous paths to enlightenment. Honestly, writing this I think “What a nutcase I must have seemed!” (Remember, I am a physicist by education, and do have an abiding respect for logic and rational thinking.) All of this was one grand experiment to me, the result of which I couldn’t possibly have guessed at the outset – the power to create so-called “reality”.

Nearly 20 years later I find that I’m not so impressed with myself. It turns out that my journey is a familiar one – many more famous and articulate people than me have “discovered” that we have the ability to choose our attitude in any circumstance, and thus shift our perception of that which we call “reality”. Since then I’ve been practicing using optimism as a strategy for creating a better future, and I’m very grateful that I had this epiphany while there was still time for myself and others to benefit from it. I’ve been able to start my own business helping organizations transform into more life-affirming work environments where individuals can contribute their highest and best, and coach many people to have the courage to define, pursue, and achieve their dreams. Along the way there have been many times when I thought “This truly is impossible, and what a crazy waste of time to even pursue it!” – not just about my own ridiculous fantasies, but about those of the people I’ve helped. But I’ve staunchly refused to judge anything “impossible”, preferring to think of outrageous goals as “merely difficult” puzzles that have yet to be solved.

Unfortunately my commitment to optimism has been tested repeatedly in the past several years. Of course there are always incidents that test ones faith in a better future – greedy business people, corrupt government officials, individual acts of hatred.  The primary attack on my optimistic outlook has come from the news media, which is notorious for reporting bad news far out of proportion to good. Why do I bother to watch the news, read the news, follow the news? It’s been proven that people who follow the news are more depressed than those who abstain. Well, for one thing, BBC is the only English channel I can easily get during my frequent business travel to Japan, and sometimes I just can’t resist some native English dialogue, especially with an exotic (to my ears) British accent. But the most insidious threat to my peace of mind has been the conspiracy theorists among my family and friends.

What conspiracy? You name it! Limitless free power would be available to us if only the power companies didn’t purposely squash access to breakthrough inventions. The ultra-rich control most of the wealth in the world, and democratic governments are merely a front for a well-concealed elite determined to profit from us the way farmers profit from raising diary cows. Five families have purposely enslaved the human race through monetary policies implemented through the world’s banks. And, yes, JFK was murdered by his own people, and the 9/11 attacks occurred with the full cooperation of the US government. Stop the world, I want to get off!

Honestly, I don’t know whether any or all of these purported heinous allegations are true. How could I possibly know? Some of the people who hold these beliefs seem very well educated and have an army of evidence to back up their claims. But I do know that living under such a cloud of cynicism and skepticism does nothing but sap my will to make a positive difference in this world. Suppose the worst of it all is true? Then what? I seem to be pretty much powerless to do anything about it besides add my voice to the masses via social media or decrying it all loudly at my local pub. What’s a sensible person determined to make a positive difference on Planet Earth to do?

A story that has given me guidance goes like this: “There are two dogs inside of me – one loving and one cynical. Which one will grow? The one that I feed.”  I’m not stupid. I know that there are terrible people in the world. I realize that terrible things happen, both as a result of human beings and natural disasters. AND . . . I choose to focus my attention and energy on hope, possibility, and what I can do to move courageously in the direction of a better future. I don’t judge the negative people in my life. They’re mostly attempting to avoid the disappointment that inevitably comes with optimism. I just wish they’d stop trying to protect me from disappointment by shattering my own hopes and dreams for the future. Disappointment? I can handle that. What I can’t handle is the feeling that there is no hope – that there is nothing I can do that matters. Even though my logical mind tells me that this is most probably true in the long run, every day I make it a practice to do something that lights a candle in the darkness for at least one person. Sometimes that’s by facilitating a conversation for possibilities with a group of future business leaders, and other times it’s as simple as being friendly and patient when waiting in line at the airport. Whether or not I change the course of history isn’t the point. I change my own reality by daily contributions to making the world a better place.

Daily Practice: Pretend who you are and what you do and say matters in this world. Act accordingly.

There are two dogs inside of each of us. Which dog will you feed? I’m determined to keep the cynical one on a starvation diet.

_____________________________________________________________
Kimberly Wiefling is the author of Scrappy Project Management, which attained the #1 ranking on Amazon Kindle US in Total Quality Management. She splits her work time between the US and Japan.

Saturday, September 22, 2012

Mark Morgan, "From Startup to Sustainability" [John van Heteren]

On Thursday, September 20, Mark Morgan gave an outstanding talk about how to make a successful transition from a start-up to a sustaining organization.


Introducing Mark Morgan:

- Cal Poly bachelor’s degree in Engineering

- Golden Gate Univ MBA

- Stanford Certified SCPM - Advanced Project Mgmnt

- PMI cert

- Mark had been teaching at Stanford Advanced Project Management Program this week


Corporate Strategy originated from:

- Founders of Boston Consulting Group, Bain and McKinsey developed some Strategic fundamentals in 1960s

- Mark is involved with turning Strategy into Reality - actually executing on the strategy. The perspectives differ between Startups and Established firms.


Odds: The odds are higher at playing Blackjack vs Executing Strategy.  So, if you had $1M, what would you do with it? Play Blackjack? Or Execute Strategy?

- Blackjack has a 2-point spread advantage for the house (49 to 51). In the long term, Blackjack players will eventually lose.

- Strategic Execution: In the long term, there is no guarantee of loss. Some companies do fine for a while.


Conventional Wisdom has often failed, as demonstrated by a number of business book titles…

- "Good to Great" - doesn't stay that way.

- "Built to Last" - hasn't.

- "In Search of Excellence" - didn't.


Einstein told us that "Significant problems can't be solved using the same level of thinking that we used when we created the problem." (or something like that)


Levels of Thinking: Need to use a different level of thinking to solve problems.

- example of understanding the desert trails in South America that turn into drawings of animals when viewed from an airplane.


How do you Turn Strategy into Operational Reality?
- Operational Reality is where the money is actually earned.

- A Strategy needs to be converted into a Portfolio of Projects & Programs.

- A Strategy only stands a chance of working when it is aligned with the rest of what makes up the company DNA


- How you deploy your assets (Portfolio) is where Execution meets the road.


- Example: The Six-Sigma strategy should not be applied to everything. It works great in Operations, but does not work great in Innovation. Six-Sigma is Fine on the factory floor, poor on the R&D department where variation should be maximized, not minimized.


Alignment:

- Strategy must be aligned with Culture and Structure.

- Strategy must be also be aligned with Goals and Metrics.

·        Startups often have a limited set of Goals & Metrics, so alignment is often assumed. At a later point in time, if the Startup has grown, they often realize they should have formally planned that alignment all along.

·        Startups often don't bother with Portfolio planning, but if they don't, and they later grow. they'll run into problems because their organization has not been prepared to scale


- Corporate Culture can arise from knowing its Identity.

- Identity & Long-Range Intention inter-relate with each other.

- The corporate Purpose (Vision) drives Identity and Long-range intention.


Ultimately, everything originates from Purpose:

Purpose => Identity => Culture

Purpose => Long-Range Intention => Goal

Identity <=> Long-Range Intention

Triangle: Culture <=> Structure,  Structure <=> Strategy,   Strategy <=> Culture

Triangle: Goal <=> Metrics, Metrics <=> Strategy, Strategy <=> Goal

Strategy => Portfolio

Upper Triangle: Portfolio <=> Program, Program <=> Project, Project <=> Portfolio

Lower Triangle: Program <=> Project, Project <=> Operations, Operations <=> Program


Example: How does Mozilla organize 150 employees and 10,000 unpaid volunteers?

It does not use "Shareholder Value" as a Purpose (there are no Shareholders; there is no intent to be a profit making company). The non-profit culture leads to people acting a certain way.


Improving the alignment between Purpose, Identity & Culture does not need extra resources. A better alignment often leads to better profits.


Some businesses have a culture/exit-strategy of: Get acquired.  This is an OK strategy, but does not fall into the domain of sustainable enterprise.  A weakness of this approach is that there may not be a fallback position if the only offer is too low.

If the company has the purpose to grow (instead of being acquired), then the company preserves both options: to grow or to be acquired.


Strategic Positioning: Where do you want to play?

- a product provider?  How to differentiate the product? Features? Cost?

- a solution provider?  What items/How to bundle?  Many product providers find themselves pushed into becoming a solution provider.

- a system/platform provider? 


Examples:

Walmart = mix of System & Product

Bose = mainly product provider

Southwest Air = mainly product provider

IBM = mix between solution & system

Microsoft, Google, Intel, eBay = mainly System/Platform Apple iTunes/iPhone/Apps = mostly System, partly product


Strategy: How do you want to win?  Rivalry between players is affected by...

- threat of new entrants

- customer power in negotiation

- threat of substitutes or alternatives

- supplier negotiating power


Strategy: How much room for growth is there?

- Some startups appear as 1-trick ponies. No room to grow after first release.

- Are there limits of differentiation?

- Are there limits of market saturation?


Strategy: What are your next 3 moves?

- Running a startup is not like Tennis (thinking 1 move ahead), but more like Chess (3 moves ahead)

- What is the level of integration? (chips vs data centers)

- What is the level of customization?  (off the shelf vs one-of-a-kind)

- How does your "Capability Required by Strategy" match against the planned level of integration & customization?  If the capability does not match the levels after 3-ish moves, it will be difficult to survive.


How to put content in the Gap between Strategy & Projects?
- Traceability: forward from goal to project, backward from project to outcome

- Sufficiency: will the project outputs fulfill the strategic needs?

- Capacity: can all the projects be done with known time & resources?


Strategy = vector sum of all projects.

- if the projects are poorly aligned, the vector sum will be zero

- if some projects are de-scoped (to meet limited resources), you have to remember to change the goals


Metaphor for capacity:

- Sliding tiles around on a board to align them. The tiles can only slide when there is an open hole.  The open hole represents "slack", or spare capacity.

- if all resources are tied-up, there is no slack, and no ability to change and transform the business.


Portfolio Balance is Critical - need to have people allocated to all 3 of these:

- Product development/operations – Working in the business

- Continuous product Improvement – Working on the business

- Continuous process Improvement / business change – working to transform the business


Strategy & Execution:

- Strategy - deciding what to do.   "Doing the right thing"  Yet, after a while, all successful unique products become commodity. So, the Right Thing must keep changing.

- Execution - how well the action is done.  "Doing the thing right"


Change must be orchestrated before the need arises.

- Without change, all successes will eventually fail.

- Initially successful companies often go through the phases of: Success -> Hubris -> Undisciplined spending (portfolio planning here) -> denial of risk -> search for silver bullet (look for acquirer) -> capitulation.


"To get something we have never had...  We must be willing to do something we have never done before."

____________________________________________________________________

John van Heteren has over 20 years of Engineering design and management experience. As Director of Hardware Engineering at Varian Medical Systems, his job is to encourage a group of Mechanical, Electrical, Firmware and System Engineers to design improved ways to treat cancer without appreciably raising the cost of the treatment devices. Over the years, he has shifted from developing products and patent applications to developing people and teams to deliver products and patent applications. John is always on the lookout for new ways to introduce tactics that encourage innovation in heavily regulated industries such as medical devices.

Saturday, September 15, 2012

A Tale of Two Interviews [Kimberly Wiefling]


Not long ago I was discussing job search with a colleague.  He told me about two interviews he had gone thru.  I asked him to write up both stories, as I felt they would be of interest to engineering leaders.  Here they are.  My colleague has asked to remain anonymous.

It was the best of interviews… It was the worst of interviews...

Well, not exactly, but here are two interview experiences that I’d like to share with you.  Both employers shall remain anonymous.

At Company A, the first interviewer asked me to describe how a search algorithm might be designed.  The interviewer emphasized that a complete design was not expected, but that he was interested in how I would address different requirements.  So far, so good.  However, everyone else who interviewed me challenged me with brainteasers – pirates, coconuts, monkeys, etc…  Now, brainteasers can clearly play a useful role.  They give the interviewer a chance to see how the candidate analyzes a problem.  And since the answer is rarely obvious, typically one’s first response is incorrect or misleading.  This gives the interviewer a chance to see how the candidate reacts to challenges when a real engineering problem does not work out as one might have initially expected, and also to see how the candidate works with others to solve a problem.  But at Company A, I got asked brainteaser after brainteaser – at least four or five.  After a while, I began to wonder whether they were looking for a software engineer or a televised game show contestant!

Company B is located outside the San Francisco Bay Area, so they put me through a rigorous phone screening process first.  Each interviewer posed one or more simple programming problems, easy enough to be solved on the spot, but with a twist or challenge requiring some kind of insight. I passed all of the phone screens and was invited to an in-person interview at corporate headquarters, all expenses paid, of course.

Two sessions at their headquarters left a strong impression on me.  The first session was a “panel interview” – two engineers were in the interview room, although only one asked a lot of questions.  They led me through a discussion of selected elements from the standard C++ Template Library, and asked my suggestions for how to implement items such as arrays, lists and queues.  I remember it as a very stimulating and enjoyable discussion of various design approaches.  The second session was lunch with the Director of Software, someone who supervised a fairly large team of about 50 engineers.  She took me to a local restaurant.  We were having a nice casual discussion when she suddenly asked me to describe a time when I had made a mistake.  It serves as a reminder that the job interview process is continuous, and getting taken out for lunch or dinner is just an extension of the process.

Although I did not join Company B, I felt respected and appreciated by everyone there throughout the interview process.  Each person approached me as a potential peer.  Their goal seemed always to be to find out how I would approach and solve problems, and their questions provided me the opportunity to best demonstrate my skills and experience for the job.

A company’s reputation plays a big role in attracting candidates for jobs. People naturally share their experiences with their peers. Companies who want to continue to attract top quality potential employees should consider the impression their interview approach leaves on candidates. The ability to attract and retain the talented people required to succeed is a competitive advantage for any business. With the wealth of information available via social media, and websites like GlassDoor.com publicizing what employees think of their own company, it ‘s vital for business leaders to protect their reputations by assuring the interview process is conducted in a way that leaves a positive impression with interview candidates – regardless of whether or not they are offered a job.

____________________________________________________________________
Kimberly Wiefling is the author of Scrappy Project Management, one of the top-ranked project management books on Amazon in the US, published in Japanese, and growing in popularity around the world. She splits her work time between the US and Japan.