You wouldn't move without a destination for your stuff...

Consider this story. You gets a transfer to a new city. It's a great opportunity, great job, benefits and salary. The new company offers you a relocation package where they will help you with housing, selling your current home and everything. It all just falls into place, your home sells in short order and you are ready to go. You pack up all of your belongings to move out to your new city. Couches, Televisions, Cars, Toys etc. Everything is picked up by the movers put into the 18 wheeler with care and zooms off down the road. You get on a plane and head to your new city, ready to get on with your life. You land and are ready to head to your new home and realize you don't have one. You never set anything up. No new home purchased, no apartment, nothing. Oops. Your belongings have no where to go. You call your company and tell them they need to get you a house and... what do you know... they just laugh.

Ok... so this story is a little strange and something you are probably thinking "I wouldn't do that. What kind of idiot would pack everything, be ready to move and not have a destination?" Not many right...

Actually you would be surprised. While not a house and a couch we get requests all the time for a home for an application. An application that has to be delivered in just two weeks! This is when the inside voice starts to emphatically state "Failure to plan on your part does not constitute and emergency on mine." Of course that is the inside voice and not the outside voice.

What can you do about it? If something is being built, know where it is going to go. Don't just assume, know. Know what the requirements are up front, what the application will run in, on and through. It seems obvious that you would want a planned home for a product but when you get busy coding and building those types of things are easy to loose track of or to assume that "someone" is taking care of it.

Will there be a claxon when it's time to panic?

When asked what the gist of what we do in Engineering is I generally have to think about it because it differs given different situations. In some cases it's about technology and how it is applied. In some cases it is about ramp up plans and safe rates of growth. In some cases it is about algorithms built for scalability and consistency versus short term function. At the heart of all of these things though is Risk Management.

Risk Management is an art and not a science. If it was easy to tell everything that would go wrong then nothing ever would. So since we don't have perfect information there is a balance that needs to be achieved between safety and progress. We need to look at the risk, its potential cost (PLOP factor) and then weigh all of this with previous experience and make a call to be later judged as a good call or a bad call. Or... if everything does what it is supposed to then it's a decision that just fades into the background.

So when you encounter a risk what do you do with it. It actually boils down into some simple choices. A Cutter article a while ago defined out a basic framework that I wrote on a sticky and refer to now and then as a framework.

1. Accept it - It's a risk. It's understood. There is not much you can do about it so move on with life and be prepared if it happens.


2. Avoid it - Sometimes a risk when found can simply be avoided. The ones that I think of in this regard are running a volume test in an overlapping time window with a system change.


3. Transfer it - This is the get someone else to do it approach. To successfully use this approach the other party needs to be aware that they are getting the risk (no email volleys please). This makes sense when there is someone who is better qualified or has a business to handle the type of thing you are dealing with. It may cost money but mitigates the risk.


4. Reduce it - This approach is commonly used when it a risk we have to face and work through, but can't directly transfer it or otherwise avoid it. A good example of this is a ramp up plan that is overly optimistic or doesn't account for transition. We mitigate this risk by reducing it and slowing the ramp down in order to make the problems smaller.

While not my own list I have thought that this provided a nice structured way to think through risks and what you need to do. If nothing else it helps in the acknowledgement that there are risks, even if we do choose to not do anything we need that to be a conscious choice.

The PLOP Measurement

For some time I have somewhat tongue in cheek referred to the way that we prioritize work as the PLOP Measurement method. (Patent Pending). In the unending quest to educate and inform here is a quick definition of the PLOP Measurement Method and how you might apply it to your work.

Contrary to what you might initially think PLOP is not just how big of a splash will something make when it falls into the water. PLOP is much deeper than that. PLOP is short for Prioritization by Level Of Pain.

PLOP has gone by many names, methods and approaches for years. Risk Management, Concern Logging, Caveat List and many more have been used. What they all boil down to though is exposing and managing efforts with an acceptable level of risk.

With the PLOP method issues are judged and prioritized by their potential to cause pain. Pain can be felt in any of a number of ways:

• business impact
• cost of outage
• size of effort
• number of systems touched
• likelihood of customer impact
• potential severity level
• inconvenience of time for roll out (tell me you don't look at something that needs to be released in the middle of the night as higher risk than something that can go in during the day)

Some might dismiss this as a subjective measure and make accusations of pessimism and paranoia. While the paranoia point might be correct, I find as a pessimist I am rarely disappointed. It's something that we do whether we acknowledge it or not. It may not be a hard number but that sinking feeling that you get in the pit of your stomach is usually a really good indicator of how bad the PLOP rating should be. The trick is listening to it and taking the right actions rather than slowing everything to a crawl.

Overtime is a productivity killer

This post may not be one of my most popular with PMs around the world but here it is anyway. Overtime, in the long run, does not help a project. When the numbers are run (and boy do productivity numbers get run...) it turns out that work that is done when mapped out with a scatter diagram across many different projects is essentially the same. [See Slack pg 64, it's cheap in paperback and well worth the read] The work that is done is the same per day... not per hour.

Intuitively this may initially seem strange if not outright wrong. How could a team that consistently works 50 or 60 hours a week end up with the same productivity as a team who works 40 hours each week? The answer lies in the long term effects of overtime, not the short term spike in productivity from a controlled burst. Controlled bursts really can be effective, as long as they are just that, controlled bursts.

Overtime itself is not an evil thing. Many are the stories in corporate lore of the team that pulled an all nighter or pushed through that special effort over the course of the last week to deliver everything on time. Good managers, [project managers, people managers, senior individual
contributors] know when to pull the trigger on overtime to push things over the goal line.

The problem comes because this can be addicting. Both to the manager and the individuals. People like being super stars, like the accolades and recognition of being really dedicated. Believing this to be a great success without evidence to the contrary managers become dependent upon the push to get everything done. Rather than pushing back on scope, push on the people. It is an easier road and you don't have to worry about an unhappy customer. At
least not right away...

With pressure comes a bit more focus. That's a good thing right? Sure, when that pressure leads to cutting out unnecessary steps and trimming requirements that are not needed. But when that pressure becomes an unending stress to deliver no matter what, it starts to become noise.
People stay, because they see others staying. People work, because others work. But the real urgency and productivity goes down. Knowing that they will be there working at night, things get put off, people talk in the hallway, time is spent surfing the web, etc. Why not, they will be there later anyway.

There are of course many other costs to too much overtime, but this is just a blog and not a book, so I will give it a rest now that I have you thinking.

Know where you are so you can go where you want

Aside from the desire to make a pithy title I did want to blog a bit on Process Engineering. A quick Google define: provides

Process engineering is about applying engineering approaches, techniques, and
tools to the construction of Process Models. [Rolland1998]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_Engineering

Aside from sounding very technical and confusing this definition really does capture the gist of what Process Engineering is about. Looking at how you do things and applying techniques to improve it. This could be any process really, from how you save a few moments by putting your toothbrush in a cup on the right side of the sink to how data is pre-processed for correctness before loading into the system slowing down initial loads but saving time on back-outs.

Why is Process Engineering important? I am glad you asked. It is important because without having an understanding of what we currently do we cant' figure out why we do it and thereafter improve it. For example, I was involved in a process improvement initiative once where we boiled a process that originally contained 30 steps to one that had 5. How? We figure out that each step (there were really only 5 major actions in the process) was supported by it's own set of steps that validated the information received from the previous step. Each team would send a spreadsheet to the next team, that team would run it's own validation, purging and cleaning and boil it to a new spreadsheet because they didn't trust the data then send the new spreadsheet to the next team... etc. By inserting a system where users could check in the spreadsheet to be pulled apart into a database with referential checks all of the separate validation could be done automatically and viola life was good.

What should we do with this? Similar to many of my posts my statement here is that we should question things. Don't be afraid to do something different than it always has been done. But don't just change for the sake of change. Understand what is currently being done and why. Use this data to attack inefficiencies and fix them. Sometimes it requires code or a system but other times even a people process change will improve things. First and foremost though, understand where you are so you can define where you want to go.

A case for the Designated Scapegoat

Have you ever considered why it is that when we consider systems we assign it attributes such as he or she or "misbehaving" or otherwise letting us down? I have. Why you ask.... darned if I know, I have a lot of random things float through my head and some of them are actually are entertaining. Hopefully this is one of those.

It seems that we as humans have a fundamental psychological need to explain things. So in order to explain them we put attributes either internal or external to explain why things happen. Maybe it is because from the age of "really small" we ask why? (and those of us who have children know the number of times we answer that question becomes numbing.) In psychology this is referred to Attribution Theory.

External attribution is things like "the devil possessed the machine and crashed it" or the ever popular "the data center is on a burial ground of some kind and it causes the servers to crash". It may not be true, but it helps us to deal. Or certainly to laugh at our misfortune.

Internal attribution is, in essence, blaming yourself. The easy example is things like "I am a sinner, please forgive me." We see this a little less in technology though it does pop up as well with the occasional person who perpetually places blame on themselves.

This fundamental psychological need is why I am suggesting the role of Designated Scapegoat on all projects. If a designated scapegoat is assigned at the beginning of any project we can simply move on to the fixing of problems since don't have to waste time in meetings deciding who or what is at fault. All of the posturing, political planning, set up, stonewalling, denial etc can cease and we can simply move forward. All blame can preemptively be assigned to the Designated Scapegoat and productive work can begin immediately. My experience with this role suggests that your Designated Scapegoat should be someone who is generally a good natured, understanding and who everyone knows in their hearts is beyond reproach.

Imagine how instead of a two hour meeting where people discuss why it is not their problem you start the meeting off with "Gee Chris, that was a mess up, I can't believe that you crashed the servers across the globe all at the same time." Chris then responds "Yeah, you know in Project Manager school we learned that the best way to crash a system is to push the button really hard, right in the middle." Then blame and attribution discussions are done and conversation can move to actual observed behaviors and problem resolution. What a time saver!!

So as a productivity aid for your next project assign a Designated Scapegoat up front, save yourself from Attribution Theory and all those unnecessary meetings. Focus on fixing problems, root cause analysis and long term fixes. Jump right past the blame game with this easy step.

Pay attention!

A while ago I read a post by Seth Godin on how to be a great audience. I thought it was a great post and provided some very good tips on what to do and how to listen and be (as the post says) a great audience. The context was a presentation to a group of eighth graders and how he could see who would be the good audience and who would not. The students who leaned forward, engaged and asked questions and drew out a better presentation.

Over the following months I have seen this over and over again in meetings. It's amazing the number of people who don't pay attention in a meeting. They drift off to their blackberry (assuming that the network is still working) while someone else is making a point. People bring laptops to meetings and proceed to answer email, read news (and if it's not an RSS feed of my blog that's just rude) or otherwise ignore why they are there in the first place.

Now I will admit that many meetings that get called seem to be meetings for the sake of meetings rather than meetings with a mission. This can be addressed separately. Be direct in meetings and don't be shy about making sure that there is a focused purpose and when that purpose has been achieved... don't feel that the meeting needs to go on just because it has been scheduled for an hour and fifteen minutes of discussion handled it. Give people the gift of time.

So, in your next meeting, make an effort to pay attention. Listen, lean in, ask questions, be a good audience and for goodness sakes PAY ATTENTION!!

How do you get work life balance?

I was reading through some blog posts and stumbled onto a presentation I wanted to share. Stuart Levine, author of "Cut to the Chase," provides a downloadable PDF manifesto entitled Reclaim Your Life: A Two-Week Challenge to Help You Regain Time It has 11 great tips on how to get to the point, and get the time you need to really make a difference. He starts with a quick review of work life balance and how it's easy to say and not so easy to do. Check it out... make the time.

Nothing gets done till nothing gets done - Woehlke's Law

What a provocative thought... nothing gets done till nothing gets done. This law is really more of a postulate or a theory then an actual scientific law as I don't believe any mathematical proof has ever been done. That said, it is one that has a lot of circumstantial and experiential evidence piled up towards it being the truth.

We have all been on projects where we know going in that the right [Resources, Timeline, Staffing, Education, ...] is not in place for the project to be successful. But we march on and because we all want to do a great job we try our hardest and keep the worst from happening for a long time, sometimes succeeding despite the obstacles and sometimes not failing until very late. What Woehlke is stating in this is that in order to get management attention and get the resources that are truly needed to be successful a problem needs to be evident.

A few quick reads on Woehlke's law -

• The Nimble PM has a nice article on Woehlkes law starting with the quote "Project managers will not get the staff they need so long as they muddle through with overtime, ulcers, and super-human effort. Only when deadlines are missed will senior management approve the staff who, had they been available at the outset, would have prevented the missed deadlines"
• Cutter had an advisor article in 2005 where Donna Fitzgerald made some great points about how to avoid getting caught in the trap and how hard it is for most of us over achievers to really understand what this law means.

What do I think this law means? If you look at a project and know that it can't be successful you need to prove it. Not with whining and bellyaching. If you go to management with a story of how "this will be really hard" you will get a reaction of "well duh, that's why we have you, our gifted team on this project". Rather you need to have "Data in fact". Set up tests to show where performance is and what would be needed to mitigate it. Set up early aggressive iterations to show a realistic rate of development. It's all about risk mitigation... if you can show where the real true risk is then you will get help. If all you have is an intuitive "this is hard" you will be patted on the head and told to go try hard.

The PM who cried Urgency

Have you ever been working on a project that you have been told over and over is urgent the date that was initially given to the customer has to hold? The urgency from that initial swag date builds from a normal project to a high effort project, on to a difficult project and on to
a death march?

A critical learning that needs to be accepted is that the purpose of a schedule is planning, not goal setting. A common problem is the initial SWAG (or ROM) becomes the cast in stone plan when the only thing that everyone agreed to at the SWAG was that it was wrong.

A general rule of thumb that I have found to hold true when estimating a project with initial information is that it is good to a rough magnitude of +200% to -50%. (and how often it actually goes to -50% is... let's just say infrequent.) This really means that the estimate is really intended for planning purposes to allow budgets to be roughly planned and dates for initial thoughts to be formed for go/no go decisions.

The unfortunate reality though is that in many cases the initial SWAGs are taken as gold. Plans and dates are communicated around them and then, in order to make the dates that have been "communicated to the customer" the development team is forced to become a team of super-heroes running a death march to meet the date on something that may not have real value in the long term. One of the ironies that I recently read about is that in many cases the death march project is one that has little to no value to the business overall and it seems that the only way the project was worth doing was if it met the impossible schedule.

All of this doesn't change the fact that if a plan missed the date, it was a bad plan. In many cases we try to blame the performance of the team, environment, technical difficulties or other things but the fact remains the plan is what was incorrect. It doesn't really matter why the plan was incorrect, it was. This means that we need to run performance checks earlier in the cycle. A post-project review is always a good thing but what if we did what needs to be done
up front?

While reading through various articles for this topic I ran across one on the Best Practice for Voluntary Overtime. It shows the correlation between an increase in pressure and productivity and then the corresponding decline in actual productivity when pressure is increased too high.
People are more productive and more creative and quality is higher when regular schedules are kept, planned and executed.