One of the hardest things for organizations -- and often, individuals -- to do is to stop doing something. Examples that come to mind are canceling a project, breaking a tradition, and changing a process.
There are many explanations for this phenomenon. On an individual level, a person might be loathe to stop doing something for fear of disappointing other people. Organizationally, it might be impolitic to acknowledge that something is failing and should be stopped. It can also be problematic when no one feels ownership of the issue. And then there is always the challenge of inertia -- an object in motion stays in motion.
Successful people and organizations challenge the status quo mindset and step up to the tough decisions required to stop doing something. To continue doing it wastes resources and complicates operations.
My church's leadership is trying to become a "Simple Church" (Rainer and Geiger, 2006, The Simple Church, B & H Publishing), to reduce the complications and increase the focus of the staff and congregation on discipleship. Many organizations are working on becoming "lean," i.e., reducing wasted effort by following the "Toyota Way" (Liker, 2003, The Toyota Way, McGraw-Hill). Both types of initiatives require the courage to stop doing things that have been done before.
What brought this all to mind is the change to Eastern Standard Time. I do not like it, and think it is an outdated tradition. The idea is credited to Ben Franklin and certainly made sense in an agrarian, un-electrified country. As I understand it, different regions would adjust in different ways, not necessarily in one-hour increments. The time changes became standardized because of the trans-continental railroad's need for a sensible timetable. Some states, e.g., Indiana and Arizona, no longer follow this tradition.
Think about how much time is wasted... changing clocks!
Friday, November 6, 2009
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
A Surprising Illustration of Process Management
Today I attended a luncheon meeting of the Career Women's Network. Our guest speaker, the Honorable Trip Self, superior court judge, was the guest speaker. It turns out that he is also an official for college football. He managed to enthrall 75 women by talking about football, if you can believe it.
First he described the selection process for becoming an official, and the way one moves through the hierarchy of different divisions and regions. Who knew it was such a difficult thing to achieve?
Then he talked about how often he hears variations on "how could you not see that?" Besides trying to see around 22 200-300 lb. men in gear, things happen incredibly fast. I didn't take notes, so don't hold me to these numbers (because we know how my memory is getting!):
What I really enjoyed hearing about though was the amazing process of quality control they have in place, for officials, even at the college level. There is an observer at every game who gives the team feedback immediately after the game. Then there is a league supervisor for the officials, who reviews the games and EVERY call for every game in the league. The officials are graded on EVERY play, whether a call is good, bad or questionable. They may also hear from the head coaches. And if that wasn't enough feedback, the team of officials gets together Friday night before the next game and reviews the tape on last week's game themselves. They are on one-year contracts, so too many bad calls by an official may mean his contract will not be reviewed.
In addition, they spend one weekend in training each year, take two tests on the rules each year, and review the rules before every game. (It's a good thing he's a judge; that's a lot of... ruling?)
Part of me is amazed at how much care and attention is placed on these games -- they're just games, right? But college football is really a business, and the quality of the officials is an integral part of the integrity of the ... game. There can be a lot of money at stake, whether it's for television broadcasts, bowl games, or alumni donations.
I will never watch a football game the same way again.
First he described the selection process for becoming an official, and the way one moves through the hierarchy of different divisions and regions. Who knew it was such a difficult thing to achieve?
Then he talked about how often he hears variations on "how could you not see that?" Besides trying to see around 22 200-300 lb. men in gear, things happen incredibly fast. I didn't take notes, so don't hold me to these numbers (because we know how my memory is getting!):
- 8 seconds to place the ball from the completion of the last play
- 25 seconds to make sure there aren't too many people on the field and that players are not positioned incorrectly and communicate that to the referee
- 15 seconds for a play to unfold.
What I really enjoyed hearing about though was the amazing process of quality control they have in place, for officials, even at the college level. There is an observer at every game who gives the team feedback immediately after the game. Then there is a league supervisor for the officials, who reviews the games and EVERY call for every game in the league. The officials are graded on EVERY play, whether a call is good, bad or questionable. They may also hear from the head coaches. And if that wasn't enough feedback, the team of officials gets together Friday night before the next game and reviews the tape on last week's game themselves. They are on one-year contracts, so too many bad calls by an official may mean his contract will not be reviewed.
In addition, they spend one weekend in training each year, take two tests on the rules each year, and review the rules before every game. (It's a good thing he's a judge; that's a lot of... ruling?)
Part of me is amazed at how much care and attention is placed on these games -- they're just games, right? But college football is really a business, and the quality of the officials is an integral part of the integrity of the ... game. There can be a lot of money at stake, whether it's for television broadcasts, bowl games, or alumni donations.
I will never watch a football game the same way again.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Life Cycle Assessments
My training and education as an industrial engineer taught me to be a systems thinker, i.e., someone who can see the whole and the parts and how they work together. In my opinion, this is a fundamental skill for effective management. At a minimum, for my classes, I teach that:
* a system is a purposeful collection of components,
* a business system can transcend organizational boundaries,
* a system's environment consists of factors outside its control but can affect its operation, and
* good management systems have measured and actionable feedback loops.
One of the reasons it is important have a systems perspective is to understand how changes in one part of the system can affect the other. Optimizing one part of the system may be suboptimal for the system as a whole.
This comes to mind because I have been reading Daniel Goleman's Ecological Intelligence. Understanding the environmental and social impact of products we produce and purchase extends the system perspective to include the dimension of time. He describes life cycle assessment (LCA) as "a method that allows us to systematically tear apart any manufactured item into its components and their subsidiary industrial processes, and measure with near-surgical precision their impact on nature from the beginning of their production through their final disposal" (p. 14). The complexity is staggering.
One example he gives is glass packaging (pp. 18): "The basics for making glass have changed little since the time of ancient Rome. Today, natural gas-powered furnances... melt sand into glass... But there's far more to it than that. A chart showing the thirteen most important processes deployed to make glass jars revealed a system stitching together 1,959 distinct "unit processes." Each unit process... represents an aggregate of innumerable subsidiary processes, themselves the outcome of hundred of others, in what can appear an infinite regression."
Producing a glass jar requires the use of hundreds of substances (and 659 different ingredients) throughout the jar's supply chain. According to Goleman (p. 18), around one hundred substances [are] released into water and fifty or so into soil along the way... [with] 220 different kinds of emissions into the air." In addition to these ecological concerns, the LCA examines the energy use and health risks, such as carcinogens, in the product and its various unit processes. Incorporating recycled glass saves hundreds of gallons of water and mitigates carbon dioxide emissions, so the LCA incorporates negative as well as positive effects.
Increasingly, consumers and environmental advocates are pressing manufacturers to disclose such information. With the Internet and social networking tools, it is easy to build a groundswell of support for -- or against -- a particular product for its impact. Independent information providers, also known as "infomediaries," are compiling this vast array of information and developing summarized and simplified indices. Manufacturers and retailers are gradually recognizing the need to be more transparent. The NYTimes published an interesting article describing this trend earlier this summer.
I find this trend to be heartening, yet overwhelming at the same time. I'm still not sure if "paper or plastic?" is the best option when I don't have my reusable grocery bags. Or what kind of light bulb I should buy. Flourescent bulbs use less energy to illuminate, but if you consider the production process and hazardous materials, are florescent better than incandescent bulbs?
I don't know -- I guess I'll sit in the dark and think about it.
* a system is a purposeful collection of components,
* a business system can transcend organizational boundaries,
* a system's environment consists of factors outside its control but can affect its operation, and
* good management systems have measured and actionable feedback loops.
One of the reasons it is important have a systems perspective is to understand how changes in one part of the system can affect the other. Optimizing one part of the system may be suboptimal for the system as a whole.
This comes to mind because I have been reading Daniel Goleman's Ecological Intelligence. Understanding the environmental and social impact of products we produce and purchase extends the system perspective to include the dimension of time. He describes life cycle assessment (LCA) as "a method that allows us to systematically tear apart any manufactured item into its components and their subsidiary industrial processes, and measure with near-surgical precision their impact on nature from the beginning of their production through their final disposal" (p. 14). The complexity is staggering.
One example he gives is glass packaging (pp. 18): "The basics for making glass have changed little since the time of ancient Rome. Today, natural gas-powered furnances... melt sand into glass... But there's far more to it than that. A chart showing the thirteen most important processes deployed to make glass jars revealed a system stitching together 1,959 distinct "unit processes." Each unit process... represents an aggregate of innumerable subsidiary processes, themselves the outcome of hundred of others, in what can appear an infinite regression."
Producing a glass jar requires the use of hundreds of substances (and 659 different ingredients) throughout the jar's supply chain. According to Goleman (p. 18), around one hundred substances [are] released into water and fifty or so into soil along the way... [with] 220 different kinds of emissions into the air." In addition to these ecological concerns, the LCA examines the energy use and health risks, such as carcinogens, in the product and its various unit processes. Incorporating recycled glass saves hundreds of gallons of water and mitigates carbon dioxide emissions, so the LCA incorporates negative as well as positive effects.
Increasingly, consumers and environmental advocates are pressing manufacturers to disclose such information. With the Internet and social networking tools, it is easy to build a groundswell of support for -- or against -- a particular product for its impact. Independent information providers, also known as "infomediaries," are compiling this vast array of information and developing summarized and simplified indices. Manufacturers and retailers are gradually recognizing the need to be more transparent. The NYTimes published an interesting article describing this trend earlier this summer.
I find this trend to be heartening, yet overwhelming at the same time. I'm still not sure if "paper or plastic?" is the best option when I don't have my reusable grocery bags. Or what kind of light bulb I should buy. Flourescent bulbs use less energy to illuminate, but if you consider the production process and hazardous materials, are florescent better than incandescent bulbs?
I don't know -- I guess I'll sit in the dark and think about it.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Clarity in Communications - Not!
In my Leadership class yesterday, we were covering Andy Stanley's suggestions for the necessary characteristics for leaders in his book, The Next Generation Leaders. When we covered "Clarity," I explained that this meant not only did a leader need to communicate clearly, but that s/he must have clarity in the vision of what is to be done. As Stanley explains, it's uncertainty that creates the need for leadership. With certainty, the actions needed are clear.
To protect one's credibility -- and ability to be an effective leader and provide clarity -- it is important to be honest and forthcoming with people. It is much better to say, "I don't know the answer to that, but I'll look into it," than to bluff your way through a situation. People will see through you, pretty quickly.
You can also undermine your credibility by being vague. "Vagueness sands the clarity off of vision," says Stanley. Having plenty of scratched reading glasses, I like the metaphor.
So, here I am in class, trying to think of a story to illustrate the point, and was really coming up blank. There wasn't even something on the "tip of my tongue!" (4:00 in the afternoon is NOT my sharpest time to teach.) Grasping at straws, I said, "what if there had been several cases of swine flu detected on campus?"
"Here's a situation in which people would be uncertain of what to do. Being honest and forthcoming doesn't mean shouting, "We've got swine flu on campus!" and encouraging people to panic. But it also doesn't mean to say something vague, like "A few students have reported flu-like symptoms. I encourage everyone to take special precautions." A leader in this situation would have to be very clear about what precautions to take (e.g., quarantine, class cancellations, extended health services), and very deliberate about how to get the correct information out and how to get it updated. Communicating clearly usually requires repeated messages over a variety of pathways."
As an example, it was ok, something the students could relate to in their life experience. But a few of my students apparently missed the part where I said "what if," and thought that there really were cases of swine flu on campus. (There aren't, as far as I know.)
There's an irony in being misunderstood when talking about clarity in communications.
To protect one's credibility -- and ability to be an effective leader and provide clarity -- it is important to be honest and forthcoming with people. It is much better to say, "I don't know the answer to that, but I'll look into it," than to bluff your way through a situation. People will see through you, pretty quickly.
You can also undermine your credibility by being vague. "Vagueness sands the clarity off of vision," says Stanley. Having plenty of scratched reading glasses, I like the metaphor.
So, here I am in class, trying to think of a story to illustrate the point, and was really coming up blank. There wasn't even something on the "tip of my tongue!" (4:00 in the afternoon is NOT my sharpest time to teach.) Grasping at straws, I said, "what if there had been several cases of swine flu detected on campus?"
"Here's a situation in which people would be uncertain of what to do. Being honest and forthcoming doesn't mean shouting, "We've got swine flu on campus!" and encouraging people to panic. But it also doesn't mean to say something vague, like "A few students have reported flu-like symptoms. I encourage everyone to take special precautions." A leader in this situation would have to be very clear about what precautions to take (e.g., quarantine, class cancellations, extended health services), and very deliberate about how to get the correct information out and how to get it updated. Communicating clearly usually requires repeated messages over a variety of pathways."
As an example, it was ok, something the students could relate to in their life experience. But a few of my students apparently missed the part where I said "what if," and thought that there really were cases of swine flu on campus. (There aren't, as far as I know.)
There's an irony in being misunderstood when talking about clarity in communications.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Life is a Process
As I write about process effectiveness, I think about how much of life is really a process: inputs turn into outputs through a system affected by its environment.
For example, procrastinating. This is a process at which I excel, and teach students to avoid. (It takes one to know one.) People tend to procrastinate because they are perfectionists, or because they are overwhelmed, or both. To overcome this, you projectize whatever you are procrastinating about, and then you break it into smaller pieces that are less overwhelming. Visualize the end result. Allow yourself an imperfect beginning. Do the most distasteful task first and get it out of the way. (Have you read Eat that Frog, by Brian Tracy? -- it's the same principle. While I'm at it, let me also recommend The Now Habit by Neil Fiore.) You can see, I am quite knowledgeable -- and if I may say so, adept -- at procrastinating.
My procrastinating process goes something like this: Whatever I am avoiding is usually something on paper: grading, bookkeeping, or in this case, some writing. The process begins with either carrying the papers around for a while, or looking at the pile in an unavoidable place. My anxiety increases, the longer this part of the process continues. Then I think, "Hmm, maybe I should clear my mind of all the little things distracting me from concentrating on this pile." So, I clean out my email boxes, organize something, plan something else, and sometimes even cook dinner. Yet the pile persists. So, the next step is usually a nap -- so I can feel refreshed and focused. Then -- and only then -- do I tackle something ELSE I have been procrastinating about. For example, when I had a stack of term papers to grade last semester, it was a terrific time to rewrite the by-laws for an organization of which I am a member. (I had been putting that off for several weeks, because it was a bit overwhelming, and kind of boring.)
This week, I've been avoiding working on a textbook chapter about process effectiveness. (The reference file has been on my desk for eleven days.) This time, it's an issue of perfectionism: I really, really want to make this chapter life-changing for my students. Truly, I have a passion for processes.
So, my email boxes are current, I have re-organized my closet, planned the first three weeks of classes, and even prepared to make my C, C & C (chicken, couscous, and carrots mixed together) for dinner . The nap was great. And now I'm writing the blog that I wanted to update two days ago, but have been avoiding. See how this works? You have to channel the procrastination, and make it work for you. Eventually, you get it all done.
Maybe I'll start the following chapter, procrastinate about IT, and then go back to process effectiveness. Hmmm...
For example, procrastinating. This is a process at which I excel, and teach students to avoid. (It takes one to know one.) People tend to procrastinate because they are perfectionists, or because they are overwhelmed, or both. To overcome this, you projectize whatever you are procrastinating about, and then you break it into smaller pieces that are less overwhelming. Visualize the end result. Allow yourself an imperfect beginning. Do the most distasteful task first and get it out of the way. (Have you read Eat that Frog, by Brian Tracy? -- it's the same principle. While I'm at it, let me also recommend The Now Habit by Neil Fiore.) You can see, I am quite knowledgeable -- and if I may say so, adept -- at procrastinating.
My procrastinating process goes something like this: Whatever I am avoiding is usually something on paper: grading, bookkeeping, or in this case, some writing. The process begins with either carrying the papers around for a while, or looking at the pile in an unavoidable place. My anxiety increases, the longer this part of the process continues. Then I think, "Hmm, maybe I should clear my mind of all the little things distracting me from concentrating on this pile." So, I clean out my email boxes, organize something, plan something else, and sometimes even cook dinner. Yet the pile persists. So, the next step is usually a nap -- so I can feel refreshed and focused. Then -- and only then -- do I tackle something ELSE I have been procrastinating about. For example, when I had a stack of term papers to grade last semester, it was a terrific time to rewrite the by-laws for an organization of which I am a member. (I had been putting that off for several weeks, because it was a bit overwhelming, and kind of boring.)
This week, I've been avoiding working on a textbook chapter about process effectiveness. (The reference file has been on my desk for eleven days.) This time, it's an issue of perfectionism: I really, really want to make this chapter life-changing for my students. Truly, I have a passion for processes.
So, my email boxes are current, I have re-organized my closet, planned the first three weeks of classes, and even prepared to make my C, C & C (chicken, couscous, and carrots mixed together) for dinner . The nap was great. And now I'm writing the blog that I wanted to update two days ago, but have been avoiding. See how this works? You have to channel the procrastination, and make it work for you. Eventually, you get it all done.
Maybe I'll start the following chapter, procrastinate about IT, and then go back to process effectiveness. Hmmm...
Friday, August 14, 2009
A New School Year
One of the things I love about my job is that I gain closure when a school year ends, and enjoy anticipation of the new year in the fall.
Tom Peters has said that knowledge workers should "projectize everything." Turn all of your work into projects, i.e., temporary endeavors to create a unique product or service (www.pmi.org). Temporary means only that the work has a start and an end; it does not necessarily mean short-term. A unique product or service is the desired result.
Besides enjoying the anticipation and closure that a school year provides, I find that projectizing myself is very helpful. It keeps me interested in what I am doing, and focused on the desired results. For example, I treat each course I teach as a project, even if I've taught the course before. I find that my classes vary greatly, depending on the engagement of the students, the current events we have for discussion, time of day, etc., so each one is unique.
Another way that projectizing is helpful is to provide a warning system for OVERLOAD. I have developed a sense of how many projects I can juggle at one time: my optimum is two classes, one writing project, two volunteer projects, one home improvement project, and one self improvement project. More than that, then my relationships and home responsibilities suffer.
Since I am teaching three different courses this fall, I know I need to cut back on volunteering (but will probably just let the home project idle!). In the same way, projectizing helped me realize that having five self-improvement projects, four home improvement projects, one class, two volunteer projects and four writing projects for the summer was probably unrealistic.
Finally, I like to projectize because it helps me to avoid becoming overwhelmed. Taking each project and breaking it into work packages or tasks (i.e., creating a work breakdown structure), helps me to better gauge how long the project will take. Then I can make realistic commitments to my students, colleagues, and family. (The dogs don't get it, though -- they are all about, "What have you done for me lately?")
Tom Peters has said that knowledge workers should "projectize everything." Turn all of your work into projects, i.e., temporary endeavors to create a unique product or service (www.pmi.org). Temporary means only that the work has a start and an end; it does not necessarily mean short-term. A unique product or service is the desired result.
Besides enjoying the anticipation and closure that a school year provides, I find that projectizing myself is very helpful. It keeps me interested in what I am doing, and focused on the desired results. For example, I treat each course I teach as a project, even if I've taught the course before. I find that my classes vary greatly, depending on the engagement of the students, the current events we have for discussion, time of day, etc., so each one is unique.
Another way that projectizing is helpful is to provide a warning system for OVERLOAD. I have developed a sense of how many projects I can juggle at one time: my optimum is two classes, one writing project, two volunteer projects, one home improvement project, and one self improvement project. More than that, then my relationships and home responsibilities suffer.
Since I am teaching three different courses this fall, I know I need to cut back on volunteering (but will probably just let the home project idle!). In the same way, projectizing helped me realize that having five self-improvement projects, four home improvement projects, one class, two volunteer projects and four writing projects for the summer was probably unrealistic.
Finally, I like to projectize because it helps me to avoid becoming overwhelmed. Taking each project and breaking it into work packages or tasks (i.e., creating a work breakdown structure), helps me to better gauge how long the project will take. Then I can make realistic commitments to my students, colleagues, and family. (The dogs don't get it, though -- they are all about, "What have you done for me lately?")
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
A Systems View of Vacation
I know I have committed a venial sin, not blogging for a month. Well, I have been on vacation, and did think about the blog...
Something I stress in my teaching is the need to take a systems view of an organization, i.e., don't just optimize your job or department, but understand how your domain fits into the overall organization, and work from that perspective. Establish feedback loops to monitor performance. The idea is to understand the interrelationships and the environment (i.e., the things outside the system over which you have no control, but the performance of your system is affected by these things).
For a typical business organization, the environment includes the competition, as well as political, economic, social, ecological, and legal considerations. Arguably, customers and suppliers are part of the extended organization, in its value chain. The value chain, in simple terms, is the set of links that transform inputs into outputs by adding value. Transformation occurs through alteration, transportation, inspection, and storage.
So, while I was on vacation (cruising the Inner Passage in Alaska -- thanks, Mom!), I thought about how a vacation transforms you. Or at least you hope that it does.
In my case, the inputs were a stressed-out me, baggage, the cruise facilities and staff, and cash. The outputs were a recharged me, luggage, souvenirs, photographs, memories, and referrals (it was a fabulous trip). The ways in which the cruise company transformed me:
ALTER: showed me new sights, provided new experiences, prepared food, pampered me
TRANSPORT: took me round trip from Seattle very comfortably
INSPECT: assured my security by issuing cruise cards and requiring passengers to scan them to get off/on the ship
STORE: provided a lovely stateroom for my person, stocked the kitchen with ingredients
The cruise line had a good operational system, including feedback loops to ensure that the passengers were pleased with the services. However, the system was also a good illustration of the Theory of Constraints.
But that's a blog for another day.
Something I stress in my teaching is the need to take a systems view of an organization, i.e., don't just optimize your job or department, but understand how your domain fits into the overall organization, and work from that perspective. Establish feedback loops to monitor performance. The idea is to understand the interrelationships and the environment (i.e., the things outside the system over which you have no control, but the performance of your system is affected by these things).
For a typical business organization, the environment includes the competition, as well as political, economic, social, ecological, and legal considerations. Arguably, customers and suppliers are part of the extended organization, in its value chain. The value chain, in simple terms, is the set of links that transform inputs into outputs by adding value. Transformation occurs through alteration, transportation, inspection, and storage.
So, while I was on vacation (cruising the Inner Passage in Alaska -- thanks, Mom!), I thought about how a vacation transforms you. Or at least you hope that it does.
In my case, the inputs were a stressed-out me, baggage, the cruise facilities and staff, and cash. The outputs were a recharged me, luggage, souvenirs, photographs, memories, and referrals (it was a fabulous trip). The ways in which the cruise company transformed me:ALTER: showed me new sights, provided new experiences, prepared food, pampered me
TRANSPORT: took me round trip from Seattle very comfortably
INSPECT: assured my security by issuing cruise cards and requiring passengers to scan them to get off/on the ship
STORE: provided a lovely stateroom for my person, stocked the kitchen with ingredients
The cruise line had a good operational system, including feedback loops to ensure that the passengers were pleased with the services. However, the system was also a good illustration of the Theory of Constraints.
But that's a blog for another day.
Friday, July 3, 2009
The Power of Planning
As I work on my textbook, I am reminded that the value of many techniques is not in their result, but in the process of using them. For example, using quality function deployment (i.e., QFD or House of Quality) is not really about ending up with a matrix of specifications for statistical process control, but more about creating a common vision and consensus about how to meet customers' requirements.
Project planning is much the same. The process of planning can be team-building and goes a long way to understanding and meeting customers' expectations. It can be especially helpful in identifying interdependencies and clarifying trade-offs for decision-making.
A story that comes to mind that illustrates how project planning can deliver results far beyond a specific timetable is the experience of Connie. She was a summer intern, in between years of a prestigious full time MBA program. Young and bright, she did not have much self confidence, and was assigned a rather daunting task: assuring business continuity for a Fortune 100 company headquartered in the midst of the host city for the Olympics. Company executives were busy running their divisions, preparing for the marketing and operational challenges of the Olympics – and Connie was supposed to get them to make serious contingency plans for a variety of risks that could interrupt their business. She was having a difficult time commanding their attention and gaining their support.
We worked together to develop a project plan to develop a continuity plan (yes, a plan to develop a plan!). The project identified the pieces of information that were needed, who should participate, the specific scenarios to be addressed, and the desired results from the continuity plan. Once this was captured in a professional-looking time line, with a critical path and deadlines, Connie asked for another set of meetings with the division executives. Armed with an understanding of the interdependencies and assumptions that were reflected in the project plan, she approached these meetings with a new sense of confidence. As a result, the executives committed the proper attention and resources to business continuity and the company was well-prepared for the Olympics.
Things often do not go according to plan, but that's not the power of planning. Be clear. Be ready. Be committed. Don't be too busy to plan.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Something I Forgot to Remember
Recently, a colleague called and asked for some help on a research project he was starting. He remembered that I had co-edited a book about the ethics and information technologies (The Social, Ethical, and Policy Implications of Information Technology, Information Science Press), and was looking for some guidance on search terms to use. His project was related to the implosion of the United States financial sector, and his contribution was to be on if/how people subrogated their oversight responsibilities to computers.
I knew the phenomenon he was describing, of course. In fact, it's a pet peeve of mine when, as a customer dealing with a service issue, I am told, "the computer won't let me do what you're asking." It makes me crazy when we blame the technology for our own shortcomings. Computers do what they are told to do.
The problem was, I couldn't remember what catchphrase was used to describe the phenomenon. "Anthropomorphizing computers" isn't likely to help in a literature review (although that will still lead to about 7,700 hits in Google). "Blaming technology" gets you closer to the point (over 18 million hits), but still doesn't have the scholarly patina.
While I don't keep every article I read or use for work, I do have some favorites, especially related to the impact on information technologies. As I shuffled through my files, I found what I was looking for: the text of a speech given by Dr. Richard De Georges at Bentley College's Center for Business Ethics in 1999. In it, he laments the "abdication of IT ethical responsibility," and describes "The Myth of Amoral Computing."
Amoral computing. Computers do not have morals. Yet society seems to unquestioning accept the application of information technologies, without considering the social and ethical implications. Just because you CAN do something, SHOULD you? Beyond that are the legal considerations when something goes wrong and the computer is the proximal cause. Are the agents accountable? In my opinion, they should be.
I knew the phenomenon he was describing, of course. In fact, it's a pet peeve of mine when, as a customer dealing with a service issue, I am told, "the computer won't let me do what you're asking." It makes me crazy when we blame the technology for our own shortcomings. Computers do what they are told to do.
The problem was, I couldn't remember what catchphrase was used to describe the phenomenon. "Anthropomorphizing computers" isn't likely to help in a literature review (although that will still lead to about 7,700 hits in Google). "Blaming technology" gets you closer to the point (over 18 million hits), but still doesn't have the scholarly patina.
While I don't keep every article I read or use for work, I do have some favorites, especially related to the impact on information technologies. As I shuffled through my files, I found what I was looking for: the text of a speech given by Dr. Richard De Georges at Bentley College's Center for Business Ethics in 1999. In it, he laments the "abdication of IT ethical responsibility," and describes "The Myth of Amoral Computing."
Amoral computing. Computers do not have morals. Yet society seems to unquestioning accept the application of information technologies, without considering the social and ethical implications. Just because you CAN do something, SHOULD you? Beyond that are the legal considerations when something goes wrong and the computer is the proximal cause. Are the agents accountable? In my opinion, they should be.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Taking Sides
In my course, "Contemporary Topics in Management," students are assigned issues to debate from Street and Street's (2007) book, TAKING SIDES: CLASHING VIEWS IN MANAGEMENT. Two of the debates took me down memory lane; one was on gender discrimination, and the other was about affirmative action's effectiveness.
While I have not paved the path the way women in an earlier generation had to do, I have certainly bumped my head on the proverbial "glass ceiling." I guess you could call the memories somewhat painful, in that regard.
Enjoying a relatively successful career in corporate America, I felt that I had mastered my current responsibilities, and proposed an increase in responsibilities (and a promotion) to my boss. He acknowledged that I was an "excellent manager," but thought I should go off and work in the Human Resources department. (I have nothing against HR professionals, but at this company, moving to that department was the "kiss of death" to careers.) Some time later, after I had left the company to pursue my doctorate, I stopped by to say hello to this boss (Career advice note: never burn bridges, no matter how much you want to blow them up). In the course of my visit, I learned that my he had hired a former (male) colleague into the department. When I asked, "so what is 'John Doe' doing for you," my former boss acknowledged, "It's basically the job you suggested." Ouch!
Then there was the time when I was a contract consultant for a management consulting group. After a very successful year-long engagement (where I accepted a lower wage because it was local so I didn't have to travel away from my toddler), the company started sending me on out-of-town assignments. After traveling to an assignment, which took 6-8 hours of travel time each way, and resulted in a satisfied client, I returned home and wrote a proposal to the company president. In it, I respectfully requested that they pay me at a higher rate, which I believe would have put me on parity with the rest of the Senior Associates. The president was so incensed that I would dare to ask for more money, he fired me (sort of -- it was a project-by-project relationship, so he really just didn't give me any more projects). Did I mention that I was the only female consultant? Ouch!
On the Affirmative Action front, as I completed my PhD at a top tier institution, and started interviewing for an academic position, I had two troubling site visits. In both cases, I met with only male colleagues -- and in both cases they hired someone who "was already teaching for them." I really felt that they interviewed me to go through the motions of considering a woman candidate. I may be wrong -- but I am not in doubt.
I also have no doubt that the status of women is improving. Gone are the days when, as a sales engineer representing computer-aided design software, I had a lunch meeting with customers while "enjoying" a lingerie show throughout the meal. Did I mention that I was the only (fully-dressed) female at the table?
These days, gender discrimination is more insidious, and I would like to think, mostly unconscious. Business golf is a classic example. I play at golf, and consider myself a social golfer, a 9-hole scrambler. I was at an executive retreat, where the guys were pulling together a golf outing. They invited me -- but there is no way I am able to play 18 holes (on a mountain course). Were they trying to leave me out? No, but I am confident that they don't know any working mothers who can play 18 holes of golf, because I sure don't know any!
Let me "tee up" another example: we have a local golf tournament and fund-raiser in our town. I used to look forward to playing with colleagues and would feel good about my contributions to our team (the occasional awesome shot and my handicap). They changed the format and don't include handicaps anymore -- so I'm out of the game. Were they trying to leave me out? No, but I bet they have far fewer women playing in the tournament.
Do I believe gender discrimination still exists? Yes. But I try to proactive and direct about it, now that I'm in the second half of my career (do NOT call me "over the hill"). Sometimes, when I think the discrimination isn't deliberate, I use humor to create awareness. More importantly I try very hard to mentor the generations of working women that follow me -- and create some understanding in the young men that I teach.
While I have not paved the path the way women in an earlier generation had to do, I have certainly bumped my head on the proverbial "glass ceiling." I guess you could call the memories somewhat painful, in that regard.
Enjoying a relatively successful career in corporate America, I felt that I had mastered my current responsibilities, and proposed an increase in responsibilities (and a promotion) to my boss. He acknowledged that I was an "excellent manager," but thought I should go off and work in the Human Resources department. (I have nothing against HR professionals, but at this company, moving to that department was the "kiss of death" to careers.) Some time later, after I had left the company to pursue my doctorate, I stopped by to say hello to this boss (Career advice note: never burn bridges, no matter how much you want to blow them up). In the course of my visit, I learned that my he had hired a former (male) colleague into the department. When I asked, "so what is 'John Doe' doing for you," my former boss acknowledged, "It's basically the job you suggested." Ouch!
Then there was the time when I was a contract consultant for a management consulting group. After a very successful year-long engagement (where I accepted a lower wage because it was local so I didn't have to travel away from my toddler), the company started sending me on out-of-town assignments. After traveling to an assignment, which took 6-8 hours of travel time each way, and resulted in a satisfied client, I returned home and wrote a proposal to the company president. In it, I respectfully requested that they pay me at a higher rate, which I believe would have put me on parity with the rest of the Senior Associates. The president was so incensed that I would dare to ask for more money, he fired me (sort of -- it was a project-by-project relationship, so he really just didn't give me any more projects). Did I mention that I was the only female consultant? Ouch!
On the Affirmative Action front, as I completed my PhD at a top tier institution, and started interviewing for an academic position, I had two troubling site visits. In both cases, I met with only male colleagues -- and in both cases they hired someone who "was already teaching for them." I really felt that they interviewed me to go through the motions of considering a woman candidate. I may be wrong -- but I am not in doubt.
I also have no doubt that the status of women is improving. Gone are the days when, as a sales engineer representing computer-aided design software, I had a lunch meeting with customers while "enjoying" a lingerie show throughout the meal. Did I mention that I was the only (fully-dressed) female at the table?
These days, gender discrimination is more insidious, and I would like to think, mostly unconscious. Business golf is a classic example. I play at golf, and consider myself a social golfer, a 9-hole scrambler. I was at an executive retreat, where the guys were pulling together a golf outing. They invited me -- but there is no way I am able to play 18 holes (on a mountain course). Were they trying to leave me out? No, but I am confident that they don't know any working mothers who can play 18 holes of golf, because I sure don't know any!
Let me "tee up" another example: we have a local golf tournament and fund-raiser in our town. I used to look forward to playing with colleagues and would feel good about my contributions to our team (the occasional awesome shot and my handicap). They changed the format and don't include handicaps anymore -- so I'm out of the game. Were they trying to leave me out? No, but I bet they have far fewer women playing in the tournament.
Do I believe gender discrimination still exists? Yes. But I try to proactive and direct about it, now that I'm in the second half of my career (do NOT call me "over the hill"). Sometimes, when I think the discrimination isn't deliberate, I use humor to create awareness. More importantly I try very hard to mentor the generations of working women that follow me -- and create some understanding in the young men that I teach.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
What were THEY thinking?
This week, I read that the Georgia Supreme Court deemed a motor vehicle law "unconstitutional," largely on the basis that the wording was vague and confusing. The law? Making a left turn into the near lane, when turning onto a multiple lane road. WHAT is confusing about that?
You want to talk about confusing? Why can't drivers turn their (power) steering wheels well enough to aim for the correct lane? Are they lazy? Inconsiderate? After all, this allows the oncoming traffic to go "right on red," safely. Or is that law too confusing, too?
Come to think of it, red lights DO seem to be confusing for Georgia drivers. The way I was taught to drive, a yellow traffic light meant "caution, the light is about to turn red." That meant I should continue through the intersection, if I was close enough, WITHOUT ACCELERATING. Around here, it seems to mean, "hurry up, so the next two vehicles behind you can make it through the red light before the people in the cross traffic notice." (Of course, those people are probably talking on their cell phones, so it will take them some time to notice.)
While we are on the subject of turning, I have to wonder why most people do not use their turn indicators around here. Are they lazy? Inconsiderate? Too busy talking on their cell phones?
Beyond my frustration with sloppy driving, there is a public health hazard. Ignoring laws that regulate the flow of traffic causes accidents. This is common sense -- and is validated by my personal experience. Both my husband and I -- in separate cars at separate times in separate places -- have been victims of accidents caused by someone running a red light. Note that, both times, our cars were stopped, and we were still hit! Thankfully, we (and our toddler child) were not hurt. We did, however, have the gross inconvenience of insurance claims and extensive car repairs.
How does this rant relate to a topic of management interest? Think about traffic flow as a process. If the process is not followed properly, what happens? At best, you have slower throughput in the process. In the case of the lazy left turns, instead of two people turning, one left and one right, only one can turn because the right turner cannot be sure of an open lane. The same is true when people don't use their signals -- this causes confusion and delays with other drivers. And with the cell phone talkers, their inattention to driving slows everyone down. Of course, when an accident occurs, throughput is further slowed, or stopped all together.
Throughput is a critical success factor in managing processes. If you have consistent processes, you can maximize your throughput, improve your quality, and reduce your costs.
What is confusing about THAT?
You want to talk about confusing? Why can't drivers turn their (power) steering wheels well enough to aim for the correct lane? Are they lazy? Inconsiderate? After all, this allows the oncoming traffic to go "right on red," safely. Or is that law too confusing, too?
Come to think of it, red lights DO seem to be confusing for Georgia drivers. The way I was taught to drive, a yellow traffic light meant "caution, the light is about to turn red." That meant I should continue through the intersection, if I was close enough, WITHOUT ACCELERATING. Around here, it seems to mean, "hurry up, so the next two vehicles behind you can make it through the red light before the people in the cross traffic notice." (Of course, those people are probably talking on their cell phones, so it will take them some time to notice.)
While we are on the subject of turning, I have to wonder why most people do not use their turn indicators around here. Are they lazy? Inconsiderate? Too busy talking on their cell phones?
Beyond my frustration with sloppy driving, there is a public health hazard. Ignoring laws that regulate the flow of traffic causes accidents. This is common sense -- and is validated by my personal experience. Both my husband and I -- in separate cars at separate times in separate places -- have been victims of accidents caused by someone running a red light. Note that, both times, our cars were stopped, and we were still hit! Thankfully, we (and our toddler child) were not hurt. We did, however, have the gross inconvenience of insurance claims and extensive car repairs.
How does this rant relate to a topic of management interest? Think about traffic flow as a process. If the process is not followed properly, what happens? At best, you have slower throughput in the process. In the case of the lazy left turns, instead of two people turning, one left and one right, only one can turn because the right turner cannot be sure of an open lane. The same is true when people don't use their signals -- this causes confusion and delays with other drivers. And with the cell phone talkers, their inattention to driving slows everyone down. Of course, when an accident occurs, throughput is further slowed, or stopped all together.
Throughput is a critical success factor in managing processes. If you have consistent processes, you can maximize your throughput, improve your quality, and reduce your costs.
What is confusing about THAT?
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
What was I thinking?
Argh! It's happened again.
I'm working on a textbook to use in my MBA Operations Management course. I am just picking it up again, after some work on it last fall. In my draft of Chapter 4, "Organizational Effectiveness," I had written:
"This is the essence of any decision-making: balancing between trade offs, e.g., which is more beneficial, something that is lightweight or sturdy? Is being flexible or efficient more important? Good decision making considers those parameters. For example, my son in the marching band... It is also important to understand the factors that impact the potential benefits and the risks in realizing them. For example, my apartment in Altamonte Springs..."
I put those examples in as place holders and reminders to come back to and finish.
OK, so my son in marching band was supposed to be an example. Well, I remember when he came home in 6th grade and asked if he could be in the marching band at school. I said that he could, since he was avidly playing his trumpet. Having grown up in the Northeast, where high school football is played on Saturday mornings, with little fanfare, little did I realize:
So, how did I view that as a trade off? Was it band for soccer? His enrichment for my comfort zone around his safety? Giving up Friday nights, instead of enjoying them? (For the record, I do enjoy going to the games, now -- and have even ridden the bus (which I do not enjoy) to some of the away games.)
Or was I just offering this as a bad decision, from the standpoint of being ill-informed about the trade offs? This will take some mulling, if not more blogging.
As for the potential benefits and risks for my apartment in Altamonte Springs, I am stymied. This was my first home, post-college, when I had first started working for IBM in Orlando, Florida. I definitely traded off an easy commute (being close to the interstate highway) for a quiet balcony (being close to the interstate highway). But benefits and risks? The only thing I can think of is that one of the reasons I chose this apartment complex is that it had a pub and a pool. Since I did not know a soul in Orlando, and am not one to go "clubbing," much less by myself, I thought this would be a safe way to meet people. So the potential benefit was a social life. But what was the risk? Too much of a social life? Too much sun at the pool?
I don't know -- but I DO know I'll need to come up with a better example for my class!
I'm working on a textbook to use in my MBA Operations Management course. I am just picking it up again, after some work on it last fall. In my draft of Chapter 4, "Organizational Effectiveness," I had written:
"This is the essence of any decision-making: balancing between trade offs, e.g., which is more beneficial, something that is lightweight or sturdy? Is being flexible or efficient more important? Good decision making considers those parameters. For example, my son in the marching band... It is also important to understand the factors that impact the potential benefits and the risks in realizing them. For example, my apartment in Altamonte Springs..."
What WAS I thinking?
I put those examples in as place holders and reminders to come back to and finish.
OK, so my son in marching band was supposed to be an example. Well, I remember when he came home in 6th grade and asked if he could be in the marching band at school. I said that he could, since he was avidly playing his trumpet. Having grown up in the Northeast, where high school football is played on Saturday mornings, with little fanfare, little did I realize:
- High school football games in Georgia start in mid-August and continue through Thanksgiving, EVERY FRIDAY NIGHT.
- Away games, since he attends a private school, are FAR AWAY. My pre-teen was traveling on a school bus, at night, to small towns that I have never heard of, without a cell phone or ME.
- He would not be able to play soccer for the school in the fall.
- I would be expected to attend all of the home football games.
So, how did I view that as a trade off? Was it band for soccer? His enrichment for my comfort zone around his safety? Giving up Friday nights, instead of enjoying them? (For the record, I do enjoy going to the games, now -- and have even ridden the bus (which I do not enjoy) to some of the away games.)
Or was I just offering this as a bad decision, from the standpoint of being ill-informed about the trade offs? This will take some mulling, if not more blogging.
As for the potential benefits and risks for my apartment in Altamonte Springs, I am stymied. This was my first home, post-college, when I had first started working for IBM in Orlando, Florida. I definitely traded off an easy commute (being close to the interstate highway) for a quiet balcony (being close to the interstate highway). But benefits and risks? The only thing I can think of is that one of the reasons I chose this apartment complex is that it had a pub and a pool. Since I did not know a soul in Orlando, and am not one to go "clubbing," much less by myself, I thought this would be a safe way to meet people. So the potential benefit was a social life. But what was the risk? Too much of a social life? Too much sun at the pool?
I don't know -- but I DO know I'll need to come up with a better example for my class!
Monday, June 1, 2009
Case in Point
A year or so ago, I read an interesting story about how India was resisting the entrenchment of Burger King by using the force of popular opinion... or so I thought! I was trying to use the example in class, to illustrate the subtle political challenges a company might face when trying to enter a new country. As I was telling the story, though, I knew I didn't have the details quite right.
After searching Google and going through my paper resources, I found the source article -- I'm pretty proud of that. What I'm not so proud of, though, is that the story was about Kentucky Fried Chicken!
In Global Marketing Management by Masaaki Kotabe and Kristiaan Helsen (p. 173), they explain that some consumer activists warned that KFC would promote a junk-food culture, and some went so far as to proclaim "that this was the 'return of imperialistic powers' and was an attempt to 'Westernize the eating habits' of Indians. Overzealous local authorities in the city of Bangalore used a city law restricting the use of MSG... over a certain amount... for temporarily closing down the outlet, despite the fact that the authorities did not have the equipment to measure the MSG content... In... New Dehli, a KFC outlet was temporarily closed down because the food inspector found a 'house fly' in the restaurant." Ultimately, KFC was able to reopen these locations, but not without a lot of trouble.
A related story about protests organized by PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), "Crippled Chicken Alleges Cruelty, Asks KFC to Quit India," is available at http://www.newindpress.com, August 20, 2003.
These protests illustrate that, as much as you might study the culture of a country (e.g., Indian Hindus' view of the cow as sacred) and work within the legal environment's boundaries, you can still be blind-sided. These relatively small -- but active and vocal -- consumer groups are stakeholders to be considered.
After searching Google and going through my paper resources, I found the source article -- I'm pretty proud of that. What I'm not so proud of, though, is that the story was about Kentucky Fried Chicken!
In Global Marketing Management by Masaaki Kotabe and Kristiaan Helsen (p. 173), they explain that some consumer activists warned that KFC would promote a junk-food culture, and some went so far as to proclaim "that this was the 'return of imperialistic powers' and was an attempt to 'Westernize the eating habits' of Indians. Overzealous local authorities in the city of Bangalore used a city law restricting the use of MSG... over a certain amount... for temporarily closing down the outlet, despite the fact that the authorities did not have the equipment to measure the MSG content... In... New Dehli, a KFC outlet was temporarily closed down because the food inspector found a 'house fly' in the restaurant." Ultimately, KFC was able to reopen these locations, but not without a lot of trouble.
A related story about protests organized by PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), "Crippled Chicken Alleges Cruelty, Asks KFC to Quit India," is available at http://www.newindpress.com, August 20, 2003.
These protests illustrate that, as much as you might study the culture of a country (e.g., Indian Hindus' view of the cow as sacred) and work within the legal environment's boundaries, you can still be blind-sided. These relatively small -- but active and vocal -- consumer groups are stakeholders to be considered.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
The Need to Be Useful
As an instructor, I find that some of the stories I want to tell to illustrate a point, are often on the proverbial "tip of my tongue." My intent is to use this blog to capture these stories -- and to welcome others' comments on them.
The inspiration for doing this resulted from an interesting confluence of events. I participated in an online auction, to benefit the local symphony. Doing so, I won lunch with a renowned newspaper columnist. I had a delightful time chatting with him (and by the way, the food was delicious!). When we started talking about how I would like to write more non-academic pieces, he suggested that I begin blogging. Although I could see how the habit of writing would be a good discipline, I was hesitant. As a working mother, I am either working -- or mothering -- and rarely have spare time. Two days later, I was teaching an MBA class, and had several illustrations that escaped me -- I just could not recall the details! As I was reflecting on how the class went, it occurred to me that capturing these stories, i.e., my experiences and current events, would be a USEFUL way to invest the time in blogging.
Thanks for the idea, Gris!
The inspiration for doing this resulted from an interesting confluence of events. I participated in an online auction, to benefit the local symphony. Doing so, I won lunch with a renowned newspaper columnist. I had a delightful time chatting with him (and by the way, the food was delicious!). When we started talking about how I would like to write more non-academic pieces, he suggested that I begin blogging. Although I could see how the habit of writing would be a good discipline, I was hesitant. As a working mother, I am either working -- or mothering -- and rarely have spare time. Two days later, I was teaching an MBA class, and had several illustrations that escaped me -- I just could not recall the details! As I was reflecting on how the class went, it occurred to me that capturing these stories, i.e., my experiences and current events, would be a USEFUL way to invest the time in blogging.
Thanks for the idea, Gris!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
