It’s been a really long time since I’ve written here. Busy, I guess. Isn’t that how we all are? Free time is hard to find, and what we have, we give to Facebook.

I won’t repeat all the research statistics here, but wow, this is getting crazy. Facebook’s IPO, scheduled for spring, should raise ten BILLION dollars.

I’m glad all this “wasted” time on Facebook is paying off for someone! So what does this mean for us as a society? I personally love it. I think all the hand wringing is ridiculous. We’ve evolved. Evolution is not always pleasing to everyone at every step. Often it is two steps forward, one step back, but you’re still further along than you were when you started. I’ve been able to connect with old friends that I never had a chance to keep in touch with in other ways. Had it not been for social networking sites such as Facebook and LinkedIn, we wouldn’t have had that opportunity. Is it the same as personal networking face-to-face? Nope, but it can certainly lead to more of that.

Yes, I still do yell at my kids for spending time on the computer when they should be looking for a job or playing outside with their friends (do kids still play outside?) But still, I can’t deny its appeal. Yes, I still get annoyed with people who share too much on their statuses, but sometimes it’s good for a laugh.

So what would I do with that extra time if I didn’t have social network sites to take my time? My Christmas lights would probably be put away; perhaps the carpet would have been vacuumed a few days ago. But I might have missed reconnecting with an old friend that I hadn’t seen in 12 years.  I would have been harder to learn about the job opening when my colleague changed positions.

I like being connected. No different than the other half billion people who seem to as well.

John as The Six Million Dollar Man

Steve Austin, astronaut, had it all. Then, a horrific accident. His injuries were grave. But “we can rebuild him; we have the technology.” Thus, the six million dollar man was salvaged, as was Lee Major’s career.

In the past eighteen months, I’ve had a torn rotator cuff repaired, a quadruple heart bypass, and just nine weeks ago, a hip resurfacing. If I were living in the nineteenth century, uh, well, I most likely wouldn’t be. Medical technology continues to surpass expectations, and it does it quietly. While most of us are excited about our new iPad computers and Droid touch screen smartphones, many of us are beneficiaries of technology that dwarfs home computing advances.

My new hip is a case in point. Made of titanium, it’s stronger than anything organic. The resurfacing surgery lasted about an hour and a half. The hospital stay was four days. Day one I was up and walking on the new parts. Painful at first, for sure. But a mere six weeks later, I was walking better than the day before the surgery. And that’s saying a lot. Without going into the gory details of the surgery, you might imagine what it takes to replace the “ball and socket.” It’s not like unscrewing the old light bulb and replacing it with a florescent one. No, there are a lot of parts to move around to get to the spot. Then there’s the sawing, planeing, cutting, stitching, and gluing! Good thing I was out cold.

Before the surgery, it was all I could do to get out of the car and walk to the hospital lobby. A couple hundred years ago I would be stuck in the cave, not able to hunt, not able to run away from the attacking hordes. In short, I wouldn’t have survived very long.

(By the way, the long wait and poor quality of this surgery in socialized medicine countries Canada and Great Britain are huge problems. So maybe I’d still be in the cave. But more about that another time.)

Medical advances are all around us. My heart bypass back in November of 2009 is another amazing example. It started with a blip on my electrocardiogram (EKG) at my primary doctor’s office (thanks for noticing, Dr. Bill!) I then promptly failed the stress test the next week when he referred me to a cardiologist. That same week, into the hospital for a quick angiogram. Lying on the table, I watched the monitors as my doctor inserted the probe in through my wrist, up through the arteries, and into the heart. It was a strange but incredible experience. Of course, I was hoping for a “simple” stent, which would open any clogged artery during the same procedure. No such luck. So, a quick consult with the chief of thoracic surgery, and into the operating room within two weeks as he opens my chest and reassembles things on my heart while a machine keeps me alive.

Wow. We are blessed with the most impressive medical system in the world, and most of us don’t even know it. Kinda puts technology in perspective for those of us who work in business data processing.

I might not be worth six million dollars, but for the huge investment of dollars and human capital in medical technology, for which many of us are grateful recipients, I say thank you America.

Is Customer Service Dead?

I seem to be asking myself this question more often lately. My latest experiences were with La-Z-Boy furniture in Amherst, and Dunkin Donuts in Williamsville, NY. These were two very similar experiences, but very different outcomes.

My Dad owned a La-Z-Boy recliner for 30+ years. It was a comfortable chair, but nobody better be sitting in it when he came into the room!

I wanted to purchase a new recliner to use during my recovery from hip surgery. I was hoping they’d have something in stock, but could certainly understand if it needed to be ordered. The problem is, as I was told, it takes 6-8 weeks to order one. That seemed like an excessive amount of time to order a “stock” recliner. After all, I wasn’t ordering a Mercedes-Benz with custom measurements for my hips and butt! (although that might be a great line of business for someone who actually knew about customer service).

I asked the somewhat-disinterested store salesman about the length of time required. Surely, I thought, another store would have this model in stock. Was there any way to transfer stock to this store? I’d even consider going to another store in the area if they could check for me.

No can do. Six to eight weeks. End of discussion. No “sorry, I wish I could help you,” or “let me see what I can do for you.” Just “nope.” Come on. I can seriously order a custom-option car in less time than that!

Needless to say, I told him that unless he could find a way to speed up the delivery, it would end his sale prospects with me. No response. Oh well, I guess I can live with my old recliner for a while.

I wanted to relate this experience to the corporation. I know if one of my staff provided this kind of customer experience, I’d like to know about it. Here’s my response:

Dear Mr. OKeefe:

Thank you for your inquiry and interest in our fine products.

La-Z-Boy Furniture Galleries are independently owned and operated. Unfortunately, we do not have access to what they have available in stock or on display. Our normal production time is 6 - 8 weeks for a custom order.

We suggest you contact store management at the Amherst location to discuss the lack of service you received.

Regards,
La-Z-Boy Incorporated

Let’s look at this one.

• From “Incorporated.” Really?
• “Fine products?” Maybe. A bit outdated I have to say. As much as I liked my Dad’s recliner, the new ones were almost the exact same mechanicals (clunky and loud). But that’s ok. They should be proud of their products.
• The company line sounds familiar. They really don’t have access to their own stores? Do they know the phone numbers? Wow. And I wasn’t ordering anything “custom.” I didn’t even know that was an option. I don’t think it really is.
• They “suggest I contact store management.” Isn’t that what I did? Maybe you could help that process along? No, push it back on the customer.

I wonder if this company has a Customer Experience Officer (CXO)? Doubtful, huh?

Here’s a contrast. My wife and I are Dunkin Donut coffee fans. We have to drive a bit out of the way to get coffee at one of their stores. I love cream and sugar in my coffee, but Beth takes it with cream only. She was on her own, and stopped to get a cup on the way to work. “Medium coffee with cream, please.” Again, another long story, but the customer service was less than friendly, and worst of all, they put sugar in her coffee. To her, that’s undrinkable. Unfortunately, she was well on the road before she tasted it. So she had to toss it. No coffee that morning.

She wrote an e-mail to Dunkin Donuts similar to mine. Dunkin Donuts is also a franchised organization, by the way. Here’s her “corporate” response:

Dear Beth,

We would like to thank you for taking the time to contact us about your experience at the Dunkin' Donuts shop located at xxxxxx.

We work hard to maintain the highest standards in guest satisfaction however, it appears we have let you down and for that we apologize. We have forwarded your comments to the owner of this location as well as our Dunkin' Donuts field executive to make them aware of your experience and request that the owner of this location contact you.

We hope that you visit us again soon and give us the opportunity to serve you.

Thank you and have a great day.

Stephanie
Customer Relations Associate

• From Stephanie. A real person?
• Thanks for contacting us about the “experience.”
• “We let you down.” Wow, they understand.
• “We apologize.” Unique. “La-Z-Boy Incorporated” didn’t apologize to me.
• “We have forwarded to the owner.” OK, saved me the step. There was no “not our problem, it’s yours” type of response as in the La-Z-Boy version.

Within a day, she had a phone call and apology from the owner, and ten dollars in free coupons to Dunkin Donuts.

La-Z-Boy, see the difference? We’re still Dunkin Donuts customers. We will never buy a La-Z-Boy again. And we’ll tell all our friends about both experiences.

Customer service isn’t dead, but it’s on life support.

Out From Under The Covers

I enjoyed the show Undercover Boss that aired after the Super Bowl. In the pilot episode, Larry O'Donnell, President and C.O.O. of Waste Management, works alongside his employees, cleaning porta-potties, sorting waste, collecting garbage from a landfill, and even being fired for the first time in his life.

As his eyes were opened on several levels, he began to understand the impact that his board room decisions were having on the rank and file. Cutbacks meant that staff were working two or three different job duties. He learned from one of the women who worked on the garbage truck that she has to urinate in a bottle along the route because there were no other facilities.

By the end of the show, Larry was a new boss. He understood. He was changed.

Of course we won't know the depth of what changes might happen at Waste Management as a result of this experience. My fear, however, is that the focus on a specific employee or employees who happened to encounter Larry during the filming of the episode won't be pervasive across the company if only attacked at this narrow view.

The reality is that empowerment (yes, that overused and under implemented word) is the only way to ensure that good (and maybe even some bad) ideas get implemented. The President got a fractional taste of the kinds of things that "corporate decisions" impact at the staff level. Sure, the one woman got the promotion, but only because she was in the right place at the right time. Who is making sure that each of the 100s of other employees, also going "above and beyond," are getting noticed? And that someone is actually listening to the women (and men) who don't have a place to urinate on the job?

Management, especially middle management, must take responsibility for soliciting, organizing, facilitating, and implementing staff ideas and recommendations. And if those recommendations need a champion, that manager must be brave enough to stand up for them.

It's a good show to watch. I'd love to see a follow-up on each of these companies 6 months later.

The Need for the Governator

The word governance in business is one of those terms that is so ubiquitous it has become almost meaningless. It can be applied in many ways, starting with simple process documentation to an iron-clad, locked-down model of authority for all things process-related.

To me, it's common sense that in order to automate something, we all better understand the current business process. That understanding is sometimes a responsibility that gets delegated to a business analyst or a process modeler. Too often, however, that critical step is brushed or skipped over completely. Then the proverbial Chris Alexander cartoon below comes fact.

"It's great, but this isn't what we wanted" the business person says.

"But it's what you asked for," the IT person says in exasperation.

Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. The technically elegant solution may give little business value. So what went wrong?

For a while now, my passion has been on how those of us in IT can step back from the sandbox of cool technology toys and figure out what will really work to solve business challenges.

We sometimes expect the "business folks" to be separate and distinct from those crazy "IT folks." IT is part of the business. It shouldn't be off in the corner. IT needs to be intimately involved with both the strategic and tactical operations of the business. Some companies have gone as far as to define a best practice where programmers physically work inside the department for which they typically write software. For example, you might have programmers who locate in the Finance department, or in Customer Service. The programmer still reports to the IT CIO/CTO's organizational structure so they get the technical support they need, but they are involved in the business departmental team meetings and other activities. They even participate in departmental parties. They sit with the customer support reps on the phones, and may even take customer service calls.

For many IT departments, that immersion just isn't possible because of the wide range of required skills and supported departments. But the principle still holds true. Only if you walk in someone’s shoes can you appreciate their pain.

But when it comes down to building the systems, we hit “The Rub:” We often find that the business processes (rules) we want to automate aren’t really “rules,” but “suggestions.” We find two departments define things slightly differently. For example, “sales commission” may be defined by Finance as “x percent of sale plus payroll tax.” Sales may calculate it exclusive of payroll tax. The governance team needs to define which is the true business rule. They are called “business rules” for a reason. They should not be left for IT to define.

Documenting those business rule definitions are the job of the Governance Team. There can be many teams; IT Governance, Information Governance, SOA Governance, etc. The bottom line is that governance is not just about adherence to rules and process, but about alignment to the business.

This is also where the Use Case documents are so useful as they capture each scenario in detail for those processes. Only when there is agreement on those use cases and business rules should the software design start.

Business Governance needs to ensure that this alignment is taking place consistently. That communication gap that exists between the “business folks” and “IT folks” has to be addressed. Some of it is just agreeing on a standard lexicon. Yes, many of us in IT are geeks - and that gap can be a stretch for some.

The responsibility lies with the business executives to define a process that makes that alignment possible. Business managers should sit on IT committees and teams that work on technical solutions. Unless the “Business” is driving the change, we’ll continue to have to deal with the glorified tire swing that IT thought was asked for.

The Case for Use Cases

It strikes me how often technical folks like me expect our customers (aka “users”) to know stuff that took us years to figure out. A big part of my job is designing and building computer software systems that enable the business to automate routine and/or complex tasks. Those systems help increase efficiency and thereby help provide (in theory anyway) profit to the bottom line.

I’ve worked with several leading technology vendors and methodologies to elicit the real requirements from the customers in order to build these systems. The purpose of documenting requirements is that we need to have a common understanding of “what” the system is supposed to accomplish. If we’re good, we try to leave out the “how” the system will accomplish that task until we get the requirements (the “what”) fully understood and agreed upon.

We break out these requirements into “functional,” which is a feature such as “allow the report to be sorted by any column,” and “non-functional” requirements. Yeah, we really call it that. Non-functional in this context has to do with things that aren’t really “features,” such as security, usability (remember how complicated it was to set the old VCR clock?), reliability, performance, etc.

Too often, I’ve seen the technologists go off and build something majestic – a real work of art – that becomes totally useless to our customer because it is too complex. The term is “over-engineered,” and that usually means that we’ve managed to make a really cool thing unusable.

So, this “requirements definition” portion of a software project is critical. We need to understand exactly what the user expects the software to accomplish. Only then should the technology folks go to the design table. Part of our job then, is to apply a logical approach to this process of definition of requirements.

A Use Case is an English representation of the interaction between the user of the system and the computer system itself. It is usually in the form of a scenario, whereby we methodically go through all kinds of iterations on how that interaction might go, in order to produce some result. It’s a kind of mini-story that can be told over and over again.

Use Cases were initially introduced to technologists in 1992 by Ivar Jacobson in Sweeden. As part of the “object oriented” approach to programming, it is a model that has gained momentum to the point where virtually all new systems are now build on the object model. Unfortunately, the adoption of the Use Case hasn’t been as quick, even though it is the foundation of all development, according to Jacobson. So, the sparkling new “object oriented” software still doesn’t meet users’ expectations.

The framework of the Use Case is one that lets us find all those hidden “gotchas” early in the process instead of after the software is delivered. It’s a way to capture the logic of the program on paper, before a lot of time is spent on coding. If we can run different scenarios through the Use Case, we know we’re in good shape to begin the next development step.

Our challenge as technical analysts, architects and developers is to help the customer community understand the value of a Use Case, and work with the users to define and build them early in the project. It should be in the top of the toolbox for every person involved in creating new computerized systems.

z4mxgfukp9

I Read You Loud and Muddled

“What we’ve got here is a failure to communicate.” That phrase was spoken by the prison captain (warden) to prisoner Luke in the 1967 film Cool Hand Luke. The captain had just knocked him down, both figuratively and literally. The captain was showing his superiority over Luke’s lowly position as a prisoner, and serving as a warning to others on the chain gang that he was indeed the boss, and his instructions were to be followed without question.

Unfortunately, around businesses in America today, that attitude can be found in many bosses. And, just like that warden, communication failure is typically the reason for the failure of leadership. Fredrick Taylor’s principle in 1911 that “the workman who is best suited to actually doing the work is incapable of fully understanding the science,” is no longer the best management model. It lacks the essential communication and feedback processes. The American Heritage Dictionary defines communication as “the exchange of thoughts, messages, or information, as by speech, signals, writing, or behavior.” Key to that definition is the word exchange, which implies a 2-way path.

But it's not just a matter of crafting a clear message. That same message will be heard by different people in different ways. When I went from leading a team of technical professionals to leading a team of call center employees, I learned an important lesson of “situational leadership”. Many years later, I took a course with that subject by Ken Blanchard. Blanchard describes the relationship of the development level of the staff to the appropriate matching style of the leader.

The idea hit home with me. Leadership expectations must indeed be situational. For employees who were at the beginning of their career, much more direction and mentoring must be given, compared to those who have experience and knowledge of their craft. In addition, the ability to identify where a person was in relation to their career was a skill that is more than just a review of their resume of work. Having effective one-on-one meetings with direct reports is an important activity toward understanding the individual’s progress and building a trusting relationship. Early in their career, a more directional approach is required. As the staff member matures in their responsibilities, the transition to more of a coaching model is preferred as they learn to handle the responsibility delegated to them.

I think that excellent communication skills, including both speaking and listening, are the most important proficiency that a manager needs. Communication is always better received when coming from a person with whom you have a relationship. Using that skill effectively will help achieve personal and professional satisfaction, and will most likely propel a qualified manager to a higher level of career growth.

Do You Value Anonymity?

I've always had the seemingly unpopular belief that, at least in the business world, anonymity is synonymous with secrecy. And it always seemed to me that secrecy among team members is a bad thing. Then why does HR seem to be all for an anonymous 360-degree feedback process?

In my job, I need to be challenged, criticized, and pushed to improve my processes, especially communication. Call me crazy, but I'm just not sure how anonymous feedback helps anyone communicate. For me, it's those one-on-one personal conversations from which I learn the most about myself and my approach to leadership.

Susan Scott, CEO of Fierce, Inc., and author of Fierce Conversations: Achieving Success at Work & in Life, One Conversation at a Time, agrees. Her recent article lists some "worst best practices," and puts the anonymous 360-degree feedback at the top of the list. Scott advocates the "365 Face-to-Face Feedback" process, which essentially is truly open and honest communication 365 days a year. She quotes Kevin Kelly, the editor of Wired and the author of Cool Tools.

"But if anonymity is present in any significant quantity, it will poison the system... Trust requires persistent identity. In the end, the more trust the better. Like all toxins, anonymity should be kept as close to zero as possible."

As Mitch Alegre wrote, we have to understand the ecology of our leadership; our environment and context. Do we value open honesty? As leaders, would our followers agree? And do you, as a follower, give open feedback to leaders in your organization so they can improve?

Check Scott's article here and let us know your thoughts.

Can you develop leadership?

Leadership skills. What does that make you think of? Last Monday, Mitch Allegre told a group of about forty professionals about the "Ecology of Leadership." We were gathered at the Leadership In Action's Dialog Series event at AAA of Western NY. His often humorous presentations tell it like it is. He referenced the stereotypical corporate "leadership development" events that we've all been subject to. Mitch likened it to someone being taught how to play tennis by practicing their swing indoors, learning the correct position for forehand and backhand. Maybe even hit the ball against the wall. Then, the lesson is over and it's back to work. Get out there and play championship tennis. We just taught you all you need to know.

But wait... there's someone on the other side of the net now! Hey! They're hitting a ball at me! I didn't practice this! What do I do?

The standard approach of academic training lessons on leadership fail. It's all good information, don't get me wrong. But how does it all come together? Only with practice. In his book Outliers, Malcom Gladwell talks about the "10,000 Hour Rule." Whether you are the Beatles, Mozart, or a championship tennis player, practice truly does make perfect.

So how do we apply this to "leadership skills?" Practice. Meet with your peers. Learn from their successes, and more importantly, their failures. Find a mentor. And mentor someone else.

Leadership In Action is a group started for this very reason. We wanted to not only provide access to leadership development skills, but also spend time interacting with other leaders in your peer group. That interaction is how we learn. Experience is the key... it's how we learn. Let's get all we can. Visit the website for more details about how you can be a part of it.

Become a fan!

Your competition isn't what you think

If you've ever watched a teenager doing homework, you probably know this already. The scary part is that we're more like them than we might like to think. Multitasking has taken on a whole new meaning in the world of iPods and text messaging.

If your business needs to capture their attention on the Web, keep this study in mind. According to a recent study reported by eMarketer, you have competition beyond your competition. Nearly six out of 10 respondents to a GfK Roper survey fielded in September and October 2008 said they listened to music or talked on the phone while using the Internet. Half of those Internet users were eating while they surfed as well.

How easy is it to find something on your pages? Clutter is bad. Usability testing is critical. You just have to pay attention to it, especially since your customers are not. Here's a quick check list to cover before you think you might be ready. Have you...

1. Identified your users with detailed personas?
2. Identified the top 5-8 tasks for each persona?
3. Used at least one of the navigation exercises (card sorting, questionnaires, paper prototyping, etc.)?
4. Brought in folks (from the outside) to test out those tasks?
5. Actually gone back and fixed some of the things brought to light in #4?
6. Scheduled your next usability test?

One of the things I learned at a Larry Constantine workshop was to test under realistic situations. Our group had to design a ticket kiosk. Paying attention to the environment that the software will be used is important. There could be long lines waiting to use the kiosk (putting pressure on the user to be quick), lots of background noise, motion, etc. A complex interface simply won't work in that situation like it might when using a home PC browser.

But, even at home, there is TV, music, food, pets and other distractions. We need to move our usability testing out of the lab and into the real world. Not hard to do, but very important.

Let me know how your next test works out!