Does grammar matter? An interesting aside for a technologically-based blog, yet it does fit in rather nicely to the current state of affairs in technology.
I've never met anyone who enjoyed diagramming sentences, memorizing what a participle was and what it meant when it was past, or any of the other things we struggled through in grade school. At the same time, though, experience tells us communication is extremely vital.
Virtually any definition of communication contains an element of the message that is sent. Regardless of the level of complexity of the model, at some level things are put into an order that is then decoded somehow, and supplied with an understood meaning. Consider the following sentence: Open the package then make sure that you do not cut through the blue wire.
When you read the sentence, you probably visualized opening a package, then looking out for a blue wire that you have to be careful of in the hope that your later inspection will not reveal a wire issue. However, would it help you if we put some punctuation in the sentence? Let's see: Open the package, then - make sure you do not cut through the blue wire! It's a subtle difference, and you would probably pick up on it if you were not in a hurry.
Therein lies the key. So much of what we do is done under a situation of a short deadline, and the technology sector is famous for that work pressure. If we were confronted with the first example of that sentence and we had 10 minutes in which to install a network device, then we might well not be as careful in opening the package.
This may seem like a silly difference, until you look at what drives a lot of what we refer to as modern technology. Though we know technology is much broader, in application is has come to mean something having to do with computer programming. If you have ever done any programming, then you know the value of a period, or of accuracy in command placement, etc. If you do it incorrectly, you wind up with something that won't function correctly.
Why is it, then, that we don't pay attention to the way that the world's most advanced computers - our minds - interface and communicate our information? We rely on technological tools such as spellcheckers and on the belief that we cn cmmuonacte thorgh imlpied maennig. Nothing could be further from the truth. In our quest to make things easier to use, we have accepted lower and lower levels of competence to such a degree that we now hear, "Make it idiot-proof," rather than, "train and remove user error."
This is not splitting hairs. In no other area of technology is the thought even considered. To the best of my knowledge, no one has ever invented a hammer that, when used improperly, would fail to damage a thumb. We know instinctively that if we keep hold of the nail through the whole hammering process that we will eventually sustain an injury.
Applied to system design, we spend all manner of resources on solving the potential problems caused by users, because the current (and incredibly faulty) logic insists it is better to treat users as components in the process instead of important stations in the 'information factory' (for more information on this matter of 'cells' versus workers for those who are not from a manufacturing background, search under 'kanban', 'lean cells', 'lean manufacturing' and 'Therbligs'). It is easier to remove the potential for error for expendable employees than it is to harness the true power of capability and require a modicum of skill when using the system. Or so we are told.
We have not raised the levels of awareness and training to the appropriate place, and since we are willing to cut so many people so much 'slack', we naturally grant ourselves the same favor. We issue documents and communiques containing typographical errors, grammatical errors and many other problems.
I'm not saying it is easy to master our language, and I am certainly not an expert in it. What I am saying, though, is that it is high time for us to ratchet up our skills and move onward with the proper communication structures. Just as an error-proof software is watered-down in power to reduce problems in practice, a technology professional who is willing to sit back and communicate at a level that isn't their best is watered-down in their efficacy.
We need to remember that we are a society of many followers and few leaders. If we desire to be followers, then we have to adjust ourselves to the pace of the rest. If we would be leaders, though, then we have to set a pace and series of expectations that allow others to remain followers, yet still grow.
People adjust themselves to do about 70% of what is expected of them (this is why we have developed the whole aura of the 'average Joe'), so picture for a moment what happens when the leaders reduce their 100% down to the 70% so that they 'match'. Eventually the followers reduce their formerly 70% to the new 70% from where their leaders are located. Do you know what that yields mathematically? The new 'standard' for followers is 49% of the former!
So, colleagues, I ask you: do you inspire people to perform at 49% of potential, or do you inspire 70%? Grammar is not the sole area of leadership, but an effective communicator who properly encodes their messages of excellence is a leader who is off to a good start in the most basic and most important aspect of professionalism - communication.
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
Friday, October 24, 2003
Tuesday, October 21, 2003
When is efficiency too efficient? This is a question that many institutions and companies need to begin addressing as they look at their strategic planning function. I believe the Doppler Effect can come in handy as I explain this.
The Doppler Effect boils down to perceived differences in sound and/or light waves as they approach an object, from the standpoint of the object. The demonstration of this effect was first done with a train approaching a station. Doppler placed a band on a railroad car and had them play at a set volume with observers on the station platform recording their perceptions and a control group riding with the band to make sure that any variances were duly noted. The sound appeared to rise in pitch as the band's car approached the platform, and fall again as it passed by and traveled away from it.
What this has to do with the price of tannic acid-bearing beverages in the Orient is that our overall goal within the technology sector has been 'faster and faster' for as long as we can remember. We have gone from a standpoint of paper-based systems to a world where 'paper' is more of a presentation option than a requirement, and where 2400 baud has gone from bleeding edge to humorous aside.
The end result, though, is that the drive towards efficiency has driven us to the point of frustration. The faster we cause a process to go, the more work that appears for us to do. As we further streamline that work, amazingly, more work shows up. We reach a point where we find out that we can split hairs to fine points, without remembering that splitting hairs is sometimes not value-added at all.
We have gone from a world that asks, "Can we," to being a world that states, "we can." The problem is that we have been asking ourselves the wrong question. The question we need to ask is, "Should we?" Should we continue a sojourn to eliminate human contact in exchange for efficiency and cost savings, or are we on a Lamper curve where we reach a point of diminishing returns and should stop to focus on what is important (reference S. Covey's matrix)?
As an example, we are now seeing self-check out aisles in grocery stores, and we can monitor many aisles with one individual. These are convenient machines, and they leverage the very stable technology of bar coding to new heights of convenience, except that there is a lag between the efficiency of those systems and the system of currency we use, so that the new and efficient technology actually causes delays in our processes.
That lag is the newly-designed $20 bill. On a recent trip to the store, there were signs posted about the machines' inability to accept the new currency for purchases. A human cashier would be able to accept new and old currency, but the machines could only accept the old currency. If someone bought a pack of gum, they would have to use a credit or debit card if all they had was a perfectly good $20 bill (or they could get all the way up to the machine to read the small sign, then have to go get in line at one of the other aisles. It is tempting to say that is an isolated event, but if you take a close look, examples of similar substance are visible all over. Consider computer systems that don't 'play well' together, or prices entered incorrectly into a database.
In our march toward efficiency and good technology (and with apologies to Taylor and Galbraith) we need to pay due homage to the Holy Grail of truly functional systems - the flexibility of the human element. Our technological Doppler effect of lagging but related technologies means that the only link that can make sense of the lag is the human observer on the platform. According to the individual technology and the functional chimneys involved (represented by the railroad car and the band on the car), the efficiency is steady and wonderful, but according to the application, the overall effect can be confusing and seem out of sorts.
The bottom line is that we all need to be in pursuit of sanity within design, and to remember that Knowledge Management is more than data transfer and manipulation - it includes the 'mushy' art of nuance and intent, applied to competitive advantage and growth. We can do all manner of things with our technological innovation, but we should only do those things which further the overall goals of our professional efforts, favoring overall 'good' rather than point-by-point efficiency.
The Doppler Effect boils down to perceived differences in sound and/or light waves as they approach an object, from the standpoint of the object. The demonstration of this effect was first done with a train approaching a station. Doppler placed a band on a railroad car and had them play at a set volume with observers on the station platform recording their perceptions and a control group riding with the band to make sure that any variances were duly noted. The sound appeared to rise in pitch as the band's car approached the platform, and fall again as it passed by and traveled away from it.
What this has to do with the price of tannic acid-bearing beverages in the Orient is that our overall goal within the technology sector has been 'faster and faster' for as long as we can remember. We have gone from a standpoint of paper-based systems to a world where 'paper' is more of a presentation option than a requirement, and where 2400 baud has gone from bleeding edge to humorous aside.
The end result, though, is that the drive towards efficiency has driven us to the point of frustration. The faster we cause a process to go, the more work that appears for us to do. As we further streamline that work, amazingly, more work shows up. We reach a point where we find out that we can split hairs to fine points, without remembering that splitting hairs is sometimes not value-added at all.
We have gone from a world that asks, "Can we," to being a world that states, "we can." The problem is that we have been asking ourselves the wrong question. The question we need to ask is, "Should we?" Should we continue a sojourn to eliminate human contact in exchange for efficiency and cost savings, or are we on a Lamper curve where we reach a point of diminishing returns and should stop to focus on what is important (reference S. Covey's matrix)?
As an example, we are now seeing self-check out aisles in grocery stores, and we can monitor many aisles with one individual. These are convenient machines, and they leverage the very stable technology of bar coding to new heights of convenience, except that there is a lag between the efficiency of those systems and the system of currency we use, so that the new and efficient technology actually causes delays in our processes.
That lag is the newly-designed $20 bill. On a recent trip to the store, there were signs posted about the machines' inability to accept the new currency for purchases. A human cashier would be able to accept new and old currency, but the machines could only accept the old currency. If someone bought a pack of gum, they would have to use a credit or debit card if all they had was a perfectly good $20 bill (or they could get all the way up to the machine to read the small sign, then have to go get in line at one of the other aisles. It is tempting to say that is an isolated event, but if you take a close look, examples of similar substance are visible all over. Consider computer systems that don't 'play well' together, or prices entered incorrectly into a database.
In our march toward efficiency and good technology (and with apologies to Taylor and Galbraith) we need to pay due homage to the Holy Grail of truly functional systems - the flexibility of the human element. Our technological Doppler effect of lagging but related technologies means that the only link that can make sense of the lag is the human observer on the platform. According to the individual technology and the functional chimneys involved (represented by the railroad car and the band on the car), the efficiency is steady and wonderful, but according to the application, the overall effect can be confusing and seem out of sorts.
The bottom line is that we all need to be in pursuit of sanity within design, and to remember that Knowledge Management is more than data transfer and manipulation - it includes the 'mushy' art of nuance and intent, applied to competitive advantage and growth. We can do all manner of things with our technological innovation, but we should only do those things which further the overall goals of our professional efforts, favoring overall 'good' rather than point-by-point efficiency.
Monday, October 20, 2003
Just a note about the ongoing investigation into alleged (I detest that word - especially when used in cases where someone has so obviously and blatantly done something that even their attorney begins looking for a deal without a trial - if they did it, then say they did it, but using alleged leaves the door open for shoddy journalism, because it absolves libel thus removing the pressure on journalists to actually check their work vis-a-vis Jayson Blair) abuse of the routing of calls to avoid paying fees. Though for decorem´s sake I will keep names out of this piece, I'm here to take the alleged off of it with an interesting service issue.
As a paying home customer of the offending party (there are two providers in my area - kind of like the old tough guy choice of 'head or gut?') I have to say that the competing system performance is spotty at best when it comes to that most vital of systems - voicemail. A voicemail system should work the same way every time you use it. It should detect that there is an incoming call that hasn't been answered within three rings, then switch over to the answering system. A simple matter of switches (that'd be a good name for an exposee documentary about Huawei and Cisco) and the deed should be done. Except...
When someone from a different area code calls me, or someone using a cell phone calls me, a different system picks up. It asks for the ten-digit number. When someone using a POTS in the same area code calls me, my voice comes on with the outgoing message, and we're off to the races. Thus, we know that there is some sort of system working with the voice mail, and some sort of system working with out of area calls, and they are both exclusive of each other. I know that my callers should realize that the ten digits are my area code and phone number, but why should they have to? More pointedly, this shows some sort of alternate routing going on.
What that has meant to me is that I have lost some vital connections on on-going projects as people have been confused about the ten-digit entry and have figured that they had the wrong number. It also means I have lost out on a couple of opportunities for the same reason. The other thing that has meant to me is that there are definitely some smoking guns out there for investigators to find, should they choose to.
I have contacted the customer service area and been told that it is an on-going issue, and that they are trying to find out how to resolve it. Repeated contacts have produced the same scripted reply, which tells me that as a corporate office they have reached a tactical decision that they're not going to alter for a customer who has only two options available to him.
This is the problem of the evolution of wired services. As they have attempted to compete in the communications space with the cellulars, they have gone to a cost-cutting and loss-leader system that P.T. Barnum and F.W. Woolworth would both find to be admirable. They cannot compete if they cannot bring the costs down, and they cannot bring the costs down if they do not pay the fees.
I am not an expert by any means, but I have a nose and can tell when something is not smelling right. There are two options in the mix here, and neither one is a good one. I can go back to a more expensive option where the customer service does not exist and calling card calls cost over $5.00 for 2 minutes, or stay with one where the customers are kept in the dark but where I can save $10 or $15 a month. I believe I will explore more deeply taking what is behind curtain number 3 and going totally wireless. The customer service at my current provider is no better, but they have managed to come up with an environment where the voicemail works, as does the price.
I do not care about fair competition, I care about my need for communication that works. I do not personally care where calls are routed and how, but it is a sad thing when an antequated system of tolls and tributes prevents me from doing what I need to do without having to re-enter a monopolistic system. In feudal times, barons would stretch thick chains across rivers and charge exorbitant tributes to allow commercial traffic through. At that time disputes over such a system were settled with a pikestaff.
That said, here is something to ponder. What would happen if someone came along and created a system where all land lines were maintained by a (non TCOM provider) third party, with service providers paying set fees based on volume? Would that eliminate the need to deceive customers and regulators alike to focus on service and price as being the determiners of cost? What would communications companies do if they had to compete on what they offer in all areas, not just random and shaky claims about service and clarity, etc.? Consumers want phones that work consistently at a good price, period. Anything less is exactly that - less.
As a paying home customer of the offending party (there are two providers in my area - kind of like the old tough guy choice of 'head or gut?') I have to say that the competing system performance is spotty at best when it comes to that most vital of systems - voicemail. A voicemail system should work the same way every time you use it. It should detect that there is an incoming call that hasn't been answered within three rings, then switch over to the answering system. A simple matter of switches (that'd be a good name for an exposee documentary about Huawei and Cisco) and the deed should be done. Except...
When someone from a different area code calls me, or someone using a cell phone calls me, a different system picks up. It asks for the ten-digit number. When someone using a POTS in the same area code calls me, my voice comes on with the outgoing message, and we're off to the races. Thus, we know that there is some sort of system working with the voice mail, and some sort of system working with out of area calls, and they are both exclusive of each other. I know that my callers should realize that the ten digits are my area code and phone number, but why should they have to? More pointedly, this shows some sort of alternate routing going on.
What that has meant to me is that I have lost some vital connections on on-going projects as people have been confused about the ten-digit entry and have figured that they had the wrong number. It also means I have lost out on a couple of opportunities for the same reason. The other thing that has meant to me is that there are definitely some smoking guns out there for investigators to find, should they choose to.
I have contacted the customer service area and been told that it is an on-going issue, and that they are trying to find out how to resolve it. Repeated contacts have produced the same scripted reply, which tells me that as a corporate office they have reached a tactical decision that they're not going to alter for a customer who has only two options available to him.
This is the problem of the evolution of wired services. As they have attempted to compete in the communications space with the cellulars, they have gone to a cost-cutting and loss-leader system that P.T. Barnum and F.W. Woolworth would both find to be admirable. They cannot compete if they cannot bring the costs down, and they cannot bring the costs down if they do not pay the fees.
I am not an expert by any means, but I have a nose and can tell when something is not smelling right. There are two options in the mix here, and neither one is a good one. I can go back to a more expensive option where the customer service does not exist and calling card calls cost over $5.00 for 2 minutes, or stay with one where the customers are kept in the dark but where I can save $10 or $15 a month. I believe I will explore more deeply taking what is behind curtain number 3 and going totally wireless. The customer service at my current provider is no better, but they have managed to come up with an environment where the voicemail works, as does the price.
I do not care about fair competition, I care about my need for communication that works. I do not personally care where calls are routed and how, but it is a sad thing when an antequated system of tolls and tributes prevents me from doing what I need to do without having to re-enter a monopolistic system. In feudal times, barons would stretch thick chains across rivers and charge exorbitant tributes to allow commercial traffic through. At that time disputes over such a system were settled with a pikestaff.
That said, here is something to ponder. What would happen if someone came along and created a system where all land lines were maintained by a (non TCOM provider) third party, with service providers paying set fees based on volume? Would that eliminate the need to deceive customers and regulators alike to focus on service and price as being the determiners of cost? What would communications companies do if they had to compete on what they offer in all areas, not just random and shaky claims about service and clarity, etc.? Consumers want phones that work consistently at a good price, period. Anything less is exactly that - less.
Monday, October 13, 2003
On a modern problem (from 'Excellence - the Series' - a motivational series I'm developing)...
Selfishness is a condition that is running wildly through the world we live in and must deal with on a daily basis. No matter what we do or see, it is becoming more evident within everything we see or do. We don’t have to look hard for it, and we even have to fight ourselves to keep it from entering into our lives.
Selfishness is very pervasive, and it is very subtle as well. Try an experiment: go to the bookstore nearest to you and look closely at the different sections of books there, set up along the lines of what category they address. Can you find science fiction? Biographies? Self-help books? (There are so many of those that they even have their own end cap.)
Continue looking through the entire store and don’t stop until you get to the ‘Helping Others’ section. Did you find out where the back wall of the store was before you realized that there was no such section? It doesn’t matter whether or not you are in a secular bookstore, or you are in a Christian bookstore, isn't it strange that we try to take technology and the thoughts of the most brilliant minds there are on the planet and turn them into this gigantic, self-diagnosing society, yet the one thing that will lead to a fulfilled feeling for us is lacking? What could possibly cause that?
There are many causes for someone to fail to serve others, but they can basically be boiled down to three factors that we’ll examine in more depth: we don’t care, we don’t know how to help, or we don’t have confidence that we can do anything to help someone.
Selfishness is a condition that is running wildly through the world we live in and must deal with on a daily basis. No matter what we do or see, it is becoming more evident within everything we see or do. We don’t have to look hard for it, and we even have to fight ourselves to keep it from entering into our lives.
Selfishness is very pervasive, and it is very subtle as well. Try an experiment: go to the bookstore nearest to you and look closely at the different sections of books there, set up along the lines of what category they address. Can you find science fiction? Biographies? Self-help books? (There are so many of those that they even have their own end cap.)
Continue looking through the entire store and don’t stop until you get to the ‘Helping Others’ section. Did you find out where the back wall of the store was before you realized that there was no such section? It doesn’t matter whether or not you are in a secular bookstore, or you are in a Christian bookstore, isn't it strange that we try to take technology and the thoughts of the most brilliant minds there are on the planet and turn them into this gigantic, self-diagnosing society, yet the one thing that will lead to a fulfilled feeling for us is lacking? What could possibly cause that?
There are many causes for someone to fail to serve others, but they can basically be boiled down to three factors that we’ll examine in more depth: we don’t care, we don’t know how to help, or we don’t have confidence that we can do anything to help someone.
This is the beginning blog in what I hope becomes something usable and/or useful. Since my environment is almost a fully-blended amalgamation of my personal and professional lives (as an example of this, I am on-call 24/7/365, so I have the privilege of transacting business virtually anywhere, which bleeds over to my occasionally needing to compensate the time expended on after-hours business to take care of the things I would have done had I not been called), this blog will also reflect a mixture of the two.
My intent is never to offend anyone (if you've met me, you know I'm introverted and try to always be almost painfully polite), but I also follow a policy of absolute truth, so it is possible that something you read may offend you. If you are wired to allow opinions offered in good faith to inflame you to the point that your rationality and scientific detachment go away, then this is probably not going to be an enjoyable blog for you.
My intent is never to offend anyone (if you've met me, you know I'm introverted and try to always be almost painfully polite), but I also follow a policy of absolute truth, so it is possible that something you read may offend you. If you are wired to allow opinions offered in good faith to inflame you to the point that your rationality and scientific detachment go away, then this is probably not going to be an enjoyable blog for you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)