In his book titled Winning, Jack Welch dedicates a chapter to Change, subtitling it Mountains Do Move. Welch distills his wisdom for bringing about change into four practises:

1. Attach every change to a clear purpose or goal. Change for change's sake is stupid and enervating. People need to understand in their heads and hearts the need for change. This is easiest when the reason for change is obvious, for example bad media headlines. When it is not obvious, it becomes necessary to collect data and relentlessly communicate the rationale for change.

2. Hire and promote only true believers and get-on-with-it types. To find these change agents, Welch points out to look for their characteristics: being brash, high-energy and more than a little paranoid about the future. They tend to be curious and forward looking, asking questions that start with the phrase "Why don't we...". They often invent their own change initiatives or ask to lead them.

3. Ferret out and get rid of resisters, even if their performance is satisfactory. Welch believes it is necessary to get the right people by your side and to get rid of those resisting change. These resistors usually lower the morale of those who support change and foster an underground resistance. They waste their own time in a company where they don't share in the vision - they should be encouraged to find one where they do. Even if they have a specific skill-set, they should not be held on to: they only get more die hard and their followers more entrenched over time.

4. Look at car wrecks.
Make the most of opportunities, even capitalising on other people's unpredictable disasters. It is possible to acquire resources cheaply from bankruptcies, for example.

These practises, though they may seem simplistic, do make sense. As well as point 1, behavioural change in the team should be the priority. From point 2, the person in my team who is embracing change the most is of the type Jack describes - always asking questions about improvements. Point 3 confirms a suspicion I have that if the person who is the biggest resister to change stays on my team, I am not likely to accomplish the change I need. Point 4 is definitely something that I will bear in mind.

Read More >>

A reoccurring theme in the new jobs that I take on seems to be hiring new people to accomplish significant goals. Seth Godwin asks, "Would you marry someone based on a one hour interview in a singles bar?", and then explains that far too often people are hired because they interviewed well - not necessarily because they can do the job well. A bad hire can be a significant cost in terms of resource and investment spent on them that proves to be fruitless. Instead of interviews, Godwin recommends actually trialing potential new hires on the job:

There are no one-on-one-sit-in-my-office-and-let’s-talk interviews. Boom, you just saved 7 hours per interview. Instead, spend those seven hours actually doing the work. Put the person on a team and have a brainstorming session, or design a widget or make some espressos together. If you want to hire a copywriter, do some copywriting. Send back some edits and see how they’re received.

If the person is really great, hire them. For a weekend. Pay them to spend another 20 hours pushing their way through something. Get them involved with the people they’ll actually be working with and find out how it goes. Not just the outcomes, but the process. Does their behavior and insight change the game for the better? If they want to be in sales, go on a sales call with them. Not a trial run, but a real one. If they want to be a rabbi, have them give a sermon or visit a hospital.

Yes, people change after you hire them. They always do. But do they change more after an unrealistic office interview or after you’ve actually watched them get in the cage and tame a lion?

Read More >>

In a previous post I discussed the need for cultural change as the necessary underpinning of any implementation of "best practise" and how I have tried thus far to overcome the resistance to change. Without some level of cultural change, the team or organisation becomes stuck in "current practise", not "best practise" and the implementation will not succeed.

In researching this area, I've come across Dr Leandro Herrero's Chalfont Project. Dr Herrero's perspectives on the area of cultural change are a contrast to other thinking, for example challenging the view that cultural change has to be slow and painful.

Dr Herrero's site has a video and a number of articles, but the highlights are:

• Cultural change programmes concentrate on creating new mindsets and attitudes. A lot of time and effort is spent in rolling out new processes and tools. There is also a lot of communication and training, rationalising the logical need for change. In all this, an assumption is made that the new behaviours will follow to support these changes.
• In reality, behavioural changes have to come before "cultural change". People need to be performing behaviours that are specifically "collaborating", for example, and this behaviour encouraged and spread. Once the behaviour becomes widespread, it can be considered that cultural change has taken place.
  
• In this form of change programme, it is necessary to identify the key behaviours that will produce the required change. These behaviours must be reinforced and encouraged.
• To make cultural change happen across an organisation, it is necessary to take advantage of the few people in the organisation who are connected to many people. These people need to be demonstrating and spreading the behavioural change. Dr Herrero compares this to the spread of an infectious disease, virally through a network.
• The best thing that can happen in this kind of programme is dropping the terms "culture" and "change". People have preconceptions about these labels. Instead, people's natural tendencies to copy well regarded behaviours is used.
  

The content of Dr Herrero's ideas, which he calls Viral Change, make more sense to me than anything else I have come across in the area of cultural change. Perhaps what is more impressive is that I have previously seen a team undergo dramatic changes in working practises and the observations from just seeing that at a distance fit quite well with Dr Herrero's thoughts.

Read More >>

When I was a Support Engineer, my manager would make a point of visiting as many customers as possible to find out what they thought of the department's service. He would not just visit the senior managers at the customer, but more importantly he would want to talk to the people who used the service of the Support Department on an every day basis. At the time, when he would do all this, I would think to myself, "Are these visits necessary? Surely it is obvious whether you are providing a good service or not". Later on, when I managed the department, it became apparent that I sometimes did not have sufficient visibility of the pain experienced by the customers or even how and why they were using the service of the Support Department in a particular way.

I'm five months into my current role in a new company and I am realising that these kinds of "Service Reviews" are more important than ever. It is easy to drop into a false sense of security, because the "customers" for this Service Desk are internal. I speak to the managers and team leads of these "customers" regularly, but I am only now realising that I don't get from them the full detailed picture or understanding of the customer's requirements.

The elements I am covering in these reviews include:

• How the customers find dealing with the Service Desk. Some of the typical feedback I have got includes things like "not being given estimates of how long things will take;this means the customer is not sure whether to get on with other work"
• Frustrations the customers are finding with the applications/services supported by the Service Desk. Feedback in this area includes issues relating to the instability of the applications and certain reoccurring incidents in the infrastructure.

The feedback from these areas feeds into the continual improvement of the Service Desk. Ultimately, it does not matter how elegant the infrastructure is or how well things work - the real measure of your success is dependent entirely on what your customers think of you.

Read More >>

It is one thing to talk about "best practises". It is quite another to have them implemented and working effectively within a team or organisation. Since the end of June, when I took a team on to shape and mould into an Operations team, perhaps the most striking problem has been some members' shear resistance to adopting new working practises. This has to be a problem in any organisation attempting to improve.

In particular, I want the team to make notes on their incident investigations. There are a multitude of reasons for this, such as allowing other engineers to review and continue the work if necessary and allowing the notes to be reviewed retrospectively if similar incidents occur in future.

My first and default method for getting the engineers to follow this practise was to tell the team quite simply what my expectations were and that we should be doing with respect to taking notes. This was enough for one of the team of 5 to take it all on board and start working as expected.

I then worked through some problems and showed how this could be of benefit. No further engineers were swayed to this new way of working.

The next step was to organise a "training". In this, I invited the users of the Operations teams - project manager, developers and others who would be using the services of the Operations team. I asked them to tell me what they thought would make a great Operations team. They came up with suggestions like "knowledge sharing in the team", "clear idea of where an investigation is and the process". I then went through how I would investigate a problem using this note taking working practise and how this satisfied their requirements. Almost all the users liked what they saw and approved.

The training had an interesting affect - one of the engineers requested to change teams soon afterwards, leaving a team of 4. The others became more convinced of the usefulness, but after an initial stab at trying the new method, soon reverted to their old ways.

After a major incident, a retrospective was held and some of the same themes re-emerged: the need to knowledge share, the need for more logging/notes on the investigation. These themes came from the team members themselves, yet still behaviours have not changed and the working practises have not been adopted.

During and after other incidents, users have sent emails relating to these same points and themes. The team members have seen these mails, yet still continue to work in the same way.

Changing working practises and creating a working environment where this is possible has now become the major and most fundamental issue. Everything else, such as what kind of things are "best practise" or IT Service processes, is a secondary issue.

Read More >>

A week ago there was a massive outage at Skype - none of their 9 million users could use their service for 2+ days. You can imagine that if Skype is one of the central ways in which you speak with your friends, you would have been very frustrated - the frustration you would feel with an outage to your mobile phone network for a few days.

What is interesting is that they used their blog to keep their users updated on progress: http://heartbeat.skype.com/

If you look at the entries for the month at
http://heartbeat.skype.com/2007/08/
you can see the entries they made throughout the incident to keep their users posted on what was happening. I've copied edited down snippets here and I really recommend going through these updates pretending to be one of the frustrated Skype users wanting their service working. I have further comments below.

Now, as you were waiting for your Skype to start working again... How did that make you feel, reading those updates (compared to not having anywhere to look to see what was going on)? What if they were updating the blog every few minutes as they worked on the problem rather than every few hours and added technical detail which you may or may not understand - would that have made you feel more or less happy that the problem was being investigated and resolved? Then compare that with the service from, for example a bureaucratic government organisation or even your lawyer during the process of buying/selling a house. There is no place to go and see what is happening with your issue and you feeling you are banging our head against the wall - constantly chasing for updates through phone calls or other means.

This Skype example gives a glimpse of what is possible through using a ticketing/bug tracking system when engineers working on the problem update those tickets with notes. The dramatic increase in visibility of an issue being progressed gives greater confidence to customers, reducing their anxiety.

Read More >>

In a world where content is given away for free, how do you make money? Newspapers are struggling in world where news is available for free online. The music industry, Hollywood and a number of other makers of content are feeling the pain of having their content freely distributed by 'fans'.

Mike Masnick has finished a his series of posts on the economics of Free. The central thesis is simple: In the past there was a cost associated with producing music tapes, videos or newspapers. The consumer paid for this cost. Digital distribution mean there is zero cost in producing new copies of the content. This means the 'thing' that people are willing to pay for has shifted. People will now pay £350 for an iPod and free music, whereas in the past it would be ridiculous to think you'd pay more than £40 for a Walkman. The key is in recognising which elements of the experience have scarcity, i.e. there is a limited supply of. Physical goods, such as iPods and CDs are scarce. Digital content is easily copied, so is not scarce.

The theory is compelling. Media companies across the world will need to face these challenges; I suspect the those that are most capable of creating scarcity in the way they distribute content will win big.

Read More >>