Tech Distortion

Engineering Technology Automation Software

RSS

Article Categories

Should You Choose To Accept It

Twitters recent commentary of their new mission statement (or Strategy Statement) has sparked a minor discussion/derision amongst tech followers that is worth a quick mention. The naming isn’t really that important, whilst some would argue that the vision or mission or strategy statement are all subtlely different documents, the way they are created isn’t and the average employee either can’t tell the difference or doesn’t appreciate whatever subtle differences exist. For these reasons, I’ll talk about “Mission” statements as a generic reference to all such company statements.

Full Disclosure Yes I’ve been involved with developing mission statements in the past and yes my eyes rolled constantly throughout the process each time and I had to close them to prevent them rolling out of my head.

Whether you should choose to accept it or not (Jim), Mission Statements, Vision Statements and the like are common-place in business. It is a widely held belief that they are necessary for a multitude of reasons but primarily to provide a high-level “guidance” to employees that need an employment compass of sorts. Beyond that there’s also the occasional back-room back-slapping between high-level management about how great each others mission statements are.

Mission Statements are developed, usually in long, drawn-out meetings by people wearing expensive suits and ties that are the “decision makers” and “change agents” of the organisation. Typically these people are far removed from the practical execution of day to day work and come from a variety of different backgrounds. Many have not executed practical work (being what the company actually produces as a product or a service) in many years and all of these elements conspire to drive most mission statements to sound the same.

John’s Rules Of Collaborative Fluff Making

Rule 1 More Minds More Dilution

“We absolutely need the VP in charge of XXX involved,” said the CEO, CFO, CIO, CTO etc when selecting who was invited to the corporation direction resolution meeting. Ultimately the balance between enough people and too many people goes well beyond this kind of exercise but with each additional participant, each adds their own ideas and their own take on the mission of the company. Each tries to comprehend or reword each others contributions into wording that “everyone” in the group can understand, diluting its original intent.

Whilst a strong chair can sometime reign this behaviour in and stay focussed more often than not the ideas get diluted down the more people you add. The more dilute the statement becomes, the less value it has.

Rule 2 Diverse Backgrounds Tend to Diverse Statements

Groups that create these statements can come from widly different backgrounds, technical, management and others. Some are engineers, others are project managers by profession, artitects, people with MBAs, marketers, salespeople and so on.

Diversity can be a good thing: giving the group different perspectives on problems. However when it comes to creating a concise, overall direction for a company, the diverse backgrounds drives mutiple diverse statements to accomodate each of their backgrounds and experiences. This drives the statements to be too verbose, too wide or far-reaching and less focussed.

Too often companies end up with a dot-point list with each sub-section given their own dot-point as a way of making sure every background is accounted for. The result is a broad, unfocused, and mostly inapplicable statement to any given employee.

Rule 3 As Distance from Producing Work in the Present Increases So Does Vaguness

Executives and upper management positions are far removed from producing the product or service the company makes and the specifics become lost on them. The counter-arguement is that a direction shouldn’t be too specific and that’s fine, however add in the requirement to think longer term and it’s easy to lose focus on the near term goals of the company.

Someday the company might want to branch out into other businesses and directions and this tends to drive the statement. In some cases that’s the point, but in most cases it creates vagueness and reduces the usefullness of the statement in the present.

Rule 4 Ignorance Corrupts Good Concepts

I’ve had direct, focussed, helpful additions to mission statements scrapped because they weren’t understood by others in the group. Their ignorance dragged the mission back to a “pared back” diluted version of the mission. If the vast majority of the company understands something measurable, like 4-9s availability for example, but several executives don’t, something tangible, measureable and an attainable goal is removed and “will strive to provide 4-9s availability” becomes “will strive to provide industry best practice”.

Some Bad Examples

These are examples of phrases that may have meaning at an executive level but no meaning to anyone else in the organisation, aren’t measurable or useful:

  • Increase shareholder value
  • Aligned around a strategy
  • Great working environment
  • Conduct business in a responsible and environmentally sustainable manner

I have no issue with the idea of a Mission Statement: providing a high-level guidance and setting a compass direction for an organisation is useful to prevent car companies from spontaneously opening gingerbread house confectionary stores even if those houses are somehow in the shape of the cars they make.

For Mission Statements to be useful they need to be specific, actionable and relevant. Unfortunately the way in which they are ordinarily produced in a committee and the people that tend to produce them seems to result in a statement that is watered down, generic and ultimately directionless dribble.




     

Four Quadrants

All designs consist of components. They can be broken down into smaller and smaller components/elements to the point at which they can be classified in two key aspects (all measures are relative to the overall project cost):

  • Straightforward (Small number of hours to implement and test)
  • Complex (A significant number of hours to implement and test)

Additionally design components and elements can be either:

  • Independent (Element is essentially standalone and does not impact/affect other design components)
  • Interdependent (Impacts one or more other design components)

Think of it like a matrix:

Four Quadrants

1st Quadrant Straightforward & Independent

This is where we the developer/design want to be: The “Yes” Quadrant. It won’t take long to implement it and it won’t really affect anything else we’re trying to achieve on the project.

2nd Quadrant Straightforward & Interdependent

It’s great these features are straight-forward to implement however we need to be mindful of the interactions with other system components before we jump in and start implementing otherwise the implementation could cause a ripple effect of additional retesting and modifications to other design aspects.

3rd Quadrant Complex & Independent

In this Quadrant it comes back to schedule, cost and prioritization issues. Ultimately if there’s enough time and money to implement these sorts of features at least they’re independent enough to not affect other aspects of the product.

4th Quadrant Complex & Interdependent

No matter how you slice it, the answer to these should be either A) we need more time and money to implement this or B) No. No - no - NO!

Key Points

  • Be clear who exactly your customer is
  • Be clear in your feature classifications
  • Be honest about how much effort is required to implement a feature
  • Be Brutal in saying no to the 4th quadrant activities

I also talk about this on Episode 45 of Pragmatic.




     

Site Refinements

I’ve been very busy the last few weeks focussing on refinements and tweaks for this site as a whole with a few additional features supporting the podcasts hosted here as well. A quick summary for those that are interested:

The Server

I’ve migrated the site to a new VPS, now running an up-to-date CentOS 7 x64 server located in San Francisco which should present significantly less loading delay times for readers in North America. The first VPS had become bloated and hard to update and it was time to start fresh. Improvements as a result of the upgrade include:

  • Search functionality now working properly
  • Faster page load times
  • Statamic restructuring and switching to Parsedown also improved the speed of the site

The Podcast Live Stream ShowBot:

  • Q&A Table now added
  • Client-side reset functionality between episodes for Administrators (okay, so that’s not an end-user feature but it makes my life easier)
  • Time stamp of suggestions/questions made, now in a relative format

Podcast-specific Additions:

  • Past podcast guests are now listed, including links to the episodes they appeared on
  • Integrated Guest/Host/Sponsors throughout the site reducing site overheads when updating
  • Look-aheads for future episodes now fully automated
  • Tweet links from the schedule now allow anyone to tweet a link with the times and time remaining until the next episode goes live

I will be taking a break from site improvements for a few weeks so I can focus on the content and preparation for Pragmatic but in sneak-peeks I’ve lined up a special guest for the 50th episode, and yes, I will be doing a “Christmas Special” for Episode 51 which is going to be a bit different.




     

Half A Million

If you had said to me a year ago that the podcast I was about to start would have half a million downloads in its first year I would have laughed, shaken my head and raised an incredulous eyebrow. And yet, here we are.

This morning LibSyn reported the official half-millionth download of Pragmatic. Technically the show probably passed that milestone a few weeks ago because the first five episodes of the show were originally hosted on Amazon S3 and their stats are somewhat less easy to follow and aren’t included in that figure as a result. That said there were also a few extra with the feed troubles after I went Indie so I figure it should balance itself out.

The response to the new additions to the show including site memberships and voting on topics have been very positive and the show continues to grow and for that I am very grateful.

Thank you to every listener, every supporter, every guest and co-host that has appeared on the show, and thank you in advance to those yet to appear. You’re the best :)




     

By Popular Request: Addenda

Hardly a new idea, I know, but after many requests from fans (particularly of the live show) and guest-hosts I’m putting together a new feed that is, well, an Addenda of material that didn’t make the first cut, but upon reflection either could or should have.

For the moment it will consist of excerpts from pre and post episodes of Pragmatic and Tangential. In the case of Pragmatic I’ve been very strict about what content goes in and if it’s off-topic it often gets cut. Now that material has a home.

Addenda will not be regular or probably very long, but here it is for those that asked.