18th November 2014
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.
14th November 2014
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:
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!
- 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
8th September 2014
In Engineering there’s a branch or sub-discipline referred to as "Construction" and an industry built around it loosly called the Construction Industry. When I walk down a city street where normal people see a nice new building, I see the scaffolds long since removed, the site sheds hung precariously above and around the site, the hi-vis clothing, hard hats and steel-cap boots on the people that built it.
Less visible to normal people is the electricity we use every day, that powers the trains, our lights and the TV. Carried by wires from far away and in my country at least for some time now, from a place near a coal mine, way out west where the rain don’t fall. Places where previously only farmers looking for cheap land would consider, Turns OutTM that vast reserves of Coal, it’s Coal-Seam Gas, Iron Ore or Bauxite are buried deep below the surface, waiting to be extracted. New mines, new gas plants, compression facilities, more construction driven by mineral extraction.
In the construction industry you understand very early on that if you want a job, you have to go to wherever the work is. The vast majority of people are attracted to the bright lights and conveniences of city life. Unless you are in the construction industry in the city, you’re constructing something in the middle of nowhere: especially if it’s mining related where the jobs currently are in Australia in construction. Whenever the commute to/from site extends beyond several hours in this modern age, we tend to catch a plane and fly in, fly out (FIFO)1.
When the demand is high the salaries skyrocket and lure people away from their city-bliss. Chasing dollars we embrace the FIFO lifestyle which for some projects I have seen from the outside can be 28 days on, 9 days off and 2 of those 9 days off are spent travelling home (presumably). More common in the industry where I live at the moment are 21 days on, 7 days off. Even this is nothing compared to off-shore operations where the cost of extraction from an oil platform is so high that it’s usually 3 to 6 months at a time.
These cycles are sometimes referred to as rotations but more commonly as "swings." Time on site is measured by the number of swings you’ve completed and you’re often asked: "where are you in your swing?" meaning, how long until home time? Swings have a large number of hidden problems that aren’t obvious at first.
Changeover: Handling the off-time is the first issue. No longer can one person be "site supervisor" for example, there needs to be two people which means two contact numbers, email addresses or shared ones at least. You spoke to Person A when they were at the end of their swing but did the message get through to Person B whose swing just started? The "other person" is usually referred to as your "back to back" or "b2b" for short. Also with changeover and overlap, imagine a Monday that lasts for two to three days. When you’re on a long swing it takes days to get caught up on what you missed when you were away and these are the danger times when accidents and ommissions tend to be more frequent. Productivity drops significantly during changeover as everyone finds their feets and hands-over what they were working on.
Forgetting Frustration: You jump on the plane, arrive on site and realise you’ve left something you needed at home. Enjoy three weeks of frustration as you pine for it and kick yourself. If you’re lucky you could contact someone about to start their swing and get them to bring it with them (maybe) but if not, you’re in the middle of nowhere. Better get used to living without that item for a while. Hope it wasn’t too important. That leads many people to keep an on-site locker box of sorts to keep the vast majority of their little items, things they use exclusively on site such that there is less to remember. Some sites are organised and you’re assigned a lockable locker, but many aren’t. In those cases, just don’t leave your valuables there.
Mind on the Job: As the end of your swing approaches you think almost exclusively about going home. That only leaves a small fraction of your mind on the job. That’s when accidents happen. Safety culture has had to become so much stronger in FIFO situations to combat this problem and keep safety at the forefront of peoples minds.
Relationship Killer: What follows is my personal experience and obviously this will vary from person to person. I’d been promoted to Senior Engineer, pay rise, more responsibilities, and the company had landed two back to back contracts in Townsville, which is a 1.5hr flight away from home, two flights in and out of Brisbane a day. Not bad by remote standards and in fact, Townsville is the largest city outside of the South-East of my home state of Queensland (still on the small side at 90k people). But it may as well have been the moon so far as my family were concerned. I was away never longer than a week at a time and home for weekends2. This is how a typical week away would unfold, conversing with my wife, from her perspective3.
- Day 1: Everything’s fine. Kids are being, well, kids. The "man task" that needs doing can wait until you get back.
- Day 2: I miss you. The kids miss you. House is a mess but I don’t care at this point. When are you coming home?
- Day 3: I’m glad you’re having a good time away because I’m not. These kids are doing my head in. We don’t need the money I need you here. That unfinished "man task" is driving me crazy.
- Day 4: You’re never here. It feels like I’m a single parent. I didn’t sign up for this. Why am I doing this?
- Day 5: Thank god you’re coming home today. I am so over this. I know we need this job but surely there are other jobs closer to home?
It should come as no surprise that after a few years of this on and off my marriage was under a heavy strain and I wasn’t even on anything longer than a 5 day swing. I’ve worked with people that have been through much tougher FIFO swings than my experience. Perhaps there are some couples that can handle that sort of separation. Perhaps it’s harder when younger children are thrown in the mix. For those that suggest there needs to be more support or understanding to them I’d say: you try juggling three children under 6 years old by yourself each week. It is being a single parent and it’s not easy.
It really doesn’t matter what other people might think: I love her and my children, I could see the end result and it wasn’t working, so I got out and changed jobs. Things recovered and life returned to normal. For many people, they don’t address it and keep plodding along then the wheels fall off and their relationship ends. I’ve watched it happen to my workmates. Make no mistake: statistically speaking most relationships you enter before taking up a FIFO job will be placed under significant stress as a direct result, no matter how strong you think your relationship is. Be under no illusions.
Suicide: Statistics clearly show that FIFO workers have double the national average suicide rate in Australia. Whilst there are many different reasons people take their own lives the most clear paths down that road I can see based on my own observations are as follows.
- Younger people with either young or no children are drawn in by the money. They get used to the money and find it difficult to go back to lower paying city jobs. They then become "trapped" by the lifestyle. The old joke in the mining industry is "It’s harder to get out of the mining industry than to get into it…" After a while they realise they’ve allowed themselves to become trapped in the lifestyle with no easy way to get out again and that is all their life becomes.
- The reason they went to site to earn money to help their growing families financial needs is taken away from them as their relationship falls apart and they lose their family. With that motivation gone, what else is left?
- Being on remote sites is mentally similar to imprisonment. There is only one flight out sometimes a month apart. You feel like there is no way out. Talking to loved ones on the phone becomes painful when you hear about things you would normally help them to handle but currently can’t. You feel helpless. You feel powerless. You feel trapped.
There’s a saying in the industry, "this is a young mans game" meaning to infer unattached with minimal connections to family. Whilst it’s not meant to be gender specific, men are typically drawn to these occupations for reasons I can’t honestly fathom and last time I checked, I’m a man. Why is it then that I see just as many older men at these sites? I honestly believe that people become caught up in the lifestyle. Going from one remote construction project to the next, in an endless site-based daze. One night at dinner in the mess hall, a typical night, let’s go around the table: Divorced, divorced, middle-aged man never married, kids grown up and left home, divorced, young man never married, third marriage and so on4.
It’s a story of broken hearts and broken promises in pursuit of the dollar and whilst the work itself can be rewarding, the majority of people I’ve spoken to just shrug off the negatives and get back to work.
I don’t want to be that person. I’ve tried so very hard to stay close to home and whilst I haven’t always achieved it and it’s been a constant battle to stay out of. Yes I’ve given up some opportunities, lots of extra money and some experiences but I don’t want to end up like so many I’ve seen. Perhaps it wouldn’t quite end with death by site but rather an emotional crippling. It’s not about "man-ning up" and getting on with it, it’s about understanding what matters to you. Some would say they have no choice, but if you look hard enough, there is always a choice. You mightn’t like the alternatives but the choice exists.
And so we return to those things we take for granted: the buildings, the TV and the Light Bulbs. For those that look at a light bulb and think, "it’s glowing" I don’t only see that. I think, how many people have given up so much of their lives to get the coal or gas to drive the generator to power that stupid light bulb?
Then I turn it off.
No, not a First-In First-Out buffer you software people…Geez… ↩
During the construction of Horseshoe Bay STP I was the weekend relief guy to give the primary site programmer a break. This was only for a few weeks and I had days off in Brisbane during the week. ↩
My wife has reviewed the follow sub-section and says it accurately reflects her feelings on the subject matter. ↩
That’s actually the result of a conversation I overheard just last week on site in the mess hall at the adjacent table. It was in response to a young sparky announcing he’s getting married in three months time. ↩
24th March 2014
Although I’ve run a very small IT "department" once it was nothing on the scale of the companies I’ve generally worked for. As scale increases and the number of people in support increases the measure of time from job opened to job closed is a metric that many management types enjoy using. The idea is that the so-called Service Request is made by someone needing help, the support person responds and helps (hopefully) and then the SR is closed.
Over the years I’ve been on the receiving end of support calls many times as I’m sure most other people have in one context or another: telephone companies, internet service providers, IT departments and human resources just to name a handful. Recently though there have been two incidents that have made we somewhat disenchanted with the concept.
Without going into too much detail, the SR was raised automatically by the system when the initial email was recived by their support system. From that point it sat until someone picked up the SR and then they responded by email with an answer but they ended their email with: "SR is now closed."
Really? I never said it was closed. The information provided in one case didn’t solve my problem and in the other case didn’t even respond about the original subject! It simply can not be solely up to the SR responder to close the SR assigned to them without the originators consent. Essentially this allows the service provider to close out whatever SRs they choose to improve their own metrics whilst simultaneously solving no problems whatsoever.
On a separate occasion I was asked upon near-completion of a phone call, "Have we successfully answered your reasons for calling today?" The answer was actually no since the action was for them to kick me across to a different department in the same company. Upon saying this the response was, "They will assist you further but we have successfully answered your reasons for calling today." No longer a question. I guess my opinion didn’t matter?
Of course their company clearly tracked SRs differently through different departments hence "New Accounts" let’s say and "Technical Support" would have their own SR tracking systems that quite possibly didn’t even talk to each other. The problem with that is that the individual department managers only care about their own SR closure rates and from a customer satisfaction perspective we’re interested in how the company performed overall in responding to our query.
If you’re going to use SRs in a large organisation and you don’t want to kill customer satisfaction then A) For multiple departments track SRs with a top-level SR that traces the total amount of time across all departments and B) Only allow closure of SRs with customer consent.