Why Business Conventions are Important

I just received a list of "truisms" from my Dad. You know, one of those email lists that make the rounds.

Here's an item that caught my attention.

"Business conventions are important because they demonstrate how many people a company can operate without."

This is funny because it's partially true. I've been on conventions before, as have my staff. Our reasons for going were noble -get up to date on the latest technology, see new applications at work, generate new ideas, network with peers and of course, have a little relaxation time away from the office with the team.

Meanwhile, it's business as usual back at the office. Projects get done, questions get answered, customers get served... It does cause one to wonder whether you can really justify the expense.

It also seems to be the case that;

a) The more conferences you go on, the more your staff want to go on.
b) If two people went to a specific conference last year, 5 people want to go this year.

It can get out of hand quickly.

Here are some things I've tried, to create some balance between treating conventions as a learning opportunity vs. a paid vacation.

1. Choose your conferences very carefully. If you haven't attended a specific conference before, use your network to determine whether anyone else has attended and found it worthwhile.
2. If you decide to attend a conference for the first time, send one person, not an army.
3. Have some clear trip objectives before getting on the plane.
4. Have conference attendees prepare a trip report, so they can share their learning with the rest of the team upon their return. (This also helps you as a manager, better understand what your employee garnered from the experience.)
5. Integrate conferences into your annual personnel review and development conversations - so your employee knows how the experience is expected to affect/improve their job performance or their resource network.

How do you handle convention attendance at your company?

Quiet Competence

I am impressed by the UK's new Prime Minister, Gordon Brown.

Within days of his ascension to the top of British government, he was faced with a terrorist threat - the discovery of two car bombs, in central London, followed the next day by a botched attack on a Glasgow airport.

Instead of frightening his people, he went on TV and told them that the British police and government were investigating. As a result of vigilant police work and with the aid of CCTV cameras, within two days seven doctors were arrested and charged with the acts. A day later another co-conspirator was arrested in Australia.

To me this underscores the fact that basic technology (closed circuit cameras) and fundamental police work are effective tools, not only against common street crime, but also against terrorism.

The UK didn't stand up their army. They didn't blame a foreign country. They sought to bring the perpetrators to justice. Remember the good old days when that's what we used to do?

There was no rhetoric about fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here. The Defense Minister didn't get on TV and tell people about his gut feelings. The only people eager to mention al Qaeda, were the US networks, eager to jack up the tension.

Several weeks later, the UK was hit with devastating floods. Six people died as a result, including two premature newborns, who weren't rescued in time for medical treatment. While the world watched, I noticed that something was missing.

Then it struck me...

There were no Brits standing on rooftops holding signs saying "Help US!".

Britain marshaled its rescue services and they went about their business - just like FEMA used to do in response to hurricane devastation (when they were a standalone government agency, run by competent leaders).

The other fact, that won't get any press, is that no one in the UK will suffer medically from any effects of the flooding, because they all have access to universal health care.

Gordon Brown's tumultuous first few weeks have been soothed by a combination of calm, steady leadership and government executing their duties to serve their citizens.

A quiet competence.

How are YOU attracting Talent?

The following is a video made by the folks at Connected Ventures, a young media company. The video struck me as entertaining... and scary...

Entertaining, at face value, but scary, in that they're also using it as a recruiting tool.

If you're a company competing for college graduates for web development, advertising, communications or marketing positions, how would your recruiting efforts compare?

How would an infusion of this kind of creativity, energy and enthusiasm work at YOUR office?

These guys are hiring.



Lip Dub - Flagpole Sitta by Harvey Danger from amandalynferri and Vimeo.

Color Me Cynical

Get used to these colors (or slight variants of them).

Why? Because you'll be seeing them over the next decade, as big bad well established global companies try to re-invent themselves as advocates for environmental responsibility.

Yes, those colors evoke memories of sunshine, earth, water and air.

And you're about to see them repeated and repeated in logos, print ads, internet sites and television ads everywhere.

I've noticed that giant energy company BP has updated their logo... Sort of an ulta-modern sunflower. Makes you think of meadows filled with flowers. I think I hear birds singing.

GE has recently been flogging TV commercials about their environmentally friendly diesel train engines, airplane engines and nuclear power plants, featuring similar color cues.

Most recently I've been seeing these colors pop up for use within the Pharmaceutical industry - evoking that feeling of "feeling better naturally". Don't believe me? Check out that ad for the drug that cures "Restless Leg Syndrome" - definitely a solution in search of a problem.

I've searched my memory banks and can't remember ONE TIME when someone complained to me about their restless leg.

Well, at least now we have an environmentally friendly cure!

Why trick us into believing that these companys are environmental stewards? Because it's much cheaper than actually being environmental stewards.

Color me cynical.

YouTube - U Think?

Last night we witnessed an interesting Democratic "debate". CNN hosted a debate among the Democratic candidates for President, using questions posed by YouTube users. I thought the format was particularly interesting for a number of reasons.

First, I liked the fact that "real people" got to ask the questions. I think it underscored the fact that these candidates are auditioning to serve the people. The format made it seem as if the candidates were responding to individual voters, not practicing yet another stump speech.

The format too, helped underscore the reality of the problems behind the question - the two brothers caring for their Alzheimer afflicted parent asked a question about health care. A lesbian couple asked whether the candidates would allow them to marry, parents of soldiers currently deployed in Iraq asked questions about the war.... very powerful stuff.

The questions weren't tempered, as they are sometimes by the media. After all, the media has a "relationship" with each of the candidates to protect. They can't ask the harsh questions or be particularly critical, because the next day, they may need a quote or response from the very candidate they've rebuked. By using real voters questions, they were given a "free pass".

While the questions and issues, for the most part were the same ones that reporters might have asked, the format left the impression, that the reporters weren't acting as middlemen in the Q&A process. (Although, it should be noted that slightly more than 1% of the almost 3,000 YouTube submissions were actually aired and that CNN alone chose the questions.)

While the entire production was carefully managed and the questions culled, it nonetheless left me with an impression of being a more "authentic" (honest?) exchange than previous debates.

And God knows, we could use more of that.

10 BIG I.T. Timewasters

1. Helpdesks who focus on fixing problems instead of solving the underlying cause of the problem.

2. Unnecessary paperwork, creating unusable documentation. (Note I didn't say all paperwork.)

3. Developing "traditional" (paper based) system training, instead of video based training.

4. IT structure - too many approval (management) layers, causing delays in paperwork, project approval or project completion. Having to run every decision "up the flagpole".

5. Meetings which aren't results focused and therefore last too long.

6. Working on the wrong things. (Enhancing systems which should be replaced, or which aren't a priority - just because you're resourced that way...)

7. Duplicating tasks. Writing a status report for your boss. Writing a project update for your users, then writing a seperate update for your staff. RSS, wikis can VASTLY reduce the amount of communicating you currently do.

8. Not being bold enough. My team once did an entire ERP upgrade in 12 weeks - because we challenged ourselves to get it done. Had we decided to take 6 months, it would have been done in six months, because we would have done tasks that would have not contributed (in a meaningful way) to a positive outcome. By artificially shortening the deadline, we did the things that really mattered.

9. Not trusting your staff. If you can't trust them, why are they working for you? Provide them with appropriate training and coaching or get rid of them!

10. Being focused on I.T. results, instead of business results. If you measure everything you do in business metrics, your internal customers will be MUCH happier. You'll help reinforce I.T. and business alignment.

My Favorite Website This Week

I just tripped over MediaPutz.com, who host weekly nominations for MediaPutzs - "journalists" who distort the truth or act in ways to position themselves as the story, instead of reorting ON the story.

Enjoy.

New Business Opportunity?

More than ever, I'm hearing people complaining about airlines losing luggage. It's always been a complaint, enhanced by the hub and spoke airlines system, where most times, both you and your luggage have to change planes before arriving at your destination.

FAA rules prohibiting what we can carry onto flights, force most people to check their luggage rather than carry it with them in the cabin.

Seems to me that UPS and FedEx are missing a huge opportunity here.

Wouldn't it make sense for (arguably) the best parcel delivery services in the world ship your luggage directly to your hotel?

It seems to me that they could offer huge travel benefits:

1. Travel light. Just get on the plane with a good book.
2. No worries about whether your luggage will make your connecting flight.
3. Your luggage would not be held hostage, if your flight was cancelled. Rebook on any airline.
4. Traceable luggage handling (package tracking) means that even if it does get lost, it'll be found. No airline can guarantee that!
5. When at your destination, no waiting to reclaim luggage. Just get off the plane, grab a cab and arrive at your hotel.

It would offer hotels the opportunity to enhance their services as well - delivering your bags directly to your room and secondly, shipping your bags via FedEx or UPS, back home when your stay was over.

Maybe this is a service that Hotels should be offering? They could build the service costs into their room rates.

What's holding the airlines back? They could help eliminate or reduce a huge source of service complaints. It would help reduce the strain on airline security. it would take some of the burden off of luggage handlers. It would speed up the check-in experience. It would make travelling more pleasant.

It obviously would cost more to ship bags separately, but if UPS and FedEx spent time building this business model, I'm certain that prices would drop over time.

And we might all be a little happier for it.

The Sound Bite Election

I fear that the 2008 Election will be won or lost on the "Sound Bite" battlefield. Instead of a well thought out debate about what the candidates propose to do about the major issues, candidates will be elected based upon how "catchy" their responses to questions are.

Witness the most recent Democratic debate at Howard University. When asked about the spread of AIDS among the black community, Hillary Clinton stated; "Let me put this into perspective. If AIDS was the leading cause of death of white women between the ages of 25 to 34, there would be an outrage...outcry in this country."

The crowd ate it up.




Now, she went on to state a number of initiatives that she would promote to help reduce the effects of AIDs on the African American population, but THIS was the sound bite that was covered on the evening news.

When are we going to ask more of those who wish to govern the country?

Questions like:
1. Are you accepting corporate and special interest campaign contributions? If so, how can you assure voters that you aren't being bought? What do your corporate sponsors expect in return?
2. How will you pay for Universal Healthcare, Border Security, Social Security?
3. How will you address our trade deficits?
4. How do you propose to pay down our national debt?
5. When will you restore ALL our freedoms granted under the Constitution?
6. How will you eliminate our dependence on oil?
7. What do you propose to do about our failing educational system and our horrendous drop out rates?
8. How will you address the war in Iraq?
9. What will you do to improve transparency in government policies? earmarks? deficits?
10. How will you restore the Justice Department's independence from the Executive branch and Congress?

The answers to these questions are difficult to encapsulate in a sound bite or on a bumper sticker. They require a conversation, analysis, contemplation.

Let's not waste the next 6 months on meaningless sound bites. Our votes are much more important than that.

Let's vow to challenge ALL those would would be our future President and get them to answer the TOUGH questions.