A September Like All The Rest?

I fear that this September will be a repeat of every other September I've spent in Milwaukee, watching the Brewers fade from memory (and even further from contention) just as the Packers season begins.

Last night my beloved Brewers lost yet again (for the 7th time in their last ten games) to the dreaded Cubs, landing them below .500 for the season and ensconcing them in third place in the Central Division.

You can feel Brewer confidence slipping away. Players and fans, resigned to yet another disappointing season.

Yet this season wasn't like every other. The fans showed up in droves to see a young exciting team jump out to a great start - all smiles and swagger. We're hitting home runs like never before. We have lots of speedy base runners and huge amounts of raw talent. It would be nice to have a starting pitching rotation (are you listening Ben Sheets?) for the entire year, but injuries are part of the game.

We're a good young team. We could be a great young team.

Over the past 5 years, our management style has been one designed to develop young talent - to nurture players along to their potential. The Brewers have long suffered a shortage in that department, and I applaud the team's management for investing in their farm system and growing the next crop of future Brewer talent. It's exciting to see Cory Hart, Ryan Braun, Prince Fielder and J.J. Hardy take the field.

But it may be time for a change. Don't get me wrong, the Brewers' strategy of investing in talent development should continue but at the Major League level, it think it's time we managed to win.

Too often I see Ned Yost leave in pitchers too long - hoping that they'll pitch out of trouble - hoping for a confidence building turnaround. I understand that thinking. At the Major League level, though, I think we need to shift the balance somewhat towards being less patient.

When you teach your kids to ride a bike, at some point you have to let go of the handlebars.

Now is that time, Ned. Go Brewers!

A Gift for Boomers

As an aging boomer, I can appreciate the innovative spirit of those companies trying to bring us products to make our lives better.....

Brought to you by First Street, this device moderates sound on your TV, quieting those loud obnoxious commercials and increasing the volume when people are whispering.

I thought it was just me. I'd pay $10 more if it completely muted the damn commercials.

Why is Saying NO so difficult?

One of the toughest challenges of any I.T. department isn't installing that complicated system, or upgrading the network or integrating that new acquisition or even Sarbanes-Oxley compliance efforts.

It's saying No (or not yet) to enhancement requests. Setting an honest expectation.

Yet without clear, concise, easily understood expectations, our business community's default expectations are "Yes". They're waiting to hear the answer to "when?"

And so it goes. Development requests come into I.T. The B/A says we'll take a look at it. And it never goes any further or the project gets estimated and added to the never ending "list". Or worse yet, the B/A makes some sort of commitment (trying to be helpful) that has little chance of being met.

The requester is disappointed (or irate) and I.T.'s reputation takes yet another hit.

Who's at fault here?

Not the business person, who is trying to improve a business function or reduce costs or service customers better. To them, why wouldn't I.T. want to get their project done? Who can argue with serving customers better or improving costs?

Not necessarily the I.T. business analyst who's listening to the request and estimating the project. After all he/she rarely has any say in how projects get prioritized. They usually aren't in the position to give a Yes or No, yet that's what is expected of them.

The process is the problem.

Imagine for a moment that your company had no I.T. function. Let's say it's 100% outsourced. (Some of you may not have to use much imagination... but I digress). If you need a system enhancement, you'd have to detail the expected benefits of the enhancement, then get the projected estimated by your outsourcer, before you'd have a complete picture of the project complexity and estimated payback. If the investment was large enough, you'd likely have to go through a capital expense procedure, where you'd take the business case to your company controller or CFO and (s)he'd make the decision whether to proceed or not.

The clear advantage to putting the decision in the hands of the Finance leaders is that;

1. They can hold the business accountable for the business case benefits. This has several advantages. Armed with the expectation that the business will be held accountable for the benefits, helps eliminate spurious "nice to have" requests. This reduces requests and related business expenses estimating projects that will never be approved by the business.

2. CFO's can make system project decisions armed with the overall business priorities perspective. Something that I.T. could seldom do.

This process turns I.T. Projects into Business projects.

Which is what they should be.

Development Tips from the Dictionary

The New American Webster Handy College Dictionary contains a clue for anyone installing Enterprise Applications.

On page 173 (of the New Third Edition), you'll find the word customer. The very next word listed is customize.

As any veteran project manager will tell you, try with all your might to install enterprise systems (SAP, Oracle, PeopleSoft, JD Edwards etc..) without customizing. The benefits of using standard are tremendous - lower maintenance costs, fewer bugs, ongoing vendor support, easier and faster system upgrades, overall improved reliability and lower I.T. costs....

But if you must customize, make sure the functionality is where it matters most. Next to the customer.

Your customer doesn't care what General Ledger you use. Your customer doesn't care what HR system you use. They don't care what Warehousing, Inventory, Shipping or CRM system you use.

They care that you use it well.

Customization that directly helps your customers find what they're looking for, purchase and pay for it quickly, or return a defective product easily, will most likely be worth the application effort and cost.

Otherwise, take an Application tip from Webster's. Don't "customize" unless it's next to "customer".

Competing with Customer Service

The New York Times reports that Netflix is starting to compete against Blockbuster using live customer service! Imagine that!

They're replacing an email model with live customer service reps, located in Portland, OR.

In fact, they've eliminated the customer service email service from their website and given their Customer Service phone number prominence, so if you have a problem, you're encouraged to call.

What a concept.

In an age where many companies would send service overseas, Netflix is betting that prompt, courteous service in "domestic English", will win over their customers. I hope they're right.

In an age where many companies operate giving their bottom line more attention than the needs of their customers, this is a bold move.

I've long thought that putting customers first, drives bottom line success. It seems to work in other industries (Nordstroms, Southwest Airlines, Lexus for example). I hope it works for Netflix.

If it does, it'll be a win/win for both Netflix customers and Netflixs' bottom line.

Viacom vs. Google

I am watching, with interest, the current spat between Viacom and YouTube (now owned by Google). Viacom is suing Google over alleged copyright infringements by YouTube users who post snippets of Viacom video.

As reported in Huffington Post, Google wants to depose Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert as part of their defense.

Can Viacom be making a bigger mistake? Both Stewart's show and Colbert's show are really current event's shows. They themselves use video clips of news events in their satirical efforts. But this content has a very short shelf life. When is the last time you saw an "old" Colbert Report or Daily Show?

The satire fades pretty quickly. I can't believe there's ANY money to be had in syndication of these shows.

On the other hand, the YouTube video posts serve as FREE commercials for Viacom shows. They provide an Internet community with selected samples (usually really good samples) of the type of comedy these shows feature on a daily basis.

Viacom, why cut off your nose to spite your face?

I'm just asking.

Mind Mapping

Thought I'd link you to a great article on MindMapping on the LifeHacker blog.

Breaking News

Fox News to start delivering News!

Today I came across this article which describes how Shepard Smith will be revamping his nightly show on FOX.

Fewer (or no) teases about upcoming News. No more Hollywood fluff pieces. Could it be that Shepard Smith wants to bring some credibility to FOX News?

To be honest, I've never been a big fan, but if anyone is willing to try to cram News into a News program, I'm willing to try it out. I find it unfathomable that with the mega problems facing us these days, that the networks still find the time to show skateboarding dogs and waterskiing squirrels...

Maybe, just maybe, they're beginning to learn that just because you have video of something, doesn't make it newsworthy.

That's what YouTube is for.

So, bravo Shep. I hope you succeed.

Point Made

Last week I posted about how the recent bridge collapse in Minneapolis reminded me of the Y2K crisis.

I ended by stating that once the initial shock was over, the infrastructure crisis would dissolve into the background of our sub-conscious until the potholes in our local roads got so bad, that we'd start complaining again.

Well, this morning, CNNHN conducted a text message poll asking whether people would be willing to pay a 5 cent surcharge on their gasoline to be used towards infrastructure repair and upgrades.

Over 70% of the respondents said NO!

Point made.

Why Is Email like the Weather?

Because people always complain about it but no one ever does anything about it!

I am one of those people. Just like 90% of software users (my estimate), I only use a fraction of the available features - just enough to get what I need done.

Email is no exception. I've been using email for about two decades now. My inbox regularly fills up with spam, unsolicited advertising, emails designed to phish information, dreaded joke emails, mixed in with emails I'm interested in seeing (with varying degrees of importance). Like everyone, I bitched and complained, but never did anything about it.

After a particularly bad week of receiving more crap than meaningful communications, I finally got off my butt and did something about it.

I learned a new (for me) feature.

I use Outlook Express as my mail client. It has this feature which allows me to create a "rule" - describing how the software should handle a specific email. After opening each email, I click on Tools/Rule Wizard, and lo and behold, I'm guided through a myriad of options as to how to handle similar emails. I can have the system delete them before I even see them. I can move them automatically to a folder (existing or new). I can forward them automatically.

A whole host of options!

And this week, I've spent almost no time scanning my inbox for the stuff I need to read.

This feature has solved another issue for me. I've never been very good at organizing my emails into folders. I just leave everything in my inbox. It is not unusual for me to have more than 20,000 messages in my inbox. However, the Rules Wizard has also solved that problem as well. By creating folders and having the application file them for me, I'm much better organized than before.

The feature takes about 5 minutes to learn and will payback many times over.

Now, time to do something about the weather........

Y2K All Over Again.

I remember the months leading up to Dec 31,1999. In the world of I.T., everyone does. We were all scrambling to remedy Y2K - caused by the condition whereby in databases throughout the U.S. (and the world), the year was formatted using two decimals.

I was a CIO at the time and remember the incredulity on my peers' faces when I described the condition and the possible outcomes. After some debate, I was able to marshal some incremental funding and directed all our efforts to review tens of thousands of lines of code, to remedy the situation. Not only was this an issue for custom development, operating systems needed to be patched, old legacy applications needed investigating and desktop applications needed to be at a sufficient rev level to address the "invisible" problem.

My business counterparts weren't happy. Their new system had to wait while we remedied Y2K.

My whole team worked extremely hard and we made it though, without a hiccup - as did most of the I.T. world. There were precious few examples of systems breaking down. In fact, after all was said and done, I think that I.T. professionals suffered for all their hard work.

There were so few examples of system failure, that many business leaders thought the entire situation was entirely overblown. In many executives' minds, the problem wasn't invisible - there was never any problem to begin with.

I tell this story, because this week in Minneapolis a major bridge collapsed. This has received around the clock news coverage. This bridge collapse, say some, should be an early warning - a call to address a crumbling national infrastructure. A situation which could take $1.6 Trillion dollars to fix.

Some estimate that we are only spending 20% of the funds necessary to keep our roads, bridges, tunnels, levies and dams and electrical grids in good repair. Even for new projects, TIME magazine will be reporting that we aren't building new/replacement infrastructure even close to the durability standards that some countries do. In fact, the newly rebuilt levies in New Orleans are NO MORE DURABLE (built for the same 100 year lifespan) than the ones which were washed away by a Level 2 hurricane two years ago.

The problem is real, but the perception is that all is well. Unless bridges begin collapsing on a weekly basis, the news crews will return back to Washington and New York and move on to the next story. The events in Minnesota will be perceived as just a statistical abnormality - a freak of nature. We'll all start thinking that it can't happen here, in my backyard. We'll resume thinking about infrastructure health by how many potholes need fixing in our local roads or whether the state gets federal funding for that new highway.

It's Y2K all over again. Except this time, no one's listening.