Meeting the Customer’s Needs

Mitch HobishProductivity

I’m very dependent on automation in my at-the-computer work. I’m a firm believer in having the machine do as much of the work as possible, leaving my resources for other, presumably more creative tasks.

To that end, I use macros to smooth my activities. Some of the macros are software, often called up by specific keystrokes, that do sequential tasks without further thought on my part. Some of the macros are “wetware”, in that they are located in my brain-body axis. I often liken these—expressed through keystrokes—to playing chords on the piano: My fingers almost seem to know what needs to be done, once I formulate the goal.

So, the other day I experienced something of a shock to find that an app-related information-clipping utility upon which I’m quite dependent stopped working the way I had become used to.

It turns out that the developer had changed the functionality, and slipstreamed the update without notification. As a result, my wetware macro broke, and I had to actually think about what I was doing.

Not a big deal in the larger scheme of things, but it did put a crimp in things while I first had to realize that what I was doing had been interrupted, and then try to figure out what had gone wrong.

Very frustrating, particularly as it turned out that the “update” had enough bugs in it that the developer had to pull it. Owing to some other, installed-by-me updates, I now do not have the functionality at all, as the earlier version of the clipping software won’t work with the updated app in which it was embedded.

As usual, however, I persevere.

Questions: Do you make changes to your processes without checking with your customer (internal or external) about their needs? Why would you do this in the first place? Have you considered what such an approach could mean to your relationship with your customers? How else could you do it?

 

Repurposing

Mitch HobishInnovation, Leadership, Productivity

I just spent a couple of days in fly-on-the-wall mode at the 2011 Great Divide Weather Workshop, which focused on sharing innovative science and service, with researchers and practitioners of meteorology, hydrology and related fields from across the Northern Rocky Mountains and High Plains, as well as the Pacific Northwest and Great Basin. The idea was to present and share results from operational experience in weather-related activities. I learned a great deal about weather, weather-forecasting tools, and the various offices of the National Weather Service, an arm of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

What I’d like to focus on today is not technical, however, but organizational.

As an amateur radio operator (AC7NC) and having involvement with our local fire district, I’ve become familiar with a terrific tool for managing organizations in times of danger or crisis. This tool is the Incident Command System (ICS), an approach to addressing the needs of the larger National Incident Management System (NIMS). Summarily, the ICS:

  • Allows for the integration of facilities, equipment, personnel, procedures, and communications operating within a common organizational structure.
  • Enables a coordinated response among various jurisdictions and functional agencies, both public and private.
  • Establishes common processes for planning and managing resources.

As noted earlier, the emphasis is on managing hazardous or emergency incidents. But some innovative folks at several Weather Service Offices have adapted the approach to managing their offices on a day-to-day basis, with quick extension into full-service mode should an incident or emergency arise.

As with many such “off-label” uses of tools, the application seems obvious in hindsight. However, it’s not until someone looks at a situation and decides that a given tool may have more uses than what it was designed for that most of us can see the obvious utility. Using an ICS-type structure in non-emergent situations is a terrific idea.

Questions: Do you suffer from “functional fixedness”? Are you open to explore new ways to use tools that you may already have in-place? Would you take the time to look beyond what a tool is designed for, to see what else you could do with it? How would you know you needed a new tool, or a new application for an old tool?

UPDATE:My thanks to Aaron Grant of SDTrucksprings.com for pointing out a dead link to the National Incident Management Systems. It’s been updated as of July 26, 2015.

Teamwork and Launches

Mitch HobishGrowth, Leadership, Productivity

I’ve been self-employed for over 25 years, working as what’s called a “lone eagle”, i.e., I have no employer (just clients, thank you all very much!), no employees, and only what structure I impose on myself. Fortunately, I’m extremely self-motivated and have made a comfortable (if not lucrative) living over those years. It’s not for everyone, but it suits me just fine.

Some of my tasks make me part of larger teams, however. This morning I felt enormous satisfaction in being part of the team that worked on and successfully launched a state-of-the-art weather and climate research satellite, the National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) Preparatory Project, or NPP, as it is mercifully known.

Image Courtesy NASA/ULA

This satellite project has had a long history of technical and political challenges, of which I will provide no discussion here. For the purposes of this post, suffice it to say that the team—numbering thousands, and in which I had a minuscule role—stuck with the work and each other through it all. The results of that work were evident in this morning’s picture-perfect launch and (as of this writing, at least) subsequent deployment of the satellite. Many days and weeks of checking out all the instruments, the spacecraft bus, and communications links remain before we can all derive the satisfaction of important data about Earth’s myriad interlinked systems, but the team will chug right on through.

The team approach was also clearly in evidence this morning at Montana State University, where I was fortunate enough to be allowed to join a smaller group as they tracked their efforts to launch a satellite.

Sponsored by the Montana Space Grant Consortium, these students and associate faculty advisers successfully orbited a “cubesat“, a very small, and in many ways similarly state-of-the-art construct that measures just about four inches on a side. Using a sensor donated by the same Van Allen whose detector found the eponymous radiation belts that circle our planet, the students stuffed everything they needed to replicate and extend that decades-old work into a seemingly impossibly small container. Their joy at each stage of the launch, subsequent deployment, and receipt of signals was no less than that of the larger team I described earlier. I had no involvement with their efforts, but was clearly accepted in our mutually satisfying celebrations, for which I am very thankful, indeed.

So, congratulations to all the teams involved in what resulted today, and what will continue to be successful efforts. I’m a lone eagle, but I’m very glad that not everyone is.

Questions: Are you part of team? Do you value your teammates’ efforts? Do you value your own contributions appropriately, or do you think you’re somehow special? Are you somehow special? What does working in a team mean for your organization’s efforts?

Who Owns Your Information?

Mitch HobishGrowth, Productivity

If you are a denizen of the various social networking sites, I hope you are aware of the battles that are raging with respect to “privacy” settings.

Some locations, such as Facebook, have as an overarching philosophy that all information you post should be available to everyone by default, and that it is your responsibility as a user of the services to determine who gets access to what information that you have freely posted at the site.  This also underlies their business model, as your personally identifiable information as well as things like photos, etc., may be shared with others, even outside your “friends”, unless you say otherwise, in an effort to monetize your information—you!  As I see it, the problem comes when folks with whom you probably wouldn’t want to share your weekend’s partying—or even just opinions about your workplace—have access to that information.

A relatively new entry in the field, Google+, has put in place a mechanism whereby you can easily define such access rights by setting up “circles”, so that, say, your friends can have access to certain information, and your employer other, probably more-limited, access.

I don’t participate in most of the tall-pole purely social networks, having chosen to limit my exposure to LinkedIn, nominally a professional network, not given to the excesses of others of more purely social ilk.  I long felt that LinkedIn’s inherent professionalism would immunize me from the vagaries of uninformed information sharing.

This rosy perspective was muddied significantly last week when I learned that since June 2011 LinkedIn had been checking out the possibilities afforded by making certain information available in what they called “social ads”.  Photos of others in my network who had expressed an opinion or a recommendation about a person or service were to be announced to me, to further inform me, I guess, of what others in my network found interesting, appropriate, or worthy of mention.

Such information was already available were I to check into that person’s profile, so it’s not the nature of the information that concerned me:  it was that this information was being pushed in my direction, rather than provided as a pull.  Further, this was made a default position, i.e., one had to opt out of sharing one’s own information in this fashion.  So, it wasn’t the information sharing that was problematical, but rather that such a change had been implemented without appropriate notice.

LinkedIn did announce this program (according to numerous news sources), but I must acknowledge that I never saw the announcement.  I don’t visit LinkedIn much, and when I do it’s generally for a specific focus.  My own targeted visits clearly led to my not becoming aware of the situation.

Once I learned of it—via published news media and a blog or two—I immediately went to the site and made sure that all such sharing was turned off.

I acknowledge that the information I place on LinkedIn is freely searchable, even by interested parties outside of the network, but this use of my name and bona fides without my express consent does not pass the smell test.

There’s nothing specific that I want to keep closely held.  I wouldn’t have opened up my professional persona on LinkedIn if I didn’t want some exposure.   It really is just a matter of principle.  So many of our rights and privileges are being rapidly eroded away by social constructs, government action and inaction, and personal apathy.  This one is one I can do something about, albeit it in a small way.

I am probably part of a very, very small group that actually reads (well, scans) software licenses and terms of service, as I’m always on the lookout for marketers who want to monetize, well, me.  In some cases, I’m OK with it; in most, however, I’m not.  If I don’t like the terms, I don’t participate.  But I want those terms known and clearly advertised if changed.  None of this “we can change this whenever we want, and it’s up to you to find out about it”.  Feh.

Who I am, what I do, with whom I do it, and other, similar information belongs to me and those with whom I associate—unless I expressly allow it to be shared.  LinkedIn’s change of service terms without blaring fanfare strikes me as inappropriate, and I just don’t like it.

LinkedIn has changed its policies as a result of the large number of complaints.  The information will still be pushed, but without specifics—no photos, just numbers of links who have a similar perspective.

I’ll be more vigilant about checking changes in service terms in future, although it’s difficult to do so, given the vast numbers of licenses and services that underlie the tools I use in my professional activities.  But I shouldn’t have to.  At the very least, notification of such changes should be part of the service model, with every attempt being made to communicate such to users.  A banner notification and/or a blog post—as was done for the LinkedIn change—is not enough.  Email would probably work better, or should be used in conjunction with these other modalities.

I might be willing to share my information; just let me make the decision about how and to whom.

Questions:  Are you aware of how various services and sites that you use/visit are using your information?  Is it important to you to know?  What difference could or does it make in your professional activities?  What can you do to ensure that your desires are met in this regard?  Would you pull your account, were you to find that you didn’t approve of policies?

Why the Other Line Is Likely to Move Faster (video)

Mitch HobishGrowth

This youtube-hosted video is a very engaging and entertaining quick view of queuing theory that provides an eminently practical everyday application.

 

 

Questions:  Are you aware of what criteria you use when making decisions?  If so, what are those criteria?  Are your criteria based on emotions or logic?  Do you always use the same approach to making decisions?  Is this a good idea?  What might you do differently?

High Expectations, Disappointing Reality. Or is it?

Mitch HobishInnovation

Apple has successfully transformed itself from its origins as a computer manufacturer into a consumer electronics innovator, manufacturer, and marketing whiz-bang machine.  Witness the often blocks-long lines that await receipt of newly announced products. It’s gotten to the point that just about anything Apple announces sets off a speculation and purchase frenzy unequaled with most other such products.

And so it was when the latest iPhone (the 4S) was announced.  That is was given this designation, rather than iPhone 5 should have given some clues, but 4S it is, and many of the gizmocenti are underwhelmed now that it’s been released into the wild.

On the face of it, there’s little revolutionary here, as befits “new” Apple products. It has the look’n’feel of the iPhone 4, but noteworthy changes under the hood, with a the same processor chip used in the iPad, can handle data faster than its predecessor, and makes inroads into a “data ecosystem”, whereby data can be almost transparently shared with other platforms (read: iPad). Of note to some is the voice-controlled “assistant”.

But people expected more, and the lack of that more is causing some to yawn, advances notwithstanding.

Is this unexcited response little more than a jaded mass of critics and users? Could it be a smart evolution towards the Next Big Thing?

Questions:  Do you assume that something new is destined to be significantly different (and better)? Do you expect everything that comes from a big name to be revolutionary? Does it have to be? How can you tell if an evolutionary development is (or is not) part of a larger scheme? Should you even concern yourself with such possibilities?

Doing What’s Important

Mitch HobishGrowth, Productivity

Today’s gleaning of the news brought with it an item in the Houston Chronicle that pointed up a terrific way of thinking about past glories, recognition, and future endeavors.

Charles Bolden, the NASA Administrator, first chided the staff at Johnson Space Center and other citizens of Houston for their complaints about not having received one of the now-retired Space Shuttles, then exhorted them to “move on”.

He noted that while they do not have a Shuttle, they do control U.S. efforts in human space flight, and that that was the more important focus. As he said, “…if they would rather have a vehicle than running human space flight, then I can’t help them.”

Questions:  Do you do your job with an eye toward recognition? What drives you to do your best? Would you do your job—and do your best—without external recognition?

Testing Authority

Mitch HobishGrowth, Leadership

A study by scientists at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology has concluded that supraluminal velocities are impossible for single photons.  This apparent confirmation of Einstein’s dictum that the speed of light in a vacuum is an absolute limit puts the kibosh on the possibilities for time travel–or so the team’s lead researcher, Du Shengwang, would have us believe.  I make no claims to the contrary; however, the origins of the experiment itself led me to wonder what it is about some people that makes them want to prove or disprove either hypotheses or (apparent) facts.

Questions:  When faced with an apparent absolute, what is your reaction?  Do you accept it, or do you instinctively (or professionally) seek to find out if such a phenomenon is as absolute as it is purported to be?  Either way, what does this tell you about your attitude towards authority?  About your abilities to challenge accepted notions (aka, “facts”)?  How does this play in your professional activities, generally?

How Would You Bet?

Mitch HobishInnovation, Leadership

Lots of news today about a finding that under some conditions neutrinos may (I emphasize may) travel faster than the speed of light, a clear contravention of a basic tenet of physics.  In this light (yes, that’s a joke), I found this little item to be of interest:

Source:  https://xkcd.com/955/

Given all the pronouncements lately about changes to established paradigms—often followed by the equivalent of an “Oops!  We didn’t notice the dust on the instrument. Sorry about that!”—I wonder if this might not be a new profit center for a scientific entrepreneur.  Perhaps researchers should take out insurance, in essence to bet against their new finding being valid—just in case, mind you.

I’m not in favor of voting with the status quo; far from it.  I just think there’s too much of a mad rush lately to establish something new and greater.  Should such an advance come to pass with verification, I’d love to see what humans could do with it.

Questions:  Do you tend to support the status quo? How can you tell if something really is newer and greater? Would you “publish by press release”?

 

Is Failure an Option?

Mitch HobishGrowth, Innovation, Leadership, Productivity

Failure seems to be much in the news lately.

Over the space of just a few days, I came across several interesting items in the New York Times (What if the Secret to Success Is Failure?), the Harvard Business Review (Three Ways to Turn Setbacks into Progress), and a blog post from The 99 Percent (Why Success Always Starts with Failure).

I leave it to the reader to ascertain why this is such a popular topic, but I will use it as impetus to discuss the analysis of potential failure, extending the use of  tools often used in (among others) the aerospace industry.  These are the failure mode effects analysis (FMEA) and failure mode effects and criticality analysis (FMECA), information about which may be found here and here.

What I’m suggesting is not an exact application of these disciplines, which are geared toward understanding how lower-level component failure in larger systems can lead to systemic failure (and in the case of FMECA, to what extent). But, suitable modification and application of these tools seem to me to provide an excellent model to determine if you or your organization are on the way into one or more failure modes, even if only to a first-level analysis.

As noted in Malcolm Gladwell’s The Tipping Point, published in 2000, little things can make a big difference.  This shouldn’t be news.  But in the day-to-day work to get things done, the little things can get lost in the big rush.  Scaled up, it reminds me of something I’d heard applied to the headquarters operations of several federal agencies, describing them as places where, “…the urgent drives out the important.”

Pay attention to the little things.  They’ll make or break you.

Questions:  Do you strive to avoid failure? Is it possible to incorporate failure into a productive system? How do you deal with failure? How do you even define it?  Is failure an option? Is it desirable?