Start With The End

Building anything with software is hard, often frustrating, or is for me anyway. As it (program, website, whatever) does not exist and in the end is just zeros and ones well organized, it (the software project) can move, change, shift, endlessly.

Call it feature creep, defined by searchCIO.com as:

a tendency for product or project requirements to increase during development beyond those originally foreseen, leading to features that weren't originally planned and resulting risk to product quality or schedule. Feature creep may be driven by a client's growing "wish list" or by developers themselves as they see opportunity for improving the product.

Every time, I repeat, every time I worked with software developers, on client project teams I led or projects of my own, I suffered from, fought and, truth be told, caused feature creep. The ability to add this or tweak that is just too dang tempting to pass up.

What brings this on? The new website for this blog! What will it contain? Look like? How will video be treated? Photos? Templates? Webinars? What features will it have? Lots of unknowns for just this little project. How to decide the site design writ large then (the more important) how to control the process?

Start with strong leadership, Dick and the senior IT team he's assembled. Yet neither will be involved daily on such a small project, so the question remains: how to keep the project on the rails? Define the end before you start the job.

Received a document yesterday, a website development model, the "this is what we expect website projects to prepare before starting coding, and how we expect ."

We humans do what our managers (spouses, officials) pay attention to, what they reward us for doing and punish us for not doing. A necessary inital step though is measurement, for how else would the manager know what we've done/not done?

"What gets measured gets done," five simple words (from Tom Peters ... I think) that I have repeated ad nauseum (or at least ad headache) to clients. Yet before measuring one must know what the goal or end or objective is. Vastly simplified (yet still correct) the steps are:

Set Objective (the desired end)
Decide how/where/when/what to measure
Explain objectives and metrics to responsible person(s)
Measure
Analyze
Adjust
Repeat

This document goes a long way to achieving the software objective/specifications; it explains in detail what the site should look like, colors, fonts, layouts, and what features it should have, and the steps to follow to alter the specs. Once all parties sign off on it Dick and Acme now have a way to measure what gets done.

This is a kindergarten class in performance management, but hey, we all started in kindergarten. And heck, Robert Fulghum thinks kindergarten lessons are all one really needs to know. Maybe, but I still plan lots more on measurement (a squishy target I admit, but still one my future actions can be measured against).

Poor Logic = Poor Decisons

I have this thing about poor logic. Arguments full of fallacies frustrate me. Every judgment, opinion and decision are but the conclusions of a set of premises, that I believe/think/suggest X because of these Y facts. The success or failure, the problems and solutions of individual lives, organizations, companies and countries depend upon the quality of the logic used to analyze the situation, whatever that might be.

Conclusions reached without any formal or systematic logical analysis can be good ("gut" decisions stem, after all, on an internal, below-the-radar logical process), and conclusions reached through vigorous use of logical analysis can be bad. Logic is not magic: it just improves your chances of reaching good conclusions. (More on my logical history below.)

Premise quantity and quality (relevant, acceptable) affect the quality of the conclusion: lots of good premises increases the chance of making a good conclusion; adding irrelevant, unacceptable premises, or not including premises that hurt your case, decreases the chance of making a good conclusion. Duh.

People in business often make the latter mistake, focusing just on the points for their case and minimizing--or not including--points that hurt their case. It is a very natural, very human thing to do, "putting your best forward" and all that. It can also be a very sneaky thing to do, a strategy focused strictly on winning the case at hand, not on what might happen in the future.

Why the screed about logic? Politics, of course; Republican arguments, again: a column by William Kristol in the NY Times, "A Heartbeat Away," specifically.

Mr. Kristol defends Sarah Palin's ability to sit in the Big Chair if tradgey happens (which BTW was John McCain's stated only test for his veep pick, pre-Palin that is). How? Because she is young, and there have been two other "young" Veeps who rose to the occasion, Teddy Roosevelt and Harry Truman, therefore Palin can rise as well. Huh?

Standardized, Kristol's argument is:

1. Palin is young
2. Teddy Roosevelt was young when he became POTUS after McKinley died
3. Harry Truman was young when he became POTUS after FDR died
4. Both Roosevelt and Truman "rose to the occasion" and became great presidents
C: Palin will also "rise to the occasion" and become a great president if McCain dies

Hogwash. Put in standard form makes it even more ludicrous. Using youth to put Palin's pre-VP background in the same class as Truman's or Roosevelt's beggars belief. Take a look at what other "qualifications" the two gents had when picked besides being generationally challenged.

Roosevelt:
* graduated from Harvard Phi Betta Kappa and magna cum laude
* wrote book, "The Naval War Of 1812," celebrated then and since as definite study of the conflict (still in print after 124 years!)
* New York Assemblyman
* Governor of New York
* Asst. Secretary of the Navy

Truman:
* served in army before and during WWI, citations for leadership
* county judge
* entrepreneur (with bankruptcy experience as well)
* twice elected US Senate (both tough races)
* Chair of high-profile Truman Committee during WWII, ferreting out military waste and fraud
* on cover of Time magazine

Compare these backgrounds with Palin's; the only thing the gentlemen and the lady truly have in common is their age. Yes, Palin was a mayor, and a governor, but can anyone seriously contend that two years of governing Alaska (through a time of budget surpluses) equate with two years governing New York? Or that the experience gleaned from her total time in office equals the foreign policy experience of leading a prominent war-time committee?

(Please, no culture/values/small town arguments: these issues may rightly be important to being a great president, but miss my point. I am arguing strictly on the experience that comes from making sense of extremely complicated systems/process/events and from managing nationwide groups or organizations with global interests--requirements that seem to be lifted straight from the President's job description.)

Mr. Kristol's argument is another example of starting with the conclusion (Palin is not a bad pick) then finding facts to support that ... warping them if necessary ... and conveniently not including other facts that don't offer support.

A better approach--one I wish to read--would be to argue why the qualities she does have meet all the requirements of the job, i.e., objective as well as subjective requirements. Just nouns and verbs, no adjectives. Finally, this is NOT an argument against Sarah Palin per se, just a plea for better logic.

I sure think better logic is needed.
_______________________
My Logical History
My first logic class was from Mark Battersby (Capilano College, 1979-80) in a course titled "Logical Self Defense," from the book of the same name. First day he warned us that this course would "make all your friends and family hate you." How's that for piquing interest!

He was right: once you learn what the red herring and post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies (and many others) are, well, you find them everywhere! It is exciting, a skill you want to use, but students (me) take it too far, analyzing and correcting friend and family arguments. Students (me) soon get shunned or slammed: friends do not want to hear about problems in their arguments, and telling your father he is making a straw man argument is a losing proposition ... especially if true.

Wishful Thinking = Good Leaders?

Does Acme need Dick? Why should Dick be the leader? Dick is multi-cultural, well-educated, a highly-experienced manager. Not many of us compare to his qualifications; most of us don't have nearly such an impressive CV. A touch cerebral at times, an overpowering intelligence, I wager many would have trouble relating to Dick. Why not choose someone else, someone we can more easily relate to perhaps.

Maybe a small town mayor who likes to fish, hunt and play basketball. A hockey mom say, who struggles to balance family life and career. A good, god-fearin' woman, tough but with lipstick.

Okay, Acme is a corporation, not a democracy, and until it goes public Dick rules by force majeur, overwhelming force: while too cultured to put it this way, he would say to dissenters, "It's my way or the highway." But the principle is identical: what do I/you/we want in a leader?

As an investor or shareholder (hypothetically speaking) I want the top job to go to someone who has both relevant experience and a proven track record in this specific field, in other words, is qualified to get the job done. Someone like Dick.

Do such "qualifications" guarantee Dick will get the job done? Nope. No way. Decisons based on analyzing qualifications are not necessarily right, but are more frequently right. And there's the rub.

As I tell my logic students, logic is all about probability, not certainty. If you want certainty go to church. Logical analysis writ large can only make conclusions more likely right, can increase the odds of being right. No small feat that, for, as gamblers know, win 51% of time and you'll be rich.

This is in no way an argument against Governor Palin: only by actually assuming and carrying out the job of VP (or P) would we know if she could do the job. My point is not against the person, it is against the process. Oh yes, and against hypocricsy, but I'll get to that.

Okay, I live in small town (Sooke, pop. 9,000 give or take). We need a new Fire Chief. As this decision could have a direct bearing on whether my house burns down or not I am somewhat interested in who we select. While I hope we choose someone who has good communication skills and can "relate" to the community at large, this is not highest, or even high, on my list. I want someone who has shown s/he likely can do the job.

I want us to choose someone with relevant fire-fighting experience, someone who has shown they can motivate and manage a team of firefighters. I would turn down an accountant with extensive accounts receivable experience, no matter how big a team of accountants s/he led. The demands on each position, fire chief and accounting manager, are just too different.

Could the accountant be a great fire chief? Certainly, is it possible, just not likely. Not something you'd like to bet your mortgage on. Would you let a dentist perform brain surgery on your child? No? Why not? They both are medical professionals and, by my extensive experience with "specialists," I'd wager dentists are easier for most people to relate to than brain surgeons. I'm just not sure the dentist drill is the right tool for brain operations, and that's the point.

The Republicans chose the wrong tool for the VP job.

Even a true GOP sycophant can't say Palin's scant executive experience makes her "qualified" for the demands of the modern VP position (let alone qualified for the Big Chair itself). Certainly I see no way to argue that Palin's name was the result of a long, detailed analysis of job needs and qualified possible candidates. She might do a good job, but you would not want to bet your country on it ... unless you had to.

McCain chose Palin for reasons other than her qualifications for likely VP success: he chose her because he had to, had to shake up the polls, had to secure and energize the GOP base. Since the surprise choice he and the GOP polls have done back flips trying to find reasons to prove the already-decided result. The reasons (comparing needs with qualifications) did not drive the result, the result (we choose her as the candidate) drove the almost-desperate search for reasons.

Out of the many possibile fallacies, I think this is best described as wishful thinking, that:

1. I (McCain, Republicans) stand to gain from believing P.
2. Hence, I (McCain, Republicans) should, prudentially, believe P.

Now I can hope all I want to that the dentist will operate successfully on my child's brain tumor, and, as I will benefit from believing it, I of course will try my best to believe it. But don't you think I'd have a better chance believing if it was brain surgeon, not a dentist? And that if I could choose, I'd choose the dentist for cavities, not cranium.

I've racked my cranium and can't think of an area outside of politics (and faith) where we happily indulge in wishful thinking. We insist on an experienced fire chief, we (or Americans, maybe not Canucks) would sue the dentist as soon a drill touched scalp. The only time we let the unqualified do something is when we have no better choice.

Says something about the state of the GOP, both that they had to do something special to get back into the race and that Palin was the best special they could find.

Next (?) time I'll broaden the point to the anti-expert bias of the Republicans in particular, and Western society in general. Best said by Nietzsche himself,

Arrogance on the part of the meritorious is even more offensive to us than the arrogance of those without merit: for merit itself is offensive.

In defense of the barely-qualified-for-VP Palin the GOP used an anti-expert, anti-qualifications argument, going so far as the quintessentially-cosmopolitan Giuliani saying questions about Palin stemmed from Democrats thinking her town was not "cosmopolitan" enough.

Can't you just see dressed-in-drag Rudi (the video with the Donald is priceless) settling down in Wassalia, in moose fur perhaps. With lipstick.

Now that is cosmopolitan.

Fine, back to business. I hope I've made the point (long winded as usual: sigh) that we select people for position based on their suitability for carrying out the duties of that position, of their likelihood of being successful in the specific postion. Like much in life, decsions are situational, i.e., based on the specifics of the situation at hand. One size does not fit all.

As an investor/shareholder (hypothetical remember) in Acme I care very much that we have Dick in charge, and that Dick selects new hires based on the merits, that is, on their suitability for the job, not the cut of their jib or preference in fur. I want Acme to make me money.

I would hope that Republicans want their Prez and V-Prez to make them safe, rich and healthy. At least that is what I want in a leader. And as Prime Minister Harper just dissolved Canada's parliament this morning, I will get a chance to vote for leader on October 14.

Oh joy. Just for a minute I wish one of the contenders wore lipstick. I'd settle for a sense of humor.

Ideology and Pains From The "Gut"

The worst thing to be in a Political Science department is apolitical: ideologues on both sides understand each other, and even grant grudging respect, but neither understand "neutrals," nor do they trust them. How can you trust someone when you don't know what s/he will do?

Being fiercely apolitical likely had more to do with my standing among professors and classmates than anything else (though my "Success Without College" T-shirt probably came close). I always sat by myself in seminar rooms, and no discussion was complete until everyone turned and looked at me, waiting for ... heresy, at least to one side.

It is a complicated and often confusing world we must make sense of, and I understand the comfort one can get from a set of rules and principles that simplifies and explains everything. Order from chaos, truth instead of uncertainty, answers not questions, it is like putting on warm socks: all-enveloping comfort. What's not to like?

Nothing, as long as you don't mind being a lemming, occasionally following your idea off the cliff.

Allowing anything, idea or person, to do your thinking for you is a losing strategy. Comforting, at least until you hit the valley floor. Every time a person gets wedded to an idea or way of looking the world, and shapes reality to fit that idea or perception, s/he is guilty of abdicating personal responsibility for ... life? Results? Making the world better?

I raise this subject now because of the US election reality show. I'm a Canuck so can't vote, but as I see the US when I look out the window (across the Strait of Juna de Fuca) I feel I can have an opinion. And my opinion is, are the Republicans nuts?

I'm not a Democrat, just a democrat. While I easily quote fluff like the Anarcist's creed, that "The change of rulers is the joy of fools," I believe my vote counts, and that it is my duty to make it an informed vote.

One of the most useful ideas about leadership comes from philosopher Peter Koestenbaum, specifically his Leadership Diamond (also here and here; used in sports as well) explained in his book, Leadership: The Inner Side Of Greatness. It is a book John McCain should read.

I will explore the Leadership Diamond in much more details later: for now just a quick summary and one excerpt. The concept behind the diamond is that there are four critical aspects (called "strategies") to achieving leadership greatness: vision, courage, ethics and reality. The excerpt is about the latter, reality, is that:

A realistic leader always responds to the facts, for realism means to have no illusions ... Realism means that you are competent, that you are in command of the hard facts of the business. Realism ... is a commitment to obtain extensive information and maintain a stance of aseptic objectivity. [It] stands for detachment, research, facts and calculations.

There, the problems of the Bush years explained in one paragraph: the Bushies read the words then did the opposite. Too much going by the "gut," too much "knowing" and not enough objectivity. And don't get me started on performance. "Good job Brownie" sums it up.

America is in a mess. Income inequality is at a level not seen since the 20s (here, here and here) and the middle class is farther way from the Leave It To Beaver fantasy family than ever (even in Alaska). Ozzie and Harriet simply would not recognize America now. Something has to be done.

I watched damn near the entire Republican convention (I should get out more), and heard damn few arguments based on "detachment, research, facts and calculations." Reforming the senate and congress are laudatory (and needed) goals, but ending earmarks and pork barrel projects hardly will help those struggling in the 20th income percentile.

Would Obama be a good president? Who knows? There certainly are valid questions about his experience, or lack thereof. Would McCain be a good president? Again who knows? There certainly are valid questions about his temperament and decision making. (I will leave alone the point that he has equal or less "executive experience" than Obama.)

One thing I always look for in a leader (client, friend, spouse) is someone who thinks their way through an issue, who is open to facts and dissenting opinions, who chooses an action only after deciding doing it is the best current choice. I run from people who say they "know" the answer, "know" the "right" thing to do. People who "know" give me the heebee jeebees. I look for people who think, not know.

Here the conventions did answer one thing: Obama thinks and McCain knows. Just like Bush II, and we all know how that has turned out. Has there ever been a group so poorly managed as the US has been for the past 7+ years?

As this is a business blog, the Business Dictionary defines ideology as

A system of ideas that explains and lends legitimacy to actions and beliefs of a social, religious, political, or corporate entity.

To this I add beliefs in plans, strategies and tactics. Few things in business hurt more than falling in love with your (or your boss's) idea, and closing your eyes to any datum that contradicts your preferred, pre-chosen reality.

Certainly an entrepreneur (like Dick) has to have an all-encompassing idea, yet believing in your idea when others doubt you is different than closing your eyes to facts. The two Steves had an idea, a personal computer, and believed in it even when all the "experts" scoffed. As Apple grew the idea didn't change because it didn't have to: the market was ready for a personal computer.

I am not sure the market is ready for a Pit Bull with or without lipstick. Does anyone seriously think that the anti-science teaching of creationism will help the US compete with the schools in India and China pumping out legions of engineers?

Does anyone seriously think that making decisions based on gut instinct is what America needs? I mean, it didn't work for Coca-Cola and the New Coke. I think the stakes are a tad higher here.

Pop's Garage: Mistakes Are Good ... Sometimes

No one likes making mistakes. But managers make a mistake if they don't see staff mistakes as an opportunity, not a problem.

There are two broad types of mistakes, those made out of ignorance and those made for any other reason (laziness, lack of attention, attitude, whatever). The second type of mistake is bad, the first type isn't. Below I talk about the "good" mistakes, those out of ignorance.

The holy grail of training is learning from experience, to learn by doing. All good, but what is left out is that "learn by experience" actually means "learn from making mistakes." Okay, not always--it is very important that we learn from our successes (which we don't do often enough, a point continued later). But the truth is that most of the time we learn how to do something correctly by first doing it wrong. By making a mistake.

The rule I live by is, The First Mistake Is Free. No one should get in trouble for a mistake made out of ignorance. In fact managers should treat such "first" mistakes by staff as a positive. Why? Simple: because now the manager knows exactly what staff need to learn.

A huge part of a training budget is wasted in two (only?) ways: by training people who already know the stuff, and by training people in skills they don't need to do their job. One of the most critical jobs for managers, HR and trainers is to identify who needs what training.

Looking at mistakes made is perhaps the clearest way to answer the "who needs what training" question. If John makes a mistake then John's manager knows what training John needs. Making this even better is that the manager now knows that John can do the task. Nothing is better than certainty, or more elusive.

(When I led business process improvement/reengineering projects one of the first things I did was to survey staff and customers to find out where the mistakes were: the survey results were always my starting point.)

To complete the circle, treating mistakes as a negative, getting angry and/or punishing staff for "first mistakes," is one of the worst things managers can do. Staff will not only try to hide their mistakes--which always leads to a bad result--they will stop trying new things, stop showing initiative. The latter is death to staff development.

It is not always easy to smile when staff make a critical "first mistake." Yet smile a manager must, saving the grimace, foul language and physical reaction (punching a wall was my favorite) for when no one else is around.

Once again I retrun to the principle that training staff and developing staff into managers requires the ability to accept the inevitable mistakes as a necessary part of the process. Doing otherwise is a true mistake.

Managers don't work, workers work

Managers don't work: workers work and managers manage. Beyond semantic accuracy, this bromide is actually true.

How do you measure a manager's performance? You start with what a manager is tasked to do (international sales, video editing, accounts payable, whatever) then compare what is accomplished in the area with the objective or target the area should reach. Yes, there is more to it, but at the most basic level it is that simple: compare what is done with what should have been done.

The international sales manager does not visit every customer or close every deal, s/he manages sales staff who do these tasks. If staff achieve their goals then the manager achieves his/her goals; if staff do not achieve goals the manager does not meet his/her goals. The manager is responsible for international sales, true, but his/her performance (total sales) is the sum total of the performance of the staff s/he manages.

Staff are tools used by a manager.

One way to look management is that staff are tools the manager uses to achieve a goal. Don't like that? Not politically correct? Sigh. Fine, then how about this: managers work for their staff (not the other way around), providing staff with everything needed to achieve individual objectives ... which added up equal the manager's performance. I like them both, especially "staff are tools." People who brindle at that just do not understand tools, or tool culture (an argument for another post).

If you accept that managers work for staff then what work do managers need to do? What does "give staff what they need" mean? It means more than physical and financial resources: staff need more than a desk, chair, computer and budget. At minimum staff also need the right skills, clear objectives and sufficient time to accomplish them. They may also need encouragement, direction and continuous feedback. There is no cut-in-stone rule that "staff need X:" what each staff needs depends upon the situation.

One of the most useful (if not the most useful) principles I've found is "situational leadership" (who owns the concept is confusing: see here and here), the simple idea that how you lead a person depends upon the experience and confidence the person has in doing the specific task. An experienced person only needs the bare minimum, a goal to be achieved and a deadline to achieve it in; a true rookie would a heck of a lot more. Maybe a clear description of the task and what "done" looks like, clear instructions about how to do it and hand-holding along the way.

The experienced person would think getting what the rookie needs a waste of time, and it may affect performance; the rookie would be lost only getting what the experienced person needs, again affecting performance. The job as a manager (leader, supervisor, whatever) is to see where the person is along the experienced/confident continum in that specifi task and then to adjust leadership/management style accordingly.

I thought of this principle over and over as I worked through problems all dragon boat weekend. The top festival leadership had given the job of Site Manager (an difficlut and complicated job) to a true rookie, 21 years old with no relevant experience, then had disappeared. Of course the inevitable happened: things were not set up right, key materials were missing or in the wrong place. The chaos made two already-long days seem even longer.

I put the blame squarely on the people who selected the rookie then disappeared. The previous Site Manager was a greybeard with years of experience managing projects, including 10 years experience in the festival. Giving him the position then disapperaing made sense: he would get angry at micro-mangaging. The rookie, well, he needed to be micro-managed.

I've often seen this mistake, leadership filling a position on a organization chart with little or no regard to whether the "name" could do the job. It feels good to have the org chart filled, and, so they think, "hey, if the "name" doesn't perform then that is his/her fault. Nothing to do with us."

I am now waiting for the festival debrief. Knowing the personalities involved I expect blame to go to the rookie, at which time I will interrupt and ... heck, telling the nabobs that it was a failure of their leadership will make it an interesting meeting. Not the first (or likely the last) time I've let my loose-cannon loose.

This issue is critical to Dick and Acme. Dick is furiously building the company, hiring managers to hire managers to hire workers ... to fill the org chart. All fine--it must be done--but it must be done with an eye to what each manager needs to succeed, and that requires time to stop and learn more about each manager's experience and confidence in doing the specific tasks hired for.

It is both time consuming and a job that never really ends. Developing managerial talent is absolutely crucial for business growth (sustainable growth that is: it is always easy to grow fast by putting "names" in empty boxes, but this is growth that doesn't last). Often (always?) it is necessary to let a manager try and fail before you get a good grip on his/her useable experience and confidence level. Again that takes time.

To summarize this rather-rambling post, I've argued that:

1. managers are measured by comparing objectives to accomplishments
2. a manager's accomplishment is the sum total of his/her staff's accomplishments, thus
3. a manager's true job is helping his/her staff achieve their indivdual objectives (managers work for staff)
4. staff need more than physical and financial resources: they need a certain amount of direction and help
   
5. the amount of direction and help staff need depends upon experience and confidence in the specific task at hand, thus
   
6. managers must adjust management (leadership) style to match the needs of each employee doing each task

Phew. Developing managers and staff is a (or the) crucial aspect of Acme's growth, and one of Dick's most important jobs. The principles of managers working for staff (or speakers working for listeners) and of needing to adjust styles depending on who you are managing (or communicating with) will be examined again, and often. Each are keys to my personal beliefs in managing, communicating and, dare I say, life.

Life? Yup: I believe that the only real way to get what you want is to help the others around you get what they want. Another time.

And I will let you know what happens in the dragon boat debrief. All I know now is that I will be wearing my bullet proof underwear.

Bad Communication = Bad Results

Previously I have written that misunderstandings are the biggest Hidden Cost in international business. Actually they are biggest Hidden Cost in all business, and perhaps in life as well.

I shot another "Pop's Garage" video this morning. All about the larger lessons managers should learn, explained by problems I had yesterday with my Mom. Problems caused 100% because of poor communication leading to making bad assumptions.

Bad Communication = Bad Results

Who was at fault, who should be blamed? No one. Frequently no one is at fault, or both are.

Misunderstandings are so dangerous because no one knows there is a misunderstanding until the bad result caused by the misunderstanding happens. Think the Titanic: no one knew it would sink, until it did. And, as no one thought it could sink, no one questioned its sinkability. The same principles apply to communication.

There three things that can happen when you communicate. Only three. They are:

1. success: the audience clearly understands 100% of the speaker's message
2. uncertainty: the audience is unsure what the speaker's message is
3. misunderstanding: the audience thinks they clearly understand 100%, but what they understand is not what the speaker intended.

No. 2, uncertainty, is the most common outcome. No. 1, success, is the least common. And No. 3, misunderstanding, is the most dangerous.

In later posts I will flesh out more on communication in general and, in particular, ways managers and staff can ensure successful communication (as much as possible that is: successful communication is tough. Just ask my wife.).

Now it is off to town with my photos of parents' stuff, trying to put a value on things familiar and strange (including things I had no idea the function of until recently). Wish me luck.

Partnering. Didn't I Already Learn That?

Talking to Dick is fun. Dogged but gracious, and, so rare, Dick always stays on point. A true logical argument. And bonus, you learn so much too.

Dick doesn't agree unless he really agrees. Last night he didn't. We were discussing "partnering," put in italics as I was arguing against the term, not the practice. The example I used seemed so clear to me, and by the end of Dicks rebuttal, so clear why I was wrong. It's in the video.

When I learned "partnering" it was called Quality Supplier Relationships, QSRs for short. Since then Win-Win, Shared Risk-Shared Return, Share Information, Communicate Roles and Objectives, has become common sense business. To me anyway.

Parents move day after tomorrow. Finally! Today I moved a pile of wood, boards and plywood and peg board and plastic sheet and who knows what, metal rods and these conveyer belt things, all told about half the size of my minivan. About ten hours work. Making it more fun was that it was all covered with 4-5mm of old sawdust, and cobwebs.

I did this all to get to the ShopSmith (expensive) multi-tool set up, get to, move and, yes, clean off sawdust and spiders.

Tomorrow I rise early and, in a borrowed truck head to town, list and credit card in hand. Two flat screen TVs, small home theater, wireless headphones--my folks have lived far from neighbors for near on 50 years, and you can hear their TV for miles--media stand, phone (3 receivers for 550 sq. ft.), small drop leaf table and two chairs, padded, coffee maker, toaster and weigh scales and, well, you get the picture. I hope they like my idea of their taste.

But Acme still goes on. Dick has an apartment now in India, no one likes hotels for weeks at a time, and is rolling up his sleeves in Management 101: staff need to know what you expect and you need to know if staff produce what you want. We will talk about that too. After the move, and the sale, scheduled for 9 days from now.

Of course then comes preparing the house and property for sale, a 900 pound gorilla no ones likes to talk about. Me included.

Good Night.