RE: Summing up and moving on (I hope)

J.B.,

Not sure I'd concur with these


> -----Original Message-----
> From: J. B. 
> 
> So the problem is that the C-level folks don't feel the following
needs:
> 
> * The need to lower per-customer engagement and support costs

[>] we know this to the dollar and have specific goals to reduce this
cost

> * The need to lower development costs by doing more with fewer people

[>] our plans include specific reductions here as well as infrastructure
and telecommunications.

> * The need to improve customer satisfaction through delivering key
> features earlier

[>] Actually our goal is "on time" "on budget." If you can start with
that, the "mythical" goal of early deliver is then on "option." But get
the stuff to show up when you say and what you forecast and many more
doors open to talk about process improvement. This is an issue I have
with the XP rhetoric, over promising the outcome of a promise before the
baseline of trusted delivery, cost control, and quality have been met.

> * The need to keep top talent

[>] Retention is more than doing XP I'm afraid. It may be a part, but
I've yet to see any HR sanctioned information. Just good management goes
a long way. Our motto here is "management's role is to remove
impediments to progress." Having happy customers, rewarding folks for a
job well done, working "reasonable" hours (7:30 - 4:30 four days, plus
one 7:30 - 3:30 every other week), tools, and did I mention rewards for
a job well done. Also negative incentives are needed, to wed out the non
performers and give the performers empowerment to select their own team.
> 
> That surprises me, because I hear that stuff all the time, and yet
there
> doesn't appear to be any receptivity to an identified solution
(Agile).

[>] because the current words associated with "agile" are too extreme.
"agile" is a term used in manufacturing, finance, petrochem, etc. all
the time. But "extremizing" it cuts off those who need to listen. We use
"agile" terms all the time on site (de-construction project). But it's
in the context of construction and waste disposal. Mention terms like
"hair on fire," "balls to the wall," extreme everything and the
construction guys leave the room. Mention "agile" work processes that
save money, improve quality, deliver on time to spec and they perk right
up. 

It's all in the message, the terms used, etc.

> I identify the following problem: the C-level folks don't know that
they
> could do better. My guess is that they've grown accustomed to a
certain
> level of achievement and, through experience, don't see a way to reach
> above the current plateau. It takes one big organization to outplay
the
> rest of the field before they wake up and see that they're about to be
> left behind.

[>] I'm a B-level working for a C and that's simply not true in my
experience. Yours may be different. We're constantly on the prowl for
new and better ways to close this site. We're constantly revamping our
SOP to take advantage of new ways. 

> My question is this: where is the company that wants to be ahead of
the
> curve? I thought that C-level people went in for all that "be
proactive"
> crap.

[>] They're there; maybe you need to look a little harder. Before this
position, most of my clients hired us for just that purpose - push the
envelope back on productivity and process.

> J. B. 

[>]Glen B. Alleman


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Get 128 Bit SSL Encryption!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/CBxunD/vN2EAA/xGHJAA/NhFolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
extremecustomering-unsubscribe-hHKSG33TihhbjbujkaE4pw@public.gmane.org

 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/