RE: Summing up and moving on (I hope)

>J.B.,
>
>Not sure I'd concur with these

My comments below.

>> 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

XP says, "I can lower per-customer engagement and support costs by building quality in to the product, spending more up front, but less overall."

>> * The need to lower development costs by doing more with fewer people
>
>[>] our plans include specific reductions here as well as infrastructure
>and telecommunications.

XP says, "Your team should be smaller and in one room so that communication overhead does not begin to significantly eat away at the team's productivity."

>> * 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.

So rather than getting important stuff early, you'd rather get everything on the last day? That's backwards thinking, to my mind. The only way to get "on time and on budget" is to seriously pad both. I suppose that we could do that long enough to train you to think that we need that much time and that much money, then as we deliver important stuff quickly, you'll be pleased. What do you think about that?

>> * 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." 

That is very much aligned with the way XP sees management's role, so we are in agreement here.

>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.

This is all consistent with the environment that XP fosters.

>> 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'm not sure that's true, because I have done it with and without the rhetoric and neither has worked. Perhaps the managers simply don't have time to see what I'm doing right, because they're too busy dealing with the folks who are underachieving. Perhaps that means that I have to do good work in the presence of some lucky manager who actually has the chance to notice, ask me how and begin to buy in.

>> 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. 

If the terms are enough to stop the C-level folks from listening to us, then I disagree with the notion that they are "on the prowl for new and better ways..." Someone who truly wants to improve the system will be open-minded enough to listen to the zealot -- it may just be crazy enough to work.

>> 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.

I wouldn't be surprised. After all, I don't have the vast experience that others on this list and in the community have. I'm just some poor b5d that was seduced by the promise of XP, has tried it and loved it, and wants to do more. I definitely need someone more seasoned in the art of communicating with management to create those opportunities for me. I'll buy 'em lunch and drinks and everything.

Thanks.

J. B. Rainsberger,
President, Diaspar Software Services
Let's write software that people understand.
http://www.diasparsoftware.com/
telephone: +1 416 791-8603
All correspondence (c) 2002 Diaspar Software Services.
If you want to use it, just ask; don't steal.




------------------------ 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/