Moving on

>> 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."

[GBA] That's an interesting approach. When speaking to my boss, we have used
quality increases and time and budget compliance, but not lower engagement
costs. What's likely needed for general use is a case study or two for a
non-trivial deployment that the C-Type can relate to. This will be nearly
impossible I suspect, so increased quality and on-time delivery are better
IMO.

>> * 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."

[GBA] This makes sense for most everyone.

>> * 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?

[GBA] This is a long standing discussion. I fact our customer would like to
get what they order on the day we said and for the cost we said. All other
processes are internal. All this incremental delivery stuff depends on the
customer's ability to absorb the production an incremental manner. The
continual denial that there are customers like this indicates to me XP's
lack on understanding for the broader market - but that's a personal
experience. Internal incremental deliver improves quality, improves schedule
risk, increases requirements compliance, etc. but has very little to add for
the customer who can't receive incremental delivers - and we have many of
those.

[snip]
>
>[>] 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.

[GBA] Good points. The focus on mis-performance and lack of progress is
likely a managers first job. The next job is process improvement, but since
poor performance improvement has immediate results, that's just what I'd do
and have done here. The challenge of an XP-like process is to show immediate
improvement, but the unanswered question is can XP do this with a mediocre
team that is the source of the poor performance to begin with.

XP does not state how performance can be increased with less the stellar
developers. Yes there are anecdotes, but I'm always suspect of them. If the
team is inhibited by external processes but has the native talent to perform
it's clear XP can liberate them. I've consulted with many clients where the
team is just plan poor and no process was going to add much. XP in those
cases was just confusing, since the basic development processes were not in
place - no requirements, no QA, no release process. In those cases ANY
process would produce improvements IIF the developers could drop their bad
behaviors.

>> 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.

[GBA] The C-Level guys are approached everyday with "magic" fixes. Marketing
fixes, project management fixes, quality improvement fixes. If the terms
don't resonant they don't listen. Please don't fall into the trap of
assuming the problem is with the listening, it starts with the message.
That's the foundation of any marketing strategy. If you don't have words
that resonant, you'll never make it past the front door.

You're statement of "they'll listen to the zealot," has not been my
experience in aerospace, government, petrochemical, manufacturing. They
simply discount the zealot on first principles - he's a zealot because no
one is listening, so he has to shout louder. This is not always the case,
but it is the "heard message." A fundamental premise with communications is
to construct a message that can be heard. It is the responsibility of the
sender to construct that message. Once done the listener can them processes
the information. It is unreasonable for the general management community to
"adapt" to the zealot. It's simply a fact of life in the business world I
work in. Too much is a stake to go down those untried paths.

I worked hard to get Balanced Scorecard into our org. It finally clicked
when the DOE adapted BSC and the original authors (Harvard Profs) presented
at a DOE CIO conference. Then the message had "legs" as they say in sales
and we were off and running.

>> 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.

[GBA] Maybe here on XC we can come to understand that the C-Types are 2 to 3
levels above the folks doing the work. My peers (3 of us) have never
developed code. Our C-Type was a marketing and finance guy before CIO. I was
a coder in the 70's and 80's when real men wrote in Fortran and Macro-11.
Until the current crop of Java and XP'ers reach their C-Level positions, the
words used for "agile" need to be tailored to the audience not the other way
around.

If the XP'ers continue to demand that the C-Types "listen" to the zealots
it's going to be tough sledding. Which is really too bad, since there is
great need if the "marketing story" can resonant with the decision makers.
It's starting to happen - Jim Highsmith, is one example. But viral marketing
is a serial process.

Glen B. Alleman
Director, Program Management Office
Kaiser-Hill LLC
Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site
Golden, Colorado
[email protected]
+1.303.966.5865 Office
+1.303.994.0874 NexTel



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