RE: Summing up and moving on (I hope)

JB,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: J. B. Rainsberger 
[>] snip
> But what if advanced delivery is a step on the way to on time on
budget?
> What if advanced delivery helps us practice "on time on budget" every
two
> weeks? Practice makes perfect.
 
[>] No doubt advanced delivery is a value process. What needs to be made
clear (and often isn't) is "who is the target of the advanced delivery?"
Most of the XP literature assumes that the target is the "customer"
without every considering if the "customer" can absorb these rapidly
evolving releases. So I no objection to rapid (release cycles, that
would be foolish) - just need to ask and answer "how will the value be
felt and who will fell it?" before getting too enthusiastic about a
concept with no domain or context.
 
> >(3) The presence of an XP customer is part of the XP success. XP has
> little
> >to say (getting better) about how to transform a customer into an XP
> >customer.
> 
> From what I've read, XP says that a customer is already an XP customer
--
> that no transformation is required. I understand that others have
horror
> stories on this front. I claim that no transformation is required, but
> that the customer needs to know up front what's expected, and either
> they're willing to commit (we can do XP) or they are not (we can't).
We
> admit that without a customer*, the project is dead in the water, XP
or
> not.

[>] Oh I'm not sure this is the case. If XP requires a fully cognizant
XP customer, the population is now very small for the XP practices. What
about customer that move in and out of XP? Have needs not supported by
XP? Etc.

> >(4) Understanding, tailoring, and focusing the "marketing message" is
a
> >sign
> >of a maturing process. This happened with TQM, Six Sig, BSC, "Change"
> >processes, etc. All started as zealot processes and matured to broad
> based
> >processes by transforming "their" message not transforming the
listeners.
> 
> I recognize the need to change our message to make it sweeter to the
ears
> of our intended audience. I don't know how to do that. Will you help
me do
> that for one of these aspects of XP that I'm trying to market?
> Arbitrarily, I select "Ongoing Customer Feedback". Are you willing to
> start that discussion on this group right now?

[>] Sure. First I'd start with asking and answering some questions. 

For the ongoing feedback to have value, we'll need to define the
improvement goal. Schedule, budget, requirements, quality, other
intangible attributes. For what purpose is the feedback being provided
and solicited? How will we know when the ongoing feedback is producing
results? What results are we after? Once the results goal is defined,
how will we plan each cycle of the feedback process to move us forward?
How will we engage individuals, groups, amorphous blobs of
organizations, the various stakeholders? How well we package the message
for each of these groups, confirm they are hearing the message, and
alter our communication processes to match theirs once we determine the
message is getting or not getting through?

These are not theoretical questions, there question we ask nearly every
week in our CRM engagement process.

So yes, let's start a process, which would be natural for the XC domain.

[snip]

> >These concepts are at the core of any "service" based sales strategy.
The
> >buyer of "hard goods" can compare side by side products and prices.
The
> >buyer of a service or a process improvement, can only compare the
product
> >with the "felt need" through an intellectual absorption. This
includes
> >asking peers, observing others (bench marking), absorbing the message
in
> >words of the receiver not words of the sender...
> 
> Right. I'm asking for help to start doing that.
> 
> * If the term "product advocate" is more palatable here, then
substitute
> it freely.

[>] In our Balanced Scorecard we have a role called "performance
advocate." This person is assigned to be the advocate of the process
improvement portion of the BSC. This may be the approach that could work
for you. 

I would suggest though (as we have learned) that the "problem" be
defined before the solution is provided. XP looking for problems is no
different than a hammer looking for nails to hit. So type of "gap"
analysis for the "product" may be the starting point. Getting by-in that
a gap analysis is needed is the first step in isolating the "felt need."
Once the gaps have been identified, "owning" those gaps is necessary. We
have that problem all the time and rightly reject improvement for
improvement sake. "I know that process suck, but it'll continue to do
that because there is not bookable savings to fix it..."

Once the "bookable savings" or "measurable improvements" are identified,
THEN a process improvement process can start.

Now if you in a situation where these types of business processes are of
use or if the messenger thinks the home work doesn't need to be done
(and I'm confident you're not in that category), then this is where the
gap opens up between XP developers and C-types...but we al know that I
hope.
 
> 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/