Join the 'practicals' with 'virtuals'

---

Have you noticed this?

Have you noticed that some people seem firmly planted and comfortable with their surroundings, but there are others that can't operate a hammer or a screwdriver?

Have you noticed that on many projects there is a unofficial segregation of the workforce something like this (*):

• The "practicals" who live and work and think in the physical world (whether in the office, or not)
• The "virtuals" who live and work and think in the remote, virtual, and digital space (even if they go into the office)

Join things up: Leverage the differences and make it an "And":

In the best of all cases, the win-win is to leverage the conjunction of 'practicals' and 'virtuals' as a reinforcing join of culture, skills, and interests. 

Architecture is a good place to start. How could you build a new "anything" without both working together: Design, analysis, construction? 

Have you ever looked closely at a sweeping fly-over highway bridge, as a good example? 

• How do they get those massive iron beams to gently curve over hundreds of feet and join seamlessly with the next? 
• How do they get the concrete columns to have just the right arc to give the roadway above the right degree of bank on the curves? 
• How would the CAD ever match up with the 'physicals' who drive the rivets and build the molds if they didn't work together ... rather than apart.

Practicals Versus Virtuals

'Versus' doesn't buy you anything

Instead of the joy of a 'reinforcing join', the opposite may be a dis-attraction, rejection, or tension between strangers from two spaces: physical and virtual.

In systems terms, there may be little or no throughput, poor gain on resources committed, and outright hostility. Obviously, there is nothing to be gained by being at loggerheads about the differences in experience, attitude, and values. Those who can type should also be able to use a screwdriver; but it works the other way around also. 

But, in fact, the cultural divide can be a chasm: pay, promotion, recognition, status, security to name a few of the HR issues, but also respect, arrogance, and elitism that unwittingly divide rather than unite, to say nothing about herd loyalty and commitment to win-loss.

If there were an answer ...

If there were an answer for this, other than self-awareness and walk-in-their-shoes exercises, I would put it down in the next paragraph

But, there is no next paragraph .....

++++++++++++++

(*) Credit to Ross Douthat for the idea of 'practicals' and 'virtuals'

---

Like this blog? You'll like my books also! Buy them at any online book retailer!

About data; here's the first rule

---

The first rule of data:

• Don't ask for data if you don't know what you are going to do with it

Or, said another way (same rule)

• Don't ask for data which you can not use or act upon

 And, your reaction might be: Of course!

But, alas, in too many PMOs there are too many incidents of reports, data accumulation, measurements, etc which are the progeny of PMO doctrine. But the reality is: There actually is no plan for what to do with all this stuff that comes in. 

Sometimes, a data collection is just curiosity; sometimes it's just blind compliance with a data regulation; sometimes it's just to have a justification for an analyst job. 

But sometimes, there is a "feeling" that if such data is not coming in and available that somehow you're failing as a manager. Afterall, one view of management is to measure, evaluate, and act. If you're not doing the first step, how can you be managing effectively? Ergo: measure everything! Somehow, the good 'stuff' will then rise to the top. (I submit "hope" and "somehow" are not actually good planning tools)

The test:

 If someone says they need data, the first questions are: 

• What are you going to do with the data?
• How does the data add value to what is to be done
• Is the data quality consistent with the intended use or application, and 
• Is there a plan to effectuate that value-add (in other words, can you put the data into action)?

And how much data?

Does the data inquisitor have a notion of data limits: What is enough, but not too much, to be statistically significant (*), informative for management decision making, and sufficient to establish control limits?

And information?

Well, the usual definition is that information is data, perhaps multiple data, integrated with context, and interpreted for the current situation.

So, the rule can be extended: If there are not means to process data into information, is the data necessary to be collected?

Bottom line: To state the obvious: always test a request for data collection for value-add before spending resources!

______________

(*) Statistical significance: The observed behavior in the data is unlikely to be just a random outcome; the data is predictability attributed to something specific which can be described statistically.

---

Like this blog? You'll like my books also! Buy them at any online book retailer!

A word about threats and risks

---

Daniel Miessler has an interesting essay about threats, vulnerabilities, and risks that is worth a quick read.

He summarizes this way:

•  A Threat is a negative scenario you want to avoid
• A Threat Actor is the agent that makes a Threat happen
• A Vulnerability is a weakness that can be exploited in order to attack you
• A Risk is a negative scenario you want to avoid, combined with its probability and its impact
• The difference between a Threat and a Risk is that a Threat is a negative event by itself, where a Risk is the negative event combined with its probability and its impact

All good, but then what do you do about any one of these?

Begin with knowledge acquisition.

Any threat, risk, or vulnerability that is susceptible to reduction by knowing more about it is probably worth the investment to gather the available information, or conduct experiments, models, or simulations to put data into an analysis process 

Such activity is applying the skills and processes of epistemology which is the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope. 

Most important for project management, "epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion." (Oxford online dictionary)

And, to carry it a bit further, such risks, threats, and vulnerabilities are often called epistemic risks, etc.

Truly random effects

If your knowledge study convinces you that more knowledge won't improve the mitigation, then you are in the realm of random effects which are largely unpredictable -- that is, random -- within certain boundaries. 

There are two major categories of such randomness that project managers deal with:

1. The central tendency type of randomness wherein random effects tend to cluster around a central figure, and outliers fall off and away from the central figure. This leads to the so-called "bell curve" which is usually not a perfect bell, but nonetheless the centrality is evident in the data
   
   
2. The "power law" type of randomness wherein random effects are "one-sided" and fall off roughly as the square of the distance from the main lobe. The Pareto histogram is a familiar example, as is the "80-20" histogram.

The best way to identify which of these two phenomenon is your situation is by experimentation, observation, simulation, and modelling to develop data and thereby determine the "fit".

---

Like this blog? You'll like my books also! Buy them at any online book retailer!

Stabilize your project

---

Stability!

It counts for a lot.

It implies -- for behaviors and management decisions -- predictability, reliability, under-control (but not risk-free, of course), coherent narrative, steady-state goals, and a strategy that is understandable to those who have the job of implementing it.

Perhaps you are aware, as many are, that stability requires feedback to effect error correction and trap excesses and blind alleys. 

Ah yes!

We know about feedback.

Open loop systems -- those with outcome but no feedback -- are prone to many uncontrolled and unexpected responses. Who can predict what a stimulus will do to a system that has no feedback? Actually, that's a really tricky task.

So, what about feedback? 

What's to know?

• Timing is everything! Getting the feedback "phased" in time such that it has a correcting effect rather than a destructive effect is vital. The former is generally called "negative feedback" for its corrective nature; the latter is generally called "positive feedback" for its reinforcing rather than corrective nature. And, when its too late, it's generally called ineffective.
  
  
• Amplitude, or strength, or quantity is next: It has to be enough, but not too much. Tricky that! Experimentation and experience are about the only way to handle this one.

What could possibly go wrong?

Actually, a lot can go wrong.

No feedback at all is the worst of the worst: the 'system' is 'open loop', meaning that there are outcomes that perhaps no one (or no thing) are paying attention to. Stuff happens, or is happening, and who knows (or who knew)?

Timing errors are perhaps the next worst errors: if the timing is off, the feedback could be 'positive' rather than 'negative' such that the 'bad stuff' is reinforced rather than damped down. 

Strength errors are usually less onerous: if the strength is off, but the timing is on, then the damping may be too little, but usually you get some favorable effect

Practical project management

Feedback for correcting human performance is familiar to all. Too late and it's ineffective; too much over the top and it's taken the wrong way. So, timing and strength are key

But, the next thing is communication: both verbal and written (email,etc). Closing the loop provides reassurance of the quality and effectiveness of communication. You're just not talking or writing into the wind!

And, of course, in system or process design, loops should never be open. Who knows what could happen.

I should mention:

The study of feedback systems generally falls within what is called 'cybernetics'. As described by sciencedirect.com, MIT mathematician Norbert Wiener defined cybernetics as “the study of control and communication in the animal and the machine." 

From Wikipedia, we learn: The core concept of cybernetics is circular causality or feedback—where the observed outcomes of actions are taken as inputs [ie, feedback] for further action in ways that support the pursuit and maintenance of particular conditions [ie, 'ways that support' requires the correct timing and strength]

---

 
Like this blog? You'll like my books also! Buy them at any online book retailer!

You've been asked to write a strategic plan (ugh!)

---

Who wants to write a strategic plan?

Really, nobody, unless you are a professional planner and that's your livelihood.

But, what if you're asked to write, or help write, a plan?

Of course, you can "google" it; and you'll find no lack of help with templates and outlines and even some process.

But here's a bit from my experience.

Ask for the narrative

Asking for the narrative from whomever has asked for the plan is everybody' s favorite first step.

But it may not be as easy as story-telling:

• Maybe the sponsor knows they are in a bad spot, but doesn't know where the future is. This is a really hard one, since the future could be anywhere
• Maybe the sponsor knows what the future should be, but has no idea of how to get there. This is the easier one, since at least there is a target to aim for
• Maybe the sponsor is in name only; maybe the 'strategic plan' is called for in the standing protocols or bylaws, and the sponsor actually doesn't feel the need for the plan. This is also a hard one because committed resources to get the plan done will be problematic
• Maybe the sponsor thinks a strategic plan is just a 3-year budget plan. This will take some work to get that mindset reset.

Nonetheless, all that said and internalized, you actually do need a narrative in order to provide an organizing framework.

What are some of the questions?

The right questions to ask are situational. That should be intuitively obvious. Private sector, civil government, police-fire-military, non-profit, religious, and on we go. A lot of diversity.

Frame the questions in context with the traditional four sectors (Balanced Scorecard):

1. Financial objectives
2. Products and services, now and 'then'
3. Customers and customer service, now and 'then'
4. Operations and operational effectiveness

Financial is just not accounting. The fundamentals of the business model may be at stake. Maybe your industry is changing so rapidly, you exit for new territory.

Customers support the business model, yes, but ....  The business model exists to serve customer needs. Maybe they just don't need what you have, so something new is needed. What are the characteristics of a new or different customer base?

OE (operational effectiveness) is the tricky one for many:

• Will you need the workforce you have now?
• Should the workforce be younger or older; more or less expensive; more or less diverse; and with new or just improved skills? Can you even ask some of these questions?
• Will you emphasize remote or local, W-2's or contractors?
• Will you need the facilities you have now? Buy or lease new? Here or somewhere else? 
• "Lean" was supposed to be the OE answer, but times have changed. What's the secret sauce for effective operations going to be?

There's a lot of stuff that goes into a strategic plan. Good luck with that!

---

Like this blog? You'll like my books also! Buy them at any online book retailer!

Quiet Quitting

---

One of the human resources trends going about is "Quiet Quitting". 

Has this come to a project on your street?

As in all such trends, there are numerous versions which heretofore might have been labeled "work life balance"

So, here is a bit of what to look out for:

• The 'union' version: Work to rules. Nothing above and beyond the call. Put in the required time; do as good a job as possible; then leave it all and go home. No emails and texts off hours
• The 'frustrated' version: Do the absolute minimum to get by; don't volunteer; maintain a low profile. 
• The 'anti-burnout version': Work really hard, but then leave on time; no weekends or late hours; leave it all when you leave.

Remote and virtual work can be problematic

• Some say the 'quiet quitting' is more pronounced with remote workers where job hours are super flexible
• Some companies are pushing back by 'return to the office mandates'

But then there's this:

From time to time, we all need to rebalance, rethink, and recharge. 

Many projects are recognizing the need and providing buffers and recharge time

In other words, many projects are getting ahead of "quiet quitting"

---

Like this blog? You'll like my books also! Buy them at any online book retailer!

Don't risk the team (in extremis)!

---

Are you on one of those death march projects about to burn out. Want some time off? Perhaps it's in the plan

Formula  solution
Google among others -- Microsoft, etc -- are well known for the "time off, do what you want toward self improvement and personnel innovation" model; formulas like that lend objectivity to the process (not playing favorites, etc). Note: more on this in the "6x2x1" model discussed last

Productivity drop
Of course, the real issue is one that agile leader Scott Ambler has talked about: the precipitous drop in productivity once you reach about 70% throughput capacity of the team. Up to this point, the pace of output (velocity) is predictably close to team benchmarks; thereafter, it has been observed to fall off a cliff.

Other observers have put it down as a variation on "Brooks Law" named after famed IBM-370 project leader Fred Brooks: "Adding people to a late project makes it later" . In this case, it's too many people on the team with too many interferences. It's been observed that to raise productivity, reduce staff!

Wave bounces
In the physics of wave theory, we see the same phenomenon: when the "load" can not absorb the energy applied, the excess is reflected back, causing interference and setting up standing waves. This occurs in electronic cables, but it also happens on the beach, and in traffic.

Ever wondered why you are stopped in traffic miles from the interference while others up ahead are moving? Answer: traffic load exceeds the highway's ability to absorb the oncoming cars, thereby launching reflections of standing waves that ebb and crest.

So it is in teams: apply energy beyond the team's ability to absorb and you simply get reflected interference. Like I said: the way to speed things up is to reduce the number of teams working and the number of staff applied.

WIP Limits
In agile/lean Kanban theory, this means getting a grip on the WIP limits... you simply can't have too many things in play beyond a certain capacity.

Sometimes the problem arises with sponsors: their answer is universally: Throw more resources in, exactly opposite the correct remedy

6x2x1 model
One of my students said this:

"Daniel Pink  has an excellent book called Drive, the surprising truth about what motivates us. In the book, Pink talks about inspiring high productivity and maintaining a sustainable pace.

One of the techniques is the 6x2x1 iteration model. This says that for every six two week iterations the development team should have a 1 week iteration where they are free to work project related issues of their choice.

You can also run a 3x4x1 model for four week iterations. Proponents of this approach have observed that the development teams will often tackle tough problems, implement significant improvements and generally advance the project during these free play periods. Without the time crunch to complete the story points the team also refreshes itself."

I don't know, but Pink's thesis may have been the genesis of the Google and Microsoft "time off" plans I've already mentioned, or maybe the experience of those plans found their way into Pink's thesis. Either way, time off matters!

---

Like this blog? You'll like my books also! Buy them at any online book retailer!