tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-206469662024-02-07T20:36:53.797-08:00Bruce's BrainBrucehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17924943461128606986noreply@blogger.comBlogger34125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20646966.post-18329707355619145992011-06-26T23:07:00.000-07:002011-06-26T23:07:53.860-07:00Equitable Equity: Fairness & Transparency in Equity CompensationLet's face it, while equity compensation is quite common in the technology and new media industries, from the employee's point of view it is confusing and lacks the basic transparency that enables rational decision making. I <a href="http://www.brucephenry.com/2009/05/startup-pay-and-equity.html">posted about this some time ago</a> (May of 2009) but took that post down because it had some issues that I wanted to fix up. Well, now it is back and I've put some more work into thinking it through as well as getting feedback from a buncha folks.<br />
<br />
The meat of it is this...<br />
<br />
When considering an offer, particularly at a small startup, where equity is said to be a significant part of the compensation, the present ways of granting equity give the employee almost no way to value the equity granted as compensation. This is bad for the employee, but it is also bad for the company since many employees treat what may be a quite valuable part of the compensation package as "funny money" or valueless during their consideration of offers.<br />
<br />
So, I packaged up my thoughts; threw in some of the feedback I have received from talking to everyone from lawyers who advise startups, to founders, to angel investors, and even a VC who lent a friendly ear and took my ideas about transparent and fair equity compensation to an audience. I gave this presentation on equity compensation from the employee's point of view this weekend at <a href="http://barcampseattle.org/">BarCamp Seattle</a>. Here are the slides...<br />
<br />
<iframe frameborder="0" height="401" scrolling="no" src="http://app.sliderocket.com:80/app/fullplayer.aspx?id=62cc7edf-beb9-44fd-9425-4063d53aed32" width="500"></iframe><br />
<br />
These slides can also be found <a href="http://portal.sliderocket.com/AULFB/Equitable-Equity">here</a>.Brucehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17924943461128606986noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20646966.post-88117306135591037952011-06-26T22:56:00.000-07:002011-06-26T23:10:58.852-07:00Startup Pay and EquityHaving worked at a couple of startups in my time, and currently looking at an opportunity to join another or start my own, I've been thinking about compensation. I'm gonna try to lay out those thoughts<span style="font-weight: bold;"></span>.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjqtKj3qTnXCMEfa38Cw-Hocf7J4fzQIuiU4afbxiQX-dxVe0-UWu1nqBradIoHZDND0fdMqSTpsQWMKGc0HWrH33fPAdbS_pjRXO0ftWNztaDh8u87et3VWJ8E0-erkBF3OGrL/s1600-h/fanhouse1.jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5330931124185454786" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjqtKj3qTnXCMEfa38Cw-Hocf7J4fzQIuiU4afbxiQX-dxVe0-UWu1nqBradIoHZDND0fdMqSTpsQWMKGc0HWrH33fPAdbS_pjRXO0ftWNztaDh8u87et3VWJ8E0-erkBF3OGrL/s320/fanhouse1.jpg" style="cursor: pointer; float: right; height: 240px; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; width: 320px;" /></a>First off let's figure out what your rate should be. That is, how many dollars per year you are worth. I'll haul out that old economists' maxim, "The value of something is how much someone is willing to pay for it." So let's take your most recent job. How much did you make last year in total? Count salary, bonus, and equity (more on that in a minute).<br />
<br />
That total number is your rate. I'm going to use it to figure out what your compensation <span style="font-weight: bold;">should be</span> at that startup you're thinking of joining.<br />
<br />
But let's tackle that equity thing first.<br />
<br />
If you were at a publicly traded company then your equity compensation is easy to value since the shares or options have a well defined value. But what if you were at a private company or another startup? In that case, if you have equity you need to see the capitalization sheet (shorthand for a listing of all of the outstanding shares, who is holding them, when they got them, and what they paid for them) to determine what your equity stake is worth.<br />
<br />
You ask why?<br />
<br />
Well, suppose your rate is $100k/year and I offer you $50k/year plus options on 100,000 shares. Is that a good deal? What about $50k/year and options on 1,000,000 shares? Look good now?<br />
<br />
What if I tell you that in the most recent funding round the company sold an investor 5 million shares for $50k? That million shares of your represents $10k of value. A million shares <span style="font-weight: bold;">sounds</span> like a lot, but without seeing the cap sheet you have no way of knowing.<br />
<br />
The formula is this; take the value of the total compensation being offered (salary + bonus + equity value determined from cap sheet) and compare it to your rate. They should be about the same.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgzOU54eAj0W7qw3-ApDT5ihBqDWxBHixQZ-QJEI0HRwK48nnWxj_ss64edfK_CVBzAyLnanUYmmDBkBRU9OV-TaojPbsyDvIFb5fnoSfO4NDa7aegfNTmNy748p6_mHi9rJhl2/s1600-h/fanhouse2.jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5330931121614411730" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgzOU54eAj0W7qw3-ApDT5ihBqDWxBHixQZ-QJEI0HRwK48nnWxj_ss64edfK_CVBzAyLnanUYmmDBkBRU9OV-TaojPbsyDvIFb5fnoSfO4NDa7aegfNTmNy748p6_mHi9rJhl2/s320/fanhouse2.jpg" style="cursor: pointer; float: right; height: 240px; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; width: 320px;" /></a>There <span style="font-style: italic;">are</span> reasons other than pay to go work at a startup. The fun, the excitement, the team, the lack of rules prohibiting bringing your dog to the office, the awesome late night jam sessions, the overwhelming stress of not knowing if the boss is really going to manage to close this next round of funding because he started the company to design software not spend all of his time fundraising and if he doesn't then all that equity you're holding is completely worthless and you need to start freshening up that resume and looking for another bland gray corporate job again. But I digress...<br />
<br />
Now, here are some things to look for:<br />
<ol><li><span style="font-weight: bold;">Equity is "a large part of your compensation" but they won't show you the cap table.</span><br />
This almost always means that equity is <span style="font-weight: bold;">not</span> a large part of your compensation. They are telling you this to get you to swallow the small salary. They may <span style="font-style: italic;">think</span> it is a large part of your compensation, but they may also overvalue their own company.<br />
</li>
<li><span style="font-weight: bold;">You don't really trust the founders but they are offering you what looks like a great deal.</span><br />
There are innumerable ways for shady founders to screw the employees at a liquidity event. Everything from extreme dilution, to a very low sale price and an employment contract with the acquiring company for the founders that is "very generous." At the end of the day, you <span style="font-style: italic;">really</span> need to be able to trust the founders to look out for you.</li>
</ol>There's an interesting thing that just occurred to me. I have often heard people say that they want to keep their burn rate low (e.g. pay low salaries) in order to keep from having to give more of the company away by raising more funding. This only makes sense if you are under compensating the employees with equity. After all, if you say that we want to give you equity in lieu of pay then that equity must be worth <span style="font-style: italic;">at least as much</span> as the salary you're trading for it.<br />
<br />
If that were true then it wouldn't matter whether the equity was used to pay the employees directly or exchanged for cash to pay the employees' salaries. Either way, the equity is being traded away. The fact that some people are so loath to share the cap table info, thereby making the value of the transaction transparent, at the same time they want to push equity in lieu of pay makes one wonder.<br />
<br />
I honestly don't think that <span style="font-style: italic;">most </span>founders even think this through. I think most of them are trying <span style="font-style: italic;">really hard</span> to do right by their employees. But it is one of those situations where the transactions are <span style="font-weight: bold;">so</span> convoluted that it is really easy to lose sight of the final outcome.<br />
<br />
Bottom line, if equity is part of your compensation you need to see the cap table. You have a <span style="font-weight: bold;">right</span> to see the cap table. After all, you are an investor too. You are investing <span style="font-weight: bold;">days of your life </span>and that is <span style="font-weight: bold;">more valuable</span> than some angel investor's money.<br />
<br />
Update 6/25/2011: I gave a talk on this at <a href="http://barcampseattle.org/">BarCamp Seattle</a> and the notes & deck for that talk can be found on my <a href="http://www.brucephenry.com/2011/06/equitable-equity-fairness-transparency.html">Equitable Equity: Fairness and Transparency in Equity Compensation</a> post.<br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;"></span>Brucehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17924943461128606986noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20646966.post-59430195353958005432009-03-23T17:22:00.000-07:002009-03-23T18:13:01.651-07:00Rewriting www to non-www with Apache2... or <span style="font-weight: bold;">how to make mod_rewrite your friend</span>.<br /><br />Like many other hipster sites in the whole new series of tubes we call web2.0, I wanted to have my site reside at <a href="http://helpleaf.com/">http://helpleaf.com</a> rather than the old, redundant, crappy <a href="http://www.helpleaf.com/">http://www.healpleaf.com</a>. So I tried to set that up. After all, how hard could setting up a <span style="font-weight: bold;">non-www RewriteRule</span> be?<br /><br />Well, as I learned, not hard if you know what you’re doing. Since I don’t, it was friggin’ hard. But, after wrestling with this for a couple of hours I enlisted the help of my friend Brett who showed me the easy way.<br /><br />Here’s what we did…<br /><br />My domain registrar is GoDaddy, but I transferred DNS control to SliceHost where my site resides (and whose DNS control I like a LOT better).<br /><br />Then I set up my DNS records. Because DNS admin tools are <span style="font-style: italic;">really</span> different from host to host you'll have ot figure out the exact ways to handle doing the following DNS stuff.<br /><br />My domain is helpleaf.com so I created an A record pointing from helpleaf.com. to the IP address of my server.<br /><br />At this point I had a choice, either:<br /><br />1. create another A record for www.helpleaf.com pointing to the IP of my server<br /><br />or<br /><br />2. create a CNAME record for www pointing to helpleaf.com<br /><br />I went with the latter because I am less likely to screw it up if I change IPs on the server since there’s only the one A record to update. (Note that this causes more heat on the DNS server, but since my traffic is low… meh.)<br /><br />Now the trickiness (this is where Brett comes in handy)…<br /><br />change to the apache2/sites-enabled directory<br /><br /><pre>cd /etc/apache2/sites-enabled</pre><br />and create a new file:<br /><br /><pre>sudo nano www.helpleaf.com</pre><br />Here is the full content of that file:<br /><br /><pre><virtualhost><br />ServerName www.helpleaf.com<br />ServerAlias www.helpleaf.com<br /><br />DocumentRoot /home/bruce/helpleaf/public<br /><br />RewriteEngine On<br /><br /># rewrite anything incoming to helpleaf.com<br />RewriteRule ^(.*)$ http://helpleaf.com$1 [R=301,L]<br /><br /># Custom log file locations<br /># so I can see the www traffic sources<br />ErrorLog /home/bruce/helpleaf/log/www.error.log<br />CustomLog /home/bruce/helpleaf/log/www.access.log combined<br /><br /></virtualhost></pre><br />Just reload the apache2 config<br /><br /><pre>sudo service apache2 reload</pre><br />Let’s try that out. Open a browser and go to <a href="http://www.helpleaf.com">http://www.helpleaf.com</a>.<br /><br />Badda BING!<br /><br />You should be redirected to <a href="http://helpleaf.com">http://helpleaf.com</a>.<br /><br />That’s it.Brucehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17924943461128606986noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20646966.post-47787965505281220882009-02-09T10:59:00.000-08:002009-02-09T19:05:15.058-08:00Seattle Startup Weekend 2 - Why are Good Developers Hard to Find?I had a <span style="font-weight: bold;">great</span> time at <a href="http://seattle2.startupweekend.com/">Seattle Startup Weekend 2</a>!<br /><br />It started out slow for me. I despaired at first when the three things I wanted to work on either had too few people interested, the team didn't show up, or looked to turn into a business plan-fest. But then the folks who had gathered around a Twitter follower management idea finally showed up and the rest was... well... if not <span style="font-style: italic;">history</span>... it was at least epic. Out the end of the weekend we had <a href="http://tweetsum.com/">tweetsum</a> up and running. The project will live on. It has already gotten me back into thinking about writing Rails applications.<br /><br />Anyway, the subject of this post is why, in my opinion, some of the teams at Seattle Startup Weekend 2 (SSW2) had trouble finding developers. In a word; engagement.<br /><br />There were a couple of teams that were strongly driven by "business folks". These team did not seem to want to engage the technical folks in give and take about what the business would look like and what to build. The business folks do business things (like plan and require and direct) and the technical folks do technical things (like code and configure and follow directions).<br /><br />Sweet!! A day job!<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi2G1X_51rcWRHXQMsg5AUMwrIp0XDrgncn5HJt_MMzqMyOz5pFWxRQMUFookOA0OPd6TKkzbg392yHEeUPuiG98MDHsMlst21xVd_7ajFiCxQ-Et4QYIikcHn6qQ4izamCahJ1/s1600-h/too_much_process.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 240px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi2G1X_51rcWRHXQMsg5AUMwrIp0XDrgncn5HJt_MMzqMyOz5pFWxRQMUFookOA0OPd6TKkzbg392yHEeUPuiG98MDHsMlst21xVd_7ajFiCxQ-Et4QYIikcHn6qQ4izamCahJ1/s320/too_much_process.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5300997473679299730" border="0" /></a>Now, I'm all for having a good business model and a way to monitize your thingie. But there were a couple of teams that clearly thought of the people with development skills as a resource to be used.<br /><br />Emphasis on <span style="font-weight: bold;">used</span>.<br /><br />I heard from a friend that his group was building something that the group organizer had brought to SSW2 pretty well fully formed from a "what we want it to do and look like" point of view. The team just wasn't open to input on ways to improve it.<br /><br />Okay, whatever. Just go find another group, right?<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhykNebZ_5hd62o0yQ0RXEku8vR2k3O6GZ2LXeAUFFJld-Rc6VcfqI_T0ihco3G6F7dUGPgcNlbdFt5uBoMV7_vHrHWg19ASMo_EJAIKfEv3G-RBQBsjzfZxoYT4LT0I-_VSaK5/s1600-h/tweetsum_process.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer; width: 240px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhykNebZ_5hd62o0yQ0RXEku8vR2k3O6GZ2LXeAUFFJld-Rc6VcfqI_T0ihco3G6F7dUGPgcNlbdFt5uBoMV7_vHrHWg19ASMo_EJAIKfEv3G-RBQBsjzfZxoYT4LT0I-_VSaK5/s320/tweetsum_process.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5300997600155749794" border="0" /></a>People were amazed at what the tweetsum team got done in just two days. We were able to do this because <span style="font-style: italic;">everyone</span> on the team could <span style="font-style: italic;">do</span>, not just <span style="font-style: italic;">direct</span>. Each and every person was able to contribute directly to getting a site up and running. There was not a single person on the tweetsum team that did not code, configure servers, or perform some other core technical function.<br /><br />But this is the key thing... <span style="font-style: italic;">they were free to do it <span style="font-weight: bold;">any way they wanted</span></span>.<br /><br />(For reference, that's tweetsum's specification and process documentation sitting on the folding chair.)<br /><br />That's right. We had a wealth of developers and designers and technical folks. And we had them specifically because it felt as little like a corporate day job as was humanly possible. In psychobabble terms their locus of control was internal as much as was possible.<br /><br />The next time you're trying to recruit a team and are finding developers and other technical types hard to find, offer to share control with them. You'll get a lot more interest from the technical folks if you engage them instead of direct them.Brucehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17924943461128606986noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20646966.post-73789058396896326012009-02-05T14:30:00.000-08:002009-02-05T14:51:40.545-08:00How to Disable the Confirm File Delete DialogThe <span style="font-weight: bold;">Windows Confirm File Delete Dialog</span> may be one of the most annoying things ever.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjC4eVga_F-xU-H5ecDavCauXtBwfxHRsDGovLokm_HfVFnC_5dZqwdU3HCg3yHziHTW2rQmnlBDO7CDMUWPJ6Dtno20FMFtZsuAQlh8dFXaMbh4TMRH7AL8Tgf4FldK-6XWClF/s1600-h/Confirm+File+Delete.png"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 107px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjC4eVga_F-xU-H5ecDavCauXtBwfxHRsDGovLokm_HfVFnC_5dZqwdU3HCg3yHziHTW2rQmnlBDO7CDMUWPJ6Dtno20FMFtZsuAQlh8dFXaMbh4TMRH7AL8Tgf4FldK-6XWClF/s320/Confirm+File+Delete.png" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5299449654753677442" border="0" /></a>You see there's this thing called "the recycle bin" where my files go to when I delete them in Windows. So why the heck do I need to confirm that I want to move something to a place where I can later recover it anyway.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg738RxEzXOI93ULmFzs8wWFlFcpt2aF-ssqNeUPOZ-EJqYOVbba0GgDLY5f7qkCY3BzxtR45hvRWrJu3t9690YL1W0Xw3aNOSGJoD1CLJlHaikeQ2n-aDhBMpsurrAhWkkpX4v/s1600-h/Recycle+Bin.png"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 120px; height: 120px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg738RxEzXOI93ULmFzs8wWFlFcpt2aF-ssqNeUPOZ-EJqYOVbba0GgDLY5f7qkCY3BzxtR45hvRWrJu3t9690YL1W0Xw3aNOSGJoD1CLJlHaikeQ2n-aDhBMpsurrAhWkkpX4v/s200/Recycle+Bin.png" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5299447105745223154" border="0" /></a>Okay, I'll stop foaming at the mouth any minute now.<br /><br />On the up side, the folks at Microsoft seem to have actually thought this one through and<span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span></span>there's a <span style="font-weight: bold;">simple solution</span>. I thoroughly expected to have to <a href="http://www.brucephenry.com/2008/07/how-to-disable-windows-update-restart.html">hack the registry again</a>. But no...<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Here's how to do it:</span></span><br /><br />Right-click the recycle bin and select Properties.<br /><br />Lo and behold! At the bottom of the properties dialog is a checkbox for "Display delete confirmation dialog".<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiTpBXLL4UL4RbhPh4kYFnrK4L9pnWXCOOYMcwX3pxhsG7Y4ey688It0onlKtWMJHlXoYIBV-DriBtaylojoQ0OdYVmFJbtWkegVVHB8RaaT0UgInwRM7edSyWBSIbNwC7GV4lR/s1600-h/Disable+Confirm+Dialog.png"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 338px; height: 400px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiTpBXLL4UL4RbhPh4kYFnrK4L9pnWXCOOYMcwX3pxhsG7Y4ey688It0onlKtWMJHlXoYIBV-DriBtaylojoQ0OdYVmFJbtWkegVVHB8RaaT0UgInwRM7edSyWBSIbNwC7GV4lR/s400/Disable+Confirm+Dialog.png" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5299447326053399634" border="0" /></a><br />Sweet! Just un-check this sucka and click OK and Bob's your uncle!Brucehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17924943461128606986noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20646966.post-39136426897712258202009-02-04T14:50:00.001-08:002009-02-04T15:06:34.118-08:00The Wrong Kind of AdviceThis post was inspired by <a href="http://blog.npost.com/2009/02/03/the-right-kind-of-advice/">The Right Kind of Advice</a> post on the nPost blog.<br /><br />While telling someone to ignore naysayers and those that say you should go back and work for someone else is all nice and touchy-feely, it is also often <span style="font-weight: bold;">dead wrong</span>.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjFcjQyd6QzDGH-TVbkq_tbHh0VNmWO6JG-WIrFmJ1houDcMjJHRk0CPCAPwXaQsULojdjEHxetIfIRApbSgNuLUunSaFLCuJJHvLJPw0K_hEOd4O8VixzIVl0AV0XRvAwkYXOf/s1600-h/photo.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 240px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjFcjQyd6QzDGH-TVbkq_tbHh0VNmWO6JG-WIrFmJ1houDcMjJHRk0CPCAPwXaQsULojdjEHxetIfIRApbSgNuLUunSaFLCuJJHvLJPw0K_hEOd4O8VixzIVl0AV0XRvAwkYXOf/s320/photo.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5299082019239465170" border="0" /></a>Telling someone that they are just not cut out to be an entrepreneur could be honestly good advice.<br /><br />My ex-wife was a professional ballerina. She used to get people asking for advice about dancing ballet professionally. She could often simply look at the person and tell that they were not cut out for professional ballet. They may have loved ballet, been passionate and dedicated to ballet, but there was just no way that they were going to make it because they just did not have what it takes to be a professional ballet dancer.<br /><br />Similarly, there are people that are just not cut out to be an entrepreneur. Heck, I may even be one of them. Telling them to just "go for it" or "follow your dream" is REALLY taking the easy road.<br /><br />In order to give really good advice about this you need to get to know the person. You need to know what their goals are and how the business they are talking about fits into (and drives) their life. This is much harder than reviewing a business or marketing plan. It is much more difficult than assessing a market or opportunity. It requires real honest knowledge of the person and their life goals. It requires a deep understanding of their likes and dislikes, strengths and weaknesses, their vision and their blind spots.<br /><br /><blockquote>No entrepreneur is perfect and no business model is slated for certain success. Our job is to provide assistance, insights, and even a push in the right direction.</blockquote><br />True.<br /><br />Sometimes the right direction is away from being an entrepreneur.Brucehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17924943461128606986noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20646966.post-76660757170893409222008-08-25T14:33:00.000-07:002008-08-27T15:39:58.191-07:00Gnomedex 2008Gnomedex was fantastic!<br /><br />I'm serious, this conference is like a two day, one track, <a href="http://www.sxsw.com/interactive/">SXSWi</a>. There were great talks (and not all of them were in the conference hall itself), great food, great parties. Much like SXSW, I left the event feeling totally energized and ready to go out and DO stuff.<br /><br />The theme was "Human Circuitry" and I certainly felt plugged in.<br /><br />The most emotionally charged talks were Sarah Lacy's talk on the state of blogging and Scott Maxwell's Mars 3.0 presentation. The blogging talk had a bunch of tension in the room for reasons that really are not that clear. The Mars talk was one of the coolest, most hopeful things I've seen in years.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjFidnNyhIsMYOaVO5D2i1lMTF8oPYMxwUa_lbyZKm2T06k3ee-H9qdZjCsbCPnB1btM9Aa1a8vKkt0WAhgpcQwEqRyrMDyEaF62G2_QfIaMNfaIHdw1e_F2Cf2zAsqdtdBXf0q/s1600-h/Viking1_first_image.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjFidnNyhIsMYOaVO5D2i1lMTF8oPYMxwUa_lbyZKm2T06k3ee-H9qdZjCsbCPnB1btM9Aa1a8vKkt0WAhgpcQwEqRyrMDyEaF62G2_QfIaMNfaIHdw1e_F2Cf2zAsqdtdBXf0q/s320/Viking1_first_image.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5239329328856879458" border="0" /></a>Mars is cool. I have a special warm spot in my heart for that cold dry planet. Back in 1976 my father worked on <a href="http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/spotlights/200607-viking.cfm">NASA's Viking project to put two landers on Mars</a>. I was a little kid sitting in an auditorium waiting for the very first picture after the Viking 1 Lander touched down in western Chryse Planitia. When the first lines of that picture rastered out across the screen the crowd, quite literally, went wild. While not at that level of electricity, the standing ovation that Scott Maxwell received was most assuredly well deserved.<br /><br />Matt Hartley posted his Top Five Gnomedex Tips which I think should be retitled <a href="http://www.lockergnome.com/it/2008/08/25/top-five-gnomedex-tips/">Top Five Conference Tips</a>. Number two is <span style="font-weight: bold;">"</span><strong>Stop Twittering every so often and <em>listen.</em></strong><span style="font-weight: bold;">" </span>The twitter army was out in force and I felt from time to time that it was rather impolite to the presenters to see a sea of the backs of laptop screens. Looking around I'd say that at any given time about half the people were heads down typing away. If the talk was boring I assume they were browsing for something more enterataining. If the talk was electrifying I assume they were blogging/twittering/noting that, "Wow, this is great." It seemed like a waste to me.<br /><br />Entrepreneur Mark Bao did a great two person panel with Francine Hardaway (Chris Pirillo served as a kind of moderator and straight man). Mark posted some great observations about <a href="http://weblog.markbao.com/2008/11-things-learned-from-gnomedex-speaking-and-networking/">speaking and networking at Gnomedex</a>. I got to talk to Mark at the pre-registration party on Thursday. He's a great guy and his blog is definitely worth reading. Like many others at the conference, I'm really glad to have met him.<br /><br />Those were the high points for me.<br /><br />The internet connectivity the first day was pretty spotty. So if you're really relying on having a solid connection get an EVDO or something like that.<br /><br />Overall my first Gnomedex was a great experience. Will I be back next year? Damn right I will!Brucehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17924943461128606986noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20646966.post-8939237170371086692008-07-20T12:56:00.000-07:002008-07-20T13:11:47.247-07:00Organizational Change is like SausageEric D. Brown wrote a <a href="http://ericbrown.com/leadership-and-organizational-change.htm">short post</a> on his <a href="http://ericbrown.com/">leadership organizational change</a> blog. While I understand the sentiment, I don’t really draw the same conclusions.<p>I hear a lot of other folks say many of the same things about the way the tools of leadership and change management make them feel. This often reminds me of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Twain">Samuel Clemens'</a> quote about how "[t]hose who respect the <em>law</em> and love <em>sausage</em> should watch neither being made." <strong>Organizational change and true leadership cannot be apolitical</strong> simply because they fundamentally are about dealing with people and their varied interests.<br /></p><p><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEih5XqJ5gSv27a12joE4x6SMcB-bGBTZfEMLFww4cTF_qEsy-3Bh0WPUYaDJz8Wa4JggLvbXFVHC-PxtnPd-DsAm8kuszoRK1g6cTKETdB23Q-4jjzvZGBvq1HK-lSiRI9BS368/s1600-h/utility_vault.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEih5XqJ5gSv27a12joE4x6SMcB-bGBTZfEMLFww4cTF_qEsy-3Bh0WPUYaDJz8Wa4JggLvbXFVHC-PxtnPd-DsAm8kuszoRK1g6cTKETdB23Q-4jjzvZGBvq1HK-lSiRI9BS368/s320/utility_vault.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5225191393110732530" border="0" /></a>His primary complaints about the book he read is that it appears to be giving the reader advice on how to play the political game to manipulate people into doing what you want. When put that way these things really sound pejorative. However without further context it is hard to tell. Motivation for manipulation is critical to understanding the ethics of persuasion, just ask the mother of any two year old trying to get them to eat something "good for them".<br /></p> <p>It is all fine and good to say that a good leader “should already have people aligned with the necessary changes and have them ready to implement change.” But how does the leader do that exactly? Well, one way is to create a sense of urgency. To say that if a leader is doing their job a sense of urgency already exists is just plain silly. That implies that a leader doing their job <i>has</i> created a sense of urgency. But that’s exactly the advice Eric appears to argue against.</p> <p>Further, Eric posits that organizational change should be about changing the game not playing it. But implementing change within an organization in a smooth and orderly fashion requires that you <i>work within the existing structure</i> to gain support for your change. This is particularly true if the change <strong>is to the game itself</strong>.</p> <p>The “political acumen” and “art of persuasion” that disturb him are simply tools in the toolbox of a good leader. A good leader without political acumen will get eaten alive by some jackass that out flanks them in the executive ranks. A jobless leader is not particularly effective. A good leader without mastery of “the art of persuasion” is an oxymoron since a good leader persuades (not forces) people to follow them, even when the way forward is unclear or difficult.</p> <p>I suspect that there was something else about this book that set off Eric's alarm bells. I’ve had this happen several times with books where the advice they were giving was clearly “good” yet I hated (and hate is not too strong for how I felt about some of them) something about it. The tone, the subtext, something set me off. I’ll bet if Eric looks closer he’ll discover the same thing.</p>Eric has many great posts about change management and leadership and I think he understands how technology fits into and can help drive the very changes he advocates (that's why I read his blog). But I think that like a lot of other people before him, he went off track on this one.Brucehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17924943461128606986noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20646966.post-36547523679764801912008-07-17T18:40:00.000-07:002008-07-17T18:57:01.126-07:00Building Organizations without ManagersToday I'm posting a guest post from Jon Poland. I met Jon at the first <a href="http://barcamp.pbwiki.com/BarCampSeattle">BarCampSeattle</a> where I was one of the organizers. Jon has spent quite some time thinking about organizations and how <a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgS0YOOXlUAD4jgDjD71gGVLygAfa_UU_s2Mu-9Ln9v917VNS-mdYZ_sAOiojCO_G4f99tAP1qO4uaLmREtoEVy_VVhNmhZIdR6rOXbYKZ4jrBKqb4Xkj6UccQk4XprsSsmkCeJ/s1600-h/fire_station_no_2.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgS0YOOXlUAD4jgDjD71gGVLygAfa_UU_s2Mu-9Ln9v917VNS-mdYZ_sAOiojCO_G4f99tAP1qO4uaLmREtoEVy_VVhNmhZIdR6rOXbYKZ4jrBKqb4Xkj6UccQk4XprsSsmkCeJ/s320/fire_station_no_2.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5224161497706842530" border="0" /></a>the people inside of them interact. This post raises some questions that would be rather uncomfortable for most organizations.<br /><br />When Jon talks about organizations without managers he is not talking about organizations without <span style="font-style: italic;">leaders</span>. Leaders are the people you follow, managers are the people who tell you what to do. Sometimes they are the same person... if you're lucky.<br /><br />Over to Jon...<br /><br /><hr /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Turning the Organization Inside Out</span><br />A Model for Hyper-Innovation<br /><br />Jon Poland – <a href="http://www.3rdidesigns.com/">3rd i Designs</a> – <a href="mailto:jon@3rdidesigns.com">jon@3rdidesigns.com</a><br /><br />What is the chief reason that people fail to perform to their fullest potential?<br /><br />I believe that it stems from a lack of motivation/inspiration. I believe the root causes are limited choice about the work they do and an inability to provide input into how their work is done. Employees also are forced to roll the dice on whether their manager is good to work for and can/will serve as a beneficial mentor/coach. On the flip side, some managers are not comfortable dealing with problem-employees directly and the whole team/organization suffers as a result.<br /><br />This makes me ask the question: why do we need managers? In fact, why is a multi-tier hierarchical organization necessary at all? The answer that typically comes back is that the organization needs direction/leadership and that employees require overseeing or they won’t do their jobs properly, if at all. But what if these functions could be accomplished more effectively without a top-down structure?<br /><br />All organizations need rules to operate by. Rules create order out of chaos. But rules – if overbearing, improperly applied, or treated like dogma without an understanding of the reason for their existence – can crush the soul of an organization’s employees. So we will pay careful attention to the rules that are developed for this new type of organization. Also, people need a purpose in order for their work to be meaningful, which can be expressed as an organizing principle. This principle should inspire people to come to work and act as a touchstone. The organization must live this principle in order for it to be beneficial.<br /><br />Here are the proposed <strong>12 Rules for Organizations without </strong><strong>Manager</strong><strong>s</strong>:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Rule #1:</span> No one can be made to work on anything they don’t want to and they get to choose how they want to do the work. This restricts one person from imposing their will upon another. People in this company will be self-managed.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Rule #2:</span> People can work on projects or in professional groups with no more than 80% time allocated to any one project/group, no more than three projects/groups per person, and a minimum of 40% total allocation. People who can’t achieve minimum allocation are automatically dismissed after two quarters. Professional groups include accounting, HR and legal. People have the flexibility to work on different things so that their minds get enough stimulation, but without getting spread out too thin. Maximum 80% allocation to any one project/group encourages cross-fertilization between projects/groups. Minimum 40% total allocation gives employees flextime opportunities (school/family/health) while still making their contribution significant enough for the company to have them.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Rule #3:</span> Anyone with an idea for a project can champion that idea within the company and recruit others to participate in the project. The project must have at least 6 members to be considered a project (no compensation for allocated time until then). The person(s) with the forming idea own 10% of the project (split according to their agreed upon percentage contribution to the idea) which translates into 10% of the profits generated by the project or 10% of the cost savings generated by the project (convertible to stock in the company per an agreement between the idea owners and the executive team). This encourages entrepreneurship within the company and rewards people for their IP contributions.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Rule #4:</span> Anyone in the company can become a member of a project/group if they have three sponsors from that project/group. The amount of time they can allocate to the project/group is determined by the sponsors. An exception is that the idea person alone can recruit a new member if there are less than 5 people on that project. Another exception is that the executive team can appoint people to professional groups if a group is smaller than three members.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Rule #5:</span> A person’s contribution is determined quarterly by 5 people they work closely within each project/group. People are rated anonymously on a likert scale based on their level of effort, mastery, mentorship, collaboration and attitude. The standard salary for all project members is the same (set by the executive team), but people with above average contributions make up to 100% above standard and people with below average contributions make up to 50% below standard. The standard pay for each professional group is set according to the industry average. People who are new to a project start at the standard salary until rated. Professional groups smaller than 6 people will need to fill the gap by getting rated from people they work with who are outside that group. Ranges are to reward higher contributions and to encourage underperformers to perform better or leave.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Rule #6:</span> Anyone can be dismissed from a project/group, including idea owners, by a majority of the people who rate them (done anonymously). Idea owners retain their ownership rights described in rule #3. In addition, a professional group can dismiss an employee outright by agreement from three people in that group. If someone has violated HR policy or accounting rules, that profession is in the best position to make the judgment call.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Rule #7:</span> Employees who have been with the company for a year split quarterly profit sharing evenly. Profit sharing is 20%. Yes, that’s very high compared to other companies, but it provides a strong incentive for every person to make the company profitable (and remember there is no managerial overhead to pay).<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Rule #8:</span> Executives are appointed by the board, but must be ratified by the employees and can be dismissed by a majority vote of the board or employees (done anonymously). Executive pay is 5X the company average with the CEO making 10X. The executive team can propose major company initiatives, but initiatives must be approved by the employees by a majority vote (also anonymous).<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Rule #9:</span> People who average in the top quartile of contribution for the last 4 quarters are eligible to be recruited by the executive team into the Front Office Group (FOG). The FOG supports the executive team. The rules that apply to this group are the same as for project groups (except they can’t propose project ideas). Their standard rate is 3X the company average. By agreement from three members they can disband any project they (1) suspect of being a hideout for underperformers, (2) feel is not in alignment with the company’s organizing principle, or (3) feel has reached a dead-end and won’t self-disband. People who were on two such projects within a one year timeframe are automatically dismissed from the company.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Rule #10:</span> The total company budget (determined by the executive team) is distributed across employees in proportion to their salaries and assigned to projects/groups according to percentage time allocated. If a project/group has more budget than they need, they can assign the overage to other projects/groups that need it. Because of 20% profit sharing, hoarding is unlikely.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Rule #11:</span> Project/group members let HR know which skill sets are needed. HR must at a minimum conduct background checks and verify resumes for promising candidates before letting them in and will let a few more candidates in than are technically needed for that period. It’s up to new hires to get onto projects/groups at the percentage allocation they prefer. This rule along with all the other rules will be disclosed to candidates up front. This gives more people a chance to work at the company and weeds out under-performers quickly.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Rule #12:</span> In addition to sick/vacation time, everyone gets one week PTO for expanding their horizons, whether reading, going to seminars/conferences/training, etc.<br /><br />All this assumes that there is money to pay employees. A bootstrap startup company could do without an executive team or FOG early on (and forget about budget). It could offer a higher share of project ownership, and relax minimum percentage allocation to encourage people to work there part-time as a second job until the company is in a position to pay them.<br /><br />A company set up in this way would release people’s potential to be highly innovative as well as productive. It would be an exciting place to work.<br /><br /><hr /><br />Jon Poland is the founder of 3rd i Designs which provides an online set of tools for organizations to conduct faster/cheaper/better strategic planning. He is also working on an online application for organizations, communities and societies to participate in collective decision modeling. The ideas for this paper were inspired from his master’s degree in entrepreneurship work and from a BarCampSeattle session hosted by Bruce P. Henry on gaming the organization.Brucehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17924943461128606986noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20646966.post-79122880868254766332008-07-11T18:18:00.000-07:002008-07-11T19:00:15.795-07:00How to: Disable Windows Update RestartOkay, I normally don't do tech <em>how to</em> posts simply because they're usually already posted and easy to find. This however took me awhile and it is so vexing that <strong>windows automatically restarts at the end of a critical update </strong>that I thought I'd share it around.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgo4E-tG0saz-4bBxalYSi4ZVEmtGUfF1UmWMeMI9DDYXCu7-N8QZI7fAuBsfBPOM0W5Otbk30F_cPB-N06DNiJViowrusG81EOXENUixqlRJpC_fCT8Hmo6oG9dsEJ67wk-Zef/s1600-h/louie.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgo4E-tG0saz-4bBxalYSi4ZVEmtGUfF1UmWMeMI9DDYXCu7-N8QZI7fAuBsfBPOM0W5Otbk30F_cPB-N06DNiJViowrusG81EOXENUixqlRJpC_fCT8Hmo6oG9dsEJ67wk-Zef/s320/louie.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5221941180327145858" border="0" /></a>If you're super-technically adept, skip to the end to see the registry hack way of doing this directly.<br /><br /><strong>Windows Update</strong> is generally useful. I like that it automatically patches my OS with all the latest security stuff. If you want to know why I like this please take a look at this article on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity">herd immunity</a> and then take a couple of minutes to think about it.<br /><br />Anyway, the vexing thing is that at some time around 3am, when I am never there to tell it, "oh hell no, I have critical documents open!" Windows rolls an update and the computer <em>helpfully</em> restarts itself. Here's how to fix that little issue without turning off automatic updates in XP pro (for home edition you must hack the registry).<br /><ul><br /><li>Go to <strong>Start Menu -> Run </strong>type “<strong>gpedit.msc</strong>” and press <strong>Enter</strong> </li><li>This opens the <strong>Group Policy</strong> editor</li><li>In this window go to: <strong>Computer Configuration -> Administrative Template -> Windows Components -> Windows Update</strong></li><li>Double click on <strong>No auto-restart for scheduled Automatic Updates installations</strong></li><li>In the settings window Choose <strong>Enabled </strong>and click <strong>OK</strong></li><li>Close Group Policy Editor</li><br /></ul><p>The next time <strong>Windows Update</strong> updates your system <strong>it will not restart the computer automatically</strong>, but will notify you that restart is needed in order to finish the installation.<br /></p>Now for the <strong>registry </strong>hack way (small children and sensitive individuals should avert their eyes).<br /><ul><br /><li>Go to <strong>Start Menu -> Run </strong>type “<strong>regedit</strong>” and press <strong>Enter</strong> </li><li>This opens the <strong>Registry Editor</strong> (if you are not sure of what you're doing STOP because you can completely hose your computer if you screw up)<br /></li><li>In this window go to: <strong>HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE -> SOFTWARE -> Policies -> Microsoft -> Windows -> WindowsUpdate -> AU</strong> (if this key does not exist you must create it)</li><li>Create a DWORD named NoAutoRebootWithLoggedOnUsers with a value of 1</li><br /></ul>That's it! Again, the next time <strong>Windows Update</strong> updates your system <strong>it will not restart the computer automatically</strong>, but will notify you that restart is needed in order to finish the installation.Brucehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17924943461128606986noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20646966.post-65379996437268325492008-06-29T12:12:00.000-07:002008-07-11T19:50:07.402-07:00Facebook and the Failure of Targeted AdvertisingOn the way up to Bellingham to present to the <a href="http://www.bellinghamangels.com/">Bellingham Angel Group</a> (who I must note were really well organized and friendly to boot) <a href="http://www.atlasaccelerator.com/aboutus/mike.php">Mike Crill of Atlas Accelerator</a> and I had a very interesting discussion about Facebook, Google, and advertising. Specifically, the idea that by sharing more information with a company that they can then send you "ads that interest you."<br /><br />Sounds great on the surface. Let's dive a little deeper...<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgI2oVjat7TFsF6inSaNeHa8u7rgsa9sg8ZB4e9wmGLGInTLdclnacZiWHmiRy2xWfP1EKo6c6VBkzNbzNbJ6sM48ymPbEmbKeLxVCTWgXwEn8MBtZfw29n3L85yqUGBBIEmhm0/s1600-h/westin_towers_seattle.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgI2oVjat7TFsF6inSaNeHa8u7rgsa9sg8ZB4e9wmGLGInTLdclnacZiWHmiRy2xWfP1EKo6c6VBkzNbzNbJ6sM48ymPbEmbKeLxVCTWgXwEn8MBtZfw29n3L85yqUGBBIEmhm0/s320/westin_towers_seattle.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5221951902221800274" border="0" /></a>Put one way, advertising is the process of convincing people that they want to buy what you're selling. <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/advertising">Merriam-Webster defines advertising</a> as "<span class="sense_break"><span class="sense_content">calling something to the attention of the public" but I think that's a little too simplistic. You not just saying, "Hey, here's our stuff and you can buy it if you want."<br /><br />Nope, you're trying to convince people that your product is better, that yours is cheaper, that they really want... no strike that... that they <span style="font-weight: bold;">really need yours</span>.<br /><br />As the folks on the receiving end of this we try like hell to filter it all out. We don't want to hear the messages. Not just because they are irrelevant to us, but often because they are both relevant and persuasive. I've got more than enough junk that <span style="font-style: italic;">sounded like a good idea at the time</span> thankyouverymuch.<br /><br />So the advertisers try to convince you to buy something, and you try your best to ignore them. In this way advertising looks a lot like a classic measures-countermeasures game. But right now the advertisers have imperfect or incomplete information about you.<br /><br />Advertisers come up with something, you learn to ignore it (e.g. dancing banner ads), they come up with something new, you learn to avoid it... and so on.<br /><br />Saying that we want more relevant advertising based on our likes, dislikes, culture, background, blah-blah-blah is kinda like saying, "here are the keys to my brain, come on in and make yourselves at home and my wallet is on the coffee table."<br /><br />We don't <span style="font-style: italic;">want</span> more relevant advertising. We want less advertising altogether and more <span style="font-weight: bold;">authentic communication</span>. The advertiser wants me to buy <span style="font-style: italic;">their </span>product. The authentic communicator wants to help me solve my problem no matter what (if any) thing I buy. For a <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Abokardo.com+cluetrain+manifesto">good introduction authentic communications</a> read any of Joshua Porter's excellent posts touching on the <a href="http://www.cluetrain.com/">Cluetrain Manifesto</a>).<br /><br /><br />For this reason alone I think that Facebook and others that hope to capitalize on our personal information by targeting advertising based on our profiles (even if they keep the details of our information from the companies doing the advertising) are doomed in the long run.<br /><br />We just won't sit still for it. We will evolve new defenses and the game will start all over again.<br /></span></span>Brucehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17924943461128606986noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20646966.post-11309380965433357832008-06-28T13:12:00.000-07:002008-06-29T12:09:48.413-07:00Web 2.0 and Business Douche BagsAt <a href="http://seattle.startupdrinks.com/">Seattle Startup Drinks</a> last night an interesting rant happened to fall out of my mouth. What happened was that Colin Henry (no biological relation) made the observation that most web 2.0 companies appear to have all of the business value of a pile of horse dung (or something to that effect). As often happens, I lost all conscious control of my mouth and a whole string of observations and postulations just came rolling out.<br /><br />I blame the beer.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgb48fL2jlzrkWRhCQQF8e4GbiNk2VQODrKkuzQuCdtFfXtZjVzfUs_rZ1uzQewo8o4FJrUb3G0Ich9RdfKVOeOvOyzC1MhZZLJICaowDHemKRSmvchyphenhyphenbz5yPvBUQTXu_F7ddXi/s1600-h/colin.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgb48fL2jlzrkWRhCQQF8e4GbiNk2VQODrKkuzQuCdtFfXtZjVzfUs_rZ1uzQewo8o4FJrUb3G0Ich9RdfKVOeOvOyzC1MhZZLJICaowDHemKRSmvchyphenhyphenbz5yPvBUQTXu_F7ddXi/s320/colin.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5217035460340432290" border="0" /></a>It all started with the oldie but goodie, "How the hell do you monetize Twitter?" About two minutes later we had replayed from memory the entire history of this discussion and come to the "you just can't" conclusion. Now, I'm not going to go into it here, suffice it to say that charging for a service that relies on tipping point type network effects to provide value when there are <span style="font-weight: bold;">many</span> free alternatives is a recipe for going out of business.<br /><br />But then I got to thinking... and when I returned to consciousness I found that the discussion had revolved around <span style="font-weight: bold;">are these web 2.0 companies viable businesses, or simply features waiting to be acquired by a bigger company</span>?<br /><br />Once you start looking at it that way you have to start asking yourself, if the company in question <span>is</span> just a feature waiting to be acquired then why would they need a whole bunch of accounting, HR, marketing, sales douche bags? I mean really, if the point is to spend a year or two building a real nice, useful feature with open APIs and all that crap so that it can easily be integrated into some other company, and you <span style="font-weight: bold;">know</span> your exit is going to be acquisition, why the hell would a development team burden themselves (and dilute their stock pool) with a buncha business douche bags?<br /><br />Holy crap, they <span style="font-weight: bold;">do</span> have a business model; Build a feature, prove it out in the market place, then sell their development work. It's like <span style="font-weight: bold;">market proven outsourcing of development.</span> My god, it is a brilliant symbiotic relationship between bigger companies and small agile development teams.<br /><br />In fact, the more I think about this the better it gets. There has always been an aversion to risk and change inside of larger companies that makes it difficult for them to innovate. But small companies moving fast can build out a whole new thingie and try it out in the marketplace for cheap. And it just keeps getting cheaper to do this. With hosted email, accounting, turnkey servers (or services like Amazon's S3 and EC2) small companies can build out major stuff on the cheap. Things that used to be multi-million dollar development projects can be done by a couple of folks in <a href="http://officenomads.com/">co-working space</a> for a couple of hundred thousand dollars.<br /><br />The reward for the development folks is higher because it is not weighed down by all the business douche bags (note: this is not to say that all business folks are douche bags, merely that a disproportionate number seem to be in the wild). The acquiring company already has a buncha their own business douche bags so why do they want yours? They would just have to "buy them off" with severance and crap like that.<br /><br />In a lot of ways this is a B2B rather than a B2C play <span style="font-weight: bold;">even if the feature/product is aimed at consumers. </span>This should be obvious when you consider that the monitization scheme is actually acquisition. The small web 2.0 company is <span style="font-weight: bold;">selling development cycles</span> to the large acquiring company.<br /><br />I'm not sure right now what this means for smaller software companies following this model. I suspect that over time it means that valuations for the smaller non-traditionally monetized companies will actually go down since the valuation model has been skewed upward by the ones that have a traditional valuation model (i.e. someone is paying money for the services on an ongoing basis before acquisition).<br /><br />Interestingly, acknowledging this non-traditional monetization model might give a VC or angel investor group a leg up on the competition. There are teams out there building what amount to features as companies who cannot get funded because of their non-traditional monetization model. In other words, they are vastly undervalued and a bargain provided you can select for them.<br /><br />I suspect there's money to be made, both by investors and by small teams, with this model. It will be interesting to see if this plays out.<span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span>Brucehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17924943461128606986noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20646966.post-51682166988352546162008-06-28T12:34:00.000-07:002008-06-28T13:11:47.976-07:00Tale of Two BlogsI know all kinds of folks out there have talked about this, but I wanna add my two cents and it's my blog so...<br /><br />It is friggin' <span style="font-weight: bold;">hard</span> to have both a company blog and a personal blog and not just talk about useless drivel on the personal one.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhcGOPe6ZufRbAGlLbTXJ_1T8whkMLF42lG6803CY96Ol9u-lW3hOeECLo9q50Vic1V1uyAK_A97GWdO2D7hNYH62__D-bQsYWpAouTWru6gEjGdAu-T9vHrkg9p7GH8hswBXHg/s1600-h/exit.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhcGOPe6ZufRbAGlLbTXJ_1T8whkMLF42lG6803CY96Ol9u-lW3hOeECLo9q50Vic1V1uyAK_A97GWdO2D7hNYH62__D-bQsYWpAouTWru6gEjGdAu-T9vHrkg9p7GH8hswBXHg/s320/exit.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5217026531464127986" border="0" /></a>The difficulty I'm having is that there are things I want to talk about on this blog that simply don't fit in with the overall goals of my company. These things are in the same idea-space as <a href="http://www.liquidplanner.com/blog/">LiquidPlanner's project management stuff</a> so it is hard to keep them separated.<br /><br />If I have a good idea for a blog post and it fits in well with the mission of LiquidPlanner then I want to post it to the company blog. But when they don't fit in so well I don't really want to post them here because... well... someone might read it and confuse my ramblings here with our company position on many of these issues.<br /><br />So I've decided I'm gonna be brave. I'm gonna post here a bunch of the things that don't really fit in with LiquidPlanner so well. So there'll be a bit of a change in tone over the next couple of weeks here. There will be things that didn't really fit in with the original idea of this blog as a digression on project management and organizational wackiness inside of a larger company.<br /><br />And there will be a lot more posting.<br /><br /><span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span>Brucehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17924943461128606986noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20646966.post-72931505672390744912008-06-08T16:01:00.000-07:002008-06-08T16:26:50.577-07:00Illustrating the Point about FutilitySo two folks (John & Ray) left comments on my <a href="http://brucebrain.blogspot.com/2008/03/lack-of-motivation-for-time-tracking.html">time tracking post</a>. Normally I'd have spammed those comments as they're really just shameless plugging for their sites and not adding anything to the conversation.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi39TqYXZgupOEx70xrg9bxYXP4islGroRk92QFd2D1XbtCHIGodRpHljOlNvut4Hty81FzXJgczhOtb62Nr1dT-Hj-DzP_R-TFvouYKFpVr_D6SPZoM1z8AKWrxpTZXV8qIH1M/s1600-h/donuts.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi39TqYXZgupOEx70xrg9bxYXP4islGroRk92QFd2D1XbtCHIGodRpHljOlNvut4Hty81FzXJgczhOtb62Nr1dT-Hj-DzP_R-TFvouYKFpVr_D6SPZoM1z8AKWrxpTZXV8qIH1M/s320/donuts.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5209656055897210482" border="0" /></a>But then I got to looking at them and realized that they beautifully illustrated the point about the futility of trying to get folks to track their time when there's nothing in it for them. Ray is complaining about how hard it is to get people interested in it, and John is saying if it is easier more people comply but not totally.<br /><br />Yeah hello... that's my point.<br /><br />But it goes beyond that. If you go sign up for one of their services I almost guarantee you that things just won't get that much better. That's because, again, there's nothing in it for the people who actually have to enter their time. Time carding isn't a problem for people who are paid hourly. Why? Because <span style="font-weight: bold;">they're paid hourly</span>. There is something in it for them.<br /><br />Anyway, rant off.<br /><br />In other news, LiquidPlanner is going to the Enterprise 2.0 conference in Boston to show off our <a href="http://liquidplanner.com/">online project management software</a>. If any of you happen to be in Boston June 9-11 come look us up!Brucehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17924943461128606986noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20646966.post-70919835447740422882008-03-14T11:14:00.000-07:002008-03-14T11:37:07.118-07:00Lack of Motivation for Time TrackingWhile waiting in the airport to head back to Seattle from SXSW (SXSWi was <span style="font-style: italic;">awesome</span> BTW) I got to thinking about why it is so hard to get good data on how long it takes to perform tasks.<br /><br />I ran across the following quote and it got me to thinking:<br /><blockquote>A typical problem, a few organizations in this industry face is collecting the required and accurate data. The performing teams needs to be oriented towards the importance of collecting data in an accurate manner. The team needs to be appraised on how the data collected is going to benefit their organization in future projects. Once the team is aware of how important the data collected is, how the data is going to be used etc., accurate data collection process will automatically be part of the project execution system.<br /><br />- <span style="font-style: italic;">Size Based Estimation For Legacy Applications</span>, G. Varghese and V. N. Iyer, 2005<br /></blockquote><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7EYaqKgDz9iDYqr6KcQklh9jEPunUPiHOogG_mS0-YMsuGkzXXSKu6_Ze_KDvPlZsK1FhwAOyDQA44PeSVHel25QdA-3DBtN_Db6Bocq3smxyR4jWCeGwWmrUSAAc7Bx7iPhi/s1600-h/sm_Bolts_1.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7EYaqKgDz9iDYqr6KcQklh9jEPunUPiHOogG_mS0-YMsuGkzXXSKu6_Ze_KDvPlZsK1FhwAOyDQA44PeSVHel25QdA-3DBtN_Db6Bocq3smxyR4jWCeGwWmrUSAAc7Bx7iPhi/s320/sm_Bolts_1.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5177667007866553634" border="0" /></a>Well now, <span style="font-style: italic;">that’s </span>such wishful thinking I don’t really know where to start. Yup, just tell those developers why it is so important that they fill out the time card and I’m <span style="font-style: italic;">sure </span>they’ll be happy to jump right on it. The key line in this is “how the data collected is going to benefit <span style="font-style: italic;">their </span>organization” (emphasis mine). Few people really give a crap about how something will benefit their organization. They care about how things will benefit them personally. Now if you’re lucky these things are aligned. But in this case they are so not aligned that it would be funny if it weren’t so sad.<br /><br />If it were that simple there would be no struggle to get folks to fill out timecards or use other time tracking software. They simply <span style="font-style: italic;">would </span>because what’s good for the organization is good for them, right? Rising tide, all boats, blah blah blah. Right.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgg38qaAZZQBFZZNdFhzJBO4s4WTAFZ3LAUUKR_VUrbxw1Z3NjPpS6xoLjSIIEmyUiMgQye1PP0cgjoy5Q_HJQPwk1jiNsGfv5ApPeZ0hfT4DRa7JuxU7_InP3sDipdzhbfQr7z/s1600-h/sm_Bolts_2.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgg38qaAZZQBFZZNdFhzJBO4s4WTAFZ3LAUUKR_VUrbxw1Z3NjPpS6xoLjSIIEmyUiMgQye1PP0cgjoy5Q_HJQPwk1jiNsGfv5ApPeZ0hfT4DRa7JuxU7_InP3sDipdzhbfQr7z/s320/sm_Bolts_2.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5177667102355834162" border="0" /></a>Let me put it this way. Developers (professional ones anyway) typically <span style="font-style: italic;">demand </span>source code management software. Try telling your developers that you want to get rid of their SCM and use simple file shares because it has less bureaucracy and is faster. Go on, try it. I’ll wait…<br />.<br />.<br />.<br />Oh, you’re back already? How’d that work for you?<br /><br />Not so good huh?<br /><br />Well it’s not friggin’ surprising since the developers can see a clear group benefit as well as a personal benefit to using SCM. They can see an immediate impact upon their own lives and how happy they are from doing this <span style="font-style: italic;">even though for any one action it is clearly harder</span>.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgX6lPq3XGqJDtXv_ijdZArWfydyfeyrff5UtKtAeWx-tMPWerN6TRH8QGIY9VKWVX-C0ZU_6zNS9ctEcJlef10NCAaU0zL4H8QhHenZaJG2iMJrA3emzeWMYeoLHbRukQNIC2v/s1600-h/sm_Bolts_3.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgX6lPq3XGqJDtXv_ijdZArWfydyfeyrff5UtKtAeWx-tMPWerN6TRH8QGIY9VKWVX-C0ZU_6zNS9ctEcJlef10NCAaU0zL4H8QhHenZaJG2iMJrA3emzeWMYeoLHbRukQNIC2v/s320/sm_Bolts_3.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5177667205435049282" border="0" /></a>Now time tracking… what’s in it for <span style="font-style: italic;">me</span>? This is one of those “the dog didn’t bark” things. See if it really were true that filling out a time card improved how everything worked then everyone would be doing it. You’d have to fight your developers to pry their time cards from their cold dead fingers. So I’m claiming that the fact that nobody much really likes to fill out time cards suggests that there’s really no personal benefit to doing so.<br /><br />Until we can make it obviously beneficial to the individual to track their time, they either won’t, or will do it very poorly.Brucehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17924943461128606986noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20646966.post-74242948447571465142008-01-19T14:14:00.000-08:002008-01-19T15:01:24.517-08:00Mmm... DonutsAmy Hoy has a great little blog called <a href="http://www.slash7.com/">Slash7</a>. I highly recommend it. She recently reposted an old article <a href="http://www.slash7.com/articles/2008/1/18/technology-technique-the-brain">"The Ape and the Donut Eater"</a> about interaction design and how good humans are at abstract learning about things like ordering donuts at a donut shop, or opening doors (there are a lot of different kinds of doors).<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEicSB0nvm32eTnMKrNOAXjbLoa6R8evTP1oWucVzVf5FXnk21bE-cbdaZL6GiWUIZztvBfsHgdDxVmy98baV7fP_IbfTSJB_ZS054hs80Jxzu2b5Cx8qKivnS0sEMcehtB1Jspx/s1600-h/mojito.png"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEicSB0nvm32eTnMKrNOAXjbLoa6R8evTP1oWucVzVf5FXnk21bE-cbdaZL6GiWUIZztvBfsHgdDxVmy98baV7fP_IbfTSJB_ZS054hs80Jxzu2b5Cx8qKivnS0sEMcehtB1Jspx/s320/mojito.png" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5157325635301274290" border="0" /></a>I started to write a short comment but to paraphrase Mark Twain, I didn't have time to write a short comment so I wrote a long one. One that I want to expand upon here...<br /><br />The gist of her post is that there are all kinds of things that after we have learned to do them seems super simple. But if you're approaching them for the first time they seem confusing or complex. The techniques for dealing with these things are what get us through the day. Those learned techniques allow for a level of interaction with complex technology (like doors or computers , and if you don't believe me about doors just read her article).<br /><br />This line of thought got me to thinking. For interaction design I wonder if things can't be split into two broad categories. I don't really know how to label them but let's try...<br /><br /><ol><li>Has cultural support desk</li><li>Has no cultural support desk</li></ol><br /><br /> <p>Her donut shop example is a good one:</p><p></p><blockquote>When you think about it, ordering doughnuts is a technique we all know, and if you didn't know, it might be kind of difficult to start. You have to know that doughnuts are generally sold in dozens and half-dozens (otherwise, you pay out the nose), and that when you say "I'd like a dozen doughnuts, please," the person working behind the counter will grab a box, some tissues, and then stand there, waiting for your instructions.<br /><br />- Amy Hoy, Slash7<br /></blockquote><p></p> <p>In North America there is a culture of how to order at a donut shop. You can watch other people placing their orders and at least attempt to infer what it is you're supposed to be doing. That's a case of there being a culture there to support the new "user".</p> <p>Suppose that there was no culture of ordering at a donut shop. Then you couldn't even watch the actions of other customers because they don't know what to do either. There's no cultural support desk.</p> <p>Software, particularly <i>really new</i> software has this problem in spades.</p> <p>While designing the interface for <a href="http://www.liquidplanner.com/">LiquidPlanner </a> (the product I'm currently working on) we ran into this problem. We needed to show uncertainty in the time it takes to complete a task. Like most problems we could break it down and most of the pieces had parallels that folks would just "get" (i.e. there is cultural support for them). But there wasn't anything out there doing this, so there isn't "some guy down the hall" who knows what the do-dads on the chart mean and can explain it to you when you get confused.</p> <p>This is the point where I think <b>real</b> interaction designers shine. The good ones out there are worth their weight in proverbial gold because they make the user feel smart with designs that play <i>to</i> your preconceptions rather than fighting against them.</p> <p>They are also good at dropping little nuggets of information along the way without getting all "RTFM" on you.</p> <p>Speaking of which... have you noticed that when posting comments on blogs (or forums or...) that folks seldom tell you which markup language to use? Is HTML allowed? Which tags? RedCloth? LefthandedReversePolishPolyMarkDown?</p> <p>I run into this all the time when commenting. A simple link to a reference and a preview would make me so much more likely to comment since I'd worry less about looking stupid (I still may sound stupid however). Blogger (the site this blog is hosted upon at the time of this writing) is a good example. They give a happy little "these tags are allowed" and a nifty preview button.</p><p>Anyway, time to get back to rehearsing my 6 minute DEMO demo. Did I mention that <a href="http://brucebrain.blogspot.com/2008/01/were-going-to-demo.html">we're going to DEMO</a>?<br /></p>Brucehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17924943461128606986noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20646966.post-57959587927504933242008-01-03T16:25:00.000-08:002008-01-03T16:53:16.914-08:00We're going to DEMO!So it is now somewhat public that <a href="http://www.liquidplanner.com">LiquidPlanner </a>has been chosen to debut at the <a href="http://www.demo.com">DEMO conference</a>! See, it says so right here on our <a href="http://www.liquidplanner.com/">home page</a>. This is at once exciting and terrifying. I'm gonna have to give a five minute talk about what the heck our product does and try not to make an ass of myself, my CEO, or our product.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg87ge3cltSHGH6WNAdEHZJuo7H1SKM_I3V6yuJpSHY09JclC3LX-kPTFn0AoLwV8oiXVXSLQw7FHqEEQ8SJqqeB8HCriMtAdpwUvknyKaukDP6YIkYucc0SlF4ClNmUHLlSwcs/s1600-h/beer1.2.JPG"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg87ge3cltSHGH6WNAdEHZJuo7H1SKM_I3V6yuJpSHY09JclC3LX-kPTFn0AoLwV8oiXVXSLQw7FHqEEQ8SJqqeB8HCriMtAdpwUvknyKaukDP6YIkYucc0SlF4ClNmUHLlSwcs/s320/beer1.2.JPG" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5151414815409173154" border="0" /></a>The biggest issue so far has been getting time to rehearse. We <span style="font-style: italic;">know</span> we need to rehearse but there just doesn't seem to be any urgency around it. I mean, we all feel like it is urgent, but we never seem to actually rehearse.<br /><br />In case you were wondering if you really need to rehearse a 5-6 minute talk <span style="font-style: italic;">that</span> much, I'd like to point out that our company is spending thousands of dollars (as in "tens of") to send us down there to make a good impression. While the talk isn't the whole thing, it sure feels important.<br /><br />And let me tell you, five minutes isn't very friggen long to describe a revolutionary new way to plan and manage projects.<br /><br />That coupled with the fact that we're still putting the finishing touches on the product and just switched over to running on our shiny new production hardware (thanks to our god of operations, Brett) and running a beta program and are going to analysts briefings and are doing press interviews and are doing demos for investors (or potential investors) and you've got some very busy boys and girls.<br /><br />So now we've just got to stay calm and... yeah... calm... <span style="font-style: italic;">right</span>.<br /><br />We'll see you at DEMO if you're there. I'll buy you beer if you meet me down in Palm Springs/Palm Desert anytime from January 27-30. Drop me a line if you have my email or find it on the LiquidPlanner site (hint... it's <a href="http://www.liquidplanner.com/lpcorp/contact.html">here</a>). You can alternatively comment on this blog and I'll mock you... er... meet up with you down there.<br /><br />See you in the desert!Brucehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17924943461128606986noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20646966.post-10755199139072973022007-11-14T10:10:00.000-08:002007-11-14T10:38:11.296-08:00Convention & ConfigurationWhen I took the (very good) <a href="http://pragmaticstudio.com/rails/">Pragmatic Studio Rails</a> training course almost a year ago there was an interesting approach to configuration that Dave Thomas made sure to cover. I remember vividly Dave saying, “Rails favors convention over configuration.” He followed this up by saying that this frees the application developer from having to think too much about configuration.<br /><br />What the heck does that mean? And how does it make my life better?<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjHxcrKGWBR8hHeEaK7CtnKf7Ey33vAF508yEqRcImDfsHn5HP6jHmKSfbfFWzmnDfddSORzuh60z6jWQzB9RGBRLhLq2ppMu-UYUpkLn-bkZpLldyFV4XWJqNe-U4wVj1cdlhQ/s1600-h/11-02-07_1525.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjHxcrKGWBR8hHeEaK7CtnKf7Ey33vAF508yEqRcImDfsHn5HP6jHmKSfbfFWzmnDfddSORzuh60z6jWQzB9RGBRLhLq2ppMu-UYUpkLn-bkZpLldyFV4XWJqNe-U4wVj1cdlhQ/s320/11-02-07_1525.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5132762885868913698" border="0" /></a>Well, to get a running server (for example) there are things that simply must be specified. They may be specified by default, but the information must be contained somewhere, right?<br /><br />So I've an idea that there is a little wackiness going on here and I'd like to think about it for a few minutes and see if there isn't something there.<br /><br />I’m going to step away (a long ways away) from software and use geometry in 3D to examine the information required to specify something.<br /><br /><hr /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:130%;" >Going in Circles</span><br /><br />Consider the problem of specifying a circle in 3D.<br /><br />There’s the brute force method of specifying all of the points on the circumference of the circle. Given that there are an infinite number of them that’s quite a task. But fortunately we can do much better.<br /><br />Another way to do it is to specify any three distinct, non-collinear points on the circle’s circumference. There is a single distinct circle that passes through all of those three points.<br /><br />Is this the only way to do this?<br /><br />No.<br /><br />We can also specify a plane by giving a single point (p1) in the plane along with a second distinct point (p2) that defines a line normal to the plane. There is only one plane with a given normal that passes through a given point. Now if we have the convention that the circle we want in 3D falls in that plane and has a center at the first point (p1) and a radius of (p1-p2) then we have completely determined the circle.<br /><br />But wait! Where did the information that was contained in the third point go? Two points don’t determine a circle (in 3D).<br /><br />That’s right. There is some information implied in the convention that we will use the first point for one purpose and the second point for another purpose and the relationship between those two points for a third purpose. The information is still there. We’re just representing it differently via our convention.<br /><br />And here’s where things get really interesting. Consider the human interaction of specifying circles as configuring the circle just as you might configure a server.<br /><br />If you are sitting at a keyboard trying to correctly configure circles and you enter the coordinates for a given point correctly 90% of the time, then the chances are that using the three point method you will get the entire circle right about (0.9^3) 73% of the time.<br /><br />But using the two point method and our convention, you will get the entire circle right about (0.9^2) 81% of the time.<br /><br />That’s only one error in five as opposed to one error in four! Hell, you can leave work early and go snowboarding this afternoon with that improvement.<br /><br /><hr /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:130%;" >Back to Servers<br /></span><br />In the circle case we were only trying to get a couple of things right (the points). But when we configure servers there are often hundreds of settings and getting each one right, with the right setting, typed right, saved in the right file, in the right location, with the server rebooted (or whatever) to get it in the right state and you can see how errors add up. With 1000 settings and an error rate of just 1 in 1000 (0.1%) you have just a 37% chance of getting it right.<br /><br />No wonder it takes so long and is so hard to configure software!<br /><br />But with strong conventions there are far fewer "touch points" for you to mess up. The more configuration you can push into convention the better off you are. But everyone has to understand the conventions. In a way, those conventions are just <a href="http://brucebrain.blogspot.com/2006/01/why-principles-matter-in-software.html">shared principles</a>. And they go a long ways towards making things easier and less error prone once you understand the principles that the conventions embody.<br /><br />So, this has been a bit of a long rambling post. What I'm hoping you get out of this "conventional" discussion (yuk yuk... I make funny) is that there's nothing too wacky here and that conventions are your friend. They encode the exact same information in a more compact and less error prone way.Brucehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17924943461128606986noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20646966.post-77801596852997167212007-09-17T15:54:00.000-07:002007-09-17T16:24:41.066-07:00Breaking Down a Project: How Much Detail?The <a target="_blank" href="http://www.undocumentedfeatures.com/2007/09/09/how-much-detail-is-enough/">Undocumented Features</a> blog is exactly right that we should be aiming at a detail of tasks that are around 1 day in duration when beginning development. But there is a cost associated with having a person crank out those estimates. Often a project will need to “get the go-ahead” from the project sponsor before you can spend development team resources doing detailed estimates. <p>Those high level estimates are what often are so wrong. I think that one of the biggest reasons is that as project team members we’re giving estimates like “2 weeks”. “2 weeks” isn’t really an estimate, it’s a guess, a prediction.</p> <p>An estimate is something like “1-4 weeks” or “3-5 days”. It really should be a range. One big downside of single-point guesses is that the guess is likely to be treated like a promise. On the other hand, giving a ranged estimate opens the discussion of what could happen (risks) that would push the effort towards the worst case end of the estimate or bring it in towards the best case end.</p> <p><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi6Ov6eW-4w22G05BFbU0gKFarHaTl4Pv_XZmuMOXwIujAjPiNxA-dV81rL1Wexq9TLZsy3WrNW1CyGN5TsShtlIjjCr1wWh4oNs0pfn5iWamErFCX7VZwi-LD9dqfjUp1zwkS5/s1600-h/08-24-07_1104.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi6Ov6eW-4w22G05BFbU0gKFarHaTl4Pv_XZmuMOXwIujAjPiNxA-dV81rL1Wexq9TLZsy3WrNW1CyGN5TsShtlIjjCr1wWh4oNs0pfn5iWamErFCX7VZwi-LD9dqfjUp1zwkS5/s320/08-24-07_1104.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5111317606204552754" border="0" /></a>One of the primary problems is that project managers need a single number to plug into MS Project (or any number of similar tools). That coupled with the observation that these single-point guesses (especially at the high-level) are treated as promises pretty much make a person want to give up on high-level estimation altogether.</p> <p>If you always give all of your estimates in ranges (e.g. 4-6 person weeks, 1-3 days, 6-9 staff months, etc) it is quite clear that it is an estimate, not a prediction or a promise. Giving a range opens the discussion of what could happen (risks) that would push the effort towards the worst case end of the estimate or bring it in towards the best case end.</p> <p>Another nice thing about ranged estimates is that when you are asked to estimate something with poorly defined requirements you can give wide ranges to communicate the uncertainty. Well defined, believable requirements get estimates like 5-7 weeks whereas poorly defined, nebulous requirements get estimates like 4-20 weeks. This is especially true when giving high-level estimates.</p> <p>There’s pretty much no way to get around doing high-level estimates. Your business needs some idea of the investment required to complete a project in order to make trade-offs. Hopefully this happens before your development team spends a bunch of time doing detailed estimates. Also folks in other departments (e.g. marketing, operations, manufacturing,…) need some idea of when they are likely to take delivery of the software. A team that can accurately (not precisely) give high-level estimates for these things gives their company a real competitive advantage.</p> <p>So while it <b>is</b> frustrating, there are ways to do it and retain your sanity.</p>Brucehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17924943461128606986noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20646966.post-13141729690244657772007-09-05T23:05:00.000-07:002007-09-16T14:01:40.132-07:00Multi-Tasking is Killing Your BusinessI read a couple of articles recently and can now distill the vague feeling that I've always had that multi-tasking is <span style="font-weight: bold;">not</span> a good thing down to a simple statement that it is certainly a <span style="font-weight: bold;">very bad</span> thing.<br /><br />And I can prove it.<br /><br />Watch, nothing up my sleeve...<br /><br />We all know there's thrash when switching, but let's assume that you've got some kind of dream team that can switch tasks perfectly. I do this because I don't want to get into a long discussion of "how good I am at multi-tasking".<br /><br />Suppose we have 4 projects of 6 months duration each. Let's have the team multi-task and do all those things in parallel. They work one month on Project 1 , then move on to Project 2, and so on. Since there's no thrash it shouldn't hurt much right?<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjRy72fhW9Q41wVFfX77EP9v2GOh_5oQFUe2TNfsSKFcgkdhNgEWsdSL1KrmlNFCCCAA67vebL1dzAMGo9tChUpDT-yA62UnGqb-b8MRaj2T1tgsvWlr49Fp28Amw4NEov4xvQC/s1600-h/MT_Projects.GIF"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjRy72fhW9Q41wVFfX77EP9v2GOh_5oQFUe2TNfsSKFcgkdhNgEWsdSL1KrmlNFCCCAA67vebL1dzAMGo9tChUpDT-yA62UnGqb-b8MRaj2T1tgsvWlr49Fp28Amw4NEov4xvQC/s400/MT_Projects.GIF" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5105413448661802498" border="0" /></a><br />The average time to complete the projects is <span style="font-weight: bold;">22.5 months </span>or just short of two years.<br /><br />Now let's have our same team concentrate on one project at a time and see what happens.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgU0KO5XpE31Xaola0NdOYhEi-UKASbw9rQ0xcYnDbodhdtZJb7PfyFoGmtRxszr9-C3dg0oahWbXf8Zgmi3wxVBqW8hoLvVb273cyctIbmgcusRgnL8XXpFYuZnCEvw6JATBzC/s1600-h/ST_Projects.GIF"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgU0KO5XpE31Xaola0NdOYhEi-UKASbw9rQ0xcYnDbodhdtZJb7PfyFoGmtRxszr9-C3dg0oahWbXf8Zgmi3wxVBqW8hoLvVb273cyctIbmgcusRgnL8XXpFYuZnCEvw6JATBzC/s400/ST_Projects.GIF" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5105413972647812626" border="0" /></a><br />This time the average time to complete is <span style="font-weight: bold;">15 months</span>. That's 2/3 of the average for the multi-tasking schedule. But wait... it gets worse. What if those four projects are not of equal value.<br /><br />We know that all projects are not created equal. Some are more valuable to your business than others. It is quite possible that your highest value project is a factor of ten more valuable than your least valuable project (or more). Let's model this by saying that each project on our stack-ranked list is twice as valuable as the one below it. Remember, I'm talking <span style="font-style: italic;">value not effort</span> here.<br /><br />Let's look 30 months out and see what each method has delivered in value to the business. Here's what the plots look like when the vertical scale is business value per month. The light green shaded area is the total value the projects have generated 30 months after project initiation.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFSU54oc1INXWn2jiKz6ib3HfhjmtN0QF7Fwy629TIEvNAAPoz6pT5YWqY2kxriw-57GbPMS5qqw2ga5qOFdEXaWLE46UKhiOw7AFPgkHDqJlalmV3whvNTwi0PVsjfDN3wJs2/s1600-h/MT_Projects_Value.GIF"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFSU54oc1INXWn2jiKz6ib3HfhjmtN0QF7Fwy629TIEvNAAPoz6pT5YWqY2kxriw-57GbPMS5qqw2ga5qOFdEXaWLE46UKhiOw7AFPgkHDqJlalmV3whvNTwi0PVsjfDN3wJs2/s400/MT_Projects_Value.GIF" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5105419972717125186" border="0" /></a><br />So the multi-tasking project management method has delivered 124 units of value (8*9 + 4*8 + 2*7 + 1*6 = 124). But the single-tasking project... whoa... look out!<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjWgAE4N4c-yYR916le3PB6bI1xwTsOHi3mf7nN_9qZh-PNF5blsKbJ1VqDPjkccb9P60h3rMnPtlQT9sjcNhrWchmNNozAil7vFv3QN-yNFFEIhKXm0IAHLbhqyZh1D4eZrWfl/s1600-h/ST_Projects_Value.GIF"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjWgAE4N4c-yYR916le3PB6bI1xwTsOHi3mf7nN_9qZh-PNF5blsKbJ1VqDPjkccb9P60h3rMnPtlQT9sjcNhrWchmNNozAil7vFv3QN-yNFFEIhKXm0IAHLbhqyZh1D4eZrWfl/s400/ST_Projects_Value.GIF" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5105419977012092498" border="0" /></a><br />That's a whopping 294 units of value (8*24 + 4*18 + 2*12 + 1*6). <span style="font-weight: bold;">More than DOUBLE</span>.<br /><br />In other words, if I worked for Single-Tasking Enterprises and you worked for Multi-Tasking Incorporated <span style="font-style: italic;">we'd be kicking your ass</span>. (And no, you wouldn't be an acquisition target since we don't want your crappy multi-tasking IP.)<br /><br />Okay, so multi-tasking sucks. What can you do about it?<br /><br />I think the most important thing is to work off of a <span style="font-weight: bold;">single prioritized list</span>. You need one single list stacked top to bottom by priority for your people to use. <span style="font-weight: bold;">The list must be public</span> within your company. That way everyone is on the same page as to which project gets worked on first.<br /><br />But I can hear you saying, "Hey, we work on many things at once because we're so busy and need to get all this stuff done yesterday!"<br /><br />Yeah, and you can keep doing that. And as I've shown it will keep killing your business.<br /><br />As leaders (and I mean anyone who has people under them) we must set hard priorities and stick to them. Constant switching of a person's "top priority" is a sure sign of weakness as a leader. If you are doing this <span style="font-weight: bold;">STOP</span>.<br /><br />But what if you made a mistake in the priority order?<br /><br />Look, even if we reverse the business value order and deliver the lowest value projects first we still come out ahead single-tasking. We get 156 units of value at the 30 month mark (1*24 + 2*18 + 4*12 + 8*6). That's still <span style="font-weight: bold;">25</span><span style="font-weight: bold;">% more</span> than the multi-tasking result with the "proper order".<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjg2r6fPqK41fAv1yFVqXGVqPysQDxyR1Gh8O_vm8Dz9tDorhbHOJenH-ex48-P9fBU6a3AxBpZrMjnHfvlE95tBo4wN1CcBxdaRbcvBKpY8dOjINau8TMC9ROE3pryYWu9zsGv/s1600-h/ST_Projects_Value_rev.GIF"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjg2r6fPqK41fAv1yFVqXGVqPysQDxyR1Gh8O_vm8Dz9tDorhbHOJenH-ex48-P9fBU6a3AxBpZrMjnHfvlE95tBo4wN1CcBxdaRbcvBKpY8dOjINau8TMC9ROE3pryYWu9zsGv/s400/ST_Projects_Value_rev.GIF" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5110910039577966098" border="0" /></a><br />The lesson is that it is less important that you pick <span style="font-style: italic;">exactly the optimal order</span> in which to do projects. It is critically important that you build teams that focus on delivering <span style="font-style: italic;">one project at a time. </span>Your teams must be empowered to protect their time and their schedule by telling all distractions to "piss directly off". Your leads must understand this and be rewarded for protecting their folks from distractions.<br /><br />I find this stuff fascinating. How could I have run projects for all these years and never noticed how bad this is before?Brucehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17924943461128606986noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20646966.post-32502951141100378512007-09-01T16:48:00.000-07:002007-09-01T16:57:50.051-07:00Statistical FrustrationOkay... I must be getting old.<br /><br />Anytime you find yourself saying things like, "Friggen kids these days know <span style="font-style: italic;">nothing about statistics"</span>, you pretty much know that oldness has happened. It's just driving me <span style="font-style: italic;">crazy</span> that people don't understand what the hell "expected value" is or what the difference between the mean and the median is. Golly, people have a hard time with standard deviation, how the heck am I supposed to explain confidence in an estimate to them?<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiELfn2Q2LH1TiKDj_MIgjjeTa1sXl16EQT2j0NWGtuqVU7NT_e9-rJAuj7OEW4ciAXJLyJa3Iarzs9Ki4gRYg2TyczAWeA_DmkIkewZ5OMFkksdqADj5-7aiRpu414iPmDJwc9/s1600-h/mad_hatter_chair.JPG"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiELfn2Q2LH1TiKDj_MIgjjeTa1sXl16EQT2j0NWGtuqVU7NT_e9-rJAuj7OEW4ciAXJLyJa3Iarzs9Ki4gRYg2TyczAWeA_DmkIkewZ5OMFkksdqADj5-7aiRpu414iPmDJwc9/s320/mad_hatter_chair.JPG" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5105388271563513314" border="0" /></a>At the heart of this is the problem that most people don't get what is meant by probability or what is probable. Suppose for a minute that the VP of Customer Placation comes into your office and asks, "How long will it take to add frammerstammers to the hoopydo?"<br /><br />Now, because you're not a n00b at estimation you hand him back a range.<br /><br />"That'll take 5-20 days", you say. And you add, "I'm about 90% confident."<br /><br />This is where about an hour and a half of useless discussion about "what the heck you mean" is going to go on because Mr. (or Mrs., Ms., Miss) VP just doesn't really <span style="font-style: italic;">want</span> to know what is going on here. They just want a date that you <span style="font-style: italic;">promise</span> that the hoopydo will have frammerstammers.<br /><br />While willful ignorance is pathetic and deplorable (like spam) it is just a fact of life (like spam). Lecturing on probability and what it means to be confident will do you no good. They want a social contract not a lesson in Stat101.<br /><br />So what to do?<br /><br />Well, I think you need to know <span style="font-style: italic;">more</span> about statistics than they do and be able to abstract away the math and crap like that from the discussion so that they come away with a good <span style="font-style: italic;">english language</span> understanding of what you have promised them.<br /><br />You need to explain that you don't <span style="font-style: italic;">know</span> how long it is going to take. "Whadda I look like? The amazing Randy?" Then you can go on to explain that<br /><br />You need to explain to them that if they make you <span style="font-style: italic;">promise</span> to give them frammerstammers for the hoopydo on a specific date that the date will need to be out past the end of your range and that no, you can't just take the average and call it the promise. Be wary, be very wary, of giving a single number at this point. They will want to start using one. Don't fall for it.<br /><br />Because the minute that you use a single number it becomes the default promise date. 3 months from now nobody but you will remember that you said 5-10 weeks. They'll only remember the 7 week number that everyone kept saying in the meeting. "Seven is in the middle, right?"<br /><br />Yeah... uh... right.<br /><br />If people could just grasp a couple of simple concepts from statistics this would all be so much simpler. We'd have a shared vocabulary to use when talking about estimates.<br /><br />At its heart a good estimate is a range of values that you <span style="font-style: italic;">think</span> the actual value will fall inside of. The narrower the range, the less likely you are to be right. Let me give an example. I'm going to give several estimates of the number of teeth you have.<br /><br />32 is a bad estimate. It's a perfectly good <span style="font-style: italic;">guess</span>. But a bad estimate. Because it is only correct if you have the normal number of teeth for an adult human and have not had your wisdom teeth removed.<br /><br />0-50 is a better (though nearly useless estimate) since I'm almost certain that the actual number of teeth you have falls somewhere inside that range (100% confidence). Knowing nothing else I'd estimate the number of teeth you have at 25-32 and 80% confidence.<br /><br />With more information my estimates get better. If you tell me that you are a 90 year old ex-hockey player I would estimate that you have 0-20 teeth. For a 16 year old bookworm I'll estimate 27-32 teeth. Again, 80% confidence.<br /><br />The<span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span></span>confidence part there is important. It helps tell you how statistically likely I think the actual value is to fall within my range. Once you start viewing these things as statements of probabilities a <span style="font-weight: bold;">whole world of possibilities</span> opens up. I'll explain some of the fantastic things that simply fall out of using probabilities in 2-5 future posts.Brucehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17924943461128606986noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20646966.post-84289384538845932142007-08-31T22:58:00.000-07:002007-09-01T18:01:29.924-07:00Last Work Day of SummerThe end of summer always makes me feel a little down. When I was a kid it always seemed like summer would go on forever. They get shorter and shorter (and I seem to do less and less) the older I get.<br /><br />Working at a startup again (requisite plug: <a href="http://liquidplanner.com/">http://liquidplanner.com</a>) has been really interesting. This team has gone into it with a very specific product in mind. The last startup that I was involved with could never really figure out what it was building. This is <span style="font-style: italic;">very </span> different. For one thing, we drink <span style="font-style: italic;">a lot more coffee</span>!<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgAHy8VdtfuwAo0FLbZEGLBmuhU4gGSMEMd4sbsxGLF93XZ8cpjeJvcpLhjYV_6MRP4jt2_B03LIq5L_IWWQ4xVKFO6o1YoY4jBMXXnUwoP1ECEC5eRwGuYZ2X_ISdCWcNFaHPL/s1600-h/too_much_coffee.JPG"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgAHy8VdtfuwAo0FLbZEGLBmuhU4gGSMEMd4sbsxGLF93XZ8cpjeJvcpLhjYV_6MRP4jt2_B03LIq5L_IWWQ4xVKFO6o1YoY4jBMXXnUwoP1ECEC5eRwGuYZ2X_ISdCWcNFaHPL/s320/too_much_coffee.JPG" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5105403007596305906" border="0" /></a>Building project management software is kinda entertaining and kinda frustrating all at the same time. So much of the software out there is <span style="font-style: italic;">so</span> friggen bad that it feels like, "Hey, this should be easy!" And that's also where a lot of the frustration comes from as well.<br /><br />My office upstairs at home has cooled off from the heat of the day. Soon the Seattle rains will start again. That'll be nice because I'll feel much less guilty about spending my life thinking about statistics, software, human interaction and project management.<br /><br />See, everyone thinks that this should be an easy problem to solve. How hard can it be to figure out when a project will be done?<br /><br />Well let me tell you that it is pretty goddamned hard.<br /><br />Even the simplest little thing like figuring out how much time it will take to do a simple, <span style="font-style: italic;">simple</span> task is nearly hopeless. And it isn't just because we're concentrating on solving this problem for project management of software projects. You hear all this crap about how building software is not like building houses because the houses have a plan and defined methods and blah blah blah.<br /><br />Bullshit.<br /><br />If you think that building a house is all cut and dried and that all of that is a "solved problem" and that there is little uncertainty in home construction then <span style="font-style: italic;">you've obviously never built a house</span>. As someone who has <span style="font-style: italic;">personally</span> done a major remodel (as in, I swung the damned hammer and cut the damned two-by-fours) let me tell you that you make a lotta shit up as you go along.<br /><br />So what's the difference? Well, I think that like a lot of things it is the people. When you work construction you show up at 8am and work through 5pm (provided you're on schedule). It is not that construction workers are predictable robots, it's that software workers are unpredictable flakes. And I'm fine with that.<br /><br />In fact, if I had to punch a clock again I'd quit. Period.<br /><br />We want those people to be allowed to work however makes them the happiest. Even if it would be easier to schedule zombies to do the work would we really want to encourage that? What I want is to <span style="font-style: italic;">liberate</span> the knowledge workers from the tyranny of their schedules. Free them to work however and whenever they want and <span style="font-weight: bold;">still have their projects succeed</span>. Hell, not just succeed, friggen ROCK. Exceed all expectations for function, cost, schedule.<br /><br />The tricky thing is that we're trying to build software that predicts a schedule from the most vague information. And we're trying to do it while not interfering with the poor bastard who has his head full of Amazon Web Service APIs while rewriting the chunk of code that is going to actually get his company paid but is already looking kinda sketchy because it's a rewrite of Jimmy Foobraugh's port from <a href="http://www.fortran.com/fortran/F77_std/rjcnf0001.html">Fortran-77</a> of the linear regression algorithm and Jimmy got fired for never commenting <span style="font-style: italic;">anything</span>.<br /><br />Yeah.<br /><br />I should have drunk more <a href="http://sailorjerryrum.com/index.php">rum</a> this summer. That is my conclusion.Brucehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17924943461128606986noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20646966.post-91541065246131635512007-08-16T16:54:00.000-07:002007-08-16T17:38:17.794-07:00Hi {SalesWeenie.FirstName}...Nice title! Feels <span style="font-style: italic;">real</span> personalized.<br /><br />Yeah almost as personalized as this knee slapper from SalesForce.com:<br /><br /><blockquote>Hi {Lead.FirstName},<br /><br />Salesforce.com is above Siebel CRM for the first time as “Leaders” in the 2007 CRM/SFA Magic Quadrant, the industry’s most prestigious and valued ranking of CRM products and services.<br /><br />Previously, Siebel was the only leader, and now Salesforce.com is above Siebel. This is a milestone for the industry and shows that an on-demand service can replace traditional software in a leadership position!<br /><br />"We predict that within three years the majority of SFA deployments will be based on Software-as-a-Service."<br />--Gartner, Inc.<br /><br />View the entire report here:<br />http://www.salesforce.com/form/pdf/sfa_magiicquadrant_gartner.jsp?d=70130000000DFHo<br /><br /><br />Regards,<br />Nicole<br /></blockquote><br />The irony is exquisite.<br /><br />Come on folks. You <span style="font-weight: bold;">sell</span> software that does CRM and I'm supposed to trust your software when I get something like this?<br /><br />Please!<br /><br />Isn't this <span style="font-style: italic;">exactly </span>the kind of thing that good CRM software is supposed to prevent? But that aside, the real problem is that there is a not so subtle distinction between <span style="font-style: italic;">personalized</span> and <span style="font-style: italic;">personal</span> emails.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi1HffpHbbfJaB6JH77AKAGmjS4GwUvQe-alB0rkA7jI2EA5BkHigFFGETECr6DHs5hRfw8wTXgt6DHrGmbOZO38T3SpuDl59VpLSd8QO68VKC6r6nItpJW46TCYYBZZ52Cc8I7/s1600-h/Startup_Lunch.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi1HffpHbbfJaB6JH77AKAGmjS4GwUvQe-alB0rkA7jI2EA5BkHigFFGETECr6DHs5hRfw8wTXgt6DHrGmbOZO38T3SpuDl59VpLSd8QO68VKC6r6nItpJW46TCYYBZZ52Cc8I7/s320/Startup_Lunch.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5099457832260804050" border="0" /></a>Send me a <span style="font-style: italic;">personal</span> email. Send me an email that shows that you know me; that you know my dog's name; that you know what I had for lunch; that you know I'm partial to rum. Send me an email that lets me know that I'm important to you as a person (not just a {Lead.FirstName}).<br /><br />Or alternatively, don't.<br /><br />I mean it. You <span style="font-weight: bold;">don't</span> know me Nicole. Just admit it. You don't know me, my dog, my lunch, or that I am <a href="http://www.sailorjerry.com/rum/"><span style="font-style: italic;">very </span>good friends with Jerry</a>. Just send me a sales email like every other crappy sales email but which at least has the <span style="font-style: italic;">honesty</span> and <span style="font-style: italic;">integrity</span> to admit that <span style="font-weight: bold;">you don't know me</span>.<br /><br /><br />But whatever you do, just don't let me know that you think of me only as {Lead.FirstName}.<br /><br />That's just pathetic.Brucehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17924943461128606986noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20646966.post-899308322273911032007-08-09T01:32:00.000-07:002007-08-11T17:48:24.904-07:00Quick Notes from Ignite SeattleSo tonight I went to tonight's <a href="http://www.igniteseattle.com/">Ignite Seattle</a> event.<br /><br />Dude! I mean DUDE!<br /><br />The talk format is 5 minutes with automagic 15 second slide changes. The talks were GREAT!<br /><br />The stand outs were Rob Gruhl's talk about "How to Buy a New Car" (strategy), "Startup Metrics for Pirates: AARRR!" by Dave McClure (my personal favorite), and Leo Dirac's "Venture Capital Term Sheets". These were really great, informative 5 minute talks. You can see the video from the talks and the decks (I think) on the <a href="http://www.igniteseattle.com/">Ignite Seattle</a> site.<br /><br />One disappointment was Werewolf Strategy by HB Siegel. While he talked about the game, he never really got into the strategy. In part it was disappointing because I guess I had really high expectations for the talk. In retrospect it really wasn't a bad talk (in fact it was really entertaining) I just hoped for more meat about strategy. The game itself is perfectly suited to this short format of talk since in the game there's no objective information that is usable in each round. Thus the game is played at a higher level by playing the players rather than playing the game. If I lost you on that one just drop me a line an we'll play it sometime.<br /><br />I'm dying to do a talk at one of these. If you have suggestions for a topic that would fit nicely in 5 minutes please leave a comment.<br /><br />Anyway, I'm exhausted but totally energized by tonight's events. If you get a chance you MUST go. It is one of the best geek-fests I've ever been to.<br /><br />-------------------<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Follow up from 8/11/2007<br /></span><br />Dave McClure nicely posted a comment with the deck from his talk. You can find it here at <a href="http://www.slideshare.net/dmc500hats/startup-metrics-for-pirates-long-version">Startup Metrics for Pirates: AARRR!</a>.<span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /></span>Brucehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17924943461128606986noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20646966.post-72978511552464195432007-07-22T17:10:00.000-07:002007-07-22T17:44:03.764-07:00Busy, Busy, BusyHoly crap I've been busy!<br /><br />It's been like two months since I last posted and all kinds of stuff has been going on.<br /><br />First off, it's getting really exciting at <a href="http://liquidplanner.com/">LiquidPlanner</a>! We're getting ready to come out of that highly secretive and mysterious "stealth mode" that all really cool start-ups do (well, it seems all cool at the time).<br /><br />We've re-named "Team46" as "LiquidPlanner" and I've been running around showing the product to anyone who will sit still for two hours and look at my laptop. Patent drafts are about to be handed back from the lawyers and then things will really crank up.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEglo4BENorOYeME87eitISIeIhPacAJ04kqK5C7zbIRptFBLQnsK4MAaQZUA5hslmo6VJ1Ejt3mGACNVFFEEJzTtX8yUbld-P7Tq3PhlxB7LBL7Cmdg1-o_zNsqzFzPSnp5gAmh/s1600-h/Motor.JPG"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEglo4BENorOYeME87eitISIeIhPacAJ04kqK5C7zbIRptFBLQnsK4MAaQZUA5hslmo6VJ1Ejt3mGACNVFFEEJzTtX8yUbld-P7Tq3PhlxB7LBL7Cmdg1-o_zNsqzFzPSnp5gAmh/s320/Motor.JPG" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5090185529989364402" border="0" /></a>On Friday I drove all the way up to Snohomish to pick up a server rack (well, half-height rack) to go in the office for us to configure our servers before moving them to the co-lo. After all that and dragging the damned thing back and hauling it upstairs to the office I discover that it won't fit the rails we've got for the servers. That's $40 bucks and 3 hours that I'll never get back. Oh well.<br /><br />I'm <span style="font-weight: bold;">SO </span>stoked to get the servers up and running so we can start showing people what we've been building. Just a little longer and we'll start handing out logins to the private Alpha servers so that more folks can take a look and see what they think. I've got to get the forum software up and running too. We're a Rails shop so we've chosen <a href="http://beast.caboo.se/">Beast</a> and I think I'm gonna be really happy with it. It seems simple and straightforward while still allowing most of the features that we want.<br /><br />I've been reading just about everything I can get my hands on about probabilistic scheduling and some of it is at once cool, and nearly incomprehensible. As we work on this and I dig into the subject I become more and more convinced that most scheduling woes in projects are caused by Murphy's law and Parkinson's law (work expands to fill available time) colliding with bad estimates (like saying 10 days instead of giving a range like 8-15 days) and the usual way that Gantt charts get drawn.<br /><br />There's this industry report called the Standish CHAOS report (gotta love that name) that says that something like 80% of projects miss their schedule, budget, or scope. I think that I understand where that number comes from and here's the kicker... <span style="font-weight: bold;">it isn't bad project management</span>. It is the system itself that is causing the misses. You want a hint... it's all about the log-normal distribution.Brucehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17924943461128606986noreply@blogger.com5