Communication Hacks 2 [Lucy Freedman]

Much as we may love what we are working on, our effectiveness depends on how well we communicate about it.

This is the second in a series about ten “syntax errors” and hacks that will fix them. The errors are based on the understanding that human communication has a syntax, or structure, which determines the quality of the outcomes. SYNTAX is a system that can be used to debug interpersonal communication.

Each short blurb in this series includes something specific you can do to cut through the chaos whenever you encounter that particular Syntax Error.

Ten Syntax Errors

Error No. 2 Staying in the Negative

What? Engineers being perceived as negative? Face it, it’s the fate that comes with loving to solve problems.

Negativity can arise and / or be perceived when we are just using logic, with such positive intentions as
•    Defining the problem
•    Uncovering root causes
•    Critiquing the plan
•    Finding the exceptions
•    Demanding evidence
•    Expecting rigor
•    Building a better mousetrap
And, a common favorite,
•    Protecting others from their folly.

The difficulty is that people avoid the negative. They don’t want to hear about it. They sometimes become defensive. They don’t answer your emails.
Fortunately, this is a solvable problem. Whatever it is that needs to be changed can be viewed and described from different perspectives. You can learn to frame things so that they reflect your true positive intention rather than coming across as criticism. When you want to raise criticism, you can frame it positively so that there is a chance the recipient will be able to hear it. (I hesitate to call it “constructive criticism” because that word is associated with some pretty bad attempts at diplomacy. Avoid the “sandwich” strategy, if you know what I mean.)

Some people make the mistake of thinking that a soft approach is what is called for. Soft-pedaling that misses the point or glosses over an issue is not helpful. On the other hand, being able to communicate in a specific and positive way usually is helpful.

Try this approach to shift from one frame to the other:

Instead of talking about
•    The problem
•    Why it exists
•    Limitations
•    Failure: What is broken or whose fault it is

Talk about
•    Your desired outcome
•    How it might work
•    Possibilities
•    Feedback: What we’ve learned about this so far

If you are able to clearly describe your desired outcome, you will probably have also shifted your own thinking from the negative to the positive.  Listen closely to be sure you really are stating the outcome in the positive, rather than a disguised negative, such as “What I want is for you to stop interrupting.” It can be stated as “What I want is for you to listen through the end of the sentence before giving your response.”

To learn more about this technique of shifting to the positive, download your complimentary excerpt of Smart Work: The SYNTAX Guide to Influence. Chapter Four spells out framing in detail.

The next SYNTAX Influence Course will be held in Silicon Valley August 20-22, 2013. Give yourself the opportunity to develop conscious competence for avoiding or remedying ALL the SYNTAX Errors that crop up in human collaboration! Email syntaxoffice@syntx.com or visit syntaxcommunication.com for details

Lucy Freedman is the president of Syntax Communication Modeling Corporation, co-author of Smart Work: The SYNTAX Guide to Influence and developer of the Syntax Influence Course

Syntaxcommunication.com

Communication Hacks [Lucy Freedman]

Much as we may love what we are working on, our effectiveness depends on how well we communicate about it.

This is the first in a series about ten “syntax errors” and hacks that will fix them. The errors are based on the understanding that human communication has a syntax, or structure, which determines the quality of the outcomes. SYNTAX is a system that can be used to debug interpersonal communication.

Each short blurb in this series includes something specific you can do to cut through the chaos whenever you encounter that particular Syntax Error.

Ten Syntax Errors

Error No. 1 No Clear Goal

Most of us are used to thinking about goals for projects, career plans, business ventures, or athletic achievements. We know that all of these activities benefit from having well-defined goals and timelines, even if we change them as we go. While we plan out our route for our next vacation trip or academic degree, we are less likely to think about our goals in the short term.

Case in point: when did you last stop and think through the desired results of a conversation you were getting ready to have? The majority of people come to conversations with their intended outcomes only partially formed. Very often the impulse that starts the conversation takes us to less-than-optimal destinations.

Day-to-day casual conversations probably don’t call for a lot of goal-setting ahead of time. It’s those conversations about which you may be a little uncomfortable that would benefit from a few moments of focused intention. These are the conversations most likely to go south, just as you thought they would, unless you get really clear on your outcome.

If your answer to the question, “What do you want from this conversation?” is mostly what you don’t want to have happen, you may unwittingly be setting it up. For instance, “I don’t want the other person to be upset about this,” may well set you on a path that will upset them. Take the extra moment to ask yourself, “What do I want instead?” and state the desired result in the positive. “I want him or her to be open to hearing what I have to say.” Just focusing on that intention, rather than what you want to avoid, will change the tone of the conversation and make your desired result more likely.

Clarifying the goal is also a great hack for moving discussions out of the muddle and onto the right track. Before you go around and around one more time in a frustrating meeting, stop the back-and-forth and say, “Let’s see, where are we headed? What do we want to come out of this?” or some variation. Not only will your time be spent more productively, you may become the local hero who keeps the action in forward motion.

There’s more to becoming really skilled at setting in-the-moment communication goals, as well as goals in general. It’s a topic that we emphasize throughout the Syntax Influence Course, where you get to practice this and other valuable techniques.

Correcting Syntax Error #1, No Clear Goal, helps prevent many of the other downstream errors that will be covered as the series continues.
 __________________________________________________________________
Lucy Freedman is the president of Syntax Communication Modeling Corporation, co-author of Smart Work: The SYNTAX Guide to Influence and developer of the Syntax Influence Course

Syntaxcommunication.com

Keep Your Culture Positive! [Ron Lichty]

Editors note: Ron Lichty is the co-author of Managing the Unmanagable, a book that breaks new ground on the topic of managing software engineers and programmers.  Here he discusses the effect of positive and negative comments on an engineering team.

Which is more effective to improve team performance: positive feedback or constructive criticism? a positive culture or a negative one?

The answer: both.
The real question: in what proportion?

The answer to the proportion question, from new research by Michigan doctoral student Emily Heaphy and team productivity consultant Marcial Losada: http://abs.sagepub.com/content/47/6/740.full.pdf+html

The ratio of positive-to-negative statements is directly correlated to "strikingly different results for each performance category" of teams:
* The highest-performing teams expressed 6 positive comments for every negative one
* Medium-performing teams expressed 2 positive comments for each negative one
* Low-performing teams swung the other way, expressing almost 3 negative comments for every positive one

"…in order to predict team performance, one only has to know the ratio of positive to negative interactions…", Heaphy and Losada concluded.

Negative comments must clearly be part of the mix. Pollyannaism - positivity alone - is no answer. Teams must hold each other accountable. It's just that most of us don't want to work in a culture that swings hard negative.

What we all need to note is that the swing negative starts from a 6-to-1 positive-to-negative ratio!

Throughout our book, Managing the Unmanageable: Rules, Tools, and Insights for Managing Software People and Teams, www.ManagingTheUnmanageable.net , we devote pages and pages to the value of praise, recognition and having fun with your teams - all key components to building a culture of positivity. "Say 'thank you' at least ten times every week," we counsel. "Never pass up an opportunity."

We knew it from our experience - we just didn't have the research to prove it.

Heaphy's and Losada's conclusion: "We need to have organizations with teams where the abundance of positivity, grounded in constructive negative feedback, can generate the state of realistic enthusiasm that can propel organizations to reach and uphold the heights of excellence."

More at http://ronlichty.blogspot.com/2013/04/keep-your-culture-positive.html
__________________________________________________________________

Reviewers have been comparing Ron Lichty's book, Managing the Unmanageable: Rules, Tools, and Insights for Managing Software People and Teams, to software development classic The Mythical Man-Month. http://www.ManagingTheUnmanageable.net . Ron has been transforming chaos to clarity and making software development “hum” for most of his 20-plus years managing software development and product organizations, from first-level manager to VP of Engineering and VP of Products. He has been brought into organizations from startups to the Fortune 500 to solve problems like painfully slow product development, past-due estimates with no delivery in sight, challenges arising from geographically dispersed teams, productivity bridled by uncertainty, and an "order-taking mentality" from teams that should be eagerly proactive. Ron has repeatedly demonstrated that small tweaks can result in dramatic impacts to throughput, quality and customer focus. His practice includes agile transformations, creating roadmaps everyone can follow, building communication with every part of the organization, and motivating and inspiring software development teams. Ron is a mentor, a coach and a team-builder.

Smart People + Smart Leadership = Happy Customers? [Lucy Freedman]

Smart People + Smart Leadership = Happy Customers? 

Interpersonal Intelligence for Technical Organizations

By Lucy Freedman, developer of the SYNTAX of Influence, co-author of Smart Work (second edition soon to be released).

When I first started my business, a mentor quizzed me about what it meant to have a business. Does coming up with a great idea make it a business? Clearly no. Does having a product make it a business? What about an office, employees, marketing? No, no, and no, he said. You have a business when you have a customer.  Aha.

In the world of technology, we can get so focused on the product or process that the relationship part of the business receives a minimal amount of mindshare. Sure, when we need to make a funding pitch, attract a key executive, or give a customer presentation, we put attention into those relationships. Even then, it’s typical of technologists to be mostly content-oriented and not so focused on tuning into the interests of their audience.  There’s room for growth.

While the ability to relate well with funders , talent, and customers is important for business success, the internal communication in a company is equally important. What customers and VC’s really want is for the product to work and meet their needs in a timely and cost-effective way.  For that to happen, managers and teams need to be able to get on the same page and come up with solutions and answers. Knowledge needs to be mobilized. Deadlines need to be met. Problems need to be solved. All this takes communication that is both focused and flexible.

The Challenge

The kinds of interpersonal intelligence that allow people and teams to collaborate well tend to be underdeveloped in engineering organizations for three main reasons.

·         Engineers are generally not drawn to learning “soft skills”

·         Engineering leadership is mostly made up of engineers

·         Most interpersonal skills training is oriented more toward personal growth than practical business interactions.

As a result, efficiency, accurate and relevant sharing of knowledge, and delivery to the customer are often hampered by turf battles, planning disconnects, and just plain miscommunication.

Is this just a depressing downer, condemning engineering organizations and their customers to clunky communication, relieved only by those special high-tech + high-touch individuals who can navigate well both technically and interpersonally? Although many are resigned to this state of affairs, there are lights flickering here and there.

Bright Lights and Good Books

In fact, at the November ElSig meeting, Ron Lichty presented a “Crash Course” based on his new book with co-author Mickey W. Mantle, Managing the Unmanageable: Rules, Tools, and Insights for Managing Software People and Teams  (Addison-Wesley, www.ManagingTheUnmanageable.net ). They address important considerations for people who move up the technical ladder from writing code to managing people.

Another new and highly recommended book on this subject is Team Geek: A Software Developer’s Guide to Working Well with Others by Brian W. Fitzpatrick and Ben Collins-Sussman (O’Reilly Media, 2012). It’s very entertaining reading and addresses expanding circles of influence, from your own team to the organization to the user community.

A few years back,  Michael Lopp wrote the insightful and humorous book, Managing Humans: Biting and Humorous Tales of a Software Engineering Manager (Apress, 2007).  Michael gives practical advice for many of the situations that recur in software development. He names some of the types of people you’ll run across – such as Mr. Irrelevant, Laptop Larry, Curveball Kurt, the Snake, and Free Electrons. Cleverly written, full of useful homilies.

What all of these books have in common is the practical experience of the authors, who have lived what they are writing about.  They share illustrative stories that those who follow in their footsteps will easily relate to.

De-coding How People Work

As an outsider who can’t code my way out of a paper bag, I have been taking a different approach for the past few decades of working as a consultant, coach, and facilitator for high tech companies.  Programmers understand the structure, or syntax, that is required for code to work. I have studied the structure, or syntax, that is required for human communication to work.

What I have discovered is that the smart people who know how to code have an easier time learning interpersonal skills when they have access to the proper syntax for communicating. Hundreds of engineers have experienced and applied the SYNTAX model to their workplaces. People who considered themselves non-people-oriented have shown that with several relatively small changes in their communication, they can achieve great improvements in their working relationships.

This is not about sentence structure or grammar. If you consider that people are pretty systematic in how we organize our perceptions and our behavior, it makes sense that you can detect each person’s syntax, and hence, get more predictable results with them.  There’s also a structure, a syntax derived from studying outstanding performers, that makes communication work better. Our model, SYNTAX, represents that architecture so that people can easily learn it.

It’s explained in detail in the book Smart Work, which I co-authored with Lisa Marshall.

The second edition will be coming out in a few months. I hope to share some of the most helpful aspects of SYNTAX at one of the upcoming ElSig meetings. In the meantime, if you are interested in getting an advance look at it, or even writing a review, please contact me at syntaxoffice@syntx.com and I will gladly share it with you now.

Smart Leadership

When leaders in an organization start practicing SYNTAX principles, or some of the other excellent suggestions in the books listed above, they create a climate where it is much more natural for others to collaborate productively as well. It’s a matter of good design of human systems – whether writing effective, clean code for applications that will benefit people, or holding effective, clean meetings where work gets done and agreements are solid, it’s about designing intelligent human systems. 

Whether through the stories and rules of the road derived from experience, or through applying a systematic, structured approach to interpersonal behavior, everyone benefits when a technical organization develops its conscious competence at communicating.

Engineering is about solving real-world problems and creating innovations that make a difference.  It takes smart people working well together to do this successfully. With smart people, smart leadership, and outstanding communication, you get happy customers. That, plus your satisfaction at meeting your own high standards, makes it worthwhile to master the softer skills.

 ______________________________________________________

Lucy Freedman is the president of SYNTAX and works with technology companies so that their engineers are as good with people as they are with technology. She coaches leaders and teams and most enjoys helping to design practices and cultures where people exceed their own and others’ expectations.  Lucy has trained and certified several dozen consultants who have implemented SYNTAX programs in companies  such as Agilent, HP, Sun, Oracle, EDS, Adaptec, Tokyo Electron, Intel, National Semiconductor, and Cisco Systems.  The second edition of her book, Smart Work: The SYNTAX Guide to Influence, has just gone to print.  Contact syntaxoffice@syntx.com, or syntaxcommunication.com  View explanatory videos and sign up there for the SYNTAX Messenger, which comes out twice a month with insights and helpful tips for positive influence in high tech organizations.

"PM"s [Ron Lichty]

I am repeatedly in conversations with someone who says, "Oh, PMs blah blah blah." 

And I have to figure out which kind of PM they're talking about. 

(It happened again yesterday afternoon. The person speaking was a product manager, which made it likely that the "PMs" to which he referred were other product managers, not project managers. Then this morning, I got an email with the subject line,  "The Evolving PM". Again I had to think. The sender was a project management association, making it likely that the "PMs" to which it referred were other project managers, not product managers.)

I'm not a PM. I'm not a PM of any kind. I'm not a Project Manager, I'm not a Product Manager, I'm not a Program Manager, I'm not a Publication Manager (engagement last year: Stanford subsidiary HighWire, which hosts web sites for 1400 of the world's most prestigious academic and scholarly journals from 150 publishers worldwide, and when I arrived, had 14 "PMs" for me to manage - who were account managers!).

I'm an interim VP Engineering. And a consulting CTO. And an Agile trainer and coach of Agile transformations. And an author of the Addison Wesley book (just published!):

   Managing the Unmanageable: Rules, Tools, and Insights for Managing Software People and Teams 

   www.ManagingTheUnmanageable.net  

The common abbreviation terminology I've been pushing for, in my engagements:

PjM == Project Manager

PdM == Product Manager

PgM == Program Manager

They're all self-clarifying.

I give talks on Transforming Chaos to Clarity.

Project Managers and Product Managers and Program Managers are, to a one, charged with clarifying software development, not adding to the chaos.

"PM" adds to the chaos. 

I wish that were…

'nuff said.

 __________________________________________________________________

Ron Lichty is the co-author of Managing the Unmanageable, and blogs at ronlichty.blogspot.com, where this post originally appeared.  Check out his web site at www.ronlichty.com.

Which Dog Will You Feed? Choosing Our “Reality” [Kimberly Wiefling]

In 1995 I decided to embrace optimism as a strategy for creating possibilities. It wasn’t a rational choice, it was an intuitive leap of faith. My many years of education as a physicist had taught me to ignore my intuition, but logic was insufficient to overcome my exuberance. You see I’d just had my eyes opened by a truly gifted coach who’d helped me discover that the person holding me back my entire life had been myself. Once I recovered from the shock of that revelation I made a decision to use my enormous power to shape reality to create a more hospitable environment, starting with my own attitude.

Immediately I encountered resistance from those who had benefited from my negativity in the past – namely everyone. My being negative was a comfort to others who were convinced of the darkness in the world. It confirmed their own belief system. And, of course, they were loathe to believe that I’d truly changed. After all, I’d been thoroughly convincing as a naysayer, so they rightly assumed that I was just shining them on, and would return to my old patterns of behavior momentarily.

But I didn’t. Instead I changed jobs, took classes, got a coach, practiced tarot card reading, took meditation classes, and joined a mastermind group, and simultaneously embraced numerous paths to enlightenment. Honestly, writing this I think “What a nutcase I must have seemed!” (Remember, I am a physicist by education, and do have an abiding respect for logic and rational thinking.) All of this was one grand experiment to me, the result of which I couldn’t possibly have guessed at the outset – the power to create so-called “reality”.

Nearly 20 years later I find that I’m not so impressed with myself. It turns out that my journey is a familiar one – many more famous and articulate people than me have “discovered” that we have the ability to choose our attitude in any circumstance, and thus shift our perception of that which we call “reality”. Since then I’ve been practicing using optimism as a strategy for creating a better future, and I’m very grateful that I had this epiphany while there was still time for myself and others to benefit from it. I’ve been able to start my own business helping organizations transform into more life-affirming work environments where individuals can contribute their highest and best, and coach many people to have the courage to define, pursue, and achieve their dreams. Along the way there have been many times when I thought “This truly is impossible, and what a crazy waste of time to even pursue it!” – not just about my own ridiculous fantasies, but about those of the people I’ve helped. But I’ve staunchly refused to judge anything “impossible”, preferring to think of outrageous goals as “merely difficult” puzzles that have yet to be solved.

Unfortunately my commitment to optimism has been tested repeatedly in the past several years. Of course there are always incidents that test ones faith in a better future – greedy business people, corrupt government officials, individual acts of hatred.  The primary attack on my optimistic outlook has come from the news media, which is notorious for reporting bad news far out of proportion to good. Why do I bother to watch the news, read the news, follow the news? It’s been proven that people who follow the news are more depressed than those who abstain. Well, for one thing, BBC is the only English channel I can easily get during my frequent business travel to Japan, and sometimes I just can’t resist some native English dialogue, especially with an exotic (to my ears) British accent. But the most insidious threat to my peace of mind has been the conspiracy theorists among my family and friends.

What conspiracy? You name it! Limitless free power would be available to us if only the power companies didn’t purposely squash access to breakthrough inventions. The ultra-rich control most of the wealth in the world, and democratic governments are merely a front for a well-concealed elite determined to profit from us the way farmers profit from raising diary cows. Five families have purposely enslaved the human race through monetary policies implemented through the world’s banks. And, yes, JFK was murdered by his own people, and the 9/11 attacks occurred with the full cooperation of the US government. Stop the world, I want to get off!

Honestly, I don’t know whether any or all of these purported heinous allegations are true. How could I possibly know? Some of the people who hold these beliefs seem very well educated and have an army of evidence to back up their claims. But I do know that living under such a cloud of cynicism and skepticism does nothing but sap my will to make a positive difference in this world. Suppose the worst of it all is true? Then what? I seem to be pretty much powerless to do anything about it besides add my voice to the masses via social media or decrying it all loudly at my local pub. What’s a sensible person determined to make a positive difference on Planet Earth to do?

A story that has given me guidance goes like this: “There are two dogs inside of me – one loving and one cynical. Which one will grow? The one that I feed.”  I’m not stupid. I know that there are terrible people in the world. I realize that terrible things happen, both as a result of human beings and natural disasters. AND . . . I choose to focus my attention and energy on hope, possibility, and what I can do to move courageously in the direction of a better future. I don’t judge the negative people in my life. They’re mostly attempting to avoid the disappointment that inevitably comes with optimism. I just wish they’d stop trying to protect me from disappointment by shattering my own hopes and dreams for the future. Disappointment? I can handle that. What I can’t handle is the feeling that there is no hope – that there is nothing I can do that matters. Even though my logical mind tells me that this is most probably true in the long run, every day I make it a practice to do something that lights a candle in the darkness for at least one person. Sometimes that’s by facilitating a conversation for possibilities with a group of future business leaders, and other times it’s as simple as being friendly and patient when waiting in line at the airport. Whether or not I change the course of history isn’t the point. I change my own reality by daily contributions to making the world a better place.

Daily Practice: Pretend who you are and what you do and say matters in this world. Act accordingly.

There are two dogs inside of each of us. Which dog will you feed? I’m determined to keep the cynical one on a starvation diet.

_____________________________________________________________
Kimberly Wiefling is the author of Scrappy Project Management, which attained the #1 ranking on Amazon Kindle US in Total Quality Management. She splits her work time between the US and Japan.

Mark Morgan, "From Startup to Sustainability" [John van Heteren]

On Thursday, September 20, Mark Morgan gave an outstanding talk about how to make a successful transition from a start-up to a sustaining organization.


Introducing Mark Morgan:

- Cal Poly bachelor’s degree in Engineering

- Golden Gate Univ MBA

- Stanford Certified SCPM - Advanced Project Mgmnt

- PMI cert

- Mark had been teaching at Stanford Advanced Project Management Program this week


Corporate Strategy originated from:

- Founders of Boston Consulting Group, Bain and McKinsey developed some Strategic fundamentals in 1960s

- Mark is involved with turning Strategy into Reality - actually executing on the strategy. The perspectives differ between Startups and Established firms.


Odds: The odds are higher at playing Blackjack vs Executing Strategy.  So, if you had $1M, what would you do with it? Play Blackjack? Or Execute Strategy?

- Blackjack has a 2-point spread advantage for the house (49 to 51). In the long term, Blackjack players will eventually lose.

- Strategic Execution: In the long term, there is no guarantee of loss. Some companies do fine for a while.


Conventional Wisdom has often failed, as demonstrated by a number of business book titles…

- "Good to Great" - doesn't stay that way.

- "Built to Last" - hasn't.

- "In Search of Excellence" - didn't.


Einstein told us that "Significant problems can't be solved using the same level of thinking that we used when we created the problem." (or something like that)


Levels of Thinking: Need to use a different level of thinking to solve problems.

- example of understanding the desert trails in South America that turn into drawings of animals when viewed from an airplane.


How do you Turn Strategy into Operational Reality?
- Operational Reality is where the money is actually earned.

- A Strategy needs to be converted into a Portfolio of Projects & Programs.

- A Strategy only stands a chance of working when it is aligned with the rest of what makes up the company DNA


- How you deploy your assets (Portfolio) is where Execution meets the road.


- Example: The Six-Sigma strategy should not be applied to everything. It works great in Operations, but does not work great in Innovation. Six-Sigma is Fine on the factory floor, poor on the R&D department where variation should be maximized, not minimized.


Alignment:

- Strategy must be aligned with Culture and Structure.

- Strategy must be also be aligned with Goals and Metrics.

·        Startups often have a limited set of Goals & Metrics, so alignment is often assumed. At a later point in time, if the Startup has grown, they often realize they should have formally planned that alignment all along.

·        Startups often don't bother with Portfolio planning, but if they don't, and they later grow. they'll run into problems because their organization has not been prepared to scale


- Corporate Culture can arise from knowing its Identity.

- Identity & Long-Range Intention inter-relate with each other.

- The corporate Purpose (Vision) drives Identity and Long-range intention.


Ultimately, everything originates from Purpose:

Purpose => Identity => Culture

Purpose => Long-Range Intention => Goal

Identity <=> Long-Range Intention

Triangle: Culture <=> Structure,  Structure <=> Strategy,   Strategy <=> Culture

Triangle: Goal <=> Metrics, Metrics <=> Strategy, Strategy <=> Goal

Strategy => Portfolio

Upper Triangle: Portfolio <=> Program, Program <=> Project, Project <=> Portfolio

Lower Triangle: Program <=> Project, Project <=> Operations, Operations <=> Program


Example: How does Mozilla organize 150 employees and 10,000 unpaid volunteers?

It does not use "Shareholder Value" as a Purpose (there are no Shareholders; there is no intent to be a profit making company). The non-profit culture leads to people acting a certain way.


Improving the alignment between Purpose, Identity & Culture does not need extra resources. A better alignment often leads to better profits.


Some businesses have a culture/exit-strategy of: Get acquired.  This is an OK strategy, but does not fall into the domain of sustainable enterprise.  A weakness of this approach is that there may not be a fallback position if the only offer is too low.

If the company has the purpose to grow (instead of being acquired), then the company preserves both options: to grow or to be acquired.


Strategic Positioning: Where do you want to play?

- a product provider?  How to differentiate the product? Features? Cost?

- a solution provider?  What items/How to bundle?  Many product providers find themselves pushed into becoming a solution provider.

- a system/platform provider? 


Examples:

Walmart = mix of System & Product

Bose = mainly product provider

Southwest Air = mainly product provider

IBM = mix between solution & system

Microsoft, Google, Intel, eBay = mainly System/Platform Apple iTunes/iPhone/Apps = mostly System, partly product


Strategy: How do you want to win?  Rivalry between players is affected by...

- threat of new entrants

- customer power in negotiation

- threat of substitutes or alternatives

- supplier negotiating power


Strategy: How much room for growth is there?

- Some startups appear as 1-trick ponies. No room to grow after first release.

- Are there limits of differentiation?

- Are there limits of market saturation?


Strategy: What are your next 3 moves?

- Running a startup is not like Tennis (thinking 1 move ahead), but more like Chess (3 moves ahead)

- What is the level of integration? (chips vs data centers)

- What is the level of customization?  (off the shelf vs one-of-a-kind)

- How does your "Capability Required by Strategy" match against the planned level of integration & customization?  If the capability does not match the levels after 3-ish moves, it will be difficult to survive.


How to put content in the Gap between Strategy & Projects?
- Traceability: forward from goal to project, backward from project to outcome

- Sufficiency: will the project outputs fulfill the strategic needs?

- Capacity: can all the projects be done with known time & resources?


Strategy = vector sum of all projects.

- if the projects are poorly aligned, the vector sum will be zero

- if some projects are de-scoped (to meet limited resources), you have to remember to change the goals


Metaphor for capacity:

- Sliding tiles around on a board to align them. The tiles can only slide when there is an open hole.  The open hole represents "slack", or spare capacity.

- if all resources are tied-up, there is no slack, and no ability to change and transform the business.


Portfolio Balance is Critical - need to have people allocated to all 3 of these:

- Product development/operations – Working in the business

- Continuous product Improvement – Working on the business

- Continuous process Improvement / business change – working to transform the business


Strategy & Execution:

- Strategy - deciding what to do.   "Doing the right thing"  Yet, after a while, all successful unique products become commodity. So, the Right Thing must keep changing.

- Execution - how well the action is done.  "Doing the thing right"


Change must be orchestrated before the need arises.

- Without change, all successes will eventually fail.

- Initially successful companies often go through the phases of: Success -> Hubris -> Undisciplined spending (portfolio planning here) -> denial of risk -> search for silver bullet (look for acquirer) -> capitulation.


"To get something we have never had...  We must be willing to do something we have never done before."

____________________________________________________________________

John van Heteren has over 20 years of Engineering design and management experience. As Director of Hardware Engineering at Varian Medical Systems, his job is to encourage a group of Mechanical, Electrical, Firmware and System Engineers to design improved ways to treat cancer without appreciably raising the cost of the treatment devices. Over the years, he has shifted from developing products and patent applications to developing people and teams to deliver products and patent applications. John is always on the lookout for new ways to introduce tactics that encourage innovation in heavily regulated industries such as medical devices.