13 October, 2015

Ada Lovelace - IT superhero

© Sydney Padua

Today is Ada Lovelace Day.  Ada, Lady Lovelace, is widely recognised as the world's first computer programmer.  Born in 1815, Ada was the daughter of Lord Byron, the poet, who abandoned Ada and her mother just after Ada was born. Probably in reaction to Byron's "poetic madness", Ada's mother insisted Ada be taught "rational" subjects, and she received tutoring from some of the finest intellects in Britain. She was, by many accounts, a mathematical whizz.

Ada became a friend and collaborator of Charles Babbage, and she devised the programs for his Analytical Engine.  Although Babbage's machines were never built, recent experiments have shown they would have worked, and he is regarded as the inventor of the first programmable general computer; hence Ada's honorific as the first computer programmer.  She described herself as an "analyst (and metaphysician)".

When I first started in IT, the gender ratio was much more balanced than it is today, largely because IT was a new industry that had to take bright brains wherever it found them.  There was always a strong contingent of bright women, but over time, the gender ratio changed dramatically, and IT morphed into an male geekdom.  Fortunately that's changing again, and it's fantastic to see so many female IT engineers, leaders and entrepreneurs today. The world is full of budding Ada Lovelaces.

Which brings me to Ada Lovelace, IT superhero.  If you haven't already tried them, have a look at Sydney Padua's comic novels about Lovelace and Babbage.  Steam punk, derring-do, Victorian melodrama, and guest appearances from the great little hero himself, Isambard Kingdom Brunel.  And for the geeks of whatever gender, working animations of Babbage's computer. Enjoy.

22 August, 2015

Setting the tone

Some staff have an unfortunate sense of what’s appropriate. How you react will set the tone of your organisation. Your people will watch you closely to pick up that tone.
  • A customer mailing list file called “ratbags” (or somesuch). As soon as I saw it, I insisted the name be changed. There was some shame-faced bluster about it just being someone’s silly sense of humour, but a glowering look stopped that. The word went out - always treat customers respectfully.
  • Walking past some staff drinking wine at their desks in the middle of the afternoon, I came back. simply said “That’s not appropriate” and walked off. The wine was gone in a minute and the staff later apologised.
  • On hearing that I wanted a more effective approach to late payment for electricity supply rather than simply cutting off customers’ power, the team leader responsible for credit control and payments proclaimed that “they’re all liars, and it’s the only thing that works”. I said I doubted that, and asked him to produce an analysis of the past year’s late payers and their frequency. Out of 40,00 customers, approximately 10% had been referred for late payment - most only once, and only 200 were chronic bad payers. He acknowledged he was wrong, but didn’t change his approach. He didn’t stay long and we made credit control part of a new customer service approach under a team leader who saw her job very differently, looking for ways to help customers not fall behind.
  • On hearing a product manager suggest that we make unsubstantiated claims in our product specifications, I respond “We don’t lie to customers.” On hearing the justification that “everyone else does it,” I reply “I doubt that, and in any case I don’t care. We don’t lie to customers.” That product manager didn’t last long either.
  • A product development team, given the challenge of designing a new antenna product platform at half the cost of the existing platform, started calling itself the CNA team which, on hearing for the first time, I learnt stood for “Cheap and Nasty Antenna”. My instant reaction: “You will drop that name immediately. I never want to hear it again. From now on, you are the EYE team - Elegant Yet Economic”. It not only set a different expectation for the new product platform; that name became a badge of honour and they still called themselves the EYE team years after that particular project had successfully finished.
You don’t always have to be quick on your feet; sometimes, a measured reaction is appropriate. Sometimes you’ll want to take a more consultative approach; asking people to think about the matter and decide what’s appropriate. But an instant reaction sends a very powerful message, as does a direct order, especially if you don’t usually act that way. Importantly, be consistent. And always remember, who you hire or fire, who you give an important project, who gets promoted, rewarded or praised - these all send important and closely-watched signals. What you do sets the tone.

Update in answer to Josh Forde
Jim : What do you think gave you the authority to do that with other people? We all have situations of seeing behaviour that we disagree with but don’t always feel we can effectively confront it or that we carry the respect to do so. It can’t be just about being the boss, it has to resonate with something larger than that?:
Good question, Josh. Actually being the boss does give you positional authority, but you use it carefully, and it only works well if it is backed up by personal authority - being assertive rather than authoritative, having confidence and conviction, and having earned respect for your past actions, knowledge and demonstrated behaviour. That’s something you build over time. Even if you don’t have it yet, it’s never too late to start. Most people recognise valid thinking when they see it, and although you may not persuade them this time, you’re building a personal ethos and reputation which will evolve into personal authority as a formal leader or as an important and respected influencer. And sometimes, all it takes is for you to speak out; you’ll be surprised at how often someone else jumps in to support you - the world is full of good people who want to do the right thing.

First published 28 November 2009

07 July, 2015

Buying cheap versus buying results

Why do corporate (and especially government) buyers keep confusing cheapness with value? Time and again I’ve seen the best vendors lose on price because the buyer could “get it much cheaper elsewhere”. The classic example is professional services charged by the hour. Any good manager of people knows that you pay your better staff more because they are more than worth it to you. For example, a good IT designer/developer will work out many times cheaper in the long run. They understand the business need quicker, design quicker, design better, write code quicker, write better code with faster performance and fewer bugs, and their software is cheaper to maintain. That can equate to a 10-30 fold lifetime cost difference - the saving more than outweighing any hourly rate difference. And that’s before you factor in the risk of non-delivery - much lower with better suppliers.

But many corporate buyers persist in penny-wise, pound-foolish buying practices. I have interests in several firms who sell products and services to other businesses, and my attitude is clear. I put a lot of emphasis on getting the price/value/cost proposition right, but if I can’t persuade you of the value for our prices, I’ll walk away before discounting. I’m not in business to subsidise anyone else’s business.

As a board member, I often see proposals for approval brought forward by managers proudly telling me that they’ve got the lowest input costs. All too often, I send them away to redo the basis of purchase and decision. Get me the best price and the best people to deliver the best outcome, not just the lowest cost of the inputs. If it has to be input-based, hire the best you can (while avoiding bloated suppliers and being sensible on price). It may cost more theoretically on paper, but I’ve rarely seen it cost more in actuality. On the contrary, the lowest input cost approach usually blows out on time, cost, reliability and efficacy.

Managers and buying teams - take note: top executives and boards much prefer effectiveness over cheapness.  But that's not a reason to buy only from big-name suppliers.  A small agile supplier can often be an innovative, effective and low-cost option.

First posted 29 July 2009