Search results: "quality" Page 2 of 3

6 Steps To Take Before Making The Agile Transformation Plunge

With the popularity of Agile, more and more executives are pushing Agile transformation. To meet this demand, everywhere you look someone is now selling Agile. In a sense, Agile has become a commodity.

Agile Transformation

Those selling the commodity offer things like Agile coaches, Scrum training, and SAFe certifications, just to name a few. Don’t get me wrong, many of these vendors provide high quality services. The commoditization of Agile is a result of demand due to the positive brand that is “Agile”. When done right, few will disagree that Agile isn’t the best way to develop software.

When it comes to Agile transformation, the problem is not so much the Agile service providers, but more so around a lack of planning. Without proper planning,  the “transformation” process often goes over like a lead balloon.

The scenario usually goes something like this: executive from company X declares the organization needs to be Agile. Management then scrambles and hires Agile coaches and force employees to sit in open-work spaces. Throw in some team stand-ups and burn down charts and voila, they are now Agile! Management is happy, that is, until time goes by and they realize they have no measurable improvements.

Here’s the thing, Agile transformation is a huge change. If you haven’t properly planned before charging into transformation, your chances of success will be slim.

Another way to think of Agile transformation is like getting yourself in good physical shape. Last year I started working with a personal trainer. When I first met with my trainer, he didn’t send me right into the weight room and have me do dead lifts and squats. Instead, we met on multiple occasions and talked through my eating habits, my fitness routine, and my goals. We did this before I went anywhere near the weights.

By taking the time to do the analysis, I got a clear picture of where the problems were with my current fitness routine (or lack thereof) and diet. This enabled me to come up with goals and a manageable plan to achieve them. I was then able to put the plan into action and with the help of the trainer, receive some great results.

It’s the same with Agile transformation. You need to take the time to analyze and plan before charging ahead. If you’re planning to bring in Scrum training and Agile coaches, I’d like to propose some steps to take before doing so. Below I have outlined 6 steps intended to help you be successful in your Agile transformation journey. Think of them as Agile transformation prerequisites.

1) Know Your Organizational Purpose – Make sure you are clear on what your definite purpose is as an organization. You might be asking, how is the purpose of my company related to Agile, isn’t Agile an IT thing? It’s funny, many of us in technology sometimes forget we are part of a bigger picture. Business and IT must be aligned on the definite purpose of the company. If you don’t know the purpose of your company, then you have a bigger problem to deal with then adopting Agile. By knowing the definite purpose of the organization, you can align your Agile transformation strategy with the mission and goals of the company.

2) Know Your Current Value Stream – Get a clear picture of your current end to end process for delivering product or service. Many companies have different departments responsible for their part in the sausage making, yet nobody understands the full end to end process. Remember, if you’re going to make improvements, first you need to understand what needs to be improved. Saying that you want to become more Agile is not good enough. That’s like going to a trainer and saying that you want to be healthier. You need to get specific and find out what’s going on.

One way to do this is to sit in a room with management and white board out your current end to end process. Start from the beginning of new product idea, or customer order, all the way until the product or service is in the hands of your customer. This includes your business funding and prioritization process, and project planning and delivery. Include all your processes and steps for delivering your product and service. While you are doing this, write down the actual work time it takes to complete each step in the process, as well as the wait time. What you’re doing at this point is getting a clear picture of your delivery process, while also identify constraints in your system. For more on the benefits of this process, see my post on the theory of constraints and value stream mapping.

3) Know your constraints – The next step is to identify the clear bottlenecks in your delivery process. For example, if you find that on average it takes your company 1 year to approve new projects for funding, you’ll know you have a constraint way up-stream in your delivery process. Agile transformation is not only about making changes to your IT teams, it’s also about changing how your business operates. The idea is to be lean and efficient while providing high quality products to your customer.

4) Know your employees – Take a good look at your people. Are they open to change? Do they bring a positive attitude and contribute to a healthy culture? How about your IT people, are things like paired program and test driven development foreign concepts to them? Take a good inventory of the soft and hard skills of your employees. This is important because if you don’t have the right people, your Agile transformation efforts will fall flat. Get to know how your people really feel about Agile. What you don’t want is people who pretend to be on board with Agile, but bad mouth it at the water cooler.

In my experience, if you have people who are open and willing change, and are positive, you’ll be in good shape. You can teach the technical skills but trying to change someone’s attitude is a whole other ball game. Agile is all about collaboration and working as a team. You need great team players.

5) Know your technology – Analyze your current applications and delivery system. What type of infrastructure do you have in place? What’s your technology stack? Are you using physical or virtual servers? Are you using cloud technology? Take the time to do a full inventory of your technology and its health. How about your testing and deployment capabilities, are you running any automation? You need to know what kind of technology you’re working with. If you company uses archaic technology, it may be time to upgrade. Agile is a modern software delivery practice, you should aim to complement it with modern technology.

6) Create goals and an action plan for Agile transformation – After doing a thorough analysis of steps 1-5,  now you’re ready to create a tailored action plan with goals. This is where you decide what Agile framework to use, or combination of frameworks. At this stage you are now ready to engage outside help for Agile training and coaching, based on your goals.

By going through all the steps, you may be surprised what you discover. Your teams may be more Agile than you think. Only through proper analysis can you discover what is working and what needs to change.

If all this seems too daunting, or if you have already brought in Agile coaches yet see little change, at MacIsaac Consulting we can help. We act as trusted advisers to help organizations put the right Agile transformation plan in place.

We are Agile framework agnostic. Our goal is to tailor a plan that what works best for your company. With Agile transformation, it shouldn’t be a one size fits all approach. Just like someone’s fitness goals, each organization will have different goals and strategies to achieve them.

So take the proper steps, because you and your organization deserve a successful Agile transformation!

About the Author: Mike MacIsaac is the president and principal consultant for MacIsaac Consulting. Mike provides leadership as an IT Project and Program Manager as well as an Agile Scrum Master. You can follow Mike on Twitter @MikeMacIsaac or subscribe to Mike’s blog.

 

 

12 Ways Management Can Empower Teams And Create Agility

empower teams

Mike MacIsaac – President at MacIsaac Consulting Inc

With the advance of technology and globalization, organizations today must have agility. It doesn’t matter the industry, companies need to be able to adapt to change. As a consultant, I’ve seen this need first hand throughout the tech, retail, and financial industries.

Gone are the days when different departments within a company worked in silos. Companies who still do this, and use a static organization structure, will struggle to survive. They will fall to the competitive advantage of the agile organization.

The problems faced by companies today are too complex to not be agile.  The pressure put on from external forces demand a new way of thinking and collaborating.

One way to create agility is through the use of decentralized cross-functional teams (CFTs).  A CFT is a team made up of people from different functional areas within the company. These experts work together to achieve a common goal. Over time the team develops synergy, and becomes high performing. Team synergy vastly exceeds the productivity of individual efforts.

When management empowers CFTs to make decisions and self-organize, the teams move fast, really fast. Team autonomy and empowerment promotes an atmosphere of trust, creativity, and worker satisfaction.

One of the greatest benefits of empowered CFTs is their ability to manage chaos. This phenomenon is counter intuitive to our natural reaction to manage chaos. Most of what we learn in business school aligns with the carrot and stick style of management. The more things get out of control, the more we tighten up our grip on the team. As managers, we have to let go of this notion of command and control. We can empower teams while still holding them accountable.

In a recent HBR article, Michael Mankins and Eric Garton describe how Spotify balances employee autonomy and accountability. They write “Companies that take the approach of empowering autonomous teams must find ways to ensure that coordination and connectivity happen among those teams without relying on controlling managers. Again, it’s a matter of managerial art as well as science to achieve alignment without excessive control.”

If you assemble a CFT with people new to such an environment, there will be a learning curve. You can’t expect people to self-organize and make decisions when they are used to being controlled.  The key is for CFTs and management to learn a new way of thinking, but this takes time.

Ken Schwaber, who formed the Agile Scrum framework along with Jeff Sutherland, writes “A team requires concrete experience before it can truly understand how to manage itself and take the responsibility and authority for planning and conducting its own activities.”

Below are 12 principles that can help management develop high performing cross-functional teams:

  1. Create stable cross-functional teams – Creating stable CFTs, dedicated to long-term goals, is necessary for high performance, quality and innovation. To do this you must dedicate resources and provide constant training. Each team member must have knowledge and expertise in a certain functional area. Changing team resources and not allocating for long-term planning is a killer to team performance.
  2. Provide a clear and compelling purpose – People suffer when they lack purpose. It is the responsibility of management to provide a purpose. People need a purpose because it creates intrinsic motivation. If employees are assigned tasks that have no meaning to them, they will lack motivation. Management should communicate how the goals of the team align with the long-term goals of the company.
  3. Protect the teams – Run interference and protect CFTs from distractions and skeptics. Management must be committed to the overall purpose of the organization and the CFT. There are always skeptics and people who are resistant to change. It is well advised for management to not include these types on change efforts and new CFTs. Skeptics will cause more harm than good. Staff CFTs with people with positive attitudes who will champion the goals of the team and organization.
  4. Give teams the help they ask for – With the high performing CFT model, managers don’t tell the team how to do their job. Instead, the teams tell management what they need to be successful. It is the job of management to listen to these requests and do their best to provide the teams with the help they ask for. Again, just because management is not telling teams what to do, it doesn’t mean they shouldn’t hold teams accountable.
  5. Empower teams to make decisions – Management can hold teams accountable for results, but they need to empower teams to make decisions. The decentralization of authority allows teams and organizations to produce results fast while responding to change. Management is still responsible for telling teams what needs to be done, but the teams are responsible for how it will be done.
  6. Allow mistakes to be made – Encourage teams to accomplish stretch goals, but do not punish if everything is not achieved. It’s important for management to help drive out fear. When employees are afraid of being punished for mistakes, it kills innovation. The important thing is learning from mistakes. Teams should continually take inventory on how they can improve.
  7. Use information radiators – On CFTs, everyone needs to see what’s going on and what needs to be done. Having a board that displays visual controls enables and promotes teams to self-direct. Information radiators also let management and outside stakeholders view how the team is doing and how much work is in progress.
  8. Deliver as fast as possible – Fast product delivery results in increased business flexibility and happy customers. Short value streams eliminate waste and they allow decisions to be delayed. Management should promote the idea of delivering valuable products fast. Often time’s people think that you can’t deliver fast without compromising quality. This is not the case when you build quality and integrity into product development. The fast delivery system does not compromise on quality; in fact it improves quality because consumers get the product faster. This enables consumers to provide feedback sooner which can go back into the design of the product, improving quality.
  9. Analyze and improve throughput – The best way to optimize an organization is to focus on throughput. The theory of constraints teaches us to find bottlenecks in the system and fix them. Teams should continue analyzing the system, identifying bottlenecks, and removing them. When teams focus on improving non bottleneck areas of the system, it doesn’t help improve throughput. Following the theory of constraints principle, teams can delivery fast.
  10. Promote quality built into products – In Edward Deming’s book “Out of the Crisis” he writes “Quality comes not from inspection but from improvement of the production process. Inspection, scrap, downgrading and rework are not corrective action on the process”. This means for software development, we need to get away from this notion that QA is this separate process that happens after software development. We should not be inspecting quality into the software through QA. Instead, QA should be happening as part of software development through the use of test driven development and automation. This enables quality to be built up front, instead of through inspection.
  11. Improve quality by learning from the consumer – In the Agile software development “Scrum” we do product reviews continually with the consumer. This same principle can be implemented throughout the organization. The goal is to feed the consumer reactions and feedback back into the design of the product to improve quality.
  12. Provide servant leadership – In Scrum, the Scrum Master acts a servant leader. The Scrum Master job is to remove impediments and help the team. This servant leadership practice is a great example for management to emulate. By supporting and helping teams, you foster at atmosphere of empowerment and trust.

For many organizations, the points I listed may be a significant change from their current reality. It’s not easy to put in place all these changes. Even for the modern agile company, agility is an ongoing learning process. If your organization needs guidance, at MacIsaac Consulting we are here to help. From advising leadership, to providing resources, we can guide you on your agile transformation journey.

About the Author: Mike MacIsaac is the president and principal consultant for MacIsaac Consulting. Mike provides leadership as an IT Project and Program Manager as well as an Agile Scrum Master. Follow Mike on Twitter @MikeMacIsaac or subscribe to Mike’s blog.

References

Deming, E. (1982). Out Of The Crisis. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

Mankins, M & Garton, E (2017). How Spotify Balances Employee Autonomy And Accountability. https://hbr.org/2017/02/how-spotify-balances-employee-autonomy-and-accountability

Poppendieck, M. (2003). Lean Software Development. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Schwaber, K. (2004). Agile Project Management With Scrum. Redmond, WA: Microsoft Press.

 

Kanban vs Scrum – What You Need To Know

Kanban vs Scrum

If you are familiar with Agile you know about Scrum and Kanban. While these two Agile frameworks have similarities, they are also very different. Their differences go way beyond stickies on boards. In this post I’ll describe the two frameworks and their history, as well as their benefits and differences.

Scrum OverviewScrum is by far the most used Agile framework. Credit for the framework goes to Jeff Sutherland and Ken Schwaber. Scrum got under way back in 2001 after the creation of the Agile manifesto.

Scrum is great for complex software delivery projects. In Scrum, there are defined team roles which are Product Owner, Scrum Master, and development team. The Product Owner creates a backlog of user stories that define the scope of a project. The team then completes the stories in short iterations called “sprints”. Sprints usually last 2-4 weeks. Sutherland was influenced by his days as an Air Force pilot. He relates the team sprints process to coming back from short missions and landing the plane on time.

The goal is to have working software, approved by the Product Owner, at the end of each sprint. The stories worked on in the Sprint should be done (all testing completed..etc). The key metric used in Scrum is Velocity. Velocity is the average amount of points a team can complete in a Sprint. Within Sprints, change to work is discouraged.

The stories completed in each sprint represent part of the total project scope. The team repeats this cycle of sprints until all stories in the backlog are done, in which case the project ends.

Kanban Overview  – “Kanban” get’s its origins from the Toyota Production System. Back in the 1950s, Taiichi Ohno created a pull system for Toyota. The idea was first sparked by his experience in American supermarkets. He was fascinated by how shoppers would walk down the ails pulling only what they needed from the shelves and putting it into their shopping carts. Shoppers usually had a list they carried which told them what they needed.

In Toyota plants, “Kanban” are instructions in clear plastic that communicate information needed at work stations. In a sense, a Kanban is like a grocery list. When an order comes in, a Kanban would be used to pull the whole car creation process together. Each item needed for the Kanban is ready just in time (JIT). This enables minimal build up of inventory. In a lean system, the goal is to reduce waste. The build up of inventory is the worst form of waste according to Taiichi Ohno.

The principles of the Toyota Production system were emulated in lean software development when Kent Beck created XP (Extreme Programming). The goal was to use the JIT principles and limit work in progress to the teams capacity. Beck also implemented a test driven development (TDD) process that improved quality. XP can be considered a different Agile framework from Scrum and Kanban. In my view, XP has more of relation to Kanban, since Beck based most of the practice off of Ohno’s Kanban method.

Unlike Scrum, Kanban is usually not the framework of choice for software delivery projects. Projects have a clear beginning and end, as well as a defined scope. Kanban works well for support teams, where work will be ongoing.

Teams will use a Kanban board, like the board a Scrum team would use for their Sprint. There are no Sprints in Kanban, the work is a continuous flow. There are also no defined roles in Kanban, like there is in Scrum. Cycle time is the key metric used and unlike the Sprints in Scrum, in Kanban change can happen at anytime.

Some of the benefits of Kanban include flexibility in planning, increased throughput, fewer bottlenecks and visual metrics. Kanban also compliments continuous delivery.

Below is a grid that Dan Radigan from Atlasssian put together, which displays the differences between Kanban and Scrum.

                                          Scrum                                                             Kanban

Cadence Regular fixed length sprints (ie, 2 weeks) Continuous flow
Release methodology At the end of each sprint if approved by the product owner Continuous delivery or at the team’s discretion
Roles Product owner, scrum master, development team No existing roles. Some teams enlist the help of an agile coach.
Key metrics Velocity Cycle time
Change philosophy Teams should strive to not make changes to the sprint forecast during the sprint. Doing so compromises learnings around estimation. Change can happen at any time

Summary

Scrum and Kanban are two different Agile frameworks, but both have many benefits. In my view, Kanban is more aligned with lean development than Scrum. The area where Scrum gets into trouble with lean is the idea of having a team create and work on a large backlog. Lean experts, like Mary Poppendieck, cringe when they hear the word backlog. This is because it goes against the principles of JIT and low inventory. At Toyota, I’m sure the plant manager would freak if they had a large backlog of orders piling up. They want to have low inventory and good throughput. While Kanban works great for a repeatable process, my view is that Scrum is the best framework for complex software delivery projects.

If you enjoyed this post, check out The Top 10 Influencers of Agile.

About the Author: Mike MacIsaac is the owner and principal consultant for MacIsaac Consulting. Mike provides leadership as an IT Project and Program Manager as well as an Agile Scrum Master. Follow Mike on Twitter @MikeMacIsaac or subscribe to Mike’s blog.

 

What are the best Agile development tools?

Agile development tools

The debate over the best Agile development tools rages on. Tools like JIRA, VersionOne, and Trello all offer different benefits. Some people love the lightweight team focused flexibility of JIRA, while others prefer VersionOne for its program management capabilities.

Long before the popularity of Agile, organizations struggled to find the right software delivery tools. Teams need tools for things like version control, defect management, test cases, reports and requirements/user stories.

It’s not uncommon to find companies using different tools to manage the different aspects of software delivery. For example, they might use Rational ClearQuest to manage defects while using HP ALM to manage test cases. Or they may use SharePoint to maintain documents while using JIRA to manage User Stories and Sprints.

Here’s the thing. There is no right or wrong combination of tools that works for your team or organization. Some teams prefer not to use any tools, and that’s okay. The real goal of self-organized teams is to produce good flow. Good flow means producing quality software that provides value to the business. It should be up to the teams to decide which tools, or lack of tools, works best for them.

 

About the Author: Mike MacIsaac is the owner and principal consultant for MacIsaac Consulting. Mike provides leadership as an IT Project and Program Manager as well as an Agile Scrum Master. Follow Mike on Twitter @MikeMacIsaac or subscribe to Mike’s blog.

 

Self-organizing teams produce the best architectures, requirements, and designs

Self-organizing teams produce the best architectures, requirements, and designs.

self-organized team

The above statement is one of the principles behind the Agile Manifesto. Too many “Agile” teams struggle to get this concept.  They have the Agile ceremonies down, and they may even sit together, but they still work in silos based on waterfall principles.

The following statements are all signs that a team is struggling to adopt the Agile self-organizing team behavior:

  • “I can’t work on the design because the requirements aren’t complete yet.”
  • “I can’t create any test scenarios yet because the design is not complete.”
  • “I can’t start development, I have to complete a design document first. “

In Waterfall, the requirements and design process looks like this:

In Agile, it looks more like this:

It’s a cluster of work that happens together. The process gets messy and entangled, in a good way. There are no long drawn out separate phases of development or QA. All the work is happening together, and cross functional team members collaborate through the whole process.

When the team is self organized, that’s when great ideas and valuable products emerge. Why wait for a long period of time for requirements to be completed by a BA, only to be reviewed by the team at a later date? Or wait for a design or dev to be completed, only to be reviewed later?

As Deming used to say, you don’t inspect quality into a product, quality is built-in up front.  Why not use that same principle for how we treat requirements/stories, designs and tests? Instead of inspect quality into them, let’s build the quality in up front by having all team members contribute to the work.

About the Author: Mike MacIsaac is the owner and principal consultant for MacIsaac Consulting. Mike provides leadership as an IT Project and Program Manager as well as an Agile Scrum Master. Follow Mike on Twitter @MikeMacIsaac or subscribe to Mike’s blog.

Going from Software QA to IT Project Management

Software QA

My journey in the world of IT began as a quality assurance analyst. For UPS, I would test and certify applications used in operations. I spent most of my time in the test lab with the rest of the lab rats. Testing software back then was the easy part, the hard part was building the right platform. Performing a ground up install of MS Windows Pro could take almost half a day and if it failed, you’d have to start over again. If you were lucky you got to use a ghost OS image, but even those presented their own challenges.
 
Later in my career I would go on to focus less on hardware and more on testing software. With Accenture I worked along side large testing teams on huge multi year waterfall software projects. We would create test plans consisting of hundreds of test scenarios. We then charged off to complete all the testing in a matter of weeks. Anyone who worked in QA (or dev) can attest to the agony of the waterfall project death march experience. Pressure from management, late nights in war rooms, and working weekends combined to make the QA role a nightmare.
 
Fast forward to the arrival of Agile and my role in QA became tolerable again. Instead of having a mountain of code dumped on me for testing, now I could test small chunks of software in two week sprints. The only problem was (and still is) that many organizations struggle building shippable software in sprints. This results in companies that are waterfall masked as Agile.
 
After almost a decade working in QA I decided I to get into project management. I always enjoyed connecting with people and I felt project management better fit my strengths. Through the guidance of mentors, lots of studying and hard work, I was able to become an associate project manager. After time I was able to work on larger projects, consulting for large companies.
 
Making the transition into project management was a great career choice for me. Project management much better aligns with who I am. For you it may be different. Your passion might be in QA and there’s nothing wrong with that.
 
If you are someone who works in QA and you’re considering get into project management, my advice is to go for it. Software QA analysts make great project managers because they are battle tested. I discussed this more in my last post “The identity crisis of the IT project manager“.
One thing’s for sure, if you’re not happy in your current role, don’t settle!

About the Author: Mike MacIsaac is the owner and principal consultant for MacIsaac Consulting. Mike provides leadership as an IT Project and Program Manager as well as an Agile Scrum Master.

Follow Mike on Twitter @MikeMacIsaac or subscribe to Mike’s blog.

5 Reasons Why Teams Should be 100% Dedicated and Stable

Stable Product Team

If your organization is not using stable product teams, they should be. A lot of organizations are still using an outdated balanced matrix structure. As an example, a company may have different departments or groups for each area of expertise. The project managers belong to one group, the developers belong to another, QA to another, and so on.

Before the fiscal year begins, the balanced matrix business conducts a prioritization process. They define what projects will take place for the year. Once projects are determined, a scramble takes place to form teams around projects. A battle will then ensue between management to staff the best people per project.

This model results in chaos and disorganization. It also results in creating teams that have little chemistry. Even worse, you end up with people assigned to many projects, resulting in switching costs. Some studies suggest that people can lose up to 40% of their productive time by shifting between tasks.

This must stop. Management shouldn’t move people around to different projects because a spreadsheet shows the people have ‘capacity’. It’s 2018, we now know that the highest performing teams are stable teams. The people on the stable teams should be 100% dedicated. What management should be concerned with is the throughput of the team, not resource usage. Efficiency does not always improve by increasing resource utilization. In fact, the opposite will happen if resources are over used.

The biggest reason for stable teams is related to team development. In 1965 Bruce Tuckman outlined four stages of group development, the ‘forming-storming-norming-performing’ model. Aside from having a catchy name, the model still holds true. It means that it takes time for teams to start performing well. This is a big part of the reason why it’s so valuable to have cross functional stable product teams.

Below are 5 huge reasons why your company should have cross functional stable product teams:

  1. With stable product teams, you no longer need to scramble to build teams around projects. All the chaos and competition around forming teams around projects goes away. No need to assign people to projects, instead, let product backlog items flow through stable teams.
  2. With stable product teams, work gets fed right into an already high performing team. This means you don’t have to deal with the forming-storming-norming phases of Tuckman’s model.
  3. Stable product teams improve quality. Quality improves because of the focus and attention the product receives. Team members also grow their domain knowledge and expertise. When team members are 100% dedicated, they won’t have to deal with switching costs.
  4. Work gets done faster and teams get better at predicting velocity. This reduces risk to the release schedules.
  5. Finally, stable product team members tend to enjoy their work. When team members sit together for a while, they get to know each other and they have fun. All the stable teams I’ve been a part of loved to joke around, bring in food, and come up with creative ways to have fun.

The stable product team model works well, perhaps best, using Agile Scrum. If your organization is not using Agile, stable product teams can still work well.

Whatever delivery process you use, let work flow through stable teams. Take advantage of teams that already have momentum, expertise and chemistry. Companies like Best Buy, Target and Pearson have long realized the benefits that stable teams have to offer.

About the Author: Mike MacIsaac is the owner and principal consultant for MacIsaac Consulting. Mike provides leadership as an Agile Delivery Consultant and IT Project/Program Manager. Follow Mike on Twitter@MikeMacIsaac or subscribe to Mike’s blog.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The importance of promoting from within and leadership training

“Management must understand and act on the problems that rob the production worker of the possibility of carrying out his work with satisfaction” – Dr Deming

Are you frustrated that your manager doesn’t understand the problems you face? Does your manager not have a strong grasp of the companies product or service? Unfortunately, this problem has become quite common, particularly in information technology.

Part of the problem is that companies fail to promote from within. In my experience, some of the best organizations I have worked with all promoted from within. When I worked for UPS years ago, some of the best corporate managers began their careers loading trucks. They understood the business from the ground up. As they advanced their careers, they developed leadership skills because they interacted with people at all levels.

In Japan, companies need new hire graduates to start their career with a long internship. They wouldn’t care if you had an MBA, you could be delivering meat for a few years before ever sitting in an office. The benefit is that the employee not only learns the business, they learn the problems of production.

Yes, sometimes you need to hire outside talent. But hiring outside should be your last resort. Most organizations have plenty of talented people who are just waiting for the opportunity to move into a leadership role. Companies need to take advantage of this and institute training and leadership. If they don’t, the result could be poor quality, frustrated employees, and a high churn rate.

For more content like this, subscribe to the MacIsaac Consulting Blog.

To contact us about our services, click here.

Want awesome team dynamics? Never try to be like the Beatles

Team dynamics

Team dynamics, why do some teams excel while others, perhaps of equal talent, suck? Take for example, the Beatles. I consider the Beatles to be the greatest band of all time. Their music is timeless. The quality of the song writing, the harmonies, the brilliant guitar work and percussion. They were the full package and they appealed to the masses.

The Beatles were somewhat of an anomaly. Unlike most bands, where each member plays a specific role, each member of the Beatles were multi-talented. Every member could sing, write songs and play an instrument. This unusual multi-talented dynamic enable the Beatles to become, well, the Beatles.

Most teams, be it technology teams or sports teams, do not have a multi-talented dynamic like the Beatles. When teams try to operate as if they were multi-talented, they run into trouble. This happens because you have team members working outside of their strengths.

My recommendation is to let team members operate within their strengths. Not only will this bring them more satisfaction, it benefits team performance as a whole. In cross functional teams, each member has a unique talent. Let that talent shine. This doesn’t mean you can’t cross train and help each other out. It just means that teams operate best when each individual brings their top strength to the table.

Just like in sports, great teams consist of players who focus on becoming the best at their position. Jerry Rice wouldn’t waste any time practicing hand offs or kicking field goals. Instead, he worked at running routes and catching passes. His talent combined with his focus to develop as a receiver, enabled  him to become great and his team to win championships.

So when it comes to team dynamics, don’t try to be the Beatles. For optimal performance, let each team member work within their strengths. When each team member is operating in their sweet spot, the team will rock.

For more content like this, subscribe to the MacIsaac Consulting Blog.

To contact us about our services, click here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Shareholders – Excellent reasons why they shouldn’t come first

shareholders

Shareholders, should they always come first? Often you will hear that the main goal for business is to increase shareholder value. Should increasing shareholder value really be the primary goal of business? What about providing a quality product or service? What about adding value to the world?

Increasing shareholder value is important, but I think we sometimes lose focus of the big picture. We put the cart before the horse. When Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak were creating Apple in a garage, I doubt stock price was on their mind. Their vision was to create technology that changed the world.

Dr Edwards Deming believed that too much focus on short-term gains and stock price is harmful. He argued that quality, a definite purpose, and pride of workmanship should be top priorities.

By focusing on quality and a long-term strategy, shareholder value will increase. But there are no short cuts. Short term investors or hedge funds looking to make a quick profit should not be a priority. In fact they may be harmful. Great companies are in business to improve quality of life.

If your leadership is only focused on short-term gains, you may be in for trouble down the line. What’s your long-term strategy? Is quality a top priority? What is the mission of your organization? Why are you in business? If you’re unclear, mission, vision and strategy should be a priority.

For more content like this, subscribe to the MacIsaac Consulting Blog.

To contact us about our services, click here.

Page 2 of 3

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén