Paint by Numbers - I.T. Services Organisation
Creation Date: Fri Nov 24 13:00:35 EST 2006
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Title: Paint by Numbers
Uses: Not to be used without attribution.
Motivation: Explaining why Outsourcers do what they do.
STATUS: ==ROUGH NOTES==
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aim: + Organise my thoughts about and observations of
IT Outsourcing and Services companies.
+ Explain to others why the same organisation &
culture exists across many organisations and countries.
+ Explain why OpenSource happens as it does, and is
generally anathema in these organisations.
Synopsis: Outsourcers provide MacDonald's like certainity and
product consistency to their large clients - exactly
what the client management wants and expects.
They achieve this through high-control management and
fine-grained technical specialisation, or by
"americanisation".
Probably provably the most efficient structure and
method for the people/managers generally available.
Risk, Innovation and Personal Initiative are anathema in
this organisational mileau and for Customer Requirements.
The lattitude given individual technicians is small,
limiting the ability to be or develop "Star
Performers".
Opensource development is the other end of the
organisational spectrum - self-directed, innovative and
nuturing of technical brilliance. "Star Performers" are
the norm in certain projects and their development
encouraged. Perhaps even incubated?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Paint by Numbers
- explaining why Outsourcers do what they do.
And - it is the most efficient organisation possible.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Underpinned by the unspoken Organising Principle:
"Tech-heads are Knuckleheads,
Management Knows Best" (or All)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
PBN - never develops anything great. Never can.
Only ever buy existing products (cf CA), do what the market wants and what the
competitors do.
'Skill Sets'...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Myth of The Man Month: doesn't exist [Rob Kolstad]. People are *not*
fungible... Jobs must be redesigned to fit what the team and people in the
teams can do - and they develop over time, and move on, change interests and
motivations.
How would you build a company of star-performers? How would you manage them?
Keep them interested? Train, develop and then they leave - to explore new
challenges.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Problem 1: Where do you find managers who can recognise stars? From the ranks
of stars - in the field or star-managers/recruiters. Would stars give up their
technical life for the problems of mgt?
Problem 2: Where do you find management secure enough to hire stars? And then
astute and capable enough to let ths rabble, "a self-directed anarhistic
collective" get on with its process? And how do you recognise gold-bricking
from genuine exploration? [Hint: Google]
Problem 3: Where do you find corporate customers that can cope with the
seemingly undiscplined long-haired rabble - and all their eccentricities? How
do you get them to appreciate the superior performance and solutions of your
team of stars?
Problem 4: Where do you find Marketers who are astute enough to understand the
different product you're selling, the benefits and problems? And then not
over-promise, brag or snow/bull the clients?
Problem 5: How do you assess performance of each of the 4 areas:
- technical
- admin, supervision, management, leadership
- marketing and sales
- admin suport - accounting etc?
And the individuals in each area?
Problem 6: How do you link performance to pay?
Especially when these things are *team* based...
[Bob Lewis: Team is a Group that needs everyone to complete the task]
Problem 7: How do solve the individual and group politics? Done right, creative
tensions lead to high-performance. Done Wrong, implosion.
Problem 8: How do you SCALE? Find more stars, mgrs, etc Locations, Cultures.
Schools don't train 'stars', but compliant cattle or rebel-without-a-clue.
Problem 9: How do you scale over TIME? Build a self-renewing culture that can
survive the exit of The Founders? And cope with changes in culture, context,
environment. Homeostatis. Needs a very good measure of outcomes and
performance - and watching the triplet: Ignorance, Arrogance,
Self-Delusion/Incompetence.
Problem 10: How to avoid Hubris? We can do No Wrong? Or - The One True Path
worship of The Holy Founders Method...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
==> Conclusion: PBN is as Good as it Gets, right now within the cultural
milleau. It suits large corporate clients who need security and predictability
from suppliers. Not nibbleness and genius - it's too hard to manage and control
- and doesn't suit the need for heavyweght planning and 'strategy'.
=> And it's really easy to select, hire, train PBN techo's, managers, PM's and
marketers.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Build It, and they will Come...
Stars will self-select into Star-Orgs - and probably have some ambition to head
up their own factory.
Rodin, Michelangelo and Renoir (?) all had Art Houses/Factories supporting
them. They knew how to manage (their) genius and leverage the work of others.
And at some point, proto-genii have to be thrown from the nest. There is only
room for one Great Master in this model - and when they are done, so is the
business - apart from repeating current productions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hollywood Producers are PBN elevated to an Art Form. They will/can only invest
in No Risk Projects - it's Other People's Money,and they have to have Plausible
Deniability and performgood enough Due Diligence... They can only go with What
is Proven to Work - a genre, an actor, a director...
Once A New Thing has been shown to work, then it's not A Big Gamble, but A Sure
Thing - so everyone is (remaking) the same movie. Or their Sequels [a
franchise like "James Bond"].
What this leads to (by defintion):
- Fads. The New Thing
- One True Way
- Stars - actors, directors, writers, ...
- Little experimentation - or the inverse, compliance to 'norms'
- Stict Rule-based Marketing Driven production.
- A single-minded focus on 'product' and 'the bottom-line'.
Art and Entertainment are perverted. It's about Bucks, Careers and Politics...
Quality and Social Responsibility have no place in this mix. Only the minimum
possible and Lowest Common Denominator.
These products do what they set out to do - make money. It's not about Good, or
Art or Values. But good predictable product - no surprises, no risk, no talent
or appreciation for the busines: A process/method where any monkey can turn the
crank and produce a result. When they get lucky, it's their genius, when it
fails (which is mostly) - someone else is accountable or "you just can't get
good talent these days", "if only ...".
They and their managers/owners/investors lack the insight to understand the
fundamentals of what they do. And if they suspect, the Moral Fiber to own it
or speak about it. That is the greater loss.
And this applies to the whole 'Entertainment Industry' - music and games as
well.
And now, PBN I.T. Outsourcing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof. CL Cooper, Org. Psych, Lancaster Uni Mgt School.
QUOTES:
"Americanisation"
In the UK, stress costs the economy an estimated 5-10 per cent of GNP per
annum.
Since the industrial revolution every decade has had its unique defining
characteristics:
* the short-term contract culture, with its outsourcing and downsizing and
long working hours culture, the 90s.
We are seeing the Americanisation of Europe spreading throughout the continent.
This trend toward what is euphemistically called the "flexible" workforce,
originated in the UK. Britain led the way in Europe towards privatising the
public sector in the 80s. Its workforce was
substantially downsized during the recession of the late 80s and early
90s. Outsourcing many of its corporate functions, it left the recession
behind in the early 90s, faster than its European counterparts. However,
this scenario of "leaner" organisations, intrinsic job
insecurity and a culture of longer working hours are beginning to have
an adverse effect on employee attitudes and behaviour.
A recent survey of British managers found that these changes -
downsizing, outsourcing, delaying and the like - led to
substantially increased job insecurity, lowered morale and, most
important of all, the erosion of motivation and loyalty. These changes
were perceived to have led to an increase in profitability and
productivity, but decision-making was slower and the organisation was
shown to have lost the right mix of human resource skills and experience
in the process.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Title: Paint by Numbers
Uses: Not to be used without attribution.
Motivation: Explaining why Outsourcers do what they do.
STATUS: ==ROUGH NOTES==
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aim: + Organise my thoughts about and observations of
IT Outsourcing and Services companies.
+ Explain to others why the same organisation &
culture exists across many organisations and countries.
+ Explain why OpenSource happens as it does, and is
generally anathema in these organisations.
Synopsis: Outsourcers provide MacDonald's like certainity and
product consistency to their large clients - exactly
what the client management wants and expects.
They achieve this through high-control management and
fine-grained technical specialisation, or by
"americanisation".
Probably provably the most efficient structure and
method for the people/managers generally available.
Risk, Innovation and Personal Initiative are anathema in
this organisational mileau and for Customer Requirements.
The lattitude given individual technicians is small,
limiting the ability to be or develop "Star
Performers".
Opensource development is the other end of the
organisational spectrum - self-directed, innovative and
nuturing of technical brilliance. "Star Performers" are
the norm in certain projects and their development
encouraged. Perhaps even incubated?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Paint by Numbers
- explaining why Outsourcers do what they do.
And - it is the most efficient organisation possible.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Underpinned by the unspoken Organising Principle:
"Tech-heads are Knuckleheads,
Management Knows Best" (or All)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
PBN - never develops anything great. Never can.
Only ever buy existing products (cf CA), do what the market wants and what the
competitors do.
'Skill Sets'...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Myth of The Man Month: doesn't exist [Rob Kolstad]. People are *not*
fungible... Jobs must be redesigned to fit what the team and people in the
teams can do - and they develop over time, and move on, change interests and
motivations.
How would you build a company of star-performers? How would you manage them?
Keep them interested? Train, develop and then they leave - to explore new
challenges.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Problem 1: Where do you find managers who can recognise stars? From the ranks
of stars - in the field or star-managers/recruiters. Would stars give up their
technical life for the problems of mgt?
Problem 2: Where do you find management secure enough to hire stars? And then
astute and capable enough to let ths rabble, "a self-directed anarhistic
collective" get on with its process? And how do you recognise gold-bricking
from genuine exploration? [Hint: Google]
Problem 3: Where do you find corporate customers that can cope with the
seemingly undiscplined long-haired rabble - and all their eccentricities? How
do you get them to appreciate the superior performance and solutions of your
team of stars?
Problem 4: Where do you find Marketers who are astute enough to understand the
different product you're selling, the benefits and problems? And then not
over-promise, brag or snow/bull the clients?
Problem 5: How do you assess performance of each of the 4 areas:
- technical
- admin, supervision, management, leadership
- marketing and sales
- admin suport - accounting etc?
And the individuals in each area?
Problem 6: How do you link performance to pay?
Especially when these things are *team* based...
[Bob Lewis: Team is a Group that needs everyone to complete the task]
Problem 7: How do solve the individual and group politics? Done right, creative
tensions lead to high-performance. Done Wrong, implosion.
Problem 8: How do you SCALE? Find more stars, mgrs, etc Locations, Cultures.
Schools don't train 'stars', but compliant cattle or rebel-without-a-clue.
Problem 9: How do you scale over TIME? Build a self-renewing culture that can
survive the exit of The Founders? And cope with changes in culture, context,
environment. Homeostatis. Needs a very good measure of outcomes and
performance - and watching the triplet: Ignorance, Arrogance,
Self-Delusion/Incompetence.
Problem 10: How to avoid Hubris? We can do No Wrong? Or - The One True Path
worship of The Holy Founders Method...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
==> Conclusion: PBN is as Good as it Gets, right now within the cultural
milleau. It suits large corporate clients who need security and predictability
from suppliers. Not nibbleness and genius - it's too hard to manage and control
- and doesn't suit the need for heavyweght planning and 'strategy'.
=> And it's really easy to select, hire, train PBN techo's, managers, PM's and
marketers.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Build It, and they will Come...
Stars will self-select into Star-Orgs - and probably have some ambition to head
up their own factory.
Rodin, Michelangelo and Renoir (?) all had Art Houses/Factories supporting
them. They knew how to manage (their) genius and leverage the work of others.
And at some point, proto-genii have to be thrown from the nest. There is only
room for one Great Master in this model - and when they are done, so is the
business - apart from repeating current productions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hollywood Producers are PBN elevated to an Art Form. They will/can only invest
in No Risk Projects - it's Other People's Money,and they have to have Plausible
Deniability and performgood enough Due Diligence... They can only go with What
is Proven to Work - a genre, an actor, a director...
Once A New Thing has been shown to work, then it's not A Big Gamble, but A Sure
Thing - so everyone is (remaking) the same movie. Or their Sequels [a
franchise like "James Bond"].
What this leads to (by defintion):
- Fads. The New Thing
- One True Way
- Stars - actors, directors, writers, ...
- Little experimentation - or the inverse, compliance to 'norms'
- Stict Rule-based Marketing Driven production.
- A single-minded focus on 'product' and 'the bottom-line'.
Art and Entertainment are perverted. It's about Bucks, Careers and Politics...
Quality and Social Responsibility have no place in this mix. Only the minimum
possible and Lowest Common Denominator.
These products do what they set out to do - make money. It's not about Good, or
Art or Values. But good predictable product - no surprises, no risk, no talent
or appreciation for the busines: A process/method where any monkey can turn the
crank and produce a result. When they get lucky, it's their genius, when it
fails (which is mostly) - someone else is accountable or "you just can't get
good talent these days", "if only ...".
They and their managers/owners/investors lack the insight to understand the
fundamentals of what they do. And if they suspect, the Moral Fiber to own it
or speak about it. That is the greater loss.
And this applies to the whole 'Entertainment Industry' - music and games as
well.
And now, PBN I.T. Outsourcing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof. CL Cooper, Org. Psych, Lancaster Uni Mgt School.
QUOTES:
"Americanisation"
In the UK, stress costs the economy an estimated 5-10 per cent of GNP per
annum.
Since the industrial revolution every decade has had its unique defining
characteristics:
* the short-term contract culture, with its outsourcing and downsizing and
long working hours culture, the 90s.
We are seeing the Americanisation of Europe spreading throughout the continent.
This trend toward what is euphemistically called the "flexible" workforce,
originated in the UK. Britain led the way in Europe towards privatising the
public sector in the 80s. Its workforce was
substantially downsized during the recession of the late 80s and early
90s. Outsourcing many of its corporate functions, it left the recession
behind in the early 90s, faster than its European counterparts. However,
this scenario of "leaner" organisations, intrinsic job
insecurity and a culture of longer working hours are beginning to have
an adverse effect on employee attitudes and behaviour.
A recent survey of British managers found that these changes -
downsizing, outsourcing, delaying and the like - led to
substantially increased job insecurity, lowered morale and, most
important of all, the erosion of motivation and loyalty. These changes
were perceived to have led to an increase in profitability and
productivity, but decision-making was slower and the organisation was
shown to have lost the right mix of human resource skills and experience
in the process.
Comments
Post a Comment