One of my mentors who is mentioned in the book I wrote with Kailash (Darryl) is a veteran project manager in the construction and engineering industry. He has been working as a project manager more than 30 years, is a fellow of the Institute of Engineers and marks exams at the local university for those studying a Masters Degree in Project Management. His depth of knowledge and experience is abundantly clear when you start working with him and I have learned more about collaborative project delivery from him than anyone else.

Recently I was talking with him and he said something really interesting. He was telling some stories from the early days of alliancing based project delivery in Australia (alliancing is a highly interesting collaborative project governance approach that we devote a chapter to in our book). He stated that alliancing at its core is the application of good project management practice. Now I know Darryl pretty well and knew what he meant by that, but commented to him that when you say the word “project management practice,” some would associate that statement with (among other things) a well-developed Gantt chart listing activities with names, tasks and times.

His reply was unsurprising: “at best that’s only 1/10th of what project management is really about.”

Clearly Darryl has a much deeper and holistic view of what project management is than many other practitioners I’ve worked with. Darryl argues that those who criticise project management are actually criticising a small subset of the discipline, based on their less than complete view of what the discipline entails. Thus by definition, the remedies they propose are misinformed or solve a problem that has already been solved.

Whether you agree with Darryl or not, there is a pattern here that occurs continually in organisation-land. Fanboys of a particular methodology, framework model or practice (me included) will waste no time dumping on whatever they have grown to dislike and swear that their “new approach” addresses the gaps. Those with a more holistic view like Darryl might argue that crusaders aren’t really inventing anything new and that if a gap exists, it’s a gap in the knowledge of those doing the criticising.

As Ambrose Bierce said, “There is nothing new under the sun but there are lots of things we don’t know.”

From project management to systems thinking…

Now with that in mind, here’s a little anecdote. A few weeks back I joined a Design Thinking group on LinkedIn. I had read about Design Thinking during its hype phase a couple of years ago and my immediate thought was “Isn’t this just systems thinking reinvented?” You see, I more or less identify myself as a bit of a pragmatic systems thinker, in that I like to broaden a discussion, but I also actually get shit done. So I was curious to understand how design thinkers see themselves as different from systems thinkers.

I followed several threads on the LinkedIn group as the question had been discussed a few times. Unfortunately, no-one could really put their finger on the difference. Eventually I found a recent paper by Pourdehnad, Wexler and Wilson which went into some detail on the two disciplines and offered some distinctions. I won’t bother you with the content, except to say it was a good read, and left me with the following choices about my understanding of systems and design thinking:

• That my understanding of systems thinking is wrong and I am in fact a design thinker after all
• That I am indeed a systems thinker and design thinking is just systems thinking with a pragmatic bent

Of course being a biased human, I naturally believe the latter point is more correct.

From systems to #stoos

Like the Snowbird retreat that spawned the agile manifesto, the recent stoos movement has emerged from a group of individuals who came together to discuss problems they perceive in existing management structures and paradigms. Now this would have been an exhilarating and inspiring event to be at – a bunch of diverse people finding emergent new understandings of organisations and how they ought to be run. Much tacit learning would have occurred.

But a problem is that one has to have been there to truly experience it. Any published output from this gathering cannot convey the vibe and learning (the tacit punch) that one would get from experiencing the event in the flesh. This is the effect of codifying knowledge into the written form. Both myself and Kailash were fully cognisant of this when we read the material on the stoos website and knew that for us, some of it would cover old ground. Nevertheless, my instinctive first reaction to what I read was “I bet someone will complain that this is just design thinking reinvented.”

Guess what… a short time later that’s exactly what happened too. Someone tweeted that very assertion! Presumably this opinion was offered by a self-identified design thinker who felt that the stoos crowd was reinventing the wheel that design thinkers had so painstakingly put together. My immediate urge was to be a smartarse and send back a tweet telling this person that design thinking is just pragmatic systems thinking anyway so he was just as guilty as the #stoos crowd. I then realised I might be found guilty of the same thing and someone might inform me of some “deeper knowing” than systems thinking. Nevertheless I couldn’t resist and made a tweet to that effect.

The decay (or remarkable recurrence) of knowledge…

(At this point I discussed this topic with Kailash and have looped him into the conversation)

Both of us see a pattern of a narrow focus or plain misinterpretation of what has come before. As a result, it seems there is a tendency to reinvent the wheel and slap a new label on claiming it to be unique or profound. We wonder therefore, how much of the ideas of new groups or movements are truly new.

Any corpus of knowledge is a bunch of memes – “ideas, behaviours or styles that spread from person to person within a culture.” Indeed, entire disciplines such as project management can be viewed as a bunch of memes that have been codified into a body of knowledge. Some memes are “sticky,” in that they are more readily retained and communicated, while others get left behind. However, stickiness is no guarantee of rightness. Two examples of such memes that we covered in our book are the waterfall methodology and the PERT scheduling technique Though both have murky origins and are of questionable utility, they are considered to be stock standard in the PM world, at least in certain circles. While it would take us too far afield to recount the story here (and we would rather you read our book  ) the point is that some techniques are widely taught and used despite being deeply flawed. Clearly the waterfall meme had strong evolutionary characteristics of survival while the story of its rather nuanced beginnings have been lost until recently.

A person indoctrinated in a standard business school curriculum sees real-life situations through the lens of the models (or memes!) he or she is familiar with. To paraphrase a well-known saying – if one is familiar only with a hammer, every problem appears as a nail. Sometime (not often enough!) the wielder of the metaphorical hammer eventually realises that not all problems yield to hammering. In other words, the models they used to inform their actions were incomplete, or even incorrect. They then cast about for something new and thus begin a quest for a new understanding. In the present day world one doesn’t have to search too hard because there are several convenient corpuses of knowledge to choose from. Each supply ready-made models of reality that make more sense than the last and as an added bonus, one can even get a certification to prove that one has studied it.

However, as demonstrated above with the realisation that not all problems yield to hammering, reality can truly be grasped only through experience, not models. It is experience that highlights the difference between the real-world and the simplistic one that is captured in models. Reality consists of complex, messy situations and any attempt to capture reality through concepts and models will always be incomplete. In the light of this it is easy to see why old knowledge is continually rediscovered, albeit in a different form. Since models attempt to grasp the ungraspable, they will all contain many similarities but will also have some differences. The stoos movement, design thinking and systems thinking are rooted in the same reality, so their similarities should not be surprising.

Coming back to Darryl – his view of project management with 30 years experience includes a whole bunch of memes and models, that for whatever reason, tend to be less sticky than the ones we all know so well. Why certain memes are less successful than others in being replicated from person to person is interesting in its own right and has been discussed at length in our book. For now, we’ll just say that those who come up with new labels to reflect their new understandings are paradoxically wise and narrow minded at the same time. They are wise in that they are seeking better models to understand the reality they encounter, but at the same time likely trashing some worthwhile ones too. Reality is multifaceted and cannot be captured in any particular model, so the finders of a new truth should take care that they do not get carried away by their own hyperbole.

Thanks for reading

Paul Culmsee (with Kailash Awati)

www.hereticsguidebooks.com

                      

No Tags

The Heretics Guide to Best Practices is now available through Amazon, Barnes and Noble and iUniverse.

]

In Paul and Kailash I have found kindred spirits who understand how messed up most organizations are, and how urgent it is that organizations discover what Buddhists call ‘expedient means’—not more ‘best practices’ or better change management for the enterprise, but transparent methods and theories that are simple to learn and apply, and that foster organizational intelligence as a natural expression of individual intelligence. This book is a bold step forward on that path, and it has the wonderful quality, like a walk at dawn through a beautiful park, of presenting profound insights with humor, precision, and clarity.”

—Jeff Conklin, Director, Cognexus Institute

“Hugely enjoyable, deeply reflective, and intensely practical. This book is about weaving human artistry and improvisation, with appropriate methods and technologies, in order to pool collective intelligence and wisdom under pressure.”

—Simon Buckingham Shum, Knowledge Media Institute, The Open University, UK.

“This is a terrific piece of work: important, insightful, and very entertaining. Culmsee and Awati have produced a refreshing take on the problems that plague organisations, the problems that plague attempts to fix organisations, and what can be done to make things better. If you’re trying to deal with wicked problems in your organisation, then drop everything and read this book.”

—Tim Van Gelder, Principal Consultant, Austhink Consulting

“This book has been a brilliantly fun read. Paul and Kailash interweave forty years of management theory using entertaining and engaging personal stories. These guys know their stuff and demonstrate how it can be used via real world examples. As a long time blogger, lecturer and consultant/practitioner I have always been served well by contrarian approaches, and have sought stories and case studies to understand the reasons why my methods have worked. This book has helped me understand why I have been effective in dealing with complex business problems. Moreover, it has encouraged me to delve into the foundations of various management practices and thus further extend my professional skills.”

—Craig Brown, Director, Evaluator

                      

No Tags

I was surprised to see the recent SharePoint Fatigue Syndrome post got some traction in the interweb. As it happened, that particular post was kicking around in an unfinished state for months. The thing is, its not the only “home truth” type of post that I have sitting in my “drafts” folder. I also have one on the state of the SharePoint training market. Given that I have a training announcement to make, I thought that I would combine them.

A day in the life…

We recently worked on a SharePoint upgrade project, where the previous developers did an excellent job overall. That is…if you judge them on the SharePoint governance metrics of writing clean and maintainable code, packaging it up properly, not hacking away at system files and actually writing documentation.

Unfortunately, although they did an excellent job through that lens, the actual solution, when judged on whether users found that it made their life easier, it was an epic fail. Users hated it with passion and like many solution that users hate, the system was soon relegated to being a little-used legacy platform where the maintenance costs now outweighed the benefits. The organisation had invested a couple-hundred thousand dollars on this solution and saw very little value for that money. Accordingly, they took their business elsewhere…to us. After a workshop, the client had one of those inverse “aha” moments when they realised that if they had taken a little more time to understand SharePoint, the custom solution would have never been developed in the first place.

This sort of example, to me, highlights where SharePoint governance goes so wrong. The care and diligence the developers exercised was necessary, but clearly not sufficient. No matter what the quality of the code, the unit testing regime and its packaging, at the end of the day a blueberry pie was baked and the client wanted an apple pie. The problem was not in the ingredients or the baking. The problem was that by the time they delivered the pie, it was clear that the wrong recipe was used. In the above case, the developer had omitted a whole raft of critical considerations in creating the solution – none of which were covered in developer training.

Necessary but not sufficient…

When you think about it, the current approach to SharePoint training seems not to be about recipes, but all about ingredients. Trainees get shipped off to “boot camps” for an indoctrination of all of the ingredients in the cupboard (and SharePoint is a bloody big cupboard!). SharePoint features and components are examined in individual detail, usually with an accompanying exercise or lab to demonstrate competency in that particular component. Graduates then return with a huge list of ingredients, but still no skills in how to develop the right recipes.

What exacerbates this problem is that training is siloed across disciplines. As an example: An “IT Pro” bootcamp will go into meticulous detail about performance, scalability and design aspects. Any considerations around development, information architecture and user engagement are seen through the lens of the infrastructure nerd. (Ah – who am I kidding… user engagement in an IT pro bootcamp has never happened. )

Now consider for a second, how we design SharePoint sites. These days, it is common for people to actively discourage designing SharePoint solutions based on organisational departmental boundaries. (By organisational departmental boundaries I mean Marketing, HR, IT etc.) Why is this design approach frowned upon? Proponents claim that it tends to perpetuate  the problem of information silos and doesn’t stand the test of time, given that organisations tend to restructure just when your information architecture masterpiece is ready for prime time. In fact, the research organisation Jackob Neilsen did a study and found that task based structures (characterised by “My…” and “I need to…”) endured better than organisational based structures. Quoting from them:

In our study, task-based structures often endured better than intranets organized departmentally. In our user testing of intranets, we’ve also found that task-based navigation tends to facilitate ease-of-learning. Thus, the benefits for IA durability are just one more argument in favor of adopting a task-based structure for your intranet.

So what I find ironically funny is the second sentence of the Jackob Neilsen quote: “Ease-of-learning.” I wonder what sort of learning they are talking about? Presumably something other than delivering a failed solution with some really nice programming governance behind it! Yet the way SharePoint training is designed and marketed actually compartmentalises SharePoint training into similar silos. The result? Students get a rose coloured view of the SharePoint world, based on their discipline. This is because, as Ackoff brilliantly put it,  “complexity is in the eye of the beholder – the other persons job always looks simple”.

By the way, what I am highlighting is not the fault of the trainers because at the end of the day, they respond to what they think the market wants. Sadly, what the market thinks it wants is often not what it needs.

I feel that the missing link – and most critical aspect of SharePoint training for practitioners – is not about how many ingredients you know, but how you go about creating those recipes. Yet SharePoint training overly focuses on what each ingredient does in isolation – whether a job discipline or a particular component. Whilst I fully accept that knowing the ingredients is a necessity, it is clearly not sufficient. This is an airbrushed version of reality, without due consideration of how ingredients combine in unique scenarios. Accordingly, this training does nothing to teach how to achieve shared understanding between practitioner and the eventual users who have to live with the legacy of what is delivered.

When you think about it, shared understanding is what makes or breaks SharePoint success because it is the pre-requisite to shared commitment to a solution. As demonstrated by the example of great code underpinning a crap solution, lack of shared understanding and commitment will always trump any other good work performed.

What to do about it…

SharePoint is a product that often requires adaptive change on the part of users. Learning the capabilities of the product is one thing – changing entrenched collaborative practice is another altogether. In case you haven’t noticed before, users tend not to be charmed by new, shiny features if they cannot see how it will make their jobs easier. (Nerdy knowledge workers like you and me easily get seduced by shiny things but our world view is seriously skewed compared to those who live on the coal face of organisations). Thus, the skills required to facilitate change and align various roles, require a different type of training course: one that integrates rather than compartmentalises. One that teaches how to synthesise the whole, rather than reductionise into the parts.

For such a course, no virtual machines are needed because there are no labs to demonstrate competence in some SharePoint component that will be out of date by SharePoint vNext. Instead, such a course needs to focus on the concepts, patterns and practices that are typically not seen in the IT practitioners toolkit (and for that matter, not seen in many complex mainstream IT/PM methodologies). The added bonus for such a course is that the skills and learning’s it provides are applicable beyond SharePoint and even beyond IT itself. While a typical SharePoint might give you mileage for the current version, a course like what I describe will give you tools that you can use anywhere, irrespective of the technology and project.

Does such a class exist? (Is that the longest post you have ever read to get to such a rhetorical question? )

Of course it exists – I’ve been running it around the world for a couple of years now. It’s called the SharePoint Governance and Information Architecture Class (#SPGovIA) and it was a year in the making and comes with lots of goodies, such as a CD with a sample performance framework, governance plan, SharePoint ROI calculator (spreadsheet) and sample mind maps of Information Architecture. The class was originally designed for Microsoft New Zealand, on behalf of 3Grow for the Elite program that used to certify gold partners for serious SharePoint competence. Since then its been run in the UK, Netherlands, US, Australia and New Zealand. Next month I will run classes in Singapore and Hong Kong.

For my US readers, early next year I will be taking the course on the road, specifically Canada and the USA in Feb 2012. This course is not run often, because for me the US is a damn long way to travel and my time is tight these days! So I sincerely hope that if this sort of class sounds interesting to you, then you will consider being part of it. Michal Pisarek has already made an announcement for classes in Vancouver, and more details will be forthcoming for one or two US cities. I only have time for 2 classes in North America, so which city should it be?

For more detail on the class, head on over to www.spgovia.com. While there, click the Media link and watch the first half hour of the class. I look forward to seeing you there.

Thanks for reading

Paul Culmsee

www.sevensigma.com.au

                      

No Tags

• The facets of collaboration Part 1–Meet robot barbie
• The facets of collaboration Part 2–Enter the matrix!
• The facets of collaboration Part 3-The feature jigsaw
• The facets of collaboration Part 4 – BPM vs. HPM
• The facets of collaboration Part 5 – It’s all Gen-Y’s fault – or is it?

Hi all and welcome to part four of my series on unpacking this buzzword phenomenon that is “collaboration”. Like it or not, Collaboration is a word that is very in-vogue right now. I see it being used all over the place, particularly as a by-product of the success of x2.0 tools and technologies. Yet if you do your research, most of the values being espoused actually hark back to the 1950’s and even earlier. (More on that topic in my forthcoming Beyond Best Practices book).

As it happens, Dilbert is quite a useful buzzword KPI. Once a buzzword graces a Scott Adams cartoon, you know that it has officially made it – as shown below:

So back to business! Way back in the first article, I introduced you to Robot Barbie, a metaphor that represents all of those horrid SharePoint sites remind you of a cross-dressing Frankenstein’s monster. I had an early experience with a client who championed a particular vision for a SharePoint project, only to find little buy-in within the organisation for that vision. This, and a bunch of other things, got me interested in the softer areas of SharePoint governance, where no tried and tested best practices really exist. If they did and were so obvious, Microsoft would published them as its in their interest to do so.

This all culminated in when I wrote a SharePoint Governance and Information Architecture training course last year. I read a lot of material where authors attempted to unpack what collaboration actually meant. My rationale for doing so would be to hopefully avoid creating SharePoint solutions that were Robot-Barbie Frankensteins. The model that I came up with is illustrated below:

The basic model is covered in detail in part 2. But to recap here is the basic summary: This model identifies four major facets for collaborative work: Task, Trait, Social and Transactional.

• Task: Because the outcome drives the members’ attention and participation
• Trait: Because the interest drives the members’ attention and participation
• Transactional: Because the process drives the members’ attention and participation
• Social: Because the shared insight drives the members’ attention and participation

In the last post, I used the model to compare and contrast the use of particular SharePoint features, such as wikis, SharePoint lists and the different aspects of document collaboration. With regards to the latter of these three, I l looked at the effectiveness of certain SharePoint building blocks like content types and site columns within the different facets.

In this post and the next, we will use the facets in a different manner. We will take a quick tour through some common philosophical smackdowns that manifest in organisational life. These smackdowns emanate because of the different viewpoints that people with particular job titles and respective bodies of knowledge have.

Any suggestion that a philosophy might be wrong or incomplete often calls into question the self-identify of the practitioner, which causes much angst among adherents. For this reason, I will leave the “agile is great” vs. “agile sucks” debate for another time, because if you search the internet for criticisms of agile you tend see really passionate programmers get all riled up and flame the hell out of you.

Instead, I will start with a relatively easy one…

Business Process Management v.s. Human Process Management

What does painting the Golden Gate Bridge and Business Process Management have in common? With both, you find that by the time you get to the end, you need to go back to the beginning again. I have personally seen organisations fill an office full of people and take literally years to define and then document key processes all in the name of various best practice frameworks or a regulatory requirement. They then find that, once a thick process manual is created, no-one actually follows it unless an auditor is watching or their performance-based remuneration is directly measured by adherence to it. Of course, I’m not the only one to notice this. In fact, the entire discipline of business process management has taken a bit of a battering in recent years.

If we consider a “process” as the means by which we convert inputs of some description into outputs, Business Process Management has long been the discipline that concerns itself with process optimisation. But in a pattern that is seen in all disciplines like Project Management and Business Analysis, someone will inevitably come along, tell you that you have it wrong or are not being “holistic” and invent a new term to account for your wrongness. In the case of BPM, we now have people arguing for various terms: such as Human Interaction Management, Human Centric Business Process Management, Non-Linear Business Process (thanks Sadie!) or Human Process Management. We will use the latter term, but they are essentially talking about the same thing.

So before we see an example Human Process Management (HPM), let’s review Business Process Management and see what the HPM fanboys are whining about.

Business Process Management

BPM is a structured approach to analyse and continually improve and optimise process activities. Process structure and flow are modelled via diagrammatic tools, allowing organizations to abstract business process from technology infrastructure and organisational departmental/jurisdictional boundaries. This abstracted view allows business to holistically examine process and increase their efficiency and respond rapidly to changing circumstances. This in turn creates competitive advantage.

BPM is often used within the broader context of process improvement methodologies such as Six Sigma (which if you have never read about it, will finally prove to you that all that high-school mathematics that you found mind-numbingly boring was actually useful). While BPM on its own provides excellent visibility of process via modelling them, Six Sigma also incorporates additional analytical tools to solve difficult and complex process problems. Thus, BPM and Six Sigma augment each-other, because process improvement efforts can be more focused via BPM modelling. Thomas Gomez, in an article entitled “The Marriage of BPM and Six Sigma", had the following to say:

“Without BPM, Six Sigma may flounder because executives lack the critical data needed to focus their efforts. Instead, the executives bounce all over the place looking for performance weaknesses, or they focus on areas where successful performance improvements provide only marginal results. With BPM, Six Sigma projects can pinpoint problems and address the underlying causes.”

But that is where the fun ends according to the BPM critics. BPM nerds have had to suffer the indignation of hurtful labels like “Sick Sigma” and stories of long term problems with innovation because of such initiatives. They cite examples such as  George Buckley of 3M, who wound back many of his predecessor’s Six Sigma initiatives.

"Invention is by its very nature a disorderly process. You can’t put a Six Sigma process into that area and say, well, I’m getting behind on invention, so I’m going to schedule myself for three good ideas on Wednesday and two on Friday. That’s NOT how creativity works."

Ouch! Its enough to make a BPM feel all flustered and defensive of their craft. Nevertheless the above quote echoes the main points made by BPM critics. That many processes are not structured, predictable or logical and therefore, BPM approaches force a structured paradigm when none necessarily exists (Mind you, many other methodologies do precisely the same). In an appropriately titled article “The H-Bomb of Business Processes: Humans”, Ayal Steiner makes a point that also cuts to the heart of tame vs wicked problems debate too.

“The modern idea of BPM stresses a well-defined business process as the starting point but this is not always the case. Therefore, in a project that involves new practices or a cross-functional learning among participants, BPM has always had a tough time dealing with the humans.”

The notion of the well-defined starting or ending point is one of the characteristics of a tame problem. Wicked problems are often characterised by poorly defined staring and ending points. In fact with a wicked problem, often participants cannot agree on what the problem is in the first place!

Critics like Steiner also argue that many roles within an organisation, tend to deal with more tacit, dynamic situations and as such spend a large amount of their work time performing collaborative human work, when compared to transactional business process work (knowledge workers is the prevailing label for this type of role). While the main area of benefit for BPM’s is its ability to increase the efficiency of a core business process, the sort of thinking required to re-think processes in a systematic manner involves collaboration and systems thinking (in other words, beyond the process in front of us and how it interacts and interrelates more broadly since the whole of the broader system is greater than the sum of its parts). This is a human-driven activity as it is based on humans collaborating and innovating.

Closer to SharePoint home, Sadie Van Buren noted this same distinction in May 2010 which was around the same time I started the development of my IA class.

Human Process Management

So if BPM is incomplete, enter Human Process Management (HPM). HPM is concerned with process that is not easily defined, nor well structured, where it is hard to prescribe the execution of the process based on some model of the business. With human process, it is generally known how to achieve an intended result, but each case is handled separately and requires tacit judgment (for both decisions and flow) as part of the process. There is not enough standardization between instances of the process that allows for a formal, complete and rigorous description of the process end-to-end.

The obvious downside of human processes, say the critics, is that they are far too fluid and dynamic to be made part of an Enterprise BPM system. As a result, these processes tend to be handled through email, which in turn contributes to information overload and poor information worker productivity – precisely why we look to tools like SharePoint in the first place! The implication of HPM is that we need to shift emphasis to tools and practices that help us deal with unstructured or ad-hoc processes (and the information created/used during that process) more so than tools that deal with the well-defined world of BPM.

To be fair to the BPM crowd, these above criticisms will be seen by BPM practitioners as naive, since from their point of view, the less structured side is simply a part of the entire BPM spectrum. They argue that critics do not properly understand the principles and philosophy of BPM in the first place (Agile and PMBOK defenders say essentially the same thing when defending from critics). Supporting this counterargument is a key theme for BPM success that is regularly emphasised. That is, the critical pre-requisite of clarity of purpose and shared understanding of the end in mind. Mohamed Zairi, in a paper called “Business process management: a boundaryless approach to modern competitiveness” stated:

“The achievement of a BPM culture depends very much on the establishment of total alignment to corporate goals and having every employee’s efforts focused on adding value to the end customer.”

Therefore the BPM crowd are arguing for the same human process that HPM base their criticism on. Developing a culture of alignment to corporate goals is very much a human process. Are the HPM fanboy criticisms well founded or is it more a case that some BPM guys forget about strategic goal alignment and optimise process in isolation?

What do the facets say?

Clearly, there is a natural tension between these two polarities of BPM and HPM and this often plays out in organisational life in how we collaborate to deliver organisational outcomes. While there have always been process nazis, the emergence of social collaboration platforms that do not have a great deal of formal structure (think tagging and folksonomies) has led to a great deal of debate and self examination in BPM circles and beyond. Understanding these traits is critically important on the use of SharePoint tools, because SharePoint – and in particular SP2010 offers features for both BPM and HPM aficionados. Putting the two together however might risk Robot Barbie scenarios.

Straight away, it seems that the transactional vs. social axis of the facets of collaboration neatly explain the Business Process Management (BPM)/Human Process Management (HPM) challenge. Both areas are concerned with producing an output or getting something done. Therefore I have drawn BPM and HPM leaning toward the task side of the model. HPM proponents argue that human process is unstructured or semi-structured, dynamic, intertwined and borderless, which fits in well with the task/social trait of process and insight. BPM naturally fits into the lower transactional half where inputs are well defined.

While I would agree with the assertion that many processes are ill-defined and rely on tacit knowledge to be completed, HPM proponents go further though. For example, Ayal Steiner who I quoted earlier, argues that “analysts are now realising that human processes account for 80% of the business processes carried out in most organisations”. That is a big call, in effect, arguing that the majority of workplace interactions occupy the social quadrants above. I disagree. From my experience, most organisational roles have extremely varying degrees of transactional vs. social collaboration and some roles are in fact dominated by transactional collaboration. Perhaps there is some confirmation bias going on here, where knowledge workers who put in collaborative systems tend to think that everyone are knowledge workers too.

Here is an example. Mrs CleverWorkarounds used to be a medical nurse. When I first showed her this model I asked her to describe where nurses would fit in terms of their collaboration. She indicated two areas.

• Firstly, nurses are strongly linked by trait and transaction. This is because they all have a minimum degree of knowledge and skill. As stated in part 2, the key tell-tale sign of a role with transactional collaboration is how easily individuals performing that role can be replaced by someone else with similar experience at short notice. Supporting this, if a nurse is sick or unavailable, a replacement nurse can be called in to perform the same tasks.  Collaboration between nurses according to Mrs Cleverworkarounds is quite transactional as well. Routine and process consistency via tracking the status of patient care is a critical task – patient status is everything. Thus, data driven tools with version history and well defined inputs make this form of collaboration easier. In fact, Mrs CleverWorkarounds taught herself InfoPath and SPD Workflows because she was so convinced that automated forms with consistent audit trails via workflow would make her job easier.
• Yet at the same time, the sort of collaboration between nurses and patients is completely different and highly social in nature. No process is going to govern the interaction between nurse and patient. The type of care and counselling to get someone well is going to vary the type of interaction. A broken leg is one thing, health problems from say – alcoholism is something else entirely. The latter has much deeper symptoms than just the illness as presented. Here the focus is on patient well-being and goes beyond status of meds, when doctors have visited or accurate handover notes from one nursing shift to another.

State machine workflows?

Interestingly, even seemingly well-defined business processes tend to have ad-hoc and dynamic aspects to them. When there is an exception to the standard process, those exceptions tend to be handled in a relatively ad-hoc, case-by-case manner. Microsoft developer Pravin Indurkar cited an example of a seemingly transactional purchase ordering system.

“Often the business processes contain a prescribed path to the end goal but then there are a lot of alternate ways the same goal can be achieved. For example, a purchase order can contain a prescribed path where the PO goes from being created, to approved, to shipped, and then to completed. But then there a multitude of other ways in which the PO can be completed. The PO can get changed, or back ordered or cancelled and then Reopened. All these paths must be accounted for.”

Indurkar studied the purchase order system of a small business and found that apart from the one standard traditional order fulfilment process, there were about 65 different variations on the same process depending on the nature of the order. This is when BPM diagrams start to get scary. If you think that this workflow below is scary, then be more scared. It is page 12 of a 136 page process!

Naturally, trying to hardwire such a large number of alternate paths is very difficult and traditionally, there were two ways in which this was dealt with;

• Either the business process was hard wired to accommodate all the paths as shown in figure 1, which made the implementation of the business process extremely complex, brittle and hard to maintain.
• The alternate paths are simply not dealt with and any situation of the ordinary was dealt outside the domain of the process. This meant that tracking and visibility were lost because people would create manual systems to track such out of the ordinary situations. The facet diagram below illustrates this:

In Indurkar’s article that I quoted with the purchase order example, he argued that the solution to this sort of problem was via state-based or state-machine workflows which SharePoint has supported in a basic fashion, out of the box since SP2007. This kind of workflow, if you are not aware, is when the workflow waits for one or more events to move it into another state. There is no sequence as such, because this new target state can be any of the defined states in the workflow. This makes state workflows reflect the unpredictable nature of process variations.

Thus, it could be argued that BPM is not incomplete as what the HPM fanboys think, but that critics have a less than holistic understanding of the craft?

Conclusion: A Process Analysis Tool…

To be honest, I don’t want to answer the question of which fanboy is right because it is a bit of a zero sum game. When you think about process, many seem to have elements of transactional and social in them (just like job roles). For example, an “Approval” decision diamond in a business process diagram will determine the path a process takes. Apart from stating the fact that this process is a gateway where a decision is made, this says nothing about whether the activity of making that decision is transactional or social. In some processes the decision may be made by a rigorous data driven process (like a point-score based credit check for a loan applicant). In others it may be on gut feel (such as choosing the right applicant for a job position).

So to me, whether you are the most regimented process nazi or the most cowboyish non-conformist hippie, modelling a business process according to its ratio of transactional to social facets is probably very useful indeed to complement a BPM model. It help us understand how much tacit judgement is required in a given process and whether modelling every variation in a sequential workflow is worthwhile. Check out some examples on how this could be done below. In first example on the left, a business process where the majority of the steps are performed by tacit judgement might look like something like how I have drawn, with a task based social dominance. If the process in question indeed looks like this, then attempting to document every minute variation on the paths the process can take might not be worthwhile. Perhaps documenting the broad process (within the constraints of any compliance regime requirements) might be a better idea. In the second example, the process seems to be oriented around a repeatable set of choices (task based transactional dominant). As a result it may be worthwhile formally documenting these variations.

By combining these “process diagnostics” with the actual diagram, we might now offer additional insights into how the organisation really works with a certain process and do crazy stuff like produce something akin to my mockup below:

Hell, throw in a RACI chart and now you start to see process accountabilities as well!

Of course, you could always remove the task/trait axis if it is not needed and simply use a sliding scale. Nevertheless, what this shows is that the facets of collaboration model offers an extra dimension to any process being modelled and would help many to better understand the nature of the process being modelled, as well as strategies for improving that process via SharePoint.

Thanks for reading

Paul Culmsee

www.sevensigma.com.au

p.s If you are a real trainspotter/glutton for punishment and want to dive deeper, google “Human Interaction Management” and “Role Activity Diagrams”

                      

No Tags

Western Australia is BIG

In case you don’t know already, I live in Perth, Western Australia. You can see Perth if you squint at the map on your left and look to the south west area.

Western Australia is a bloody big land area and extremely isolated. One claim to fame about living in Perth is its distinction for being one of the most isolated cities in the world. In fact we has a population density is on par with Mongolia (this is dead-set true – I researched this fact). Of the 2.2 million people that live in the state, 1.8 million live in the Perth metropolitan area and the rest are scattered far and wide. In terms of distribution, there are no other major cities in Western Australia. The next most populated town outside of Perth is Mandurah with some 83,000 people. 

In the north of Western Australia, these towns are often separated by anywhere from a couple hundred to more than a thousand kilometres. The weather is very hot, the landscape is breathtakingly beautiful and the isolation here is hard to comprehend without visiting. The wealth of Western Australia (“GFC? What GFC?”) comes from the north of this vast state, via huge mineral deposits that China seems happy to buy from us, which in turn keep me and my colleagues busy putting in SharePoint around the place.

Now if you think Western Australia is big, get this: The Kimberley region of Western Australia (the top section marked in red) is almost as big as the entire country of Germany. For American readers, it alone is three fifths the size of Texas. For all that space, only around 45000-50000 people live there.

These wide distances create all sorts of challenges. At a most basic level, think about the cost of basic services to such a remote location with such a small population density. Cost of living is high and services like health care are always stretched and people living here have to accept that they will never be able to enjoy the same level of service enjoyed by their city slicker cousins.

Now that I have painted that picture in your mind, let me intersect that with one of Australia’s biggest wicked problems. The indigenous people’s of Australia have many social and health issues that have had a massive human cost to them. We are talking chronic alcoholism, physical and sexual abuse, depression, suicide and the whole range of mental illnesses. Families and communities tear themselves apart in a seemingly an endless negatively reinforcing cycle. Like many indigenous groups around the world, intervention approaches from earlier periods have had catastrophic long term consequences that were never considered at the time (a classic wicked problem characteristic). When you read the stories about the stolen generations, you cannot help but be deeply moved by the long term effects, the damage done and the sad legacy left behind.

And the point is?

Okay so I have set a scene. Presumably you might be wondering why am I telling you this?

Last week myself and Dr Neil Preston of Psyopus spent time in Broome, working with an amazing bunch of people who work in an area that takes true dedication and heart – mental health and drug/alcohol addiction. The passion and dedication that they bring, given the challenges that they have to deal with, with the scant resources that they have to leverage, is really quite inspiring and at the same time, mind-boggling in terms of complexity.  Neil tells me that there is a class of problems that are even more “wicked” than wicked problems and he calls them “toxic problems” and I think he is spot on with mental health in rural and regional Australia.

Neil and I were engaged to facilitate two days of strategic planning for the Kimberley Mental Health Service via dialogue mapping. Around 45 people were in attendance from various locations in the Kimberley region of Western Australia. In short, dialogue mapping is made for this sort of strategic planning work and it was a privilege to be able to play a part in it. As a dialogue mapper, this is the ultimate test because on top of working with a large group, my background lies in IT infrastructure and I have little discipline background to help me map these topics (Jeff Conklin himself would tell you this is a very challenging ask).  Fortunately though, I have worked with Neil a lot before this, in a tandem role where he facilitates the group and I map. This allows us to work with much bigger groups than either of us could handle alone.

Neil’s facilitation style is more akin to the principles of dynamic facilitation as he seems to have a sixth sense around the dynamics of the group and instinctively knows when to push here and there, as well as when to back off and let things emerge of their own accord. Many facilitators do not do this well at all – and really push hard for convergence while a group is diverging because of fear that the group may not meet the stated outcome by a set time.

Feedback from participants on this particular engagement has been wonderful, with many articulating the very things that attracted me to the craft in the first place (“It was great to be heard”, “it makes it so much easier to follow what’s happening” and the like). I look forward to be back here soon to work with such an inspiring group of professionals.

The reason why I enjoy this work is that this is real collaboration. Diverse stakeholders working together on a complex, multifaceted problem to deliver better outcomes under difficult circumstances. While strategic planning for regional mental health might seem very far away from SharePoint, there are many lessons that can be learned and applied back in the IT world. So if you are a super smart SharePoint guru who dazzles with technical prowess, or even fancy yourself as a Business Analyst or Enterprise Architect and use fancy words like “the business”, you might be interested in some of the many lessons I draw from this type of work.

Learn from outside of your discipline (perspective)

One of the greatest benefits for me is being able to work with groups that normally I’d unlikely get to work with. Also, rather than listen to them ask for their SharePoint requirements, I get to help them grapple their toughest issues. If you want serious context then sit in a room for a day or two of these type of sessions! Whether it is the insight from a participant that can be used in SharePoint projects or learning some technique for aligning expectations between stakeholders, I get to reap the benefit of the wisdom of many crowds. These are life skills that can be applied in many situations. The value that these skills add to my SharePoint work and the perspective I gain is invaluable.

Apart from becoming a much more informed citizen on various topics, I say to people now that I’ve learned more about getting SharePoint right from outside of IT than within it.

Listen for the conversation beneath the conversation

The second lesson learned is that we do not listen properly. I’ve previously said that to have shared commitment (ie buy-in), you need shared understanding. Attaining shared understanding is not going to happen in a stuffy meeting room with a bunch of nodding stakeholders who feel too intimidated or uncomfortable to raise difficult issues. Earlier I mentioned Neil’s facilitation style, and lamented that many facilitators push too hard to converge before people are ready for it. When this happens, the facilitator is not really listening to what is being said. Getting to the sometimes, unarticulated fear, concern or key aspects behind the dialogue on the surface is the key. Then putting a name to that fear, concern or aspect is even better because it provides a context for a group to grasp onto.

As I mentioned, Neil has this down to a fine art. I found that the more I worked with him, the better my own radar got. A while back we were both working with a group where once again, was not an IT issue and therefore not my discipline area. Yet at one point during the dialogue, a participant said something that to me was very important, but I couldn’t really tell you why. I just sensed something the comment and I was about to interject with a “this is important, I need to make sure I have this right”, but Neil sensed the same thing and dived into that comment and uncovered the key to the conversation.

Later I asked Neil about this and he said “you’re starting to sense the patterns in group conversation”. Returning to SharePoint work some weeks later, I was dialogue mapping to envision a SharePoint based solution for an educational institution. During that conversation I became acutely aware what the crux to the success of the install would be. Although it was never mentioned explicitly, teachers value themselves via their relationship with students. Any information management system that devalued teachers (judged by the number of students in class versus staying home and downloading the class notes) was never going to fly. The system had to support and enhance the student-teacher experience. This was brought to the surface, named for what it was and turned into one of 5 key focus areas that underpinned the resulting SharePoint project and was accordingly featured highly in the SharePoint governance plan.

Ask the right questions (stop overlooking legacy)

In the last section I referred to hearing something that felt “important”. Neil calls this getting to the second and third order goals. The first order goals come from project management 101 (time, cost and quality). I feel that around 95% of our conversation are on first order goals. A good example of a 3rd order goal is legacy – what sort of legacy will our solution be leaving behind for others to grapple with. Take the stolen generation example I started with. When you look at this problem, it is the legacy it has left us that we lament (for all we know, it was done on time, scope and budget – but no-one cares about that do they?). Yet as we come up with new solutions to try and address the legacy of the past, we fall into the trap of spending all our time and energy focusing on the first order goals!

Therefore, legacy rarely gets a look-in. This is pretty messed up when you think about it, especially when SharePoint is often thrown at a problem because of a legacy of poor collaboration and information management in the first place!

By simply asking what sort of legacy that a project should leave behind is so important to its governance. It frames things in such a way that orients people to not only the end in mind, but how that end fits into the broader scheme of things. Without this perspective, are you governing the means or the end? This sort of question is so much better than “so, what are your requirements”?

Asking the right questions is a very important topic that I cover in my forthcoming book with Kailash and will post more in due course

Celebrate your wins

When referring to legacy, we tend to focus on the things we did not do well. Whether this is a cognitive bias or the reality of a high incidence of project failure I don’t know. But one nice thing about dialogue mapping is that it has a better memory than the stakeholders who create the maps. During the mental health work, stakeholders reviewed the progress of all of the initiatives from the previous year and a lot of goodwill was generated to see words put into action and actions turn into results. In SharePoint, recently we were called into a new project where we had previously been engaged. A combination of staff turnover as well as staff just generally being busy, resulted in a loss of corporate memory. One aspect of the project was causing concern and the team members (including some of the original team) had anchored to that. Yet when we loaded up the original maps from 18 months prior, we are able to review all of the listed goals, constraints and rationale for decisions back then.  It became clear to the team soon that they actually did a terrific job and nailed pretty much everything else they set out to do. This perspective was vital to helping the group to see how far they had come from humble beginnings. It allowed them to say “you know, we did do a pretty good job after all”.

Seeing progress and goals being met is vital. Just like the daily news reports, negative dominates positive. Celebrating those wins cultivates a sense of purpose that binds people together and helps people to see that the legacy they are creating is the one they want.

Thanks for reading

Paul Culmsee

www.sevensigma.com.au

                      

No Tags

Here is my simple, patent pending method to use to help users design good SharePoint sites. It combines two very effective IA methods into one and its amazing how it turns people from wanting 1990’s era sites complete with horizontal scrolling banners with animated GIF’s into usability and IA gurus within minutes.

The tools of the trade you need for this method is:

• Balsamiq, a terrific wireframing tool that I previously reviewed.
• http://www.websitesthatsuck.com/ – a hilarious site dedicated to teaching people how to design sites by looking at particularly crap ones

So now you know the ingredients, let’s run through the recipe

1. Put key stakeholders into a room (ensure the ones with poor taste are there together)
2. Visit websitesthatsuck.com and review the 2010 contenders for worst websites of the year. (For what its worth, my personal vote is Yale School of Art)
3. Have a good laugh and discuss all the crappy aspects to those sites – make particular note of the write-up on websitesthatsuck for each contender
4. With the group’s sucky website radar now primed, have them load up their existing intranet (if they are really big organisation, go around to various departmental sites around the intranet). This time they will not laugh, due to the effect of your “crapness calibration” ™ exercise, they will see many faults in the existing site straight away.
5. At this point, crank out Balsamiq and start to wireframe what the site should look like while you have the fleeting moment of clarity (crapness calibration fades with time and needs to be re-primed). The wisdom of the crowd should ensure that most of the common mistakes will be avoided there and then.
   • Statistically, one of every three times you do this, there is always one user who’s taste is so bad that calibration will take another round of deprogramming. So if you have someone that persists with crap taste or has ideas that 99% of the user base would balk at, move to the 2009 hall of shame for sucky sites. Faced with the reaction from their peers, as well as the parallels that can be drawn between their current site and the contenders, it usually does the trick.
   • Also be sure to draw attention to sites that have similar underlying concepts, but where one works well and the other has agonising lameness. For example, the New York Times compared to Havenworks. Discuss the layout, colours, fonts, images, navigation, search and the like and relate back to the site being envisioned.

In about 30-90 minutes, one of two things will happen.

1. You will have a pretty good wireframe or three
2. The group will realise that they have more soul searching to do.

Although your business development manager will whine at you if outcome 2 happens, consider it a good thing. You will be saving yourself and the participants a mountain of stress later and have them thinking more holistically about the outcomes they are trying to achieve.

(Final serious bit at the end alert)

What you will notice when performing this process, is that with a recent and clear frame of reference, some of the biases that people carry with them can be temporarily lifted. In some ways, this exercise is very similar to the “down the pub” calibration of estimates exercise that I wrote about previously. The trick is to find ways to change the lens people look through to see other aspects or facets to the problem at hand.

To that end, if you are in the UK or nearby, consider coming to my Governance and Information Architecture Master Class in London with Andrew Woodward and Ant Clay. Lots of other (more serious and rigorous) methods for developing shared understanding will be covered.

Thanks for reading

Paul Culmsee

www.sevensigma.com.au

                      

No Tags

So first up, just because I get asked this all the time, the book is definitely *not* “A humble tribute to the leave form – The Book”! In fact, it’s not about SharePoint per se, but rather the deeper dark arts of team collaboration in the face of really complex or novel problems.

It was late 2006 when my own career journey took an interesting trajectory, as I started getting into sensemaking and acquiring the skills necessary to help groups deal with really complex, wicked problems. My original intent was to reduce the chances of SharePoint project failure but in learning these skills, now find myself performing facilitation, goal alignment and sensemaking in areas miles away from IT. In the process I have been involved with projects of considerable complexity and uniqueness that make IT look pretty easy by comparison. The other fringe benefit is being able to sit in a room and listen to the wisdom of some top experts in their chosen disciplines as they work together.

Through this work and the professional and personal learning that came with it, I now have some really good case studies that use unique (and I mean, unique) approaches to tackling complex problems. I have a keen desire to showcase these and explain why our approaches worked.

My leanings towards sensemaking and strategic issues would be apparent to regular readers of CleverWorkarounds. It is therefore no secret that this blog is not really much of a technical SharePoint blog these days. The articles on branding, ROI, and capacity planning were written in 2007, just before the mega explosion of interest in SharePoint. This time around, there are legions of excellent bloggers who are doing a tremendous job on giving readers a leg-up onto this new beast known as SharePoint 2010.

So back to the book. Our tentative title is “Beyond Best Practices” and it’s an ambitious project, co-authored with Kailash Awati – the man behind the brilliant eight to late blog. I had been a fan of Kailash’s work for a long time now, and was always impressed at the depth of research and effort that he put into his writing. Kailash is a scarily smart guy with two PHD’s under his belt and to this day, I do not think I have ever mentioned a paper or author to him that he hasn’t read already. In fact, usually he has read it, checked out the citations and tells me to go and read three more books!

Kailash writes with the sort of rigour that I aspire to and will never achieve, thus when the opportunity of working with him on a book came up, I knew that I absolutely had to do it and that it would be a significant undertaking indeed.

To the left is a mock-up picture to try and convey where we are going with this book. See the guy on the right? Is he scratching his head in confusion, saluting or both? (note, this is our mockup and the real thing may look nothing like this)

This book dives into the seedy underbelly of organisational problem solving, and does so in a way that no other book has thus far attempted. We examine why the very notion of “best practices” often makes no sense and have such a high propensity to go wrong. We challenge some mainstream ideas by shining light on some obscure, but highly topical and interesting research that some may consider radical or heretical. To counter the somewhat dry nature of some of this research (the topics are really interesting but the style in which academics write can put insomniacs to sleep), we give it a bit of the cleverworkarounds style treatment and are writing in a conversational style that loses none of the rigour, but won’t have you nodding off on page 2. If you liked my posts where I use odd metaphors like boy bands to explain SharePoint site collections, the Simpsons to explain InfoPath or death metal to explain records versus collaborative document management, then you should enjoy our journey through the world of cognitive science, memetics, scientific management and Willy Wonka (yup – Willy Wonka!).

Rather than just bleat about what the problems with best-practices are, we will also tell you what you can do to address these issues. We back up this advice by presenting a series of practical case studies, each of which illustrates the techniques used to address the inadequacies of best practices in dealing with wicked problems. In the end, we hope to arm our readers with a bunch of tools and approaches that actually work when dealing with complex issues. Some of these case studies are world unique and I am very proud of them.

Now at this point in the writing, this is not just an idea with an outline and a catchy title. We have been at this for about six months, and the results thus far (some 60-70,000 words) have been very, very exciting. Initially, we really had no idea whether the combination of our writing styles would work – whether we could take the degree of depth and skill of Kailash with my low-brow humour and my quest for cheap laughs (I am just as likely to use a fart joke if it helps me get a key point across)…

… But signs so far are good so stay tuned

Thanks for reading

Paul Culmsee

www.sevensigma.com.au

                      

Technorati Tags: Book, Beyond Best Practices

Well… that was a long commercial break wasn’t it

In case you missed part 1 of our version of the show “deal or no deal”, you missed the big cliff-hanger and you really should read part 1 first. For the rest of you, to quickly recap, I came out of the closet and admitted by secret teenybopper shame, told the world that my wife had a teenage thing for Jean Claude Van Damme, showed the effect of beer goggles and introduced the notion of cognitive bias and how it can affect judgement.

i also demonstrated how, by altering the frame of reference, to a problem something that at first seems completely unquantifiable “how the hell do I know how many SharePoint developers drive yellow cars?”, is actually not as “impossible” as you may first think.

At the end of the last post I left you with a $10000 dilemma. You had to make a “deal or no deal” decision about going with your estimate about SharePoint developers who own yellow cars, or to instead cast your lot with a bag of marbles with a 9 in 10 chance of winning the prize. Just to refresh your memory, here is the salient part of the pub conversation.

• Me: Okay, so you are 90% sure that here are between 300 and 2000 SharePoint developers in the world with a yellow car?
• Them: Yes
• Me: So, let’s make this like the game show “deal or no deal”. If you are right and the answer is within your range, you will win $10000. BUT you have an alternative…
• Them: Ok…
• Me: What if I were to present you with a bag containing 9 red marbles and 1 black marble and offer you $10000 if you pull out a red marble. Pull the one black marble, and you miss out on the money. Do you want to stick to your estimate or do you want to draw a marble?

So have you decided? Now be honest and see how you went against the 4 outcomes that I have experienced when trying this on people. Here are the possible answers in order of popularity…

1. The person chooses to pull from the bag of marbles rather than their ranged estimate. (This is the predominant answer for all people I have tried this with – perhaps 70-75% of all responses).
2. The person chooses to use their estimate over the bag of marbles. (perhaps 25% of people have answered with this option)
3. Upon hearing the bag option, the person wants to change their ranged estimate. (Happened to me once)
4. The person doesn’t care which method.. (never happened to me)

So which is the right answer to this question?

(drumroll) Lets tackle the possible answer in order of likelihood.

“Take the marble! take the maaaaaarble!”

For the 70 odd percent of you who opted to take your chances with the bag of marbles, GONG! you lose!

Better double check your estimates in future because you have demonstrated that you are over-confident in your estimates. In other words, you are suffering from optimism bias. To explain why, think about the original question carefully. I asked originally for a ranged estimate that you were 90% confident with.

I then presented an alternative that has a 9 out of 10 chance of success – also 90%. From a statistical point of view, you should be completely ambivalent as to which option to use. Therefore, despite being asked for a range that you were 90% confident with, the range you actually estimated is not really 90% at all. It has to be less than 90% for you to prefer a clear 9/10 probability.

So that is why you are so stressed and busy! You keep giving crap estimates that make life harder for you! Either that or you are too nice and when your project manager looks at you with those big, sad project manager eyes, your heart melts and you relent.

Isn’t that cool in a nerdy way? It is very interesting to see people’s faces as the penny drops to this logic and they suddenly realise just how bad some of their past estimates have been as a result. The consolation prize is just about 4 out of 5 people do exactly the same as you and take the marbles.

“No deal, I will stick with my estimate”

For the smaller group who decide that their estimate is preferred, you also lose.

In this case, the reason why should be pretty obvious. You are so paranoid about getting it wrong, that you have made an estimate that is more like 95% or even 99% confident. Why? your range is too wide for 90% because when presented with a clear 9/10 chance of success, you chose your original estimate. While that may sound like you are confident, in reality you are a bit of a wuss, because in fact you are under confident with your estimate. So grow some balls you weenie

Honorary mention – “I want to change my estimate”

At the Best Practice Conference in DC, I attempted this pub trick on Yoav Lurie from Synteractive, who is much more of a business and strategic thinker than us IT nerds. His response I think, deserves an honorary mention for being the closest to winning the game. In this example, I asked him to estimate in feet, the wingspan of a Boeing 747. I knew instantly that he was a good estimator because of the logic he used to come to a range.

“Hmm, well an aircraft seat is maybe one and a half feet, and there will be 10 seats in the cabin, with two passages that are probably two feet in width…so that ads up to…”

What do you notice about what Yoav did? Straight away, he related the wingspan of an aircraft (a clear unknown), to something he could make a reasonable estimate of (the width of an aircraft seat). After all, we have all sat in an aircraft seat in sardine (economy) class and know how cramped it is. He knew there were three rows of seats and related this to the width of the cabin, which he then related to the size of the wing. Deducing that the wing might be 4 to 6 times the width of the cabin, he then was able to make a very good ranged estimate of the overall wingspan of the plane.

I was very impressed at his estimate and how he arrived at it, but I still got him

As soon as I presented him with the bag of marbles alternative, without missing a beat he said “I want to change my estimate”. It took only a split second of presenting a clear 90% probability made Yoav realise that his estimate was not 90% and he was still a little overconfident.

That being said, Yoav’s method of relating something known to help frame the reference to something unknown is the only time anyone has used any sort of rigour in forming an estimate and very impressive for the pub setting

The right answer

Okay, so as you may have guessed by now, the right answer is to shrug your shoulders and say “I don’t care” or wave your hand at me and say “pfft, whatever”. (This is one of the few times saying you couldn’t care less is the right answer). In doing so, you have placed equal weight upon the choices, based on the assumption that both are 90% probabilities.

Neat pub trick huh? It certainly gets people thinking.

How to calibrate yourself

Douglas Hubbard talks about “calibrated estimates” in his books and has an appendix of calibration questions, that are designed to help you perceive and account for cognitive bias in your estimating.

What you should take away from this exercise is that when asked to estimate on something you are uncertain about, make your initial estimate. Then, pretend you are in the game show and you have to pick between this estimate and the marble. If you feel that you would take the marble over your estimate, increase the width of your range until you feel that it doesn’t matter which option you pick.

Conversely, if you are one of the wimps who are under confident, then reduce the width of your range, until you feel that you have no particular preference of your estimate vs. the marbles.

In the same way that reframing a problem led from something being unquantifiable to something that indeed had a upper and lower range, by reframing the estimate against a unambiguous probability such as a bag of 10 marbles with 9 red, helps you to account for cognitive bias in your estimates.

Conclusion

So to reiterate my key points to this post

1. Many things that seem unquantifiable are easier to quantify than you think, once you think in terms of ranged estimates and probability.
2. Your bad taste in fashion and music when you were a teenager still manifests itself today and it is called cognitive bias.
3. There are easy methods that you can use to calibrate yourself better so that your estimating radar is more finely tuned.

Most importantly of all however, you learned that my wife liked Jean Claude Van Damme in the 80’s and you know that I am in big trouble when she reads this!

Thanks for reading

Paul

                      

No Tags

So, why was Peter much more accurate with his estimates?

The answer to this question, all one has to do is think back to their teenage years, where they went through that awkward stage where you look back and cringe at the posters that were on your wall and your choice of fashion. For many, this period demonstrates some utterly appalling choices of taste. Mine are particularly cringe-worthy, given that these days I am a bit of a metalhead. My favourite song at the time was Respectable by Mel and Kim. I thought that Karate Kid II was the best film of all time (and that the girl in it was hot). Mind you, my wife has an even more shameful secret. She had a crush on Jean Claude Van Damme! Mwahahahah

These are examples of a phenomenon I like to call “Teenybopper bias”

Now, there is a point in telling you about my wife’s secret shame and it isn’t to see her reaction when she reads this (okay, well maybe a teenie bit). These examples of “what the hell was I thinking” are a form of cognitive bias that took place at the time the opinion was formed. In terms of teenybopper bias, the root of the bias is likely the same hormones that caused your face to break out with acne and hair to grow in funny places. Another very common cognitive bias that afflicts people whether young or old is good old “beer goggle” bias illustrated below.

There are many, many forms of cognitive bias documented, such as optimism bias, anchoring, hindsight bias and the recency effect to name a few. Now let’s take the final image above and pretend we asked someone at the pub for an estimate on a project at 8pm, 10pm and 1am. I’d be willing to bet that the estimate gets more optimistic on a par with how optimistic the perception of the people in the image above become.

Overcoming cognitive bias

Kailash writes about the risk that cognitive bias can play in project failure, particularly in the perception of risks.

overcoming biases requires an understanding of the thought processes through which humans make decisions in the face of uncertainty.  Of particular interest is  the role of  intuition and rational thought in forming judgements, and the common mechanisms that underlie judgement-related cognitive biases.   A knowledge and awareness of these mechanisms  might help project managers in consciously countering the operation of cognitive biases in their own decision making.

The essential difference between Peter and myself in our estimating, is that Peter happens to have a much more finely tuned radar to optimism bias in particular. Douglas Hubbard of Applied Information Economics fame, writes about the effect of cognitive bias extensively in his two books and offers a simple, yet highly useful method to quickly improve the quality of estimates which I will explain with an example below.

The great thing about learning about your cognitive biases and the methods for mitigating them, is that you can use it in the pub too. While I don’t recommend this method for picking up members of the opposite sex, it’s a pretty cool icebreaker.

Thus, I will demonstrate how to improve your estimating accuracy by a mythical pub conversation. Imagine you are onto your third beer…

• Me: “How many SharePoint developers worldwide own a yellow car?
• Them: “What the…I haven’t the faintest idea!”
• Me: “Well, I can understand that, so let’s do an estimate. Give me a range that the answer could fall in, that you are 90% confident with.”
• Them: “I still can’t give you an estimate, I can’t possibly know something like that.”
• Me: “Well, could there be a million SharePoint developers who like yellow cars?”
• “Them: “Don’t be ridiculous, there would be nowhere near a million SharePoint developers – period.”
• Me: “So you do have an upper bound then, less than a million. Remember this is not about the exact answer, I want a range that you would be 90% confident with.”
• Them: “Okay I get it. I think it is somewhere between three hundred and two thousand.

Note that at this point, we have already made the initial breakthrough. At first the person found it impossible to make an estimate, yet when I related it to something they did have a fair idea of (the thought of a million people), they made some mental associations and realised they did have some idea of limits after all. Thus, by presenting a better frame of reference that they could use to approach the problem, they were able to move from “I have no idea” to a wide range of possible values.

The width of the range reflects the uncertainty that someone has about the answer. The more the uncertainty, the wider the range. Some project mangers hate being given a ranged value because it really mucks up their task or project work breakdowns. As a result, they always want the “ball park” or something that is a single value. I completely understand why this happens, but what these people forget is that an estimation is uncertain by definition. The obvious way to express uncertainty is with a range of values! So asking someone for an estimation and then complaining that it is not accurate enough actually makes no sense. A manager might not like the “width” of the range, but you can’t force someone to reduce their uncertainty just because it doesn’t fit the plan. Unless you provide them with the means to reduce this uncertainty, you cannot and should not try and artificially reduce this range through pressure and coercion.

But despite my observation of the flawed logic of dealing with uncertainty in estimating, a ranged estimate alone is not enough yet. We still have not accounted for the sorts of cognitive bias that I described earlier in the article. So without further adieu, I present a simplified version of Hubbards ‘calibration’ techniques that account for bias. Let’s continue the bar conversation.

• Me: Okay, so you are 90% sure that here are between 300 and 2000 SharePoint developers in the world with a yellow car?
• Them: Yes
• Me: So, let’s make this like the game show “deal or no deal”. If you are right and the answer is within your range, you will win $10000. BUT you have an alternative…
• Them: Ok…
• Me: What if I were to present you with a bag containing 9 red marbles and 1 black marble and offer you $10000 if you pull out a red marble. Pull the one black marble, and you miss out on the money. Do you want to stick to your estimate or do you want to draw a marble?

I’d like readers to think about this before continuing with this article. Make a ranged estimate of the number of SharePoint developers worldwide who drive a yellow car, and then decide whether you want to stick to your estimate or take your chances with the marbles.

(Cue game show music where you have 10 seconds to decide with a little ping sound at the end.)

The suspense is now killing you I am sure. Want to know the correct answer?

Find out after this short commercial break (game show speak for wait till part 2 of this series )

Thanks for reading

Paul Culmsee

www.sevensigma.com.au

                      

No Tags