jeredb.com

I accompanied Esther to the doctor today, it was a standard pre-baby check up. Today was our first appointment with a new doctor after changing practices, and as a qualifier, we changed doctors very late in the process.

I’m not writing about the baby, that is covered on another blog. I’m writing about service.

Our experience with the previous doctor was abysmal. Not for the medical care, it was more than adequate, but for the service. The people working the front desk were short, terse, generally grumpy and not the first thing you want before your appointment. The doctor was always rushed, seemed distracted and could not remember my wife’s name if not for the chart in her hand.

The reason we changed practices was all because of the service we received, or not.

Everything is a service. Whether you are writing software, teaching a class, cranking widgets or cleaning bathrooms, each of these is a service.

While some of those are obviously services, others seem more like production jobs. The change comes when a market has enough competition and low enough costs that customers can change with little or no loss, for the gain of better service.

From front desk and call center staff to technicians, janitors and widget crankers, to directors and managers, each of those people are responsible for a customers perception of the service an organization provides.

While everyone has a bad day, poor customer service should not be accepted and a philosophy of “Check your problems at the door” adopted.

Even internal service organizations, like IT have to worry about departments going outside of the normal acquisition channels. Again, low risk change for better service.

Remember, everything is service.

Esther and i were driving tonight and a good number of the cars we were around had the bright screens of DVD players showing out their windows. One of the vehicles turned to go to the same store as we were, which clued us into the fact that the vehicle and it’s occupants were not on a road trip of any kind. Probably just a run to the store, like us.

What was most disturbing was that the children in the back seat had the DVD players on for a trip to store.

Can a child not make the five, maybe ten, minute ride to the store without having to have five, or ten, more minutes of “fill in the blank” DVD?

This has been theme today. Not only the kin in the car, but during training today, two of the three other people in the training were pulled away by phone calls or email. This normally would not phase me, the two people are normally every hard to pin down due to the high visibility of their jobs. They are constantly putting out fires.

The issue will be more concerning when I have to spend a good amount of time getting them back up to speed or re-teaching them parts of the software package they missed out on. Cellphones are designed with an off button for a reason. So that should you need to focus or not be disturbed, you cannot be reached.

The same can be said for email but during evenings and on the weekends. If you are never offline, how does one know when work ends and the “rest of life” begins. (As a side note, it is sad that I feel the need to refer to the living as the “rest of life”, but it is appropriate when referring to a particular co worker.)

I think this trend started with cell phones and has gotten progressively worse as cell phones have grown “smart”, incorporating email, IM, text messaging.

To stop myself from falling into these traps, I have set both my mail client and the mail program on my iPhone to only check for mail manually. I have a “no work email” policy for both evenings and during the weekend. Turning off can be some of the best therapy for a stressed out worker, I know that I now have time to focus on “worK” as opposed to managing my email, etc. It also provides time to focus on activities outside of work, in my case, running and artistic endeavors, which are important in continuing to develop as a “whole” person.

Take this weekend and turn some inputs off.

The New York Times ran an article today about bloggers who were working themselves to death and how this becoming part of a rising trend. While I do agree that the always-on, instant news source culture that has been created by the new blog community has created some problems, specifically the accuracy of the “reporting.” It think Matt Richtel gets it wrong.

The article paints the picture of an epidemic, bloggers keeling over left-and-right, but this is no different than professional journalists. As Matt writes, all of these limit-pushing activities are self imposed.

The New York Times wrote an article on November 11, 2007, interviewing and discussing the luminaries of the tech world including, Marc Andreessen, Jason Hoffman, and Jason DeFillippo, founder of Metroblogging Global Blog Network, a blogging network just like Gawker or Weblogs, Inc. The topic of the article was the low information diet as prescribed by Tim Ferriss in the 4 Hour Work Week. This is another self imposed lifestyle, one that all of the interviewees say has been a positive one.

This is the problem with the article. It makes it sound like blogging will kill you, but the sad truth is that these people would have worked themselves into an early grave regardless of their profession.

A work/life balance is important, more than ever. Just because the culture and technology is forcing us to be always on and always connected, doesn’t mean we have to buy into that. This is the goal of lifehacking, the goal of GTD, the goal of decluttering: Exerting control over life versus life controlling you.

Jason Calacanis has stirred up some blogosphere trouble with his post on How to save money running a startup (17 really good tips).

Tip #11:

Fire people who are not workaholics. come on folks, this is startup life, it’s not a game. go work at the post office or stabucks if you want balance in your life. For realz

Jason has edited Tip #11, changing language from “workaholics” to “[people who] don’t love their work” after getting some feedback from the inter-webs.

Coming from the opposite end of the spectrum is DHH from 37signals, countering with a post entitled: Fire the Workaholics. He writes about 5 reasons to fire the workaholics:

• Workaholics may well say that they enjoy those 14 hour days week after week, but despite their claims, working like that all month, all the time is not going to be sustainable. When the burnout crash comes, and it will, it’ll hit all the harder and according to Murphy at the least convenient time.
• People who are workaholics are likely to attempt to fix problems by throwing sheer hours at the problem. If you’re dealing with people working with anything creatively that’s a deadbeat way to get great work done.
• People who always work late makes the people who don’t feel inadequate for merely working reasonable hours. That’ll lead to guilt, misery, and poor morale. Worse, it’ll lead to ass-in-seat mentality where people will “stay late” out of obligation, but not really be productive.
• If all you do is work, your value judgements are unlikely to be sound. Making good calls on “is it worth it?” is absolutely critical to great work. Missing out on life in general to put more hours in at the office screams “misguided values”.
• Working with interesting people is more interesting than just working. If all you got going for your life is work, work, work, the good team-gelling lunches are going to be some pretty boring straight shop talk. Yawn. I’d much rather hear more about your whittling project, your last trek, how your garden is doing, or when you’ll get your flight certificate.

I am in the unique position of working for workaholics, but not particularly being a workaholic myself, although I do love my job.

One of my bosses (a senior VP) said at one point that my not being a workaholic like a well-known director in his organization was a pity. He then quickly backpedalled and said that he didn’t want me to be a workaholic, but his message was clear.

The said director wears it as a badge of honor that he works 12, 14, 16 hour days, regularly operates on less than optimal sleep, and continually martyrs himself, claiming his staff were unable to complete, operate, or control a specific task.

I am unfortunately compared to this director (though my pay is not in the same ball park), but rather than work myself into an early grave (it is clear that said director is going to), or neglect my home life (ditto for director), I plan on managing my work/life balance.

Being an analyst and one to is paid to think outside of the box for solutions, I think that a healthy work/life balance is important. It give me an opportunity to refresh, recharge and come at a problem with new eyes and fresh solutions. I understand Calacanis’ approach, when you are playing with other people’s money and ideas, it is important to make sure you are able complete and compete in the marketplace. The rest of his suggestions are top notch for a startup (or a small liberal arts university), free coffee, nice chairs, and other cost cutting measures.

But being a non-workaholic, I completely agree with Heinemeir Hansson, when it comes to the negative effects of workaholics on the entire organization, particularly when it comes to the culture that is created around staying late. I have experienced this in two positions, one that involved the boss asking every night “Oh, heading out already?” Not a good experience.

Now that Calacanis has edited his entry to talk about loving work, or passion for the job, I think his direction is much more satisfactory. A balance between the two trains of thought is important, employees should not be staying late on Fridays, send them home. Emails at all hours of the night should be dealt with as being unacceptable, everyone needs down time. Giving people a hard time for just working their 8–9 hours should never be accepted.

I guess I have my Dad to thank for not being a workaholic, he was a good example of what I didn’t want my working life to be (Sorry Dad). Life is more than work. My Grandfather has always related to me the old adage:

No one was on their death bed saying, “I wish I had worked more.”

In the continued expansion of my duties at work, I have been assigned/volunteered to be the back for the the webmaster when it comes to emergency notification. This really gets me in deep with the what is happening. Essentially, if the webmaster is out of contact, I get the call to push out changes to the webpage/text messages. A lot of responsibility for lowly ole me.

The interesting thing about this is I get to be involved in the discussions surrounding the implementation of these emergency contact systems

In this vein, I have to discuss the false raising of expectations.

While trying to get our text message system up and running, the concept of a parents list has been heavy on everyone’s mind, specifically in the aftermath of Virginia Tech. Our definition of the parents list is exactly the same as a concerned member of the populace, no verification of child enrollment, no distinction in mesages sent.

I have a real problem with this approach, it raises the expectations of parents, leading them to believe that they will get special messages. This is false based on the protocols that have been established for text messages. With out divulging any secret information, parents will always have a different definition of a emergency that warrants a text message than the emergencies that have been defined. By creating a parents list, we are feeding that impression, which will create a problem the first time there is a “major” crisis.

By raising expectations, without increasing communications, we are making our chances of failure greater

I have a background in graphic design and consider myself a design elitist (thus my love for Apple’s industrial design). Changing from a designer to an analyst is quite a different world.

Example:

In an enhancement revisions to the housing lottery system, authentication for first-year freshman and transfer students is going to be handled differently than in prior years. Freshman and Transfers have to fill out different forms to secure their place on campus, which is also different from Returning students.

End users will now be required to enter some personal information, which is compared to data that has already been submitted to the University. Returning students will have to authenticate differently, using a pre-existing authentication method.

The programmers said there would be three login screens:

Returning StudentsNew FreshmanTransfer Students

The designer in me cringes at this response. Having students self select could lead to issues with new students not understanding what their classification is, e.g. I took an AP class, does that make me a transfer student or a new freshman?

By limiting end user choice increases the likelihood that they will select the appropriate option.

New Freshman and Transfer students are authenticating on the same criteria, but their status is held by the University, thusly they can be routed to the proper form by the system not by self selection.

Oh the difference between a designer and a programmer. If it just works, it doesn’t matter. If it works effectively, it makes a world of difference.

I have been working on a project that would make the management of summer conferences on campus easier and more efficient than the “by hand” method that is used now. Essentially, the system has been a series of Excel spreadsheets, emailed back and forth and stored on a shared network folder. Lots of revisions, not very effective, not to mention that if someone has the document open and another player needs to make a change, there is a lockout. Last week I convened a meeting between the departments that run the conferences: Housing, Scheduling, Dining, and the departments that run our orientation: Student Life, Registrar, Academic Advising. The reason these two groups where brought together is the thought that our orientation is essentially another conference with some specialized needs, mainly the academic information. This brings me to the title: Mission Creep

Mission creep is the expansion of a project or mission beyond its original goals, often after initial successes.

I believe I have some methods to reduce Mission Creep:

• Get your mission defined by the highest person up the food chain.

Having your objectives defined from high up the food chain give you grounds to tell people exactly what the mission is. People like to think that the project is working solely around them, so having the projected outcome set by someone much higher can limit that though process. And don’t be afraid to go back to the mission definer if you start to feel some creep.

• Have a documented process.

This was my first mistake. Not having a document process will allow people to take over how the project is managed. They will jump ahead in your process, most likely creating more work. Have a written process that is given to each of the members of your team and anyone else who is related to the project. This lets them know how you work.

• Be ruthless with meeting invitation and the distribution of meeting notes.

Everyone thinks that their opinion is valuable to your discussion. I think it is a fundamental fact of human existence. The problem is that they can add more work at an earlier stage than is necessary. Limit who is invited and make it known that your meeting notes are for participants only. If someone up the food chain, or someone laterally involved wants in, they can be brought up to speed later.

• Don’t be afraid to tell people that they are not currently needed in the process.

This is a great follow on point. Everyone’s opinion is valid, but not always relevant. If someone is only going to slow down your meetings, or disrupt your process, minimizing their involvement as much as possible is critical to your mission’s success.

• Understand that people can be “read in” if necessary.

I have picked up the term “read in” or “reading in” from television shows, generally where some agency is dealing with classified information. Essentially is is when someone with the knowledge catches someone outside the project up. This may be a one-on-one, quick review of what has been done so far. It may be simply sending them your meeting notes (be careful about this).

Right now I find myself mired down by not following my own list of rules, hopefully the late application of these ideas can correct the course for the summer conference software project.

I went to my sister-in-law’s going away party tonight. She’s leaving for the Army in the next couple of days and while I’m happy for her, I am concerned about some of the choices she is making. Those choices are neither here nor there, but the party setting is pertinent to this post.

Being a male vegetarian is weird. Not from my end, I enjoy eating vegetables, not eating meat. That’s the point right?

I’m at this party and there is no one manning the grill, hot dogs, brats and burgers. I know that the number of people coming is going to be many and without someone grilling now, a disaster is brewing.

The hostess walks up, hugs me and then asks me to man the grill, finishing up what she had started.

Dilemma: Does the vegetarian prepare the meat for the group or does the only guy there with grilling knowledge shirk his social duty?

I ended up grilling all 40 burgers, 36 hot dogs and 24 brats in record time, but ended up having next to nothing to eat during the party. Such is the odd life of being a male vegetarian.

…

This post was originally written when I was young, immature and dumb. I didn’t understand the trans community. I regret having written this, and I have removed it.

What is the point of learning how to click, where to click, without understanding why to click.

In my freshman year of college (circa 2000), I took “Introduction to Technological Systems”, which was a renamed “Introduction to Computers”. I enjoyed the class and quite liked the professor, eventually getting an A in the class, along with pretty much everyone else in the class. The introduction to technological systems went through a computer part by part, from CPU to databases to the internet, giving a broad overview of a little bit of everything.

While the number of students entering college are becoming more technologically savvy, the problem that professors are, or should, be running into is teaching students why to click instead of where or how.

Speaking in broad terms, students entering college have a firm grasp on technology. Can they point to the ISA card slot on a late 80’s motherboard? Probably not. Can they install iTunes 7.3 and sync their iPhone? Probably. The level of computer literacy is rising rapidly. Students are rapidly coming to high school and college never knowing what a computer-less household is like. And fewer remember a time when the internet required the computer to make very strange noises via its modem.

The imminent failure of basic computer education is this: By focusing on the mechanics of how a computer works, the human element of computer is lost. By this, the computer education received tells us that a computer works, but does not educate us in how to interact with it. What is the most efficient way to store files? How should one reply to email. What are the basics of security when it comes to the internet? Why, when sending a mass email, should one use the BCC: instead of the To: in addressing? Why does my computer run slowly when I have 7 applications open, each with 16 windows?

These skills, while not as concrete as the how the laser reads the data on a CD-ROM, are the ones that are not being taught, but can ultimately be the most useful. Efficient, courteous and savvy computer users don’t need to know the physical happening to get work done. While it may be helpful in diagnosing problems or troubleshooting, there are plenty of people willing to take the time and put in the effort in that arena, I happen to be one of them. For the average user, teach them that repetitive task can be shortened to key-commands, that click around the computer’s interface can be shorted by using a launcher, or that email “stationary” is not really all that cute and can sometime gunk up an email client would go miles.

Education encompasses teaching and learning specific skills, and also something less tangible but more profound: the imparting of knowledge, positive judgement and well-developed wisdom.

from Wikipedia

The rote memorization of how a computer physically functions is no longer relevant in today’s world. Computer education instead needs to focus on the imparting of knowledge and well-developed wisdom.