Not necessarily.

Allegories are all the rage these days, and so I submit the following:

An elderly couple hosted Thanksgiving dinner for their 12 children and grandchildren over the holidays. Well-raised kids that they were, everyone insisted on helping with the cleanup. They all brought their own dishes to the sink. Two returned to tidy up the dining table, and two went to work making coffee and putting out desserts, leaving 8 to wash the dishes.

One person operated the hot water, and another the cold. A third controlled the position of the faucet, while a fourth ran a soapy sponge over the dishes. When the sponge ran out of soap, a fifth person would dispense more. The sixth person was relegated to just holding a dish as it was being washed, turning it over at the appropriate moments, and then passing it to the dryer. Number seven dried the dish and passed it on to number eight, who put it away in the cupboard.

As you can imagine, dish washing went pretty slowly. Back the dining room, the coffee was made and desserts sat waiting to be enjoyed. Now grandma, seeing that grandpa was getting impatient for his cheesecake, says to her four grandkids sitting at the table, “Go on and give them a hand with the dishes.”

Ridiculous, right? But this is exactly how some businesses respond when deadlines aren’t being met–they assume that the only options are to add more hands, accomplish less, or simply live with poor quality work and stressed out employees. Hopefully, one of the grandkids will see the mess of people struggling around the sink and suggest a more sensible arrangement.

A comprehensive, top-down approach to optimizing your organization’s processes to be more efficient is called Business Process Improvement, or BPI. It involves honest evaluation of your organization’s goals and priorities, assessing the current state, and analyzing the system to identify weaknesses. And then, you fix them. Sometimes one simple change will do the trick. Sometimes it turns out that yes, you do need to add more people–and can now do so with confidence that it will actually help.

But it may be that you need to look at the entire system and make sweeping adjustments to people’s roles. (Tell half the dish washing staff to switch to packing away leftovers.) Or, if it’s a recurring problem, maybe it’s time to look into automating parts of the process. (Christmas gift idea! What’s the cost of a dishwasher divided by 12?)

Since the changes made based on business process improvement are so highly customized to your organization’s needs, resources, and constraints, they’re your best chance at getting out of “fire fighting” mode so you can focus on the work. If your employees are accustomed to doing things “the way they’ve always done them,” the process can be a bit jarring at first, but watching your work go from stagnant and ineffective to efficient and productive is an amazing motivator.

This is one of those annoying questions that philosophy professors like to pose as thought experiments to students pondering the nature of reality. A true student of philosophy may launch into a heavy discussion of metaphysics. Those who prefer their questions to be answerable would do well to respond: It depends. Define “sound.”

The American Heritage Dictionary has four relevant definitions of “sound”:

1a. Vibrations transmitted through an elastic solid or a liquid or gas, with frequencies in the approximate range of 20 to 20,000 hertz, capable of being detected by human organs of hearing. b. Transmitted vibrations of any frequency. c. The sensation stimulated in the organs of hearing by such vibrations in the air or other medium. d. Such sensations considered as a group.

Using those definitions, we can ask a more meaningful questions, and arrive at definitive answers.

• If a tree falls in the forest and no on is around to hear it, does it transmit vibrations through an elastic solid or a liquid or gas, with frequencies in the approximate range of 20 to 20,000 hertz, capable of being detected by human organs of hearing? Yes.
• If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it transmit vibrations of any frequency? Yes.
• If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it stimulate sensation in the organs of hearing by such vibrations in the air or other medium? No.
• If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it cause such sensations considered as a group? No.

The exercise above may seem a bit ridiculous, but it illustrates an important and often overlooked aspect of problem solving: Document assumptions.

Do you find yourself working with a group of people who grapple with the same questions over and over again, unable to move forward? Maybe it’s time to take a critical look at some of the assumptions being made. Does everyone agree on basic terms and definitions? Take the time to state the obvious. What does “profit” mean? How do you define “member” in the context of your discussion? Are people using terms interchangeably when there are actually subtle differences?

If everyone is in agreement, this exercise won’t take much time at all. But if you do find that people had been operating under different assumptions, setting the record straight will bring a new level of clarity and direction to the discussion.

Competition breeds innovation, and there is perhaps no better example than the space race between the United States and Soviet Union in the 60s and 70s.  The desire to demonstrate the superiority of one model of government over the other manifested in a fierce competition for supremacy in space exploration, out of which came such indispensable inventions as CAT scans, bar codes, fire-resistant fabrics, dialysis machines, and Tempurpedic mattresses.

The question of who won the race is arguable, with both sides achieving great feats. The USSR was the first to launch satellites and put the first man in space. The US put a man on the moon.  But what’s really interesting to me is how different an approach each side took to problem solving.

Take for example, the development of a shuttle that can be operated by an on-board astronaut. Think about the dashboard of your car. Behind all those friendly switches, knobs and gauges are a bundle of electronics and mechanical components that connect the controls to the parts of the car they affect. In the cockpit of an aircraft, controls also need to be visible and accessible, but there are too many of them to fit into as small a space as a car’s dashboard. And if you’re wearing a space suit, it’s pretty difficult to turn around and reach the controls that might be next to or even behind you.

Engineers at NASA designed complex consoles that put all the buttons & levers in places the human astronaut could reach. They were relatively costly and time consuming to build, but they were brilliant and got the job done.

Russia’s approach? Outfit pilots with a mirror attached to an elastic wrist band, which they used to see and operate any controls mounted behind them.

Bleeding edge technology it was not, but it was a great solution. It solved the same problem at an tiny fraction of the cost.

Both approaches have merit. Some of the technologies that came out of the space race changed our lives in ways we’d never expected, which might not have happened if everyone used the “wrist mirror” approach to problem solving. But sometimes, when you need to get a job done and you have limited time and money, a simple solution is all you need.

That it was on time? Partially.
That it was within budget? Certainly helps.
That the end product meets business objectives and performs to specification? Bingo.

“Quality Assurance” is sometimes (incorrectly) thought of as being synonymous with “Testing.” And, many designers & developers treat Quality Assurance, or QA, as an afterthought–a task to be done after a product is developed. But quality assurance is an integral part of the development process, not just a step.

In the early stages of a technical project, when requirements are being documented and goals are being defined, QA activities include:

• Creating a test plan. What quantitative and qualitative metrics will be used to determine whether the product is acceptable? What are the minimum and preferred standards the product must meet? What kinds of testing should be carried out to verify that the product performs to these standards?
• Developing test scripts. For each function, use case, page, and process, instructions for how to test should be documented.

During development, QA activities include:

• Unit Testing. Before the final product is ready, each component of a system can be tested individually as it’s completed to ensure that it is fit to be integrated into a larger system.
• Revising the test plan and test scripts. Requirements always change during the course of a project, and the test plans must be updated to reflect those changes.

By the time you get to the “testing phase” of a project, it should feel like more of a slight shift in focus than switchover to a new phase.

Project teams that have not fully integrated quality into their process will have to just wing it at this point. This is where disagreements between business users and developers about whether a feature “works properly” start to surface. In some unfortunate cases, it becomes apparent that what was built and what was actually needed are two different things, leading to lost time & rework at best, or a completely failed project at worst.

Project teams that weave quality assurance throughout the entire process will find the testing phase to be one of the less eventful periods of a project, and that is a Good Thing. A certain number of bugs and other technical issues are always expected, and time should be allotted to address anything that comes up. With the right plan in place, testing and debugging is followed by launching a high-quality product that everyone can be proud of.

To get a sense of what’s likely to be happening during those 24 months, note that this is not just one big technology integration project. The deal is comprised of multiple points, each of which will be tackled by different (though probably overlapping) teams as distinct projects within Microsoft or Yahoo.

Integrate Yahoo’s core search technologies into Bing

A major opportunity for Microsoft to refine and improve their search platform, this aspect of the deal will not likely be fully implemented in just two years. Microsoft will have a 10-year exclusive license of Yahoo’s search technology, during which time they will need their best engineers to fully understand the nuts and bolts of it, analyze the aspects that are compatible with Bing, discard or ignore the components that are redundant, and integrate any features or processes that could potentially improve Bing’s value and performance. Search engines are complex, ever-evolving beasts, and it’s unlikely that Microsoft’s project team will be able to accurately predict a completion date until they’ve been given full access to all documentation and code and a few months to review it. One thing is certain: it will not happen overnight. Microsoft has been clear in its intent to make incremental improvements to Bing via increased query volume and improved relevancy. There are no plans to blanket-integrate Yahoo’s technology, and in fact they’ve been clear that the 24-month timeline relates to other aspects of the deal such as Bing powering Yahoo search and Yahoo’s salesforce taking over ad sales.

Replace Yahoo’s Panama system with Microsoft’s AdCenter platform

Both companies’ self-service advertising will now be managed via AdCenter. While by no means a small project, this migration should be among the more straight-forward steps toward fully implementing the deal. It will involve a data conversion/migration of all of the data in Yahoo’sPanamasystem to Microsoft’s AdCenter platform. Data migrations can be tedious, but they’re done all the time and are usually pretty low-risk projects when experienced data experts are involved. Both Microsoft and Yahoo have data experts in spades.

Beyond the technical integration, it’s assumed that some level of data sharing for targeted ads and content in general will need to take place. The feasibility of doing this, however, is still a little bit fuzzy and may yield little strategic benefit to either party. Much of the data used for targeted advertising is protected by each company’s respective privacy policies and may not be shared.

Shift Microsoft premium ad sales to Yahoo sales team

This project is less technical in nature but a major component of the deal and a critical success factor. Major personnel changes are usually accompanied by a dip in customer satisfaction. Anything less than a smooth, seamless transition to Yahoo’s sales team could turn off advertisers and open up opportunities for Google. To lessen the risk in such a transition it may be wise for Yahoo to arrange to hire the key players at Microsoft that are involved in premium ad sales. We know that Microsoft is hiring somewhere between 400 and 550 Yahoo employees in exchange for $150 million over three years, but we haven’t yet heard of any plans for personnel changes in the opposite direction.

Replace Yahoo search engine with Bing on all Yahoo Properties and Services

This, the core and focal point of the entire deal, is likely what most people are thinking of when they wonder about that 2-year timeline. The deal thus far allows for some flexibility in exactly how Bing will replace Yahoo’s core search technology. It may be as simple as changing a form to execute a search via Bing and return a Bing search results page, or a seamless integration that would result in barely a noticeable difference for the end user. Since the deal stipulates that Yahoo will continue to own the user experience of its properties and Yahoo executives insist that the major benefit of this deal is that it enables them to focus more on their brand and other initiatives, it would be foolish of them to do anything less than a seamless integration with zero Bing branding on any Yahoo properties. Since the indexing of each is based on separate and distinct algorithms, Yahoo will have to make some decisions on whether to completely discard their current rankings and cease all efforts on their own search technology, or do some level of integration for a slower transition to Bing while Microsoft catches up on its integration of Yahoo’s search technologies.

Major market search transition is expected to be completed 12 months after regulatory approval, and the bulk of that time will likely be connecting the APIs and re-programming Yahoo search results pages to utilize Bing while displaying results in a format and aesthetic that is familiar to their users. The risk here is high, but out of the project team’s hands. Their core technology will now be owned by another company, and Yahoo is banking on their brand being strong enough to withstand any setbacks they may face along the way.

On the whole, the strength of the IT project management team and the skill of each company’s publicists will make or break this deal. Some other considerations at a high level:

Scheduling & Deadlines

Yahoo’s stock took a dive following the announcement. Shareholders’ expectations are high and confidence is low. While some of the planning work can be done now, and surely has already begun, very few tangible steps can be taken until clearance is granted by the by the FTC in early 2010. On one hand, this may benefit the project as it forces them into spending more time in the planning stages than they might otherwise be tempted to spend. On the other hand, as soon as that clearance is granted, they will need to hit the ground running and show quick progress to the shareholders.

Quality Control

Analysts have expressed concerns that the 2-year effort could benefit Google more than anyone, as it will cause a distraction for both Yahoo and Microsoft, allowing Google to make advances while they are tied up with the integration. The project will need to include some small, “quick win” milestones that will enable both Yahoo and Microsoft to keep (or perhaps, achieve) a technical edge.

Communication

Project communication between these two technical giants could get tricky. They need to share just enough information about their respective systems to get the job done, without crossing any lines that could compromise the parts of their businesses that are still separate and in competition. Of course, public communications will continue to be hugely important as shareholders, search users, and the world at large keep an eye on project progress over the new few years. Public scrutiny can cause even a small mistake to derail a project, and this will be THE high-profile technology project to watch over the next two years.

For now, all eyes are on October 27, the date by which Microsoft and Yahoo must make any final agreements to put before the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission in hopes of gaining approval to move forward as planned. In the meantime, the planning stages are surely in motion. You can bet that clean whiteboard space will be hard to find at either company for the next few years.

I recently managed an eCommerce project and had the good fortune of working with a talented Instructional Designer. After witnessing first-hand the difference that can be made with a structured, thoughtful approach to software training, I sat down with Dorene Zjawinski Lofgren, founder of Lofgren Educational Design, to glean some insights into her methodology.

Q. Can you briefly describe your profession and the role you play on a software project?

A. I’m an Instructional Designer, although the current trend is to label it Educational Designer or Educational Technologist as we move from an instructor-led model of education to learner-centered online tools. Organizations approach me with an educational problem or knowledge deficit of some kind and ask me to develop learning resources that address their needs. For instance, maybe an organization has implemented a new eCommerce platform that is not being utilized optimally, or is deploying a brand new content management system. The design of these learning tools is informed by a needs assessment that includes an analysis of the users, the tasks the users must perform and the learning context. The resultant design might take the form of a Flash-based learning tool, a user guide, a webinar, a face-to-face class, a wiki, or a combination of things.
Q. If a software product is everything software should be–intuitive, user-friendly–is formal training really necessary?

A. Yes and no. While formal training (e.g. a face-to-face or online class) may not be necessary, you will want to provide learning tools that users can tap into as needed. When adopting a new system, users will want resources that describe the scope of functionality available, and, as novices, they will seek confirmation that they are using it correctly. A well-designed “just in time” resource can serve these needs whether it be a knowledge base, online help or user guide.

Also, good instruction isn’t always just about the software. Sometimes a new software application can be used as a catalyst to change inefficient or out-dated business processes. I recently worked with a company that funneled all website content through a single webmaster who was responsible for updating the site. While preparing training materials for the new CMS, it became apparent that they intended to keep this business process even though it led to unnecessary delays and stale content. Instead, we worked out a new process where each department owner created their own content and freed up the webmaster to focus on more important things like strategic direction.
Q. How do you deal with training a group of people who have a wide range of skill or previous knowledge?

A. Adults are the most difficult learners to address because they bring such a varied degree of experience to a learning context. The literature on learning irrevocably underscores the importance of activating prior knowledge when learning new information. To tap into prior knowledge you need to know who your learners are and what experience they bring. Conducting a learner analysis before designing resources can help significantly. Often times, learners may not have experience with similar software applications but have substantial experience with a business function or personal need which will help inform them on how to use the system. Creating separate resources geared for these various use cases will not only alleviate cognitive load, but will motivate users to adopt new software as they see what’s in it for them.
Q. When I think of software training I think of user manuals, classroom training, and maybe web tutorials. What are some of the main types of learning resources and when is one more appropriate than the other?

A. The trend in adult education is moving towards learner-centered technologies and communities of practice. Some examples include self-led Flash-based tools and sites that host content and provide opportunities for social networking and collaboration. Text-based manuals can still be appropriate as long as they are organized effectively with a table of contents and index so that learners can find what they need efficiently.
The initial needs assessment that analyzes your learners, tasks and context will inform the design you choose. Whatever you decide, each learner should be able to control the pace and direction of learning as no two users will learn the same.
Q. What tools do you use to develop these resources?

A. Luckily, much of what I need can be developed using common tools like Flash, PHP and Dreamweaver. Adobe Captivate is a great tool for recording software simulations and can be integrated with Flash. I often seek out “off the shelf” learning solutions if the design has a social networking component or wiki.
Q. What qualifications should a company look for in a professional instructional designer?

A. Formal education in educational design with a focus on educational technologies. Good educational designers truly understand the difference between learning from technology vs. learning with technology. The learner should be the focus of the design, not the trainer.
Q. Let’s say I recognize the need for a formal training plan but don’t have the luxury of a professional instructional designer working on my project & need to do it myself. Where would I start?

A. First do a little research on how adults learn. While they are somewhat simplistic, Knowles’ adult learning principles are a great place to start.

Next, do a little reading on the instructional design process. This will help you conduct your initial needs analysis which will result in more targeted learning resources. Two great books are Rapid Instructional Design: Learning ID Fast and Right by George M. Piskurich, and Instructional Design by Patricia L. Smith and Tillman J. Ragan.

After completing the initial analysis, prototype the design and run it by some potential users to get their feedback.

Most importantly, let the principles used for designing software inform your educational technologies during the design phase. A good website designer will likely design a good educational technology as she understands good information design and the importance of information architecture.
Dorene Zjawinski Lofgren is owner and principal of Lofgren Educational Design, LLC. She can be reached at dzjawinski@comcast.net.

Just as important to understand, however, is what a business analyst is NOT. As organizations create positions labeled “business analyst” while struggling to keep costs down, it’s tempting to use the role as a catch-all for tasks that an overextended project team just doesn’t have time for. This may save time and money in the short term, but in the long term, it will only hurt your projects.

Read the rest of this article on ModernAnalyst.com.

While our countries of origin create a bit of a cultural gap, an even bigger one is created by the fact that I am a project manager, and he is a network engineer. I contribute to fairly technical conversations at work, but he can completely lose me just casually telling me about his day.

I used to think the problem was jargon; he would sprinkle the conversation with technical terms and I would sprinkle it with business terms. But it was more than that. If you read a book that includes some words whose definition you don’t know, you can still pick up the gist of the book. This was more than that. There is something fundamentally different about the ways we think.

Cross-functional project teams face this problem all the time. Early in my career I was a developer, I couldn’t count how many times I had to explain to a boss or client that having “reusable code” doesn’t mean that the next 5 features they think of will just pop into existence. As a project manager today, trying to get an answer to the simple question, “How long do you think this will take?” without sitting through two hours of technical explanation can be an exercise in futility. According to the Project Management Institute, project managers spend about 90% of their time communicating. Effective, efficient communication is perhaps the most important skill a project manager can possess.

Despite our different backgrounds, occasionally conflicting priorities, and the fact that we are two of the most stubborn people you will ever meet, my husband and I have an enormous amount of respect for one another. Whether at home or in the office, when it comes to communication barriers, patience and mutual respect are like a truckload of C-4.

When you find yourself feeling like someone’s being difficult, or just not “getting it,” here are 4 simple steps you can take to ease the pain and get to the point:

1. Be clear on the goal of the conversation. The first step in getting on the same track with someone is agreeing on the destination. Sometimes this step alone is enough to bring a difficult conversation to an agreeable conclusion. Get into the habit of prefacing a question with what you intend to do with the answer to avoid misinterpretation.

The question, “Will this be ready on Friday?” can mean lots of different things. Here are two ways to put it that would help the person answering give a more accurate response:

“The client is really anxious to see a demo of the new conference registration software. I’d love to be able to tell them they can preview it before the weekend, assuming it’s relatively stable. Will it be ready by Friday?”

“The client needs to start using this software to register attendees for their conference this weekend. Will it be ready by Friday?”

Each implies different priorities, and requires a different type of evaluation from the programmer. Without that additional context, the answer would be loaded with assumptions. At best, the conversation may turn long and tedious. At worst, you’ll walk away with one understanding and the other person will have another. Guess who’ll have a bad Friday? Everyone.

2. Don’t be arrogant. You don’t necessarily know more things, you just know different things. If you think of yourself as “more knowledgeable” than the person you’re speaking with, regardless of the topic, it will likely come through in your tone. That may be fine for a parent lecturing children (actually it’s not), but if you’re working on a project team you must remember that each player brings something to the table. Further, if you believe you must be right because you’re smarter more experienced than the person you’re talking to, it becomes impossible to make any sort of compromise without damaging your own ego. Don’t set yourself up for that failure.

3. Verbally acknowledge that difference. Poor communication can make a conversation seem adversarial even when it’s not. Acknowledgment of another person’s expertise says, “I see things differently, but I realize your view important, and I want us to understand each other.” It also enables you to retain “expert” status in your own area without infringing on anyone else. You can always find an area to which the other person is more suited than you. Let the programmers be the technical experts that they are. Let the clients be the business experts that they are. Let the designers design, and the project sponsor have a vision. Credit them with all of those things and give them the respect they deserve. Then, frame your own concerns within your area of expertise, and watch the respect be returned.

4. Maintain this frame of mind. This is the most challenging part. It’s easy to start off on the right foot and then fall right back into old habits, especially if there’s one particular person or group you find difficult to deal with. Don’t look at the above as mere lip service, but as a state of mind that will make your job and your life easier.

Practice these strategies and use them consistently throughout your project, and you’ll start to find it easier to have productive conversations with just about anyone. Even my husband.

I recently overheard this comment regarding a project that was initiated four months ago and has a deadline of July 30. “We’re still sort of in the planning stages right now, but once the work begins we’ll need to hire a PM to see it through.” This was said by a non-technical staff member of a very technical project.

While textbooks may not define it as such, Planning IS work. It is perhaps the most undervalued, critical work of any project, and it is the phase which most urgently needs a qualified Project Manager.

If you were to work by a textbook, the five phases of a project are Initiation, Planning, Execution, Control, and Closing. Initiation ends with an organizational or departmental decision to begin a project. It is at this point that a qualified PM would typically be assigned.

You don’t always need to do things precisely “by the book,” but this is one area not to stray too far. Hiring a project manager after the planning has been done increases risk in a number of ways:

• A project manager who was deeply involved in the planning process is more likely to be able to execute said plan than one who had a plan handed to them.
• The individuals involved in planning may not have the combination of strategic vision and attention to detail that a good project manager can bring to the table.
• A plan is constantly being revisited and revised to accommodate new requests or unexpected events. If the PM wasn’t involved in the planning process, it will take that much longer change it as necessary and determine what impacts those changes will have across the project.

Have you ever sent a relatively simple request to someone and gotten a delayed response requesting more information? Was the request for more info justified, or did it just frustrate you and cause you to waste more time explaining something that, to you, is either obvious or irrelevant?

I suspect that the request for more information is sometimes used as a delay tactic or (perhaps subconscious) form of procrastination. Here are some tips for more effective communication when you feel like you’re getting the run around.:

• If you’re very busy and find yourself responding to an email much later than you normally would, it’s polite to acknowledge the delay by starting your reply with, “Sorry for the late reply–I’m sure you know how swamped I am with [important task].”
• If you’re not sure what the priority of a request is, don’t let that stop you from getting it on the radar while you’re waiting to hear back. Try something like, “Right now it looks like I can complete that report by Thursday. If that’s not soon enough, please help me understand the urgency.”
• If someone asks you a question without specifying how much detail they’re looking for, you don’t have to spend all day providing every modicum of information you have on the subject. Nor should you delay your answer. Instead, respond with a high-level, succinct answer and finish it with, “I hope this answers your question; if not, please let me know what kind of details you’re looking for.”
• On the reverse side of that coin, try to avoid requests as generic as, “I need more details.” Ask specific questions. Example: “Thanks for telling me the next steps in setting up the testing environment. Can you please also let me know the name of the hardware vendor, the date a technician is expected to arrive, and what kind of access he’ll need to our network administrators?”

The “need more info” sinkhole is usually an email phenomenon. The best way to win this game of is with a phone call. As a general rule, if you have to reply to the same person more than once to ask for or receive clarification, just pick up the phone and get the missing details out of the way with a quick, real-time conversation.