Disjointed Kitsch

Today it was necessary to decide not to update a set of code in order to make it backwards-compatible with a new system. The estimate to fix the code was 3 weeks. The work to fix this at the source had been done. That took care of 98% of the issue. It wasn’t a hard decision to not invest the 3 weeks and fix the remaining 2% at the source.

I had my doubts about not investing the time, however. Oh, it was clear that I was inviting legacy to make a home in the code, but it’s nice to say we’re “backwards compatible”. I’m glad I made the decision the way I did. I’m glad I asked the questions I asked in order to get a clear picture. I’m glad I “abandoned” the work and had the resource move on to other things.

My “Drucker” reading for today talked about “abandonment” in mostly the same context. From a business point of view we need to be able to shake off the unproductive/unnecessary work and systems and position our best resources in work that invites new growth/opportunities. Applied to the larger company we need to make sure that we purposefully abandon outdated activity before its resource consumption disables new growth.

I was struck by Drucker’s thoughts on “Organizational Inertia”. Although it was pointed at “non-profits” and their inability to stop doing “anything” vs. “for-profits” and the market feedback that necessitates stopping unprofitable business, a certain amount of what he says can apply to all institutional processes either “for” or “non” profit and rings of the “Golden Hammer” syndrome.

In my line of work it is quite common to set up agreed upon processes for performing tasks when more than one department is involved. Often one department sets up the process for the other departments to follow, mainly because that department manages a critical resource that’s involved in the process. This in and of itself is not bad. It enables us to get the work done in a predictable manner. What happens, however, is that process become a “Golden Hammer” for the other departments. They will apply (and abuse) that process to any other task that comes along that looks like it should fit from their perspective. The managing department is never consulted as to the new application of the existing process. Hence, the ability of a “for-profit” intuition to stop using a successful process is not limited by market feedback (i.e. revenue). Only if that process impacts the bottom line does it become a concern (in a “for-profit” setting).

The missing element seems to be a “feedback” loop (which is what revenue is for a “for-profit”). Instead of applying the same process to new problems, a discussion should take place on the application of the existing process to a new situation with all interested parties. Certainly this will take longer than “just doing it”, but in the long run, the right system will be built or adapted for the right process and for the right reasons.

Got myself “The Daily Drucker” for Christmas and hope to read at least one entry each day. The first three were about “Integrity” (Jan 1), “Identifying the Future” (Jan 2) and the “need for Management” (Jan 3).

The one on “Identifying the Future” was interesting (I’m guessing this is a rather notable quote from him since it was mentioned in the intro). It’s not about how accurately you predict change, but how you react to the “change in the current future” in terms of using that change to create new opportunities. It’s a way of looking at and reacting to change. You can either get rolled over by it or look at it as an catalyst for creating opportunities.

The “Indispensable Management” reading was also interesting in that it’s the first definition of Management that I’ve read. I found myself once again in the position of using a term that I though I knew the definition for. I never really looked it up. For Drucker, Management is:

…the organ of society specifically charged with making resource productive, that is, with the responsibility for organized economic advance

Having been in “management” for 5 years now, it’s the first time I’ve really looked at my position in the company, put the definition next to it and realized that I’m not putting a lot of effort into making my folks “economically productive” for the company. I’ve been making them work together as a team, to be better developers, to advance their knowledge and build their skill sets, but those don’t always line up with being economically productive. There’s more to it and I’ll need to figure that out.

Taking these first 3 reading together (Integrity, Change, and Indispensable Management) it’s important that the organization “see” the integrity with which management responds to changing conditions. The level of integrity that is shown at each and every critical change point has a direct impact on how economically productive the organization continues to be (or not be) during that time of change. If change happens often (as it does in the software business), then the level of integrity must be on display often.

Right now the company is in a time of change. Acquiring new business and attacking new markets with new product introduces ripple changes across the board. The integrity I show my team during this time will influence how “economically productive” they are during this time period. It won’t be the only factor, but it will be an important one.