Project Direction
#5: You put lipstick on a pig
Wednesday, April 15th, 2009 | EIM, Project Direction, Top 'n' Lists, Top 5 Mistakes Collecting SPM / EIM Project Requirements, large projects, requirements | 2 Comments
#5 of 5: Top 5 Mistakes Collecting SPM / EIM Project Requirements
You shied away from real improvement opportunities by falling back into the old way of doing things. It’s nice to upgrade parts of your system so they perform better, but if you don’t redesign around the new capabilities you may not see any real benefits. Your new system will still be a pig, even if it’s got a shiny new coat of lipstick.
The Problem
You’re fighting human nature again. The selection of a fancy new enterprise software package is a big deal. A lot of promises are made and due diligence is done around making sure the investment is worthy. Rarely is there the directive to “keep our processes exactly as they are.” In fact, many times the introduction of a new system is identified as the perfect catalyst for implementing the many changes management desires.
› Continue reading
Similar Posts:
- #1: You took the buffalo for a walk - JasonKearns
- Beware of unneeded system flexibility - MichaelStus
#3: You asked the tourist for directions
Tuesday, March 31st, 2009 | EIM, Project Direction, SPM, Top 'n' Lists, Top 5 Mistakes Collecting SPM / EIM Project Requirements, large projects, requirements | No Comments
#3 of 5: Top 5 Mistakes Collecting SPM / EIM Project Requirements
It’s important to identify the true subject matter experts and speak to them. There are a lot of tourists roaming the streets eager to share what they know. Tourists have read all the guides and made a couple of day trips. They know more than you and they can sound very confident, but beware, they don’t live here. They don’t know that 5th Street is a one-way going south of Elm or that the Bob’s Big Boy landmark they’re using burned down two months ago. You need a native to give you details; only a native knows everything. At companies, there are many tourists roaming the halls with abundant enthusiasm and misinformation.
The Problem
Once again we like to pull information from those willing to give it. A fundamental problem with this approach is that it’s often the busiest and least available individuals to whom we really need to speak. I learned my lesson the hard way. This is a true story.
› Continue reading
Similar Posts:
- #2: You painted the wall from bottom to top - JasonKearns
- #1: You took the buffalo for a walk - JasonKearns
#2: You painted the wall from bottom to top
Wednesday, March 25th, 2009 | EIM, Project Direction, Top 'n' Lists, Top 5 Mistakes Collecting SPM / EIM Project Requirements, large projects, requirements | No Comments
#2 of 5: Top 5 Mistakes Collecting SPM / EIM Project Requirements
It is possible to collect requirements out of order, and it often happens. Just like painting a wall, there is some strategy involved. When you paint, you typically want to start at the top and work your way down. The reason is simple, drips. Even the most experienced painters aren’t going to be able to prevent all drips, streams and splatters. As you coat the wall you inevitably get streams of paint running down via gravity. If you are painting from top to bottom, it’s no big deal. You just paint over and smooth out the drips as you work your way down. But if you are painting from bottom to top, you have a problem. In order to smooth out the drips you have to go back and re-brush some areas that have already been covered. This amounts to a lot of wasted time and effort.
The Problem
When things get done out of order, it’s usually for good reason. Human nature is to do what you can, as soon as you can, with the least amount of effort. When you painted your first wall you probably started at eye level. You don’t have to bend over and you don’t have to climb a ladder. When collecting requirements, it’s typical to start with the easiest and most readily available information. This wouldn’t be so bad if everything was fully documented and available from Day One. However, in most case this just means you schedule whoever is available and forthcoming. Beggars can’t be choosers when it comes to getting client subject matter expert (SME) time.
› Continue reading
Similar Posts:
- #5: You put lipstick on a pig - JasonKearns
- #3: You asked the tourist for directions - JasonKearns
This Seems Complicated
Wednesday, March 11th, 2009 | Compensation Plans, EIM, Project Direction, SPM | No Comments
In fact, all of these items are likely to affect the performance of your sales force. A recent Scientific American article by Wray Herbert describes a concept related to our brains’ processing. Herbert discusses the possibility that how a task is described may affect our willingness to do the task and, if we decide to do it, how difficult we expect it to be. Herbert notes that psychologists are interested in “the complex interplay of effort, motivation and cognitive crunching” and cites a study conducted by two University of Michigan psychologists, Hyunjin Song and Norbert Schwarz that investigates the notion.
In the study, Song and Schwarz presented all test subjects identically worded instructions for a task. Some subjects received the instructions printed in the easy to read Arial typeface while others were printed in an elaborate difficult to read font called Brush.
Herbert’s article comments that “there are many ways to make something mentally palatable – or not. You can use clear, straightforward language or arcane vocabulary words; simple sentences or convoluted sentences with lots of clauses.” To simplify the experiment’s execution and provide a scientifically sound apples-to-apples comparison, the psychologists chose to simply vary the font.
The findings were quite interesting. One of the tasks used in the test was the making of a sushi roll. Those given the Brush font instructions estimated that the task would take longer and be more difficult to accomplish and, most importantly, that they would be less motivated to attempt it than those given the same instructions in the easy to read Arial font.
Your sales compensation plan is in many ways an instruction set for your sales force. This study demonstrates that something as seemingly inconsequential as a font choice (albeit Brush font is hideous) can have a measurable statistically significant effect on the perception of a task’s complexity. Compensation plan designers and comp administrators should certainly not underestimate the potentially negative impact of very complicated plan component calculations. In fact, most experienced plan designers are well aware of this. We get a lot of requests from clients asking for help in “simplifying” their plans. Perhaps less obvious are the potential impacts of the clarity of the compensation plan documentation and even the document’s font. Don’t underestimate the impact of even small changes to your compensation program. If there is a choice of comparable options, opt for the simpler. If you can’t tell which option is simpler, present plan communication options to a test group and ask for feedback. Ask them what they’d be motivated to do after reviewing the plan. Be careful not to confuse your sales force; selling is complicated enough.
Similar Posts:
- Can you explain your company’s sales comp plan to a 2nd grader? - MichaelStus
- What’s Your Magic Number? - MichaelStus