Now that I listen to music again at work, I've been using Pandora heavily.
Pandora offers free music through freemium and advertiser strategies. As you listen to songs, Pandora recommends structurally similar songs. The ultimate idea is to introduce you to new music, something the founders are deeply concerned about.
Despite what I'm about to say, understand that I have greatly enjoyed using Pandora, and will gladly pay the $1 monthly fee.
Two aspects of Pandora's business, as described in a recent article, really surprised me.
First, their entire playlist only numbers 700,000 songs. Even though some competitors have many more, it doesn't seem to be a limiting factor yet.
More surprising is that they don't use or even plan to use the "wisdom of the crowd". As a listener, I vote on whether or not I like the songs that are chosen for me. If the users who liked "Stairway to Heaven" also tended to like "Paranoid Android", you could use that information to drive recommendations. Pandora can use these links between songs, created by its user crowd, to build their song trees, just as web site linking builds the search lists on Google.
Instead, Pandora has professional musicians who decompose the structure of each song in hundreds of elements. The next song recommended to you will have a similar structure.
To me, that sounds ridiculous.*
Mainly, I think Pandora is thinking too small. They need to break away from thinking of music as driven by the record labels and more driven by music listeners. Music is being decentralized like everything else, and they're in a unique spot to take advantage of it.
Pandora should just start adding songs with some high level categorization, let the votes roll in, and create links between songs that way. Categorization could be done by letting its users tag songs.
Once you do that, there's an opportunity to become the youtube of music. Small bands could upload their recording, tag it, and if enough people like it, slowly get more "airtime". If people dislike it, it will fade into oblivion.
Now, you're really introducing people to new music. You draw people in with the established acts, and they end up listening to some genre-defying garage band from Podunk. You can also scale up your playlist very quickly.
If you add a donation button, some mainstream acts would likely upload their songs too, particularly the vast, not well known middle tier. Eventually, instead of paying 50% of their revenues to the record labels as they do today, record labels will be coming to them.
And if Pandora doesn't do it, someone else will, and will eat Pandora's lunch.
------
* The manual labeling reminds me of the Open Directory Project -- an effort to create a "definitive catalog of the web" using manual labor. While ODP, aka DMOZ, has been successful so far, I'll frankly be surprised if it's still around in 10 years.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
How We Decide
Imagine you have two decisions to make: one which is complex, having a lot of variables to consider, and one that is much simpler, with only a couple of variables. An example complex decision might be choosing which car to buy, while a simple decision might be what color.
Which decision will benefit more from thinking through the options logically?
Jonah Lehrer's How We Decide instructs us to use reason for simple and new decisions, but rely on our instincts for more complex ones.
In other words, thinking about what color will probably make sure you get the best choice (for you), but thinking and comparing the cars will likely prove futile. The book shows us that our brains can only actively consider a few variables at once, and decisions that have more variables end up being a crap shoot and often worse because we end up over-weighting less important factors. (Yesterday's post might be an example of the latter.)
Even choosing which box of cereal to buy can overwhelm us. Because most of us don't buy cars too often, if you can narrow it down to three, just getting the cheapest one probably works best.
If you deal with complex situations frequently, create frequent practice opportunities to sharpen your instincts. Flight simulators have worked wonders for pilots. Also, take the time to reflect later on your satisfaction with your decisions and thoroughly understand what happened -- why you succeeded or failed. (Reminds me of deliberate practice.)
The lessons of the book are pretty straightforward. Its real strength comes from the fascinating stories and research examples.
Its conclusions can also be useful if you flip the decision around: when you're trying to convince someone else of a decision.
As developers and engineers, we often try to convince our customers, our audience, each other by laying out intricate arguments while highlighting caveats. Instead, identify the top priorities and focus on those.
Which decision will benefit more from thinking through the options logically?
Jonah Lehrer's How We Decide instructs us to use reason for simple and new decisions, but rely on our instincts for more complex ones.
In other words, thinking about what color will probably make sure you get the best choice (for you), but thinking and comparing the cars will likely prove futile. The book shows us that our brains can only actively consider a few variables at once, and decisions that have more variables end up being a crap shoot and often worse because we end up over-weighting less important factors. (Yesterday's post might be an example of the latter.)
Even choosing which box of cereal to buy can overwhelm us. Because most of us don't buy cars too often, if you can narrow it down to three, just getting the cheapest one probably works best.
If you deal with complex situations frequently, create frequent practice opportunities to sharpen your instincts. Flight simulators have worked wonders for pilots. Also, take the time to reflect later on your satisfaction with your decisions and thoroughly understand what happened -- why you succeeded or failed. (Reminds me of deliberate practice.)
The lessons of the book are pretty straightforward. Its real strength comes from the fascinating stories and research examples.
Its conclusions can also be useful if you flip the decision around: when you're trying to convince someone else of a decision.
As developers and engineers, we often try to convince our customers, our audience, each other by laying out intricate arguments while highlighting caveats. Instead, identify the top priorities and focus on those.
How much is a year worth?
Suppose your job has become slow and boring, but you're planning to go to med school in a year. You could stay at your current job, or take a more interesting one-year job at a non-profit for 1/3 less pay. Or, your company put you through school, and if you leave within the next year, you owed them $30,000.
In these cases, do you stay at your job even though you aren't learning anything?
The question boils down to a year is worth to you.
One-third less pay, or $30,000, whichever works for you, sounds like a lot of money. On the other hand, sitting around not learning has three very real costs: 1) being bored sucks, 2) your skills are actually declining, and 3) you're foregoing the chance to branch out to new areas.
Our brains can quickly grasp the value of 1/3 of our paycheck, but the other costs, though more numerous, remain vague and thus valueless. We end up calculating this as $30,000 vs nothing.
Of course, that's completely wrong. First of all, all learning comes to use. Second, think of how much more satisfied you'll feel at the end of each day. And third but not least, you can use the year at a new job to take risks that could blow up -- oh, so that's what happens when you frankly tell VPs when they're wrong in a meeting -- or could turn out to be amazingly successful. You can take the risks because, at worst, you'll end up out of a job in a year, which is where you'd be anyway. At best, you might end up shocked at what you accomplish.
Unless you're retiring soon, or you're living on steamed rice and frozen vegetables and you literally need every dollar of your paycheck to get by month-to-month, the intangible costs will be far more valuable in the long run.
In these cases, do you stay at your job even though you aren't learning anything?
The question boils down to a year is worth to you.
One-third less pay, or $30,000, whichever works for you, sounds like a lot of money. On the other hand, sitting around not learning has three very real costs: 1) being bored sucks, 2) your skills are actually declining, and 3) you're foregoing the chance to branch out to new areas.
Our brains can quickly grasp the value of 1/3 of our paycheck, but the other costs, though more numerous, remain vague and thus valueless. We end up calculating this as $30,000 vs nothing.
Of course, that's completely wrong. First of all, all learning comes to use. Second, think of how much more satisfied you'll feel at the end of each day. And third but not least, you can use the year at a new job to take risks that could blow up -- oh, so that's what happens when you frankly tell VPs when they're wrong in a meeting -- or could turn out to be amazingly successful. You can take the risks because, at worst, you'll end up out of a job in a year, which is where you'd be anyway. At best, you might end up shocked at what you accomplish.
Unless you're retiring soon, or you're living on steamed rice and frozen vegetables and you literally need every dollar of your paycheck to get by month-to-month, the intangible costs will be far more valuable in the long run.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Minimum job requirements
Today I noticed that a project manager who sits near me never got up from his seat, never had any meetings, never discussed anything with the developers or the business analysts.
Even though he appeared to be working -- didn't notice any web surfing on the occasions when I walked by, seemed to be doing some spreadsheets and paperwork -- I would say he flunked the minimum requirements for his job. Almost all jobs require personal interaction, except maybe the most basic programmer on a really heavy coding day. Senior coders, managers, and certainly project managers should spend their time mostly on personal interaction on most days.
What I think this project manager did today was spend the day using tools to communicate. Chat, email, documents. All good stuff, but they're the supplement, the seasoning, not the meat.
We sometimes fall in love with the tools. They make our lives so easy.
Major, major mistake.
Jonah Lehrer talks about how doctors who use MRIs to diagnose back pain do a much worse job than doctors who don't. They start seeing things in their scans and draw conclusions that their training and common sense would contradict.
On a project that a colleague was on, he would get informed of his assignments through the issue tracking system, which was Jira. When he transferred to the project, he actually got an assignment from Jira before his project manager ever contacted him. I never found out who his manager was, because he would always reply "Jira" when I asked him.
Collaboration tools make a big difference and in fact are essential to a well-run project, but you can end up with too much use of them. They keep the cranks turning, but they don't ultimately deliver anything.
On the other hand, you can never have enough personal attention -- your personal touch, your time and involvement face-to-face or at least on the phone. Fostering team identity, motivation, confidence, priority / urgency, appreciation. These and many other things can only be done personally.
Even though he appeared to be working -- didn't notice any web surfing on the occasions when I walked by, seemed to be doing some spreadsheets and paperwork -- I would say he flunked the minimum requirements for his job. Almost all jobs require personal interaction, except maybe the most basic programmer on a really heavy coding day. Senior coders, managers, and certainly project managers should spend their time mostly on personal interaction on most days.
What I think this project manager did today was spend the day using tools to communicate. Chat, email, documents. All good stuff, but they're the supplement, the seasoning, not the meat.
We sometimes fall in love with the tools. They make our lives so easy.
Major, major mistake.
Jonah Lehrer talks about how doctors who use MRIs to diagnose back pain do a much worse job than doctors who don't. They start seeing things in their scans and draw conclusions that their training and common sense would contradict.
On a project that a colleague was on, he would get informed of his assignments through the issue tracking system, which was Jira. When he transferred to the project, he actually got an assignment from Jira before his project manager ever contacted him. I never found out who his manager was, because he would always reply "Jira" when I asked him.
Collaboration tools make a big difference and in fact are essential to a well-run project, but you can end up with too much use of them. They keep the cranks turning, but they don't ultimately deliver anything.
On the other hand, you can never have enough personal attention -- your personal touch, your time and involvement face-to-face or at least on the phone. Fostering team identity, motivation, confidence, priority / urgency, appreciation. These and many other things can only be done personally.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Discipline takes discipline
Sometimes, the only thing that gets you through what you need to do is discipline. Reasons why you can't do it, lack of confidence, low energy, environment distractions, personal disruptions, and simple procrastination bombard you at various times, and at particularly bad moments, all at once.
In times like that, you have to rely on your discipline. The catch is, you don't even realize you're relying on it.
It's similar to how the extra muscles you've developed in your arms helps you avoid back strain, even though you don't think about it. You build those arm muscles slowly, never sure when you'll reap the benefits, but something heavy always comes along.
The important things you do regularly because they need to be done, or they help you bring order to your chaos -- you'll rely on them to maintain during bad times. Every time you do them when you don't really need to, while things are going okay, you're building your discipline. You slowly build your ability to act, despite any obstacles, and you'll be ready when bad times come along, as they always do.
In times like that, you have to rely on your discipline. The catch is, you don't even realize you're relying on it.
It's similar to how the extra muscles you've developed in your arms helps you avoid back strain, even though you don't think about it. You build those arm muscles slowly, never sure when you'll reap the benefits, but something heavy always comes along.
The important things you do regularly because they need to be done, or they help you bring order to your chaos -- you'll rely on them to maintain during bad times. Every time you do them when you don't really need to, while things are going okay, you're building your discipline. You slowly build your ability to act, despite any obstacles, and you'll be ready when bad times come along, as they always do.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Forcing focus
Recently, I found myself struggling to focus. I think the change of pace to coding threw me off.
As a manager, I zipped around constantly; frankly, there were too many conversations and issues all up in the air, so I had to choose, but there was always something. As a developer, I spend a much greater amount of my time staring at the screen. Plenty of things to do, of course, but at my own pace. Which is good, just different.
So, I implemented something that forced me to stay on track: I log the time and a very, very brief description whenever I start doing a new task. Says here today I started at 8:50 reading email, got some breakfast at 9, did some data scripting from 9:05, etc.
After about three days of this, I learned two things very quickly.
First, forcing myself to note the time whenever I switched tasks made me accountable. If I took an hour lunch break, it's there in the log. I know where my day went. When I'm spending too much time chit-chatting or doing non-productive tasks, I become conscious of it quickly, and feel pressured (by myself) to get focused on real work.
Second, I was hopping between tasks too often. I still do, but now I'm better about trying to bundle my interruptions. If I'm in the middle of coding, then I'll wait until I have to go get food before I also reply to some emails. This should be intuitive, but I'm so used to interruptions that I was distracting myself constantly.
I don't find anything wrong with realizing that I might need help to stay disciplined. Sure, I'd rather be ultra-disciplined all the time, but better to realize the need and take action than to continue failing. As they say, if you can't stop eating all the ice cream, don't keep any around the house.
(Side note: logging all my tasks is quite a bit like Dave Winer's suggestion to Narrate Your Work. Though my list remains private, I still accrue to myself some of the same benefits.)
As a manager, I zipped around constantly; frankly, there were too many conversations and issues all up in the air, so I had to choose, but there was always something. As a developer, I spend a much greater amount of my time staring at the screen. Plenty of things to do, of course, but at my own pace. Which is good, just different.
So, I implemented something that forced me to stay on track: I log the time and a very, very brief description whenever I start doing a new task. Says here today I started at 8:50 reading email, got some breakfast at 9, did some data scripting from 9:05, etc.
After about three days of this, I learned two things very quickly.
First, forcing myself to note the time whenever I switched tasks made me accountable. If I took an hour lunch break, it's there in the log. I know where my day went. When I'm spending too much time chit-chatting or doing non-productive tasks, I become conscious of it quickly, and feel pressured (by myself) to get focused on real work.
Second, I was hopping between tasks too often. I still do, but now I'm better about trying to bundle my interruptions. If I'm in the middle of coding, then I'll wait until I have to go get food before I also reply to some emails. This should be intuitive, but I'm so used to interruptions that I was distracting myself constantly.
I don't find anything wrong with realizing that I might need help to stay disciplined. Sure, I'd rather be ultra-disciplined all the time, but better to realize the need and take action than to continue failing. As they say, if you can't stop eating all the ice cream, don't keep any around the house.
(Side note: logging all my tasks is quite a bit like Dave Winer's suggestion to Narrate Your Work. Though my list remains private, I still accrue to myself some of the same benefits.)
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Old friends
For the first time in a while, I am spending the majority of my day coding. Very little management going on for me right now.
I have some other thoughts about it, but one thing that really struck me is totally not code related: listening to music again at work. Since I rarely listen to music outside of work, I enjoy it immensely.
When you're managing, you need to talk to people constantly. Interruptions come frequently, or you go off to interrupt someone else.
Listening to music again has been like re-acquainting myself with old friends. Friends with funny names like Radiohead, but still.
I have some other thoughts about it, but one thing that really struck me is totally not code related: listening to music again at work. Since I rarely listen to music outside of work, I enjoy it immensely.
When you're managing, you need to talk to people constantly. Interruptions come frequently, or you go off to interrupt someone else.
Listening to music again has been like re-acquainting myself with old friends. Friends with funny names like Radiohead, but still.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
A chance to rate yourself
Today offers a great chance to rate yourself.
Other firms are hiring. Your coders are probably taking calls from headhunters looking to place them.
How many have you lost to competitors? Not counting unique opportunities or clear upgrades -- but basically the same job for maybe a little more money.
Count those as marks against you. Everyone who stays who you want to keep as marks for you. If you're sitting on over 80%, take a bow, you've been doing something right.
Other firms are hiring. Your coders are probably taking calls from headhunters looking to place them.
How many have you lost to competitors? Not counting unique opportunities or clear upgrades -- but basically the same job for maybe a little more money.
Count those as marks against you. Everyone who stays who you want to keep as marks for you. If you're sitting on over 80%, take a bow, you've been doing something right.
Monday, October 26, 2009
The end of iPhone
Prediction: this will be the last holiday season that iPhone dominates.
We are on the brink of an Android break-out. I make no claim about the relative performance of one vs the other, but some points are clear:
* Many manufacturers will be producing Android phones. Only Apple will be making iPhones. Android phones will, in short order, offer a lot more features for less money.
* Every network will offer Android phones. In the US, you must have AT&T if you have an iPhone. That in itself is huge, because when you buy a phone, you usually buy a network too (for a year or two). Hardware lock-in to AT&T is a competitive disadvantage for iPhone. Every iPhone user at my office has to go to the other side of the building or outside to make calls. This is in the middle of New York City; I can only imagine how badly the rest of the country suffers.
* Enough dissatisfaction with iPhone itself exists to allow competition. The primary one is battery life.
* Android apps will explode as the user base increases. That may not seem like a big deal, but I think apps (and not hardware or features) are the real strength iPhone has over all other phones on the market.
Perhaps Apple will end its exclusivity with AT&T. It is not a choice they would easily adopt, or else they wouldn't have suffered with AT&T's network over the past year. I have no idea when their agreement ends, but Apple would likely take a big hit to future earnings if they go that route. Other networks have not been willing to fork out the cash that AT&T pays to carry the iPhone.
Their ideal strategy would be to dominate the market so thoroughly that the other networks eventually come crawling to them, begging to be let in to Apple's party. Unfortunately for Apple, Google is today's monopoly buster -- just ask Microsoft. (Tomorrow, they very well could be the monopoly.)
In short, many always beats one in a competitive market. And open always beats closed.
Expect iPhone to have a lovely holiday season, but sometime next year, its market share will peak.
We are on the brink of an Android break-out. I make no claim about the relative performance of one vs the other, but some points are clear:
* Many manufacturers will be producing Android phones. Only Apple will be making iPhones. Android phones will, in short order, offer a lot more features for less money.
* Every network will offer Android phones. In the US, you must have AT&T if you have an iPhone. That in itself is huge, because when you buy a phone, you usually buy a network too (for a year or two). Hardware lock-in to AT&T is a competitive disadvantage for iPhone. Every iPhone user at my office has to go to the other side of the building or outside to make calls. This is in the middle of New York City; I can only imagine how badly the rest of the country suffers.
* Enough dissatisfaction with iPhone itself exists to allow competition. The primary one is battery life.
* Android apps will explode as the user base increases. That may not seem like a big deal, but I think apps (and not hardware or features) are the real strength iPhone has over all other phones on the market.
Perhaps Apple will end its exclusivity with AT&T. It is not a choice they would easily adopt, or else they wouldn't have suffered with AT&T's network over the past year. I have no idea when their agreement ends, but Apple would likely take a big hit to future earnings if they go that route. Other networks have not been willing to fork out the cash that AT&T pays to carry the iPhone.
Their ideal strategy would be to dominate the market so thoroughly that the other networks eventually come crawling to them, begging to be let in to Apple's party. Unfortunately for Apple, Google is today's monopoly buster -- just ask Microsoft. (Tomorrow, they very well could be the monopoly.)
In short, many always beats one in a competitive market. And open always beats closed.
Expect iPhone to have a lovely holiday season, but sometime next year, its market share will peak.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Here Comes Everybody
Could the giant corporation become a thing of the past? You might reasonably reach that conclusion after reading Clay Shirky's Here Comes Everybody.
The logic runs like this: thanks to new digital communication and organizing tools, the cost of organizing has dropped close to zero. Self-organized people will inherently rally around the "right" things (serving the interests of the most people). Most attempts at starting movements and clubs will end up dying to do a lack of interest. However, a few will hit a goldmine of unmet need and succeed spectacularly, usually in areas that surprise us (otherwise the need would have been met). Stay-at-home mothers are one of the most popular groups using Meetup. Who knew?
In this way, we get "failure for free" on our way to identifying unmet societal needs -- a truly hyper-efficient market.
In contrast, large corporations often organize around the wrong things (serving their own interests). They fund a big staff of marketing and sales people to generate interest in products and services they've created. Failure for them is most definitely not free. A big bet placed on a software roll out (uh, Vista?) or blockbuster movie can be devastating.
Google seems to be doing the best job of becoming a big company while still maintaining an entrepreneurial attitude. They put out beta products frequently, some of which fail. How long can they keep it up?
They maintain a high organizational cost by necessity. At some point, an organization becomes risk-averse, and tries to protect its gains for itself (employees, managers, shareholders, brand image). Hiring lobbyists is usually a first step in that process. Next comes predatory or monopolistic behavior. Who does that sound like?
The brilliance of Here Comes Everybody is that it talks about lots of little things that you know already, and makes you think about them in new ways, or generate new thoughts about them. Clay Shirky never says the corporation is dying, but it sure made me think that way.
The logic runs like this: thanks to new digital communication and organizing tools, the cost of organizing has dropped close to zero. Self-organized people will inherently rally around the "right" things (serving the interests of the most people). Most attempts at starting movements and clubs will end up dying to do a lack of interest. However, a few will hit a goldmine of unmet need and succeed spectacularly, usually in areas that surprise us (otherwise the need would have been met). Stay-at-home mothers are one of the most popular groups using Meetup. Who knew?
In this way, we get "failure for free" on our way to identifying unmet societal needs -- a truly hyper-efficient market.
In contrast, large corporations often organize around the wrong things (serving their own interests). They fund a big staff of marketing and sales people to generate interest in products and services they've created. Failure for them is most definitely not free. A big bet placed on a software roll out (uh, Vista?) or blockbuster movie can be devastating.
Google seems to be doing the best job of becoming a big company while still maintaining an entrepreneurial attitude. They put out beta products frequently, some of which fail. How long can they keep it up?
They maintain a high organizational cost by necessity. At some point, an organization becomes risk-averse, and tries to protect its gains for itself (employees, managers, shareholders, brand image). Hiring lobbyists is usually a first step in that process. Next comes predatory or monopolistic behavior. Who does that sound like?
The brilliance of Here Comes Everybody is that it talks about lots of little things that you know already, and makes you think about them in new ways, or generate new thoughts about them. Clay Shirky never says the corporation is dying, but it sure made me think that way.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
James Cameron, micro-manager?
Have you ever considered the difference between a "micro-manager" and a "genius that controlled every detail to make sure it was done perfectly"? It's more than the result; after all, you don't know the result until later.
This bio on James Cameron lays out the difference perfectly.
Micro-managers have their hand in everything and argue about the smallest details. That's exactly what James Cameron does.
Cameron brings to the table shared vision and credibility. Without those two things, he would just be a micro-manager.
Cameron aims high.
But if you didn't believe he could get it done, then his goals would just be talk. Some credibility comes simply because he's had some success in the past. But, this is new ground, so he needs more that just his past.
What he has is massive amounts of conviction. This quote captures it perfectly:
But, he's got all those things, so instead, he's a visionary genius.
This bio on James Cameron lays out the difference perfectly.
Micro-managers have their hand in everything and argue about the smallest details. That's exactly what James Cameron does.
Cameron has mastered every job on set, and has even been known to grab a brush out of a makeup artist’s hand. "I always do makeup touch-ups myself, especially for blood, wounds, and dirt," he says. "It saves so much time." ... Cameron inserts himself into every aspect of the filmmaking process.People who work for micro-managers feel disrespected and despise them for it. Similarly, the crew of "The Abyss" came to refer to it as "The Abuse". Because of his abrasive nature,
Cameron has an uncanny ability to make people want to see him fail.Yet, despite these flaws, big stars -- people who don't need the work -- will readily work with Cameron. In fact,
A small, loyal band of cast and crew works with him repeatedlyThat quite possibly includes the makeup artists.
Cameron brings to the table shared vision and credibility. Without those two things, he would just be a micro-manager.
Cameron aims high.
"This film integrates my life’s achievements," he told me. "It’s the most complicated stuff anyone’s ever done." Another time, he said, "If you set your goals ridiculously high and it’s a failure, you will fail above everyone else’s success."Whether or not the film turns out to be any good, his lofty goals can inspire. You want to be a part of something like that.
But if you didn't believe he could get it done, then his goals would just be talk. Some credibility comes simply because he's had some success in the past. But, this is new ground, so he needs more that just his past.
What he has is massive amounts of conviction. This quote captures it perfectly:
Before beginning production on "The Abyss" (1989), the most ambitious underwater movie ever attempted, he went to see Leonard Goldberg, then the president of Fox, which was financing the film. "He said, 'I want you to know one thing -- once we embark on this adventure and I start to make this movie, the only way you'll be able to stop me is to kill me,'" Goldberg told me. "You looked into those eyes and you knew he meant it."If you don't buy into the vision and didn't think Cameron could get it done, he would be just another unbearable tyrant. If he also worked in an office instead of on movies, he would just be a micro-manager.
But, he's got all those things, so instead, he's a visionary genius.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Marshmallows predict coding skills
Have you heard about how marshmallows can predict SAT scores?
A study done in the 70s tested the self-control of 4 year-olds. Each was left in a room alone with some marshmallows they were told not to eat until the researcher came back. Some kids couldn't even wait a minute before caving in and eating the marshmallows. Some covered their eyes or looked away or kicked the table. The more self-controlled kids waited over 15 minutes.
Thirteen years later, the researchers looked at these same kids' SAT scores. Those who waited longer had, on average, better scores by a couple hundred points than those who caved in quickly. The marshmallow predicted SAT scores more accurately than IQ tests that the kids had taken. Kids who demonstrated weak self-control with the marshmallows as 4 year-olds also experienced more behavioral problems.
I read about this research study in a few books, and I always interpreted it simply as a lesson about the importance of self-control, which is how the authors present it.
But here's an important factor that I just realized: the successful kids didn't just show self-control. They didn't sit and stare at the marshmallows and then demonstrate amazing willpower. They knew they'd be weak, so they took actions (covering their eyes, doing something else) to help them focus on the correct things (or, more accurately, not focus on the wrong thing).
Many times in software development, we rely on self-control to do the right thing. "After you code, refactor and clean it up." "While you're testing, make sure you come up with all the business cases."
The coding is treated as the main piece of business, and then when that's done, the developer should demonstrate amazing willpower, push through their fatigue and relief at finishing, and focus on quality.
Instead, we should know that we're weak, and make sure the focus on quality is built deeply into our routines. Practices like automated builds, daily production-quality check-ins, TDD help us address the important aspects of functional and structural quality, while eliminating the need for willpower.
Similarly, if certain activities make you less productive, don't just rely on personal determination to avoid them. Address the problem directly. If checking your email is a big distraction, then decide you will only do it once every half hour and set an alarm. Same goes for your blackberry. Most managers will readily accept any reasonable work pattern as long as you let them know, especially as your intention is to improve productivity.
A study done in the 70s tested the self-control of 4 year-olds. Each was left in a room alone with some marshmallows they were told not to eat until the researcher came back. Some kids couldn't even wait a minute before caving in and eating the marshmallows. Some covered their eyes or looked away or kicked the table. The more self-controlled kids waited over 15 minutes.
Thirteen years later, the researchers looked at these same kids' SAT scores. Those who waited longer had, on average, better scores by a couple hundred points than those who caved in quickly. The marshmallow predicted SAT scores more accurately than IQ tests that the kids had taken. Kids who demonstrated weak self-control with the marshmallows as 4 year-olds also experienced more behavioral problems.
I read about this research study in a few books, and I always interpreted it simply as a lesson about the importance of self-control, which is how the authors present it.
But here's an important factor that I just realized: the successful kids didn't just show self-control. They didn't sit and stare at the marshmallows and then demonstrate amazing willpower. They knew they'd be weak, so they took actions (covering their eyes, doing something else) to help them focus on the correct things (or, more accurately, not focus on the wrong thing).
Many times in software development, we rely on self-control to do the right thing. "After you code, refactor and clean it up." "While you're testing, make sure you come up with all the business cases."
The coding is treated as the main piece of business, and then when that's done, the developer should demonstrate amazing willpower, push through their fatigue and relief at finishing, and focus on quality.
Instead, we should know that we're weak, and make sure the focus on quality is built deeply into our routines. Practices like automated builds, daily production-quality check-ins, TDD help us address the important aspects of functional and structural quality, while eliminating the need for willpower.
Similarly, if certain activities make you less productive, don't just rely on personal determination to avoid them. Address the problem directly. If checking your email is a big distraction, then decide you will only do it once every half hour and set an alarm. Same goes for your blackberry. Most managers will readily accept any reasonable work pattern as long as you let them know, especially as your intention is to improve productivity.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Backgammon and good code
I'm not yet done with How We Decide, but this example of deliberate practice jumped out at me.
This sentence also struck me:
Concern for aesthetically-pleasing code strikes some coders as just unnecessary housekeeping chore. But I think programmers who consistently produce solid code write clean and organized code as a matter of routine. And those who don't do it routinely, but have to go back after the fact and clean things up, maybe refactor a bit, will improve over time and eventually get to the point of routine. It no longer becomes a chore, but just a standard way of doing it.
The counter-argument is a whistle-clean, beautifully modular code that fails miserably at what the users wanted. That's actually a different problem: bad communication or bad specs. But I bet that code did exactly what the programmer wanted it to do.
Robartie didn't become a world champion just by playing a lot of backgammon. "It's not the quantity of practice, it's the quality," he says. According to Robertie, the most effective way to get better is to focus on your mistakes.You might recall that deliberate practice appears in Talent Is Overrated as the key to high performance. Focusing on one's mistakes reminds me, again, of Test Driven Development. I'm not a TDD nut -- I have never personally worked on a devoted TDD team -- I'm just pulling these threads together. TDD focuses on your mistakes before you make them. You'll still make some, and so your TDD gets better and better, along with your results and productivity.
This sentence also struck me:
After a few years of intense practice, Robertie had turned himself into one of the best backgammon players in the world. "I knew I was good when I could just glance at a board and know what I should do," Robertie says. "The game started to become very much a matter of aesthetics. My decisions increasingly depended on the look of things, so that I could contemplate a move and see right away if it made my position look better or worse."I have long believed that good code is clean code, exemplified by Joshua Bloch's axiom that good code reads like prose.
Concern for aesthetically-pleasing code strikes some coders as just unnecessary housekeeping chore. But I think programmers who consistently produce solid code write clean and organized code as a matter of routine. And those who don't do it routinely, but have to go back after the fact and clean things up, maybe refactor a bit, will improve over time and eventually get to the point of routine. It no longer becomes a chore, but just a standard way of doing it.
The counter-argument is a whistle-clean, beautifully modular code that fails miserably at what the users wanted. That's actually a different problem: bad communication or bad specs. But I bet that code did exactly what the programmer wanted it to do.
Monday, October 19, 2009
The fast-moving world of dentistry
Many programmers do their jobs, do it well, but never train themselves beyond their time at work.
I was thinking about this at the dentist's office recently. My dentist is not young, but she follows the latest practices. She replaced drills with air tools, which offer precision and obviates the need for anesthetic. She installed a laser for some of the gum work. Numerous other improvements have been made over the years.
This is dentistry we're talking about. Not exactly a lot of unexplored frontiers here. Yet, she clearly spends many off-hours staying up to date, obtaining information, and training herself. All that occurs when the office is closed, and no patients are around.
If that's the slow world of dentistry, what are the implications for the fast-moving world of software development?
If you're serious about having a successful career as a programmer, you need to be training yourself. Don't expect to do it on your company's time or your company's dollar. If you really can't afford it, at least park yourself at your local bookstore and read the books for free. Most of them have free wi-fi, so take your laptop and do the exercises.
While you're on a project, marching to a deadline, you should already be fully trained in the skills you need -- just as you wouldn't want your dentist to be pulling that laser out for the first time when you sit down in her chair.
I was thinking about this at the dentist's office recently. My dentist is not young, but she follows the latest practices. She replaced drills with air tools, which offer precision and obviates the need for anesthetic. She installed a laser for some of the gum work. Numerous other improvements have been made over the years.
This is dentistry we're talking about. Not exactly a lot of unexplored frontiers here. Yet, she clearly spends many off-hours staying up to date, obtaining information, and training herself. All that occurs when the office is closed, and no patients are around.
If that's the slow world of dentistry, what are the implications for the fast-moving world of software development?
If you're serious about having a successful career as a programmer, you need to be training yourself. Don't expect to do it on your company's time or your company's dollar. If you really can't afford it, at least park yourself at your local bookstore and read the books for free. Most of them have free wi-fi, so take your laptop and do the exercises.
While you're on a project, marching to a deadline, you should already be fully trained in the skills you need -- just as you wouldn't want your dentist to be pulling that laser out for the first time when you sit down in her chair.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Great traders and great programmers
I talked to an intern trader who recently finished his gig. His mentor told him at the beginning of the summer, "When you finish, I'm going to ask you what makes someone a great trader."
At the end of the summer, the intern gave some generic answer about financial calculations.
The mentor said, "What makes someone a great trader is what he does when things are slow."
How true, and the same could be said for programmers.
For any job that requires creative, highly educated people to work toward high pressure, difficult to move deadlines, the long-term differentiating factor will be how the person invests in him/herself. And slow times provide the only opportunity for that, whether 5 minutes or 5 days long.
At the end of the summer, the intern gave some generic answer about financial calculations.
The mentor said, "What makes someone a great trader is what he does when things are slow."
How true, and the same could be said for programmers.
For any job that requires creative, highly educated people to work toward high pressure, difficult to move deadlines, the long-term differentiating factor will be how the person invests in him/herself. And slow times provide the only opportunity for that, whether 5 minutes or 5 days long.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Talent is Overrated
Or so says Geoff Colvin.
If someone tells you, "I know the secret to super performance, and it's not talent," you know what the answer is, right? Hard work. Which is basically what this book says. He actually says it's 10 years of hard work to become an world-class performer.
He takes it a little further, explaining the necessity for "deliberate practice" as opposed to just regular practice. The difference is most obvious in activities with clear goals. It's free-throw shooting for hours instead of pick-up games. Repeatedly working through a knotty part of that concerto with deep concentration, not just breezing through easy pieces.
For software developers, I thought TDD would be a good analogy. TDD forces you to regularly think about testing your software, until you're writing good, modular software by second nature, and you can do it with increasingly complex applications.
To do effective "deliberate practice" in business professions, you often need a mentor -- someone who's better than you are -- to tell you, "This is one thing you should work on, and here's how you can do it." That focuses you on building the right skills.
He provided some good research about external and internal motivation. Basically, your intrinsic motivations will outweigh everything else. Managers have to figure out what that is for each person and how to arrange the work accordingly; motivation can't simply be bought.
Books like this can be useful as a reminder about how you want to spend your day, but since I had a good idea what he was going to say, I wouldn't normally have picked it up.
But, I saw some effusive praise on the back cover from people I admire: Daniel Pink, Herb Kelleher, a couple others. (Oh yeah, Donald Trump is there too.) Then I found out they're all cited in the book either as vanguards in the research he quotes, or as examples of outstanding performers --no wonder! In the end, the book is overrated.
If someone tells you, "I know the secret to super performance, and it's not talent," you know what the answer is, right? Hard work. Which is basically what this book says. He actually says it's 10 years of hard work to become an world-class performer.
He takes it a little further, explaining the necessity for "deliberate practice" as opposed to just regular practice. The difference is most obvious in activities with clear goals. It's free-throw shooting for hours instead of pick-up games. Repeatedly working through a knotty part of that concerto with deep concentration, not just breezing through easy pieces.
For software developers, I thought TDD would be a good analogy. TDD forces you to regularly think about testing your software, until you're writing good, modular software by second nature, and you can do it with increasingly complex applications.
To do effective "deliberate practice" in business professions, you often need a mentor -- someone who's better than you are -- to tell you, "This is one thing you should work on, and here's how you can do it." That focuses you on building the right skills.
He provided some good research about external and internal motivation. Basically, your intrinsic motivations will outweigh everything else. Managers have to figure out what that is for each person and how to arrange the work accordingly; motivation can't simply be bought.
Books like this can be useful as a reminder about how you want to spend your day, but since I had a good idea what he was going to say, I wouldn't normally have picked it up.
But, I saw some effusive praise on the back cover from people I admire: Daniel Pink, Herb Kelleher, a couple others. (Oh yeah, Donald Trump is there too.) Then I found out they're all cited in the book either as vanguards in the research he quotes, or as examples of outstanding performers --no wonder! In the end, the book is overrated.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Cloud computing and the financial meltdown
Sidekick's massive data loss reminds me of the financial meltdown.
The big banks became too big to fail because all the world's finances flowed through them. It might seem that we have a lot of banks, but actually on a global level, we relied on just a dozen or so. Not enough diversity for the entire planet. Maybe we'll learn something from that mess.... maybe.
Actually, we've seen this problem many times before.
Agriculture has been around for thousands of years, and has given us some examples of systemic breakdown. One famous example was the Irish Potato Famine. The potato became too big to fail in Ireland. Unfortunately, it did, and around 12 - 15% of the population died. Biodiversity has become a global concern.
The financial system started hundreds of years ago, and, as we saw, has reached the point where the industry needs to be actively designed for resistance and maintenance. Mortgage-backed securities and their offspring are like the potato, and the bubble bursting acted like a blight.
Computers are only decades old, and the information age started more recently than that. Some have already wondered whether Google is the first information company that is too big to fail. No one ever said that about IBM, so things have changed.
I don't think Google is a problem yet, but cloud computing can put it there. Given our reliance on smaller and thinner tools -- netbooks and phones -- we increasingly rely on central storage. It only makes sense for efficiency purposes to aggregate that storage in a cloud. Why should you care where or how your data is stored?
Governments increasingly use technology to improve services. Among other things, they're combining databases. All very good things. Things we often criticize governments for not doing, not being competitive enough, not efficient enough.
Wouldn't a cloud make sense for the same reasons for all that government data? Imagine how big the social security database is or just California's Department of Motor Vehicles. Do you really expect these agencies to have stronger, more robust technology than Microsoft?
Cloud computing clearly offers a lot of benefit. This problem will not stop the growth of the cloud. But if cloud computing takes off, it also implies a future where some of these technology companies will have to be regulated. Sounds strange, doesn't it?
Think about all those rows and rows of Google servers, for which they are famous. Companies always want their systems to run exactly the same software because that makes it easier to upgrade and maintain. Now think potatoes in Ireland, or mortgages in the financial industry. Google has had its outages, but they were small enough to ignore. Not so if they held data used for trading markets or air traffic or personal banking.
Regulations might included government-mandated requirements concerning:
The big banks became too big to fail because all the world's finances flowed through them. It might seem that we have a lot of banks, but actually on a global level, we relied on just a dozen or so. Not enough diversity for the entire planet. Maybe we'll learn something from that mess.... maybe.
Actually, we've seen this problem many times before.
Agriculture has been around for thousands of years, and has given us some examples of systemic breakdown. One famous example was the Irish Potato Famine. The potato became too big to fail in Ireland. Unfortunately, it did, and around 12 - 15% of the population died. Biodiversity has become a global concern.
The financial system started hundreds of years ago, and, as we saw, has reached the point where the industry needs to be actively designed for resistance and maintenance. Mortgage-backed securities and their offspring are like the potato, and the bubble bursting acted like a blight.
Computers are only decades old, and the information age started more recently than that. Some have already wondered whether Google is the first information company that is too big to fail. No one ever said that about IBM, so things have changed.
I don't think Google is a problem yet, but cloud computing can put it there. Given our reliance on smaller and thinner tools -- netbooks and phones -- we increasingly rely on central storage. It only makes sense for efficiency purposes to aggregate that storage in a cloud. Why should you care where or how your data is stored?
Governments increasingly use technology to improve services. Among other things, they're combining databases. All very good things. Things we often criticize governments for not doing, not being competitive enough, not efficient enough.
Wouldn't a cloud make sense for the same reasons for all that government data? Imagine how big the social security database is or just California's Department of Motor Vehicles. Do you really expect these agencies to have stronger, more robust technology than Microsoft?
Cloud computing clearly offers a lot of benefit. This problem will not stop the growth of the cloud. But if cloud computing takes off, it also implies a future where some of these technology companies will have to be regulated. Sounds strange, doesn't it?
Think about all those rows and rows of Google servers, for which they are famous. Companies always want their systems to run exactly the same software because that makes it easier to upgrade and maintain. Now think potatoes in Ireland, or mortgages in the financial industry. Google has had its outages, but they were small enough to ignore. Not so if they held data used for trading markets or air traffic or personal banking.
Regulations might included government-mandated requirements concerning:
- separation of data servers from other applications
- multiple power sources
- replicated data stored in physical locations 100 miles apart
- maximum failover time (in minutes) and minimum uptime percentage (> six sigma?)
- monetary reserve to ensure continued operations in case some other project at the company starts draining all the money
- separation of businesses to ensure law suits or problems at one division don't affect the viability of the data business
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Free software: Twitter
Of course, Twitter is free, and recently valued at $1bn. So far, Twitter closely follows the Google and Facebook playbook: bring the users and the data, and figure out revenues later. Skeptics believe revenues may never happen.
Felix Salmon reports they may start selling their data, with access costing several million dollars. Also, like other systems (e.g, Nasdaq, high-frequency trading), perhaps the fastest access will be provided at much higher prices.
Twitter could easily sell its data. It's not clear the super-fast data would be that much more valuable. I also question whether selling its raw data would be more valuable than selling analyzed data. Maybe they can do both; Google could use the raw data, but Sears and Southwest Airlines would want summary capsules.
Another option that occurs to me is they could tier their data. The most popular topics at any given moment would be available for only much higher prices. Breaking tweets about Obama's Nobel prize would be delayed or available only after the hysteria died down and turned into stale news.
Twitter clearly has some options. We'll have to wait and find out whether that adds up to a $1bn company.
Felix Salmon reports they may start selling their data, with access costing several million dollars. Also, like other systems (e.g, Nasdaq, high-frequency trading), perhaps the fastest access will be provided at much higher prices.
Twitter could easily sell its data. It's not clear the super-fast data would be that much more valuable. I also question whether selling its raw data would be more valuable than selling analyzed data. Maybe they can do both; Google could use the raw data, but Sears and Southwest Airlines would want summary capsules.
Another option that occurs to me is they could tier their data. The most popular topics at any given moment would be available for only much higher prices. Breaking tweets about Obama's Nobel prize would be delayed or available only after the hysteria died down and turned into stale news.
Twitter clearly has some options. We'll have to wait and find out whether that adds up to a $1bn company.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Increase your productivity!
The ultimate productivity blog. Perfect for a Friday before a 3 day weekend, especially for those of us who have to work on Monday.
Who owns your free online account?
Answer: not you.
The problem of account ownership will only grow.
Facebook user recently revolted over changes in content ownership. But the problem still exists: some people get kicked off and have their accounts closed on them, while others try to get off but can't get their accounts closed. Because Facebook owns the accounts, not the users.
Maybe you could live without Facebook, but what about things you invest serious time in? Like writing a blog everyday. Or applications you use for school or work, like Google Apps.
Scarier still: apps that have all your personal data, like mint.com. Maybe you feel comfortable with this company, you like how they do business. But what happens if they get bought?
Scariest of all: apps that have all your business data, like Amazon's S3 storage. Amazon couldn't go out of business, right? But it was only a few years ago that we thought they would never turn a profit. And only a year ago it was inconceivable that Lehman would be gone. In this case, as a paying customer, you have a few rights, but Amazon still owns the switch.
Thin, free software remains the inevitable future destination, but you might think twice about being the vanguard.
a federal judge has ordered Google to deactivate the email account of a user who was mistakenly sent confidential financial information by a bank.Try to follow the logic: a bank accidentally sent out confidential data, so the random person that happened to receive it is punished. Since that person doesn't pay anything for the account, he has few rights in the matter.
The problem of account ownership will only grow.
Facebook user recently revolted over changes in content ownership. But the problem still exists: some people get kicked off and have their accounts closed on them, while others try to get off but can't get their accounts closed. Because Facebook owns the accounts, not the users.
Maybe you could live without Facebook, but what about things you invest serious time in? Like writing a blog everyday. Or applications you use for school or work, like Google Apps.
Scarier still: apps that have all your personal data, like mint.com. Maybe you feel comfortable with this company, you like how they do business. But what happens if they get bought?
Scariest of all: apps that have all your business data, like Amazon's S3 storage. Amazon couldn't go out of business, right? But it was only a few years ago that we thought they would never turn a profit. And only a year ago it was inconceivable that Lehman would be gone. In this case, as a paying customer, you have a few rights, but Amazon still owns the switch.
Thin, free software remains the inevitable future destination, but you might think twice about being the vanguard.
Monday, October 5, 2009
It's not the cockroach you see that should worry you
You probably heard about the man with no arms who couldn't cash a check. A Bank of America branch manager turned him away because their rules require fingerprints. No exceptions.
That manager surely got an earful, possibly a demotion.
The web overflows with customer horror stories dealing with BofA "customer service". I ran across another one the other day without trying, simply because one of the blogs that I regularly read had a personal experience.
Whether or not BofA's service falls short (or even it's standard among banks), the real point here is that bank executives will likely erupt in furor and disbelief at their employee's behavior.
What should concern them more are the thousands of examples that fall just below the line of ridiculousness -- equally aggravating, no less insensitive to their customers, but without the farcical aspects -- and then the millions of occurrences that annoy and dismiss their customers just slightly less, all of which go unnoticed and unreported by local news. Such a massive visible failure signifies massive numbers of failures below the surface.
I'm willing to bet that BofA trains its retail banking staff to behave very rigidly, probably in an attempt to reduce mistakes and minimize costs. Eventually, a rules-based culture breeds a system of automatons that only know the rules.
That manager surely got an earful, possibly a demotion.
The web overflows with customer horror stories dealing with BofA "customer service". I ran across another one the other day without trying, simply because one of the blogs that I regularly read had a personal experience.
Whether or not BofA's service falls short (or even it's standard among banks), the real point here is that bank executives will likely erupt in furor and disbelief at their employee's behavior.
What should concern them more are the thousands of examples that fall just below the line of ridiculousness -- equally aggravating, no less insensitive to their customers, but without the farcical aspects -- and then the millions of occurrences that annoy and dismiss their customers just slightly less, all of which go unnoticed and unreported by local news. Such a massive visible failure signifies massive numbers of failures below the surface.
I'm willing to bet that BofA trains its retail banking staff to behave very rigidly, probably in an attempt to reduce mistakes and minimize costs. Eventually, a rules-based culture breeds a system of automatons that only know the rules.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Crucial characteristics
Crucial Conversations provides some useful guidelines for communication in difficult situations. You can enjoyably read the book in about an hour or two, so that makes it easy to recommend.This comment struck me:
The more you care about an issue, the less likely you are to be on your best behavior... When it comes to our strongest views, passion can be our enemy. Of course, feeling strongly about something isn't bad in and of itself. It's okay to have strong opinions. The problem comes when we try to express them.People want to hire only passionate people these days. And for projects with a very clear destination and fairly well understood obstacles, passionate people will drive it to completion exactly as you'd want. Nothing will stop their forward push.
But what if the goals are vague, or constantly shifting? What if you expect numerous detours and re-starts along the way? What if the challenges can't be driven through, but have to be innovated around?
Projects like that might very well be better served by good listeners, or by people who can step back and let things simmer a bit, away from the fire. Of course, passionate people can be excellent listeners, and can be wise enough to be able to let things develop in due time. But, in terms of priority -- what leading characteristics you particularly seek for the project -- passion might rank pretty low.
As the author points out, passion often acts as a source of ineffectiveness, when everyone else is not "on board". And you would most expect to see this variety of opinion on projects with vague goals and unforeseen detours.
The thing is, don't most projects fall in this category?
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Connect
Ever notice how some people become very active on LinkedIn when they start looking for a job? They join lots of groups, make lots of connections.
Or they start emailing old co-workers and managers. "Haven't talked to you in a long time -- how's it going? Any openings over there?"
Unfortunately, this is the wrong time to try to breathe some life into their network. They should have been doing that all along.
The ex-colleagues you know well enough to email in your time of need? Why not drop them a note now and then? "Hey, I saw this article about local micro-brews. I recall you had a big interest in that." Or "Here's an event next week with free activities for kids, thought you might want to take yours."
Cultivating contacts well takes time, whether they're people you worked with or new ones you've met in professional groups.
Does this sound manipulative? As if you're treating everyone as a tool for your own gain?
Here's a crazy thought: you could actually be interested in these people's lives! You got along well enough with your co-workers to feel comfortable later contacting them. Sending an email costs you nothing, and you could actually be doing them a favor. That's trying to connect with people, not just link in to them.
Or they start emailing old co-workers and managers. "Haven't talked to you in a long time -- how's it going? Any openings over there?"
Unfortunately, this is the wrong time to try to breathe some life into their network. They should have been doing that all along.
The ex-colleagues you know well enough to email in your time of need? Why not drop them a note now and then? "Hey, I saw this article about local micro-brews. I recall you had a big interest in that." Or "Here's an event next week with free activities for kids, thought you might want to take yours."
Cultivating contacts well takes time, whether they're people you worked with or new ones you've met in professional groups.
Does this sound manipulative? As if you're treating everyone as a tool for your own gain?
Here's a crazy thought: you could actually be interested in these people's lives! You got along well enough with your co-workers to feel comfortable later contacting them. Sending an email costs you nothing, and you could actually be doing them a favor. That's trying to connect with people, not just link in to them.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
What does free software look like? Socialwok
Scoble argues that the future of office productivity software is moving to mobile phones. A new toolset built on Google Apps convinces him.
Partly, this is due to the thinness of Google Apps. But I think the fact that Google Apps is free makes it very attractive to developers to build around. Intuitively, we know that free is coming and that free is the playing field.
If MS Office came out with a completely online version tomorrow, all for $25, what percent of the nascent web-based office market would they capture? My guess would be less than half, and those would basically be users who wanted interactivity between the online and installed versions. Perhaps that is the money-making strategy for them now -- build on their strengths and installed base -- but the window is closing.
Eventually, and sooner than we might think, MS Office must have a highly functional, free online version to compete. Otherwise, they cannot get online market share. And without the market share, they can't get developer apps and plug-ins. The iPhone and Firefox and Facebook (and increasingly Android) have shown the value of third-party apps.
Socialwok may or not be free, but it's part of the ecosystem that gets created around a big successful free app.
Partly, this is due to the thinness of Google Apps. But I think the fact that Google Apps is free makes it very attractive to developers to build around. Intuitively, we know that free is coming and that free is the playing field.
If MS Office came out with a completely online version tomorrow, all for $25, what percent of the nascent web-based office market would they capture? My guess would be less than half, and those would basically be users who wanted interactivity between the online and installed versions. Perhaps that is the money-making strategy for them now -- build on their strengths and installed base -- but the window is closing.
Eventually, and sooner than we might think, MS Office must have a highly functional, free online version to compete. Otherwise, they cannot get online market share. And without the market share, they can't get developer apps and plug-ins. The iPhone and Firefox and Facebook (and increasingly Android) have shown the value of third-party apps.
Socialwok may or not be free, but it's part of the ecosystem that gets created around a big successful free app.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Give away your recipes
While trying to learn how to make sourdough bread, I ran across this site. The author gives away all his recipes and techniques in elaborate detail. Meanwhile, he's also trying to sell those same breads and get people to enroll in baking classes to learn those same techniques.
Doesn't seem too smart -- why bother to buy or attend class when all the facts are right there?
Surprisingly, that's actually a great way to build your career: once you establish your expertise, teach it to someone else.
One of two things will happen when you try to train others in your expertise.
This strikes me as a kind of personal freemium strategy, involving one's own know-how.
More importantly, this demonstrates how mentoring, sharing your knowledge, and training your replacement are fundamental ways of advancing your career -- all riffs on the same theme, under different circumstances. Giving away your recipes is another way to say it.
Doesn't seem too smart -- why bother to buy or attend class when all the facts are right there?
Surprisingly, that's actually a great way to build your career: once you establish your expertise, teach it to someone else.
One of two things will happen when you try to train others in your expertise.
- they will learn it. That means it wasn't that complicated, not worth keeping to yourself, and likely to be "discovered" by other person soon enough. At least you got some goodwill out of it.
- they won't learn it, or at least not as well as you. This will impress upon them how deep your knowledge is and cement your standing as the expert.
This strikes me as a kind of personal freemium strategy, involving one's own know-how.
More importantly, this demonstrates how mentoring, sharing your knowledge, and training your replacement are fundamental ways of advancing your career -- all riffs on the same theme, under different circumstances. Giving away your recipes is another way to say it.
Monday, September 28, 2009
The four parts of your life
I don't remember where I heard this metaphor, but it made a lot of sense. It highlights the personal you have to make in order to be a star at work.
Think of your life as a 4-burner stove top. Because of limited gas throughput, if you burn one very hot, the others generate less heat.
Each burner represents a part of your life that you can put your time toward: family, friends, career, and health.
You can try to be balanced, but won't be a rising star in anything. Focusing on your career could mean forgoing spending time with your kids or possibly even having any. This is why many married workers with successful careers and kids don't have many friends.
Meanwhile, lots of young single people I see, with no family to worry about, work very hard, and play very hard as well with their friends. Their health also suffers a bit, but they're young.
These days, I'll admit my job is a little easy for me. You could say I'm coasting, or at best, just peddling lightly on a flat road. But I've been able to have meaningful hours with my wife and kids daily, started making my own yogurt, healthy granola, and sourdough bread, and spent a lot more time on favorite hobbies: swimming and reading literature. Family and health have gained at the cost of career.
Eventually, I'll have to turn up the heat again on my career -- move it, as it were, off the back burner -- but for now, I've been appreciating the trade-off.
Think of your life as a 4-burner stove top. Because of limited gas throughput, if you burn one very hot, the others generate less heat.
Each burner represents a part of your life that you can put your time toward: family, friends, career, and health.
You can try to be balanced, but won't be a rising star in anything. Focusing on your career could mean forgoing spending time with your kids or possibly even having any. This is why many married workers with successful careers and kids don't have many friends.
Meanwhile, lots of young single people I see, with no family to worry about, work very hard, and play very hard as well with their friends. Their health also suffers a bit, but they're young.
These days, I'll admit my job is a little easy for me. You could say I'm coasting, or at best, just peddling lightly on a flat road. But I've been able to have meaningful hours with my wife and kids daily, started making my own yogurt, healthy granola, and sourdough bread, and spent a lot more time on favorite hobbies: swimming and reading literature. Family and health have gained at the cost of career.
Eventually, I'll have to turn up the heat again on my career -- move it, as it were, off the back burner -- but for now, I've been appreciating the trade-off.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Shrink the beast, part 2
Some recent analysis suggests that the financial industry needs to shrink a lot to bring it back in line. Starting in the eighties, the industry exploded. As a result:
Roughly speaking, though, the securities sector still needs to shrink by a factor of about five before they get back to the size they should be.With all that growth and money running through the industry over three decades, it's no wonder 1) everyone at the top looked like a super-genius captain of capitalism, and 2) super-sized compensation culture became the norm.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
A place where everyone works for free
Getting maximum productivity out of everyone -- always a goal of management. But too much pressure, and people might start leaving.
One way to deal with this problem is to work everyone like crazy and then pay them dollars they can't get anywhere else. That's most investment banks.
Another way is embodied by comments made by Zappos's CEO Tony Hsieh:
Your company may not be as progressive as Zappos, and you may not have big profits to distribute.
But, if you're the leader of a team, or even a senior member, you have a lot of influence in the work lives of those around you. What small things are you doing that can contribute to people being happy to work there?
One way to deal with this problem is to work everyone like crazy and then pay them dollars they can't get anywhere else. That's most investment banks.
Another way is embodied by comments made by Zappos's CEO Tony Hsieh:
What kind of company can we create where we all want to be there, including me? How can we create such a great environment, where employees get so much out of it that they would do it for free?Zappos backs it up by offering employees $2,000 to quit, which works out to a month's salary at some of their starting wage levels. So in a sense, many of them do work for one month free.
Your company may not be as progressive as Zappos, and you may not have big profits to distribute.
But, if you're the leader of a team, or even a senior member, you have a lot of influence in the work lives of those around you. What small things are you doing that can contribute to people being happy to work there?
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
After you become the expert, take a stand
You don't need to be a schmoozer or extroverted center of attention to be a leader in your department. You can also just know your stuff and be willing to stand up when your issues come up.
The Ben Bernanke that emerges from this account of the height / nadir of the financial collapse provides a fascinating example. (Unfortunately requires subscription.)
But later, people scoff at his idea to give $85bn to AIG.
Then, he needs to convince Hank Paulson to take drastic action beyond anything being contemplated. Keep in mind that Hank Paulson is as intimidating and strong a personality as you're likely to ever meet.
Bernanke doesn't really have a gift for gab, nor does he seem to like attention. However, he clearly inserts himself when he has to. He takes an informed stand, defends it, and is willing to suffer the consequences should he be wrong. None of these things Bernanke proposed had ever been done before.
Obviously, none of us are dealing with issues of this magnitude. Scale it down.
What major decisions are being made in your department? Which ones should you take a strong stand, even though you're not 100% sure it will work? The margin of error in our field is surely more forgiving.
The Ben Bernanke that emerges from this account of the height / nadir of the financial collapse provides a fascinating example. (Unfortunately requires subscription.)
When White House officials first interviewed Bernanke for the post of Fed chairman, he was so quiet they worried that he lacked, as one put it, "assertiveness."Sounds like the wrong guy for the job, and his television appearances haven't won any glamor awards.
But later, people scoff at his idea to give $85bn to AIG.
"Do you have eighty-five billion?" Representative barney Frank asked.You can almost imagine him thumping his chest.
"I have eight hundred billion," Bernanke said, referring to the Fed's balance sheet.
Then, he needs to convince Hank Paulson to take drastic action beyond anything being contemplated. Keep in mind that Hank Paulson is as intimidating and strong a personality as you're likely to ever meet.
"Hank! Listen to me," he interrupted. "We are done!"The article mostly focuses on the other names, particularly Paulson, as you'd expect. These are just a couple snippets that I pulled out.
It was the first time Fed officials had heard him raise his voice.
"The Fed is already doing all that it can with the powers we have," Bernanke continued. One participant recalled, "Ben gave an impassioned, linear, rigorous argument explaining the limits of our authority and the history of financial crises in the US and abroad.... It was an encyclopedic tour de force."
It was as though Bernanke were the professor and Paulson the student. Bernanke's comments lasted about fifteen minutes, and Paulson was uncharacteristically silent until near the end.
Bernanke doesn't really have a gift for gab, nor does he seem to like attention. However, he clearly inserts himself when he has to. He takes an informed stand, defends it, and is willing to suffer the consequences should he be wrong. None of these things Bernanke proposed had ever been done before.
Obviously, none of us are dealing with issues of this magnitude. Scale it down.
What major decisions are being made in your department? Which ones should you take a strong stand, even though you're not 100% sure it will work? The margin of error in our field is surely more forgiving.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Added value vs upside
How do people get paid? Often, the notion of added value comes up. Here's a classic description:
Added value is backward looking. It's what you've accomplished. If you added value -- brought a project in under budget, on time, or with better features -- you will be paid an average salary plus compensation for the value you added. Therefore, it's true that the more value you add, the more you'll get. But, the company will pay you, by definition, only the amount that you added. Value out = value in.
Upside is an entirely different equation. That's because upside is forward looking. It's what you might accomplish. Since no one knows what that is, someone who thinks you have a large upside might pay you many times over what much you eventually add in value.
Here's some real-life differences between upside and added value.
Upside: 1st round draft pick. AV: 4-year steady veteran.
Upside: coding starts on new app. AV: 4 weeks after app delivered.
Upside: growth stock. AV: value stock.
Upside: MBA student graduating next year. AV: MBA who graduated last year.
Upside: first kiss. AV: marriage.
The hope that the big draft pick could be the next Michael Jordan always results in crazy money being thrown at him, even though its more likely they'll fizzle out. Similarly, dot-coms didn't have to have any earnings to have astronomical stock prices. And try getting a big bump in salary based on the MBA you got last year; the degree starts losing value the minute you get it, like a new car being driven off the lot.
In other words, people will pay based on speculation, until they know what you can do, and then you're capped.
What you’ll find is that as you offer more “value” to the company, the more valuable you become. As a result, you’ll be the one most likely to get that promotion and/or receive higher compensation.That's from an article about getting wealthy, which is ironic because I think that's exactly the wrong way to think about it. If a bigger paycheck is the goal, then you need to distinguish between "added value" and "upside".
Added value is backward looking. It's what you've accomplished. If you added value -- brought a project in under budget, on time, or with better features -- you will be paid an average salary plus compensation for the value you added. Therefore, it's true that the more value you add, the more you'll get. But, the company will pay you, by definition, only the amount that you added. Value out = value in.
Upside is an entirely different equation. That's because upside is forward looking. It's what you might accomplish. Since no one knows what that is, someone who thinks you have a large upside might pay you many times over what much you eventually add in value.
Here's some real-life differences between upside and added value.
Upside: 1st round draft pick. AV: 4-year steady veteran.
Upside: coding starts on new app. AV: 4 weeks after app delivered.
Upside: growth stock. AV: value stock.
Upside: MBA student graduating next year. AV: MBA who graduated last year.
Upside: first kiss. AV: marriage.
The hope that the big draft pick could be the next Michael Jordan always results in crazy money being thrown at him, even though its more likely they'll fizzle out. Similarly, dot-coms didn't have to have any earnings to have astronomical stock prices. And try getting a big bump in salary based on the MBA you got last year; the degree starts losing value the minute you get it, like a new car being driven off the lot.
In other words, people will pay based on speculation, until they know what you can do, and then you're capped.