Effective
Engineering
e-Newsletter
– 10/5/2006
This is
your monthly e-Newsletter from
Effective Engineering Consulting Services
(www.effectiveeng.com).
If you would like to receive Effective Engineering e-newsletters as they are
published, please send an email to
e-newsletter@effectiveeng.com, and we
will add you to our distribution list. Comments and suggestions are welcome
and encouraged!
eN-061005:
No Job Is Hard For The Person Who Doesn’t Have To Do It!
By Tom Dennis –
President, Effective Engineering [tdennis@effectiveeng.com]
Do you remember, as I do, watching Star Trek: The
Next Generation? In almost every episode Captain Jean-Luc Picard would
encounter a horrific crisis, would seek some input and advice from his
command crew regarding a virtually impossible solution, and then turn to his
engineering staff or others and say, “Make it so!”, as if his simply
saying this could make it happen, and of course it goes without saying, they
are to “Make it so!” within an incredibly short timeframe (by the end
of the episode). But no job is hard for the person who doesn’t have
to do it! It then falls on the engineers or others to try to make
sense of the often ridiculous demands, impossible requirements, or
unattainable timeframes and to try to turn the Captain’s “wishes”
into realities.
How often do you see similar situations occurring in the workplace? A
person with no concept of what’s involved comes in and demands that a
complex job be done within an impossible timeframe. That person then leaves
the room, and subsequently yells and screams when things don’t happen as
he/she imagines them. When you try to inject some reality into the
situation, to explain the technical difficulties with his/her demands, or
the time it will actually take to accomplish what is requested, this person
does not want to hear it. The demand has been set, and it is your task to “Make
it so!” It’s easy for them to say, but often damn near impossible for
mere mortals who actually have to do the work. This has always been a pet
peeve.
Such an imperious approach can actually be good if the stated intent is to
set a new direction with stretch goals, and the timeframes are even somewhat
reasonable. For example, John F. Kennedy set a goal in 1961 of landing a
man on the moon and returning him safely to earth by the end of that
decade. This was certainly a stretch goal, but one which had a chance of
reality and one which motivated people to excel and accomplish a difficult
but achievable goal. If he had said this was to go to Mars and back, or to
be done by 1962, it would have been recognized as totally impossible, and
would have been de-motivating rather than motivating. The difference is in
the intent and in the attainability of the goals.
In most situations, however, the intent is not to set a new direction with
stretch goals. It is to develop and deliver a new product needed to
generate revenues for the company. This is a perfectly valid intent. A
goal is stated for some key features and the desired release date. Most
rational people will recognize that the logical next step is to examine what
has been asked for, and to start to define the requirements, timeframes, and
resources available in more detail to determine whether what has been
requested is feasible. The irrational next step is to simply pronounce, “Make
it so!”
When rationality prevails, and the people involved recognize the realities
involved, an aggressive yet attainable project can be defined to develop and
deliver the needed product (see
eN-031023 – Development Methodology: Failing to Plan Means You Are Planning
to Fail!). Meaningful product requirements can be defined that
delineate a substantial product that meets corporate goals (see
eN-030925 – Development Methodology: Requirements). A strong
team can be assembled that will buy in to the development goals and the
timeframes desired (see
eN-030327 – Do Jobs Right – Assign the Right People!). It can
be nothing short of astounding to see what such a committed team can do when
given aggressive yet rational goals.
When irrationality prevails, an unfeasible product with ridiculous
timeframes is usually defined, and a team is commanded to work on the
project (with little, if any, choice). The team will recognize the
impossibility of success, and the project will be destined for failure. The
team will go through the motions, knowing all the while that it will not
succeed. Their hearts and souls will simply not be in it. Often someone
will attempt to push the project ahead, but it is generally only a matter of
time before that person also recognizes the senselessness of his/her
position and the futility of the overall project. The finger-pointing will
be continuous and damaging. It is likely that the best people involved will
look for a transfer or for a new job. [See
eN-060608 – Unrealistic Expectations, and
eN-060706 – If You Want It Bad, You’ll Get It … Bad!]
So, what do you do when you see that irrationality is likely to prevail?
First, do not accept the inevitability of irrationality. It is up to every
person involved to stand up to this and defend a rational point of view.
Make sure the irrational proponent understands that an impossible goal will
lead to project failure, a prospect that none involved want to happen, and
that laws of physics cannot be overturned simply because this proponent
would like to do so.
Ask the irrational proponent how he/she believes impossible requirements can
be met, or how unattainable timeframes can be reached, or how unavailable
resources can be applied. Let him/her know that a command of “Make it
so!” just doesn’t cut it. Explain the realities – slowly, calmly,
logically, and repeatedly. Ask the irrational proponent to address each of
these realities with alternative solutions or approaches. Explain the
alternative as you see them.
If the irrational proponent presents some good alternatives, embrace them,
rethink the impact, and continue with the discussion, taking each point one
at a time, and walking through all of the issues. If the proponent can
convince the people involved that he/she does have a way to achieve the
goals, then you have all reached an agreement and buy-in, which is, after
all, what you really want in order to succeed. If this proponent cannot,
then help make it clear what the implications are, and what the options are:
to trim back on features, add time to the schedule, add to or modify the
resources to be applied, or whatever else can be done.
If you can’t get to the point where a rational discussion can even begin,
then agree to disagree, and raise the issue to someone higher in the
management chain who is more open to reason. You may ultimately paint
yourself into a corner where you are viewed as the one who is being
irrational. But are you really worse off then than by accepting a project
you see as doomed to fail?
Remember, you and your team are the people who will be tasked with carrying
out the project, not the irrational proponent. You are the ones who will
put your blood, sweat, and tears into making it happen. If it fails, you
and your team will be the people held responsible. The irrational proponent
can then insist that it’s entirely your fault, and that none of the blame
should fall on him/her, because if you could have simply done as he/she
said, the project would have been a great success that would have generated
untold amounts of revenue for the company; what’s wrong with you!
No job is hard for the person who doesn’t have to
do it! Don’t allow yourself to be forced into an
irrational situation.
Copyright ©
2006 Effective Engineering Consulting
Services, All Rights Reserved
