Andy Hoffman Thinks

Becoming an Indispensable Records Manager

Andy — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 12:00:19 +0000

When I presented at ARMA 2009, I suggested that records management professionals can add a lot of value to their organization by being partially the custodians of the information. By custodian, I mean care taker and not garbage taker outer. I got a vehement “NO, that is not out job!” The audience was very particular to note that they wanted to be focused on policies and procedures so the users could be their own custodians. A very valid point and I think the true value lies somewhere in between. Records Managers can not just make policies and be hands off from the rest.

I spent Wednesday at an ARMA E-Discovery conference. The attendees were CRMs and attorneys. Given this was focused on the E-Discovery aspect of the RM responsibilities, I still got the feeling that preparing for litigation is a major focus in the life of the RM. Just about every company will get sued at one point or another, and so a good RM policy that lowers the cost of litigation is critical, but unfortunately this is not a psychologically appealing story to business leaders (comment if you think I’m wrong). The last thing a business manager wants to hear “Hey! We are getting sued but because of the awesome records management platform, which we paid millions of dollars for, the cost of litigation will be really cheap.” Please note a slight tone of sarcasm.

Conveniently, the same things that make E-Discovery easier are also things that help with content management and even web site usability. Systems that can demonstrate direct line of business cost savings and even sale and marketing value for public vaccine web sites are very linked to what records managers are doing. File plans and data maps, all help E-Discovery, but they are also central to developing a better information architecture for the rest of the organization.

Rather than just storing records and preparing for litigation, I imagine the best Records Managers are able to identify strategic value for their projects, not just in terms of risk mitigation and cost savings in litigation.

Good To Great Chapter 4 Summary – Confront The Brutal Facts

Andy — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 18:13:56 +0000

Good To Great

Jim Collins

Chapter 4

Confront The Brutal Facts

A&P and Kroger as grocery stores are used as examples to demonstrate organizations that either fail to acknowledge brutal facts (in this case changing times), or look at the facts and make the, sometimes tough, changes necessary to remain competitive. Both were good companies in the 1970’s but Kroger adapted to the concept of a super store and A&P did not. A&P just let their store quality degrade and didn’t ever re-align to a strategy.

A&P’s CEO had such a strong personality that it skewed the view from the brutal facts. Churchill is another example of a person who had a strong personality who was focused on the end game, but didn’t let it skew his view of reality. He kept a “Statistical Office” so he would always be aware of the Truth. Charisma is good, but cover up the brutal reality.

Create a Climate where the truth is heard

Lead with Questions, not answers.
1. The front line employes sometimes have the best information
2. Use questions to get information DON’T try to prove a Point
Engage In Dialogue and Debate, not coercion
1. People can get mad, heated, thats okay – encourage a bit of chaos.
2. Nucor used chaos and debate to create competitiveness.
3. Real in the chaos eventually to come to a conclusion.
4. Keep it scientific and focus on facts.
Conduct Autopsies, Without Blame
1. Philip Morris failed with a 7-UP acquisition. Big Time.
2. Don’t brush it under the rug, own the failure and learn from it.
Red Flag Mechanisms
1. Have controls in place to know that something is going wrong. Don’t wait for it to have gone wrong.
2. Be creative, even if it means risking a tad bit of revenue.
Have Unwavering Faith Amid the Brutal Facts
1. Scott Paper got destroyed by P&G and Kimberly-Clark
2. Kimberly Clark always has faith it would compete with P&G and win.
3. They viewed competitors as good that would push them to their best.
4. KNOW you will prevail.
5. When you are knocked down, your not out. Use it as an opportunity to rebuild.

The Skockdale Paradox

Admiral Jim Stockdale – POW Vietnam 1965-73

“Who were the ones who didn’t make it out?”

“The Optimists. Oh they were the ones who said, ‘We’re going to be out by Christmas.’ And Christmas would come, and Christmas would go. Then They’d say, We’re going to be out by Easter.’ And easter would come, and Easter would go. And then Thanksgiving , and and then it would be Christmas again. And they died of a broken heart. … This is a very important lesson. You must never confuse faith that you will prevail in the end — which you can never afford to lose — with the discipline to confront the most brutal facts of your current reality, whatever they might be” (85)

Realize the brutal facts, but maintain resolve.

Notes on Desperatly Seeking Synergy

Andy — Sat, 26 Dec 2009 03:51:22 +0000

Michael Goold & Andrew Campbell

Harvard Business Review September-October 1998

Biases that cause Synergy Initiatives to Fail

Synergy Bias

Synergy Bias exists when managers feel a focus on synergy is important because it seems like “something should happen.” It might not be needed or relevant.

For example, one CEO of a consulting firm pushed a “one firm” initiative and placed a client manager in front of clients, responsible for cross selling across divisions and pushed back the actual implementors contact with the firm. The result was clients who didn’t get to talk to they needed to to get the job done and consequently, lost clients.

Parenting Bias

One example of this is at Worldwide Foods where an executive tried to push a worldwide marketing campaign but was rejected by local managers because it wasn’t appropriate for their company. Always remember that local managers want to succeed and rejecting the national campaign was because it would have resulted in a worse opportunity cost.

Skills Bias

The manager might not have the chops to build synergy. They may lack the fortitude, the experience or latest knowledge. If the executive tries to build synergy but doesn’t have the skills it will fail.

Upside Bias

Executives focused on building synergy tend to focus on the upside of the efforts and overlook the downside.

Knock-On: Effects that are auxiliary consequences of the synergy building actions. For example, one company lost sight of its core competency and entered into the space of the competitor because they were enticed by high margins of premium products. The result was they entered into a competitors space where they could not compete. This was a “Knock-On” effect of a knowledge sharing session between managers.

Pizza Problem: When one consulting firm caused IT and strategic consultants to work together, IT realized that the strategic consultants were getting paid more than them and had much better perks. Some IT consultants moved to strategic and failed and others left all together. Those that said had a chip on their shoulder. This all happened because the strategic consultant were able to order pizza and bill it to the client where IT was not.

Size The Price

Use a framework to evaluate the benefits and appropriateness of the objective.
Disaggregate the program into manageable chunks. If your trying to generate a universal brand, don’t assume rolling out the same artwork or ads are the answer. Instead understand the objectives and allow for flexibility in implementation unless there is good reason otherwise.

Disaggregating the problem into the outcomes and then the implementation components allows the manager to understand what really needs corporate policies and what should remain in the hands of the local managers who may know best.

Each component can be evaluated in terms of benefit and if the benefit isn’t large enough it may be necessary to abandon the effort.

Pinpointing the Parenting Opportunity

Parenting opportunities are occasions where it is appropriate for executives to step in. If an opportunity does not exist the executive should not step in.

Perception Opportunities: When businesses are not aware of synergies that exist, particularly in terms of economy of scales. Important information can be disseminated or targets put in place that can only be achieved if different businesses discover the synergies.
Evaluation Opportunities: If managers are rejecting synergy initiatives because they have improperly evaluated the cost benefit or if their judgement is skewed by focus on other objectives. Executives may intervene to correct the fallacies.

Motivational Opportunities: Intervention may be necessary if personal differences exist or motivation is lacking. Managers may need a kick in the pants to play nice with each other.

Implementation Opportunities: Exist when executives have some skills or tools that managers do not. Parenting may be necessary to bring in the proper skill set.

Bringing Downsides to Light

Remember to highlight where objectives might by undermined by by synergy objectives.

“First, Do No Harm”

Fewer initiatives are okay. Pick right ones that are less risky and have a real purpose.

Doing nothing is an okay course of action.

Disclaimer: These are my study notes and are intended for that purpose. All text is cited from title article and direct questions may be un-noted. This is purely a study aid that others might find useful. Please notify me of any inaccuracies. This is not an essay, article, or writing of any scholarly quality – just study notes. Please buy the article from Harvard Press to obtain a copy of the article.

Chapter 3 Summary – First Who Then What

Andy — Sat, 26 Dec 2009 01:58:43 +0000

JIm Collins

Good To Great

Wells Fargo found success, and made it such a priority in their beginnings, to find the right people, then figure out they are going. Their CEO didn’t worry about having positions or knowing where the company was going, but rather making sure the right people were there to make those decisions. The right people help the CEO to understand where to take the company, rather than being saddled with the burden of unilaterally making those decisions. Theres were people who were not afraid to voice their opinions and argue about what as best. In contract, Bank of America’s executives and management were trained to be yes men and wait for direction rathe than be productive and suggest solutions to problems.

Team Effort

A level 5 management team does not require one central genius at the helm. All the executives are great and the leader is confident enough to acknowledge that they do not have all the answers. In contrast a “Genius with a thousand helpers” mentality positions a CEO to be the man with all the answers and when that person leaves the company is left confused. The helpers sit around dumbfounded or try, but fail, to emulate decisions the Genius CEO would have made.

Executive Compensation

Collin’s showed that the compensation structure doesn’t matter when it comes to successful companies. The most successful companies CEO’s make less cash than the comparative group. Compensation, according to Collins, is to get great people on the bus and keep them, rather than a way to incentivize their actions.

“Rigorous Not Ruthless”

The right people is about treating them fairly, but not being ruthless. Fewer people, compensated more, but worked harder is okay. They have to be compensated however. In times where mergers take place and underperforms will be let go, do it fast and do it with open candor.

Layoffs are not a tool to artificially improve cost metrics. Layoffs should be used sparingly and only when necessary.

Rules for Rigor

When in doubt do not hire – keep looking

In short – don’t settle. The people are the key to growth.

Nucore’s former CEO believed you could train farmers to be steel workers but couldn’t train steel workers to have a farmers ethic.

“When you know you need to make a people change, act”

If you are talking to your spouse about a problem worker, its time to get rid of them. Waiting to act causes undue stress to the manager and is unfair for the workers who have to put up with the under performer. Go with your gut.

Good to great companies and regular companies turn the same amount. Good to great companies churn better. If a mistake was made it is corrected much faster. If the person is “a fit” then the person is on board for the long haul.

Alan Wurtzel (Circuit City) believes in moving people around if they are good people

Put your best people on your best opportunities

Give your people opportunities to exceed and grow. Phillip Morris put a top executive in charge of less than 1% of the company so he had the opportunity to grow it.

Always keep your best people involved even if it means re-training them and moving them across divisions. This helps with sales and acquisitions because the good people feel comfortable and get excited about changes.

Never forget to live a balanced life. Be love your family first and love your job second.

Chapter 2 Summary: Level 5 Leadership

Andy — Sat, 26 Dec 2009 01:47:32 +0000

Good To Great

Jim Collins

Level 5 Leaders

Level five leaders have a humble drive to take accomplish their business objectives without letting their ego get in the way. Level Five leaders include Darwin E. Smith (Kimberly Clark), Colman Mockler (Gillette), David Maxwell (Fannie Mae), Ken Iverson (Nucor) and others.

Level 5 Hierarchy

Level 1: Highly Capable Individual – Used acquired skill, knowledge, hard work and natural tallent to become capable and “do their job well.”
Level 2: Contributing Team Member – Plays nice with others
Level 3: Competent Manager – Able or organize and orchestrate team work to accomplish particular tasks
Level 4: Effective Leader – “catalyzes commitment” and drives pursuit of vision and goals (most CEO’s are level 4 leaders)
Level 5: Executive – humble and professional will. The level 5 executive leaves a legacy and builds framework for greatness.

Humility & Modesty

The humble and modest leader does not take credit for the achievements of the company. When an humble leader has reached a point in his career that the company has seen success, the leader will turn the focus from him and to the people, blessings of God, and perhaps even just luck, like John Cullman of Phillip Morris. Unlike Chrysler’s, Level 4 Leader Lee Iacocca, who stuck around at Chrysler so long that the duration of his tenure became a running joke, the Level 5 leader knows when to recuse his position while the company is on top and he has created a successful framework for succession.

Strong Will

Mockler, when faced with the choice to sell the company or to keep pushing for more profit, chose to keep going. At first this may appear as self serving to ego, but was really because he knew the value of the company was not accurately reflected in the stock value because two major projects were yet to be released. Not selling was the humble, yet strong willed decision which Mockler knew was the best outcome for the company and shareholders.

Level 5 leaders do not look to shift blame, they do whatever it takes for success, and in that success look to credit other people for their hard work and the companies success.

Kotter’s Change Model and Starbucks

Andy — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 18:07:42 +0000

John Kotter’s change model from Leading Change was applied to Starbucks’ in my final paper for my first MBA class.

The assignment was to find an article about a company that had recently been undergoing changes. Starbuck’s had just invited their original CEO back and was undergoing a culture shift. We then had to compare it to Kotter’s model for organizational change.

SharePoint Solutions: Pack Up and Ship Out

Andy — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 17:05:11 +0000

Deploying SharePoint solutions, particularly in MOSS 2007 is a huge advantage to previous iterations (and is even easier in 2010), but there is still an art to it.

Conventionally how do you package SharePoint Features and Solutions? Well, it is easy to say “I’ll make one solution per application that I’m deploying and then I’ll add all of the features to that solution,” and then each feature tends to be one group of functionality.

I was working with a client not too long ago to update a product other developers had deployed and all I had to do was to update the master page and change some CSS – I thought it would take me about 4 hours to make the changes, and it ended up taking 5. I thought deploying this (updating the feature and solution) would be another hour, tops. It turned out to be 2 days worth of work. It took so long because I had to setup my development environment and build complex pieces of the application just so I could re-build the solution package. I know Microsoft says solution upgrades always work, but I still get nervous re-deploying code into production when the application is very complex with loads of data. Especially if I only need to change the layout.

In certain circumstances, I can see no good reason what would have hurt to have deployed 3 different packages instead of one big one. On the application level, we love the MVC model. We separate out the view, from the control from the backend data models because conceptually that makes sense? SharePoint deployment can benefit (not including just wanting to deploy web parts – but actually big applications or web pages).

Think about using three solution packages for any given application.

Compiled Code Libraries and assemblies
CSS, MasterPages, Layout Pages, any other non-compilable display components.
SharePoint Structure: List Definitions, Content Types, Other SharePoint structure.

WIthin each of the solutions have feature packages that are NAMED PROPERLY. Related components across packages should have similar names, for example:

Ghost WSP: com.hoffmanthinks.UI

Structure WSP: com.hoffmanthinks.SiteDefenition

Structure WSP: com.hoffmanthinks.SiteColumns

Structure WSP: com.hoffmanthinks.ListDefenition

BIN WSP: GAC / All of my gac’d assemblies.

What About Consistency?

Yes, multiple wsps means you might have different versions of the deployments across the package, but I think the risk and difficulties of needing to touch the ENTIRE application for an UI change far exceeds the risks of code version problems, so long as your components don’t get too modular and you keep your build scripts and code up to date.

Not All The Time

This wont work all the time, nor is the structure I propose here appropriate for every deployment. The ideas is to start thinking about different ways of grouping SharePoint Features and Site Definitions.

What does everyone think? Does it make ongoing code maintenance easier?

Techies in B-School

Andy — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 17:23:42 +0000

At heart I am a tech guy, since I was four years old I have been fascinated with computers but at some point in the past few years realized that the only being concerned with technology because it was “cool” or interesting wasn’t particularly helpful to the rest of the world.

Recently, I have been fascinated with Apple because of the simplicity and clarity of their products. They are designed for usability and with the end user in mind. Usable software is very cool software.

So much business software is designed by tech guys with loose business requirements and without a full understanding of why people do their jobs the way they do. Business school is helping me to learn and understand the motivation behind the way we do business.

What is particularly difficult for a tech guy in business school is to “forget” the technology and think and write about the business. I have recently been in an IT for Managers class and even with conscious efforts I still get the occasional “still to technical” comments form the professors.

I have benefited greatly from these critiques and realizing that the main benefit I have been getting, is not just understanding, but how to communicate. As Chip Heath points out in “Made to Stick” the “Curse of Knowledge” causes people to forget what it is like to not know something and how difficult it can be to learn and understand the foreign topics. Business school for techies isn’t just about understanding, its about learning to communicate with the rest of the world.

ARMA Expo 2009

Andy — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 16:41:39 +0000

October 15-17, 2009 was the ARMA Conference and Expo where I conducted an hour and a half workshop, “Business Processes for the Facebook Generation.” About 100 people attended my presentation and participated and gave lively discussion.

The audience provided me with incredibly useful feedback and some great suggestions how I can refine future iterations of that presentation.

While there I also had the chance to attend several sessions, one of the most noteworthy themes was the introduction of the Generally Accepted Records Keeping Principals (GARP) , which aim to become a measure for the quality of an organizations records management principals, think of it as GAAP for records. While the ISO has outlined guidelines for RM certification, GARP will help provide unified and more formal guidelines for records management in organizations and a broader definition for measurement of a policy.