Rogue Project Leader

Death Star Acquisitions Follow-up

2011-10-28T13:54:00.001-04:00

I just came across a pair of articles responding to my Death Star article. The first one, by a gentleman named Gulliver, called it "easily the best article I've seen in a defense acqusition trade publication in my entire time following the subject" (acknowledging of course that the bar isn't terribly high in the defense acquisition literature genre).

The other piece, posted by "Bucherm," took issue with my "article" (yes, he put quotes around the word article), and speculated that I must have watched some other movie. This post included the following remarkable sentence: "By any stretch, the second DS program was well run with the end product being a good one."

Clearly, the first writer is well-groomed, intelligent and thoughtful. The second's parents are obviously unmarried first cousins. I bet he even likes Jar Jar Binks.

I kid! The truth is, I'm tremendously glad to see that people are writing about my piece, whether they agreed with it or not. I can't say I followed Bucherm's logic - in what universe were the Death Star programs (I or II) well run? - but I'm glad he cared enough to write a rebuttal. Now, I thought my article was pretty clear about Vader's psychopathic "leadership" style. But hey, the man is entitled to his opinion, right? If he likes that stuff, I'm sure we can find all sorts of Vaderific bosses to work for. Good luck with that.

As for Gulliver's piece over at Ink Spots, all I can say is wow, thank you for the kind words... and may the Force be with you!

Odd Policy

2011-09-26T07:00:00.001-04:00

At the local Best Buy, I came across a sign that explains their We Check ID policy.

I whipped out my handy-dandy, oh-so-fuzzy little camera phone and took this shot. Per usual, it's pretty out of focus and hard to read, but maybe you can figure out why I took this picture. If not, I'll explain.

Basically, the policy says they support the software rating system and require a photo ID for anyone who wants to purchase any software rated NC-17, Mature or R. Also, compressed air.

Huh?

Yup, the policy in checking ID's for software based on the ESRB's ratings includes a reference to "compressed air."

Now, I'm sure there's a dozen good reasons to not sell compressed air to minors. Who knows what sort of mischief a 16 year old could get into with such contraband. But mentioning compressed air in a software ratings policy was so jarringly incongruous that I had to read the policy several times. I've got to wonder why they chose this software rating policy, of all policies, to mention the compressed air thing.

And I've got to wonder whether, when selling compressed air, a clerk will remember to check the software ratings policy and thus learn they're supposed to check ID.

If we want policy to be useful, shouldn't it be internally consistent?

DIY

2011-09-23T07:00:00.000-04:00

In a public restroom of some restaurant or other, I came across this sign.

I waited and waited, but no staff showed up to wash my hands for me. Eventually I got tired of waiting and washed my own dang hands.

I don't care what the policy is or what the sign says, it's just one of those things I can do all by my self.

For Me? Thanks!

2011-09-21T07:00:00.000-04:00

As I was waiting for the Blue Line train in DC's Metro, I noticed a sign that sort of called my name.

Apparently, the DC Metro's website is MetroForWard.com. I thought that was awfully nice of them to do that just for me.

Thoughts On the Death Star Article

2011-09-19T07:35:00.007-04:00

All the attention my Death Star article has received got me thinking. Figured I'd share a few observations:

1) If you want something to go viral, mention Star Wars. I've published 55+ articles and even won an award for one of them. None has ever generated as much buzz & attention as Don't Come To The Dark Side. Now, I wrote this one with the same motivation & method as any other piece. I always hope my articles will be popular and well received, but I don't pick a topic or theme just because I want it to go viral - as if that's within my control. Anyway, I never imagined it'd take off like this.

2) If you every mention Star Wars, do your homework 'cause if you get even a tiny detail wrong, the fanboys will Call. You. Out.

3) Commentators who said the article was "brilliant, hilarious and important" have exquisite taste. Those who said "Ward just doesn't get it" just don't get it.

4) I really wish I'd stuck with my first draft of the metal bikini line ("they look awesome") instead of the blander version I ended up with ("they look cool").

5) Some people think we can't learn real life lessons from fiction. I feel bad for them. Some other people think Star Wars is real. I feel bad for them too.

5.b) Actually, nobody thinks Star Wars is real. But some people take the films seriously enough that other people think they think it's real. It's the "other people" who got it wrong... so I guess I'll feel bad for them too.

6) Nerds are awesome... and they're everywhere.

7) Most commentaries on my article focused on the technology issues in the article. Relatively few cued in on the leadership lessons. But really, the article was about identifying Vader's psychopathic leadership style as much as it was a technical commentary on Death Star Systems Engineering.

8) The article was about Death Stars and droids. People who think it was about aircraft carriers, nuclear weapons or the Joint Strike Fighter are revealing their own opinions of those systems. I'm staying mum on whether any contemporary DoD systems fit the Death Star model. I will acknowledge, however, that the Millennium Falcon is a B-52.

9) Despite #8 above, the article wasn't JUST about Death Stars and droids. It was also about good design approaches and the importance of substance over style when assessing the value of a particular system or technology.

The temptation to write a sequel is strong - and several people have already sent suggestions about what the follow-on article should address. Not sure if I'll do that or not. I actually have two other articles in the pipeline already, and there's a 3-month lag between submitting a piece and seeing it published, so it'll be a little while before anything emerges. But I promise, if I do a sequel, I won't wait 20 years...

Free book!

2011-09-18T10:21:00.001-04:00

Since I've got a few new readers on this blog now (hello!), I figured I should mention that I've got a few books you might be interested in. One of 'em is even free.

The free one is called The Simplicity Cycle. It's a design book and I primarily wrote it with engineers in mind. But it's also got more pictures than words, it's a quick read, and I've heard from writers, artists, scientists and business consultants who say it's been useful in their work. And hey, you can't beat the price, right?

The other book that seems to be taking off lately is The Radical Elements of Radical Success. It's a crazy little book that was my attempt to stand the success-lit genre on its head. You can also get it for the Kindle.

Anyway, happy reading!

Internet Famous

2011-09-16T07:33:00.000-04:00

My Death Star article has generated a lot of discussion around the interwebs lately, which is awesomely cool and exciting. It's also pushed some new traffic to my blog, which is also cool and exciting, except for the fact that I sort of haven't been writing here lately. Oops!

Ever since I got word about being deployed, I've been blogging less and doing other stuff more. So it's kind of rotten timing that this article would come out now, when I'm not exactly in a position to continue the discussion the way I'd like to.

Nevertheless, I'm going to try to post stuff here more often. We'll see how that goes. I've got a few posts & topics in mind. Just a matter of ~~finding~~ making the time. Wish me luck!

Brilliant

2011-07-25T07:00:00.000-04:00

At a Chick-Fil-A a while back, I came across these little bowls, nestled among the napkins & straws. What a cool idea - free cheerios!

This is one of the most sensitive and insightful things I've ever seen a store do. It costs practically nothing, demonstrates a deep understanding of the customers and shows the type of hospitality that should be the hallmark of any restaurant.

My kids are old enough to eat stuff from the menu, but I can still appreciate the gesture that says "We'd like to make your visit here more pleasant - here's something your little ones will enjoy."

This sort of thing is so easy and so obvious, it makes me wonder why everyone doesn't do it.

Ambiguity

2011-07-21T07:00:00.016-04:00

Quick, what does that license plate mean? Is the driver an ornithologist who specializes in birds from the genus Sialia of the thrush family (i.e. a Blue Birder)? Or was I following a medical professional who specializes in liposuction and/or obesity (Blubber Dr)?

Sure, it could be a depressed bird watcher (a blue birder), or maybe they meant "blue" in the sense of risque... kinda hard to tell.

And so today's lesson is: when you're picking a name, a brand identity or a vanity license plate, make sure you pay attention to the ways it can be misread.

No Sale

2011-07-18T07:00:00.004-04:00

Check out this photo, which I snapped at the local grocery store using my handy-dandy, oh-so-fuzzy, 1.3 Megapixel camera phone.

In case it's not clear, this is a sign for a "SPECIAL!" sale - regular price is $6.99, now on sale for $6.99. Save 0 cents!

It got me thinking about the mental processes involved in placing this sign. I mean, someone decided to print this tag. Someone (probably a different someone?) put it on the shelf. Presumably the person who put it on the shelf looked at it, to make sure the food item it referred to was indeed on that shelf. And at no point did anyone say "I'm not going to do this because it doesn't make sense."

I bet the person who put up this sign (and a bunch of others) got credit for doing good work after all the signs were up.

If this was just about grocery store signage, it would hardly be worth mentioning. But it's actually a small example of a larger phenomenon. How often do we find ourselves doing stupid things for bad reasons? How often do we not read the signs we post on our metaphorical shelves, or (even worse) read them and put them up anyway.

Want to do something about it? Check out the book Hacking Work for a great tutorial on how to bend & break the stupid rules that try to get you to put up a sign like this.

Shortening The Max

2011-07-05T07:00:00.033-04:00

Kickstarter is an online fundraising platform that helps connect small investors with creative types. It's a wonderful way for people to quickly raise small amounts of money to help fund interesting projects... to get a kickstart, if you will.

I mention them because of a recent blog post my friend Kelly sent me. The gist of the post is that Kickstarter has shortened the maximum project length, from 90 days to 60.

Why did they do this? Simple - they found an inverse correlation between project length and project success. In plain English, shorter projects succeeded more often (see graph to left). Longer projects succeeded less often.

In the interest of science, I really appreciated their explanation that longer projects don't necessarily fail because they were longer. Remember, correlation doesn't prove causality. There are no doubt several factors leading to project success, and duration may be one of them. But they were careful to avoid proclaiming they'd discovered a direct cause.

I think the data is pretty interesting, and the correlation is indeed tight. While this doesn't prove a long duration directly reduces the success rate, I think there is wisdom in keeping the schedule short. That's a big part of the FIST approach - good projects have short schedules. Let's take a closer look at the interplay of some of these forces.

Maybe part of the dynamic is that when your schedule is tightly constrained, you're more focused on doing the essentials - the stuff that matters most. Longer timelines increase the temptation to overextend the scope. Longer timelines also expose the project to more changes, which tend to be expensive & complexifying, both factors which tend to go along with reduced success rates.

Bottom line: this is one more data point supporting the idea that short timelines go along with higher success rates. When you're designing your project, whether it's a fundraiser for your new album or a developing a new fighter jet, take a close look at how much time you're planning to spend. My recommendation is to shorten the timeline as much as possible... and then cut it a bit more.

You MUST!

2011-06-27T07:28:00.000-04:00

I came across this old beat up sign on a street corner in DC and had to take a photo with my handy-dandy, fuzzy little camera phone. The sign informs pedestrians that they must ("MUST") push a button to call for the walk signal.

Only problem: no button.

The button isn't broken or non-responsive. It's completely non-present. As in, someone removed it. Probably someone with tools and permission. For some inexplicable reason, however, this tool-and-permission-equipped individual... left the sign (which has clearly seen better days).

Obviously this isn't a huge deal. The walk signal did indeed show up, even though I didn't press the (non-existent) button, which means not only did someone remove the button, but they reprogrammed the lights. And then left the sign in place. The whole scenario struck me as a handy metaphor for corporate culture, rules and status quo thinking.

How often do we encounter a rusted out, irrelevant piece of guidance, insisting that we must (MUST!) perform some set of actions for which there is no longer a mechanism, a set of actions that once upon a time was relevant and productive but which now a) cannot be performed and b) wouldn't make a difference anyway?

When you encounter such a situation, how do you react? Pantomime the behavior, going through the motions out of obedience and compliance? Run to the nearest Radio Shack to buy a replacement button and install it near the sign? Ignore the sign?

Or do we have the guts to take the sign down?

(I'm thinking I want to go back there with a sticker or some paint or something, to change that sign)

Priorities

2011-06-21T20:17:00.000-04:00

Finding out you're going to get deployed does marvelous things to your priorities. Specifically, it clarifies them brilliantly.

I find I've become much more deliberate with my time, now that I suddenly have less of it.There are only a few months left before I head to Kabul and I want to make the most of my time before I go.

For years I've been saying that constraints foster creativity. Now I'm also learning that constraints bring clarity. See, when your time is constrained, you're forced to focus on doing the most important things. And while I'm not crazy about the idea of spending 6 months in Afghanistan, I have to admit there's something cool about a deployment deadline. Everything is more intense & more focused.

The same things happens to a program - when you don't have a lot of time, you focus on doing the essential stuff. One of the best things a project leader can do is set a tight schedule... and stick to it.

For me personally, I expect my blogging schedule is going to change (actually, it already has). I'm not going to stop - but I'm also not going to post as often. I've got other things I need to focus on between now and November. I hope you'll hang in there with me and I appreciate your patience as I direct my energies towards getting ready to go to Kabul.

Self-Inflicted Complexity

2011-06-14T07:00:00.000-04:00

One of the major themes of my work is that military technology projects (and tech projects in general) don't have to take so long, cost so much or be so complicated. That is, the cost, delay and complexity we typically encounter on these projects is not inevitable.

So when someone tells me the FIST approach is fine if we want to build a simple system but that it doesn't work if we want to build a complex system, I go into Alice mode from Dilbert (Must... control... FIST... of... Death!).

The word choice is particularly revealing: "when we want to build..." All too often, people view high levels of complexity as not only inevitable but also desirable. The truth is, it's neither.

Yes, there's a certain amount of inevitable complexity for any given system, particularly now that all our systems are supposed to integrate with all other systems. Any system that doesn't play well with others (I'm looking at you, F-22 Raptor) is going to lose points. The trick is to avoid excessive, unnecessary complexity... and that starts by understanding that complexity and goodness are not always directly proportional.

So, when I talk about being rapid, thrifty and simple, it's important to keep context in mind. A 5-year timeline may be blindingly fast, for certain types of technology. A simple nuclear submarine may still be hugely complex, in absolute terms... while also being simple compared to the alternatives.

We just need to understand that extreme complexity is not intrinsically desirable, nor is it inevitable. We always have opportunities to simplify in ways that improve performance, reduce cost, increase reliability, etc. But we'll never find them if we don't look for them in the first place.

Impossible / Impressive

2011-06-09T07:00:00.025-04:00

Why doesn't the USAF have a requirement for an invisible jet like the one Wonder Woman flies? Nevermind that any pilot sitting inside the invisible jet was completely visible, it's still an awesome piece of tech, right? It's way beyond stealth - I mean, it's completely transparent!

Well, let me answer my own question. The reason we don't have a requirement for an invisible jet is that such a thing is considerably beyond our technical capabilities. We might almost call it impossible, although I hesitate to use that word. And the thing is, we can't require the impossible.

It's important to include reality in our requirements, and to ensure our requirements are reallistic. Doesn't that go without saying? Sadly, it doesn't.

This doesn't mean we have to aim low. Just because we can't require the impossible doesn't mean we shouldn't require the impressive. But the distinction between impossible and impressive is an important one to consider.

What Is Better?

2011-06-07T07:00:00.028-04:00

I am increasingly convinced that one of the main sources of the troubles in the program management arena is bad definitions of goodness.

That's not to downplay the impact of weak relationships, poor communications, and distrust. Those are biggies, to be sure. But it seems to me that the way we define the goal has a big impact on our decision making and our eventual outcomes.

See, even with great trust and communication, if we head in the wrong direction we're going to end up in the wrong place. If we think adding a hundred new features, extending the schedule by 10 years and increasing the budget by billions is going to make the product better, um, we're going to end up with stuff that's bloated, broken, operationally irrelevant and technically obsolete.

That's why the focus of FIST is on the program's values - the statements of preference and priority, the definitions of goodness which define our objectives. FIST says it's important and good to be fast, inexpensive, simple and tiny. And there's a lot of data that suggests simple, low-cost systems out perform complex, high-cost systems. When you're aiming for a quick, inexpensive solution, you're more likely to build good relationships, communication, etc, because such solutions are more human-scale. You're more connected & invested in them than if you were on a thousand-person team half-way through a 20-year project.

But when we think it's important and good to spend a lot of time and money, developing a hugely complex system, we're going to end up going in the wrong direction. Trust and good communication are important, but they might not help with that sort of problem.

Needs versus Wants

2011-06-02T07:00:00.031-04:00

What do we really need systems to do? Is it enough to be good enough, or must each new product be perfect? Is a partial solution acceptable, or should users hold out until they can get everything they want?

I've already posted about the superiority of 70 over 0 (and argued that the 70% solution isn't really an alternative to a 100% solution... it's an alternative to a 0% solution)

In early March, I came across a great quote from SECAF Donley, in which he talked about the importance of intellectual honesty about what we actually need versus what we want. I think that's pretty important. See, it's not just about accepting a 70% solution. It's about how we define the 100% solution in the first place.

This isn't up to the engineers and technologists, although we have a role. It's ultimately the user's responsibility. But it's not something they can or should do in a vacuum. It's something the whole team should work on together, and decisions should be based on a deep understanding of the operational environment, combined with a deep understanding of the technical options. This juxtaposition of operational and technical insight is all too rare, but it's also within the reach of anyone who owns a phone and can set up a meeting or two.

As with most things, it's not terribly hard. It's also not terribly easy. It just needs a little nudge, a little effort, to move the default behavior in the direction of collaboration and conversation.

FIST Goes To War

2011-05-31T07:00:00.024-04:00

Got word last week that I'm being deployed to Afghanistan for 6 months. Not tomorrow, but soon enough.

I'll be in Kabul. Don't have a lot of other info at this point but I'll be sure to share what I can.

Just wanted you all to know.

(in other news, Germany recently announced they're getting out of the nuclear power business. I guess they're reading RPL over there! Sadly I think the plan is to replace it with coal... but I'm hoping they'll have a go at some more renewables.)

TRIZ 40 Principles

2011-05-26T07:00:00.001-04:00

If you're not familiar with Genrich Altshuller's Theory of Inventive Problem Solving (aka TRIZ), today might be a good day to check it out.

TRIZ is a fascinating tool set, designed to help people solve a wide range of problems. Initially focused on technical / hardware type challenges, it has since been expanded to apply to everything from software to services.

Of particular interest is the list of 40 Principles, each of which is a known solution to a particular type of problem. The contradiction matrix (pictured) helps you identify which principle is likely to be helpful & relevant to your situation.

For example, Principle 1 is "Segmentation," which involves dividing an object into independent parts. Examples include modular furniture, personal computers (instead of a mainframe) or a Work Breakdown Structure.

The TRIZ40 website has a great little box with dropdown menus to help you navigate the matrix. For example, you may have a situation where you want to increase the strength of a component without increasing the weight. It will automatically pull up the four Principles that typically help in a situation like that.

Like any tool, mastery of TRIZ takes time and effort. But in my opinion, it's well worth examining.

Acquisition Innovation Wiki

2011-05-24T07:00:00.016-04:00

The Citizen Apps website is a very cool initiative that provides a wide range of social media tools for federal agencies to use in their outreach efforts. It provides a framework for blogs, wiki's and discussion forums, to name a few. The intention is to make it easier to engage in discussions with the general public, in true Web 2.0 style.

Accordingly, I'd like to direct your attention to the Acquisition Innovation Wiki. It's an interactive forum where you can discover and contribute content related to innovation, technology development and defense acquisitions.

I hope you'll stop on by and take a look around. Even better, create an account and add some content!

GAO on JSF

2011-05-19T07:00:00.050-04:00

Tuesday's post looked at the VA Class subs from the GAO's perspective. Today, let's see what my favorite government accountability office has to say about a different project: the Joint Strike Fighter.

I already mentioned that the Joint Strike Fighter went into production even though "three critical technologies are not mature, manufacturing processes are not proven and testing is not complete." The GAO report doesn't explain why the JSF pressed ahead into production with an immature, untested set of tech. It didn't explain what sort of pressures drove that decision, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't the result of sound engineering practices.

It's a striking contrast to the VA class sub's decision to rewrite requirements that were "unrealistic and would not be worth the cost to achieve them." Apparently unrealistic, excessively expensive requirements are perfectly acceptable and unchangeable on the JSF.

It reminds me of Kevin Kline's line in French Kiss, where he purposely mistranslates the French airline pilot's intercom announcement for Meg Ryan's character: "The pilot says there is a crack in the engine, but not to worry, we take off anyway."

I gladly concede this is an improvement over previous tech maturity issues, because the GAO points out "the JSF program entered system development in 2001 with none of its eight critical technologies fully mature." And now only three are still immature. So they're making progress. I guess. That's probably why Lockheed is asking to increase the production rate.

Unfortunately, it gets worse. The report says "the JSF is tracking well against its new, less aggressive test schedule despite late deliveries of test aircraft and lower than expected availability rates..." Good to know late deliveries and low availability didn't get in the way of the lowered standards, right? Makes me wonder how much "less aggressive" this new schedule is. And despite this "progress," its combat radius still falls short of the requirement, for reasons "that are not yet fully known."

No word yet on whether the JSF is making progress towards its goal of reducing the cost of each aircraft, or towards it goal of a reduced timeline to build each one.

Oh, right, that's because they don't have goals like that.

Nerd Crush

2011-05-17T07:00:00.047-04:00

I admit it, I have a major acquisition nerd crush on the GAO. I don't read every report they put out, but their annual Assessment of Selected Weapon Programs is always a big event for me. It's like the Oscars and the Superbowl all in one, except it's not on TV... and the only uniforms involved are military... and it's not really a competition... and there aren't any commercials.

Anyway, I've also got a cross-service fondness going on for the Virginia Class submarine program. Shhh... don't tell the AF. Now, you may wonder how a guy who advocates the fast, inexpensive, simple, tiny approach could have anything nice to say about something as big, expensive and complex as a nuclear sub? Read on...

The 2011 GAO Assessment report had some fascinating things to say about the VA subs. For example, the Navy "expects to realize its goal of reducing cost to $2.0 billion per ship... and hopes to further decrease the time required to build each ship." Of the 71 other programs assessed in that report, only one or two had bothered to set a goal of a reduced cost or time. Imagine what would happen if this was a standard practice? What if every program got a budget and then was expected to set a cost goal that's below that figure? As in, not only will we not tolerate overruns or late deliveries - we expect early delivery, UNDER budget.

The Navy is showing this can be done... and incidentally they delivered the USS New Hampshire 8 months early, $54M under budget. Nice!

It gets better. The report goes on to say "the Navy has decided not to pursue two planned technology insertions," which is an impressive sign of design restraint and gutsy leadership. Why did they abandon plans, for example, to include a "conformal acoustic velocity sensor wide aperture array"? Because "it would significantly increase, not decrease, life-cycle costs and complicate maintenance." Since this array would have increased costs and complexity, they dropped it.

This isn't just the result of good leadership. It's evidence of a pervasive culture of restraint, one that says overreaching is foolishness and complexity is not the same thing as goodness.

In another case, they "determined the original requirements were unrealistic and would not be worth the cost to achieve them." If only every program would do this sort of assessment. And the funny thing is, there's nothing stopping us from taking this approach all the time.

Lessons From Nuclear Power

2011-05-12T07:00:00.111-04:00

The nuclear situation in Japan got me thinking once again about nuclear power... and its implications for engineering design.

I really dislike nuclear power. In fact, I think we shouldn't do it. But usually, when people criticize nuclear power they point to two issues: safety and waste disposal. My objection is related to those topics, but I'd like to describe it in more fundamental terms. I object to nuclear power because it's a critically incomplete idea.

Operating a nuclear power plant generates nuclear waste. However, as I wrote in 2008, we don't have a good plan for how to dispose of nuclear waste (and 3 years later, we still don't). Seriously, we're producing highly toxic waste that's going to be around for thousands of years... and our best plan is to put it in "long term storage." This is as foolish as taking off in an airplane with the expectation that we'll figure out how to land it someday. I suppose that's alright if you're a test pilot, but not so much if you're doing it with a fleet jetliners, each full of passengers, flying over major cities.

You might wonder, "How close are we to having a disposal plan?" Well, Newsweek recently did an article about a nuclear power advocate from France, named Anne Lauvergeon. In the article, she pointed out that "the technology exists to destroy it [nuclear waste] in a laboratory setting—a technology she predicts will jump to real life within 20 years."

Um, really? If the technology we're depending on won't be ready for real world use until 2030, shouldn't that give us pause? Isn't there a chance our prediction of what life will be like in 20 years could -just maybe - be a little bit off? Sure, go ahead and produce 20 years worth of nuclear waste. I'm sure we'll figure out what to do about it someday...

The same thing applies to all sorts of other designs. For example, the latest GAO report on selected weapon systems pointed out that the Joint Strike Fighter went into production even though three critical technologies are not mature, the manufacturing process isn't proven yet and the testing is incomplete. Yeah, you guys go on ahead. Don't worry - the technology, manufacturing and testing crew will just catch up later.

I promise you, that approach is not on anyone's list of Best Practices.

OK, back to nuclear power. What are we doing with all that spent fuel while we're waiting 20 years for the big breakthrough? Mostly, we're keeping it on site, in some cases storing five times more waste than the container was designed to handle. And of course we're continuing to produce even more waste... without a good plan on what to do with it all.

On the question of safety, Ms. Lauvergeon's aforementioned interview listed a series of catastrophic scenarios and explained that thanks to our robust designs, "Whatever happens, you will have no leak in the air or the ground.” This was about a week before the earthquake hit Japan. Oopsie!

Yes, most nuclear power plants operate with perfect safety records. But when one fails, it fails hard. We can't prevent it 100% of the time, and we don't really know how to deal with it when the inevitable failures occur. Just one more example of how this is not a complete idea.

Also, Ms. Lauvergeon should find a new job.

I'm all for exploration and experimentation. I'm a lab guy at heart. But when the objective is to develop an operational system, one that'll be built in large quantities and used in the real world, where failure has serious consequences on a major scale, we must make sure we have a complete idea, to include things like safety & disposal. Until then, it's best to use other solutions that are already proven and complete.

RPL, Year 1

2011-05-10T07:00:00.050-04:00

Before Rogue Project Leader was a blog, it was a webzine. Every month, several friends and I would publish a new collection of articles and features. There was even a poetry corner and it wasn't half bad.

By the time it was all over, we'd published nine-and-a-half issues, had a lot of fun and learned a lot about DIY webzines... including how much work they are and how to stop doing one when the time is right.

The original RPL is off line now, but it's not out of reach. Whether you missed it or loved it the first time around, you're invited to get your very own copy of Rogue Project Leader, Year 1 at the Rogue Press shop (dead-tree version or eBook).

Whether you buy a copy or not, I hope you'll at least click over to the preview and read "Call Me Crazy," my first editorial for that very special experiment. And check out my riff on imperfectionism... and Quaid's original vision for Rogue University... and Gabe's piece about being "in orbit"... and, well, just read the whole thing, ok? I think you'll dig it.

Help!

2011-05-08T10:19:00.000-04:00

I ~~like~~ love to write. It doesn't matter whether it's fiction or non, serious or funny, books or blogs. I truly enjoy the experience of putting words together in interesting ways... with one exception.

I have a hard time writing about my writing.

Writing the back cover blurb or the description on a webpage leaves me pulling my hair out, surrounded by a pile of crumpled notebook pages. Worse yet is my attempts at writing a query letter, introducing my books to a potential agent or publishing company. Writing 30,000 words on a topic is a piece of cake compared to writing 200 words trying to convince someone that my 30,000 words are worth their time. I guess it's the difference between teaching and selling.

Nevertheless, it's got to be done... and I was wondering if I could get a hand from some of my blog readers.

Here's the deal: I'm trying to rewrite the description of The Simplicity Cycle on my Lulu site and it's kicking my butt. The current description is lame. I was wondering if someone out there might be willing to take a shot at rewriting it.

How would you describe The Simplicity Cycle, in a paragraph or two. Brevity is good. You can leave your ideas in the Comments section or send them via email to The . Dan . Ward (at) gmail (dot) com.

Thanks!

70 > 0

2011-05-05T07:00:00.030-04:00

Good morning and welcome to Math With Dan, the fun blog where we learn important math facts.

Today's Important Math Fact is this:

70 > 0

Everyone with me so far? Great! Let's say it together: 70 > 0. Very good!

My 2nd grade daughter just came in and read over my shoulder. She laughed and said "Everybody already knows this!" And then she saw me write about her reaction and it got all meta. So I had to go make pancakes for breakfast.

OK, I'm back. Let's talk for a moment about why is it important to understand that 70 > 0.

You see, a lot of times people talk about delivering "the 70% solution," as if it was some poor alternative to the 100% solution. But that's the wrong comparison. When we take time into account (and we should ALWAYS take time into account), what we're really talking about is delivering a 70% solution now instead of a 0% solution now.

The cool thing about a 70% solution is that it delivers far sooner than the hypothetical 100% solution. So when we compare the two approaches, the 70% solution delivers something within a timeframe where the 100% solution delivers nothing. While the 100% solution is still being designed, the 70% solution can actually be fielded and used.

Just something to keep in mind the next time you hear someone talk about the 70% solution. It may not be 100%, but it's certainly better than nothing.

A Behemoth In A Blizzard Of Cash

2011-05-03T07:00:00.024-04:00

The Center For Public Integrity recently posted a great article about the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization (JIEDDO). Well, maybe great is the wrong word to describe a story about how we've failed so miserably. I probably meant to say it's an interesting, insightful story.

Here's a short excerpt from the first part of the article:

The launch of JIEDDO eventually turned what had been a 12-person Army anti-homemade bomb task force into a 1,900 person behemoth with nearly $21 billion to spend.

Yet after five years of work, hundreds of projects, and a blizzard of cash paid to some of America’s biggest defense contractors, JIEDDO has not found a high-tech way to detect or defeat these so-called Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) from a safe distance.

What's striking to me is the apparent incredulity over JIEDDO's failure, despite being enormous and having "a blizzard of cash" to spend and despite it's focus on "high tech." And I don't mean the author's surprise - I'm talking about the reaction of government people who can't seem to understand why throwing buckets of money at the problem and building a "behemoth" organization didn't work out.

Um, anyone ever look at any data on successful programs? There's a pretty compelling trail of examples showing that simple, low-cost, rapidly-fielded systems tend to outperform the multi-billion-dollar products that take decades to produce.

My point? Nobody should be surprised when a behemoth in a blizzard of cash fails to show results.

Tips On Giving Presentations

2011-04-28T07:00:00.046-04:00

Communication skills are a critical part of a project leader's professional competency. Project leaders who fail to hone their ability to give a compelling briefing or write a cogent paper are dropping the ball on one of their key responsibilities and most important skill sets. A project leader who doesn't communicate well is like a vampire who's afraid of the dark.

Look, everyone doesn't have to be a dazzling speaker or writer, but we all must put forth effort to up our game when it comes to giving presentations and writing papers.

Here are a few thoughts towards that end:

Read Garr Reynolds' book Presentation Zen. And his blog. Then read them again.

If your presentation is dull, you're doing it wrong. And I mean that in both senses of the word wrong (incorrect & immoral)

To be even clearer: being dull is a sin, a crime, a theft and an assault. Don't waste people's most precious irreplaceable resource - time - with droning messages that don't convey anything useful and that beg to be tuned out.

Prepare. 'Nuff said.

PowerPoint isn't the problem. PowerPoint's defaults are the problem. Reject them with great enthusiasm.

You have my permission to be interesting. You do not have my permission to waste my time.

When giving a presentation, don't be the only guy in the room who doesn't know how much time you have left.

Another Objection

2011-04-26T07:00:00.024-04:00

OK, it was so much fun to look at objections to the FIST (Fast, Inexpensive, Simple, Tiny) approach, I figured I'd do it again.

Today's objection sounds something like this: "The FIST approach would never deliver a high-tech, complex, expensive system (like the F-22, for example)."

Um, duh!

At the core of most of these objections is a faulty assumption. One of the most common of these assumptions is that the cost, schedule and complexity of technology (particularly military technology) is inevitably high... and that these are not only inevitable attributes of a system but are also desirable attributes. FIST argues that speed, thrift and simplicity are simultaneously possible and operationally desirable.

Now, if we were to sit down and create an air superiority fighter using the FIST principles, we'd end up with something like the F-16 (or the F-5 or the F-20). It would be a low-cost, simple aircraft, requiring a minimal amount of effort to train, maintain, own and operate. It would do one thing extremely well and we'd have a large enough fleet of them to make a significant difference. It would also leave enough money in the treasury to build a second type of system to handle other missions (say, air-to-ground missions).

So, would the FIST approach deliver a high-tech, high-cost system? Um, no. But then, you really don't want one of those...

Two Objections

2011-04-21T07:00:00.045-04:00

It's not often I get push-back when I talk about the FIST (Fast, Inexpensive, Simple, Tiny) approach to developing new systems. Most of the time, people tend to agree that it makes sense, etc. But on the rare occasion a skeptic speaks up, the objections tend to come in one of two flavors:

1) We've already tried this and it didn't work.
2) We've never tried this, so how do you know it would work?

What's even funnier is when both objections come out of the same person. Yes, that happens.

Allow me to briefly address these two objections. On the first objection, I'd like to gently point out that's not a very strong or compelling argument. Past failure does not prove future success is impossible. And for that matter, they're trying to prove a negative by asserting the FIST approach has never worked, often based on a single attempt. And even one successful example is sufficient to counter objection #1 - and I have buckets full. What kills me is when I hear this objection immediately following my 45-minute FIST presentation, which includes a half dozen or so.

Often time, people who use Objection #1 are thinking about NASA's Faster, Better, Cheaper initiative from the 90's. I wrote about that a while back, and Howard McCurdy's Faster Better Cheaper book provides an even more comprehensive assessment, concluding that FBC can be done.

The second objection is based on an erroneous assumption. As I already mentioned, I have dozens of examples of situations and programs where we have indeed used the FIST approach to successfully deliver new capabilities.

Most of the time, I think what people mean by this objection is that the FIST term per se wasn't used by the P development team. That's often true. What I try to explain is that FIST is a term I use to describe a particular pattern of decision making. So when I apply FIST to an old story like the P-51 Mustang, I'm being descriptive and saying that project followed the pattern. I then suggest new projects use FIST, in a prescriptive way, to apply this proven pattern. FIST isn't some new idea - it's a consolidation of rather old practices.

There are other objections of course... maybe I'll take a look at some of those in the future.

Go There

2011-04-19T07:00:00.034-04:00

My latest addition to the list of Words And Phrases I Don't Like is "Don't go there."

It joins "There's Nothing We Can Do About It," "For The Record" and the words pamphlet, brochure and utilize in the pantheon of linguistics that seriously rub me the wrong way.

Unlike pamphlet and brochure, which I dislike for purely aesthetic reasons, "don't go there" made the list for reasons of ethics and honesty. People seem to use this phrase when someone is in danger of speaking an uncomfortable truth. It's a shorthand that cuts off conversation in a manner that is borderline dishonest... or even blatantly (albeit subtly) dishonest.

Don't Go There means let's pretend something that is true... isn't actually true. Let's ignore the issue. Let's not deal with the core problem. Let's go somewhere else. It's the verbal equivalent of looking for your lost keys at the street corner, because that's where the street light is, instead of the dimly lit area down the block where you actually lost them.

Look, we can't solve problems by avoiding them. Discouraging people from discussing something because it's uncomfortable or impolitic doesn't really help. Don't Go There really means "if we don't talk about it, I believe it'll go away." And that's not only a silly belief, it's dangerous.

It's still important to exercise discretion of course, but when it comes to going there, I'm thinking we should...

Bonus Monday Post!

2011-04-18T07:00:00.051-04:00

I know, I know, I said I'd post on Tuesdays and Thursdays... but I get impatient sometimes and want to say things ahead of schedule, so once again you get a free Monday Bonus Post - no extra charge!

Several recent conversations and experiences have once again confirmed in my mind the primacy of simplicity as a systems engineering / programmatic / technical / leadership principle (pick your genre). Time and again, complexity eats our lunch, wastes our time and generally makes things stink.

The worst part is, so much of the complexity we face is self-inflicted. No, wait, that's not really the worst part. The really worst pat is that it's deliberately self-inflicted. Not only do we do it to ourselves, we do it to ourselves on purpose. And we think it's a good idea... and then we're confused when the yogurt hits the fan, as Tom Peters says.

See, all too often we equate complexity with sophistication. We think adding more features, parts & functions makes the thing better. We miss out on the opportunity to leave something simple... or to make it simple. All too often, simplicity isn't a goal. We aim for complexity... and we hit it.

So once again, I'd like to invite you, my internets friends, to download your FREE copy of The Simplicity Cycle, over on the Rogue Press. And then pass it around to your internets friends, so they too can read it and ponder the cost and the value of complexity.

Actually, strike that. I've never said this before, but here goes : I'd like you to actually buy a copy.

Yes, yes, I've always discouraged people from paying money for this book. I give it away free because I want to make the idea as accessible as possible. I've poo-poo'd the idea of buying the dead-tree version. But the truth is, I personally love reading books on paper. And when I get an electronic book, I tend to either not read it or I misplace it, accidentally delete it, etc. With a paper copy, you're more likely to keep it, read it, flip through it again at odd times, or share it with a friend. Thus, my decision to encourage you to pick one up.

I hope you'll pardon this shameless commercial plug. And of course, the free PDF version is still available, if you don't have one yet. But I think it would be really great if you'd pick up a hardcopy of The Simplicity Cycle. Your team will thank you.

Rogue Maturity Model

2011-04-14T07:00:00.022-04:00

Although I'm very impressed by some of SEI's recent work (on Agile and Acquisition Archetypes) I'm not a big fan of their Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI). Rather than spend a lot of time explaining why, let me simply point out that CMMI is solidly the result of Modernist management thinking. As I explained in an article titled Postmodern Program Management, I lean towards a postmodern point of view.

Accordingly, I've put together the first draft of a Rogue Maturity Model. In keeping with the spirit of RPL, you're all invited to contribute your thoughts and expertise to the RMM. Just click that link and type away!

FIST Handbook Update

2011-04-13T06:34:00.000-04:00

I've updated and expanded the FIST Handbook - check it out!

Now, along with links to a bunch of FIST-related articles, there's also a section for media & interviews, data and tools. It's a much more complete reference point than before and I hope it'll be useful to you as you move out on applying FIST in your own projects.

Stop on by & tell your friends!

Reality Is Broken

2011-04-12T07:00:00.033-04:00

I love-love-love Jane McGonigal's beautiful new book Reality Is Broken. It's a fascinating blend of psychology, philosophy, history and technology. In large part the book is about what it means to be human - how we learn, how we interact with each other, what we want and need and contribute to the world around us.

Her TED talk is a great introduction to Jane and her ideas. But as with most movies, the book is even better. Here are a few excerpts to get you started:

By removing or limiting the obvious ways of getting to the goal, the rules push players to explore previously uncharted possibility spaces. They unleash creativity and foster strategic thinking.

In a good computer or video game, you're always playing on the very edge of your skill level.

Why do unnecessary obstacles make us happy? (read the book to find the answer)

The opposite of play isn't work. It's depression.

Within the limits of our own endurance, we would rather work hard than be entertained.

The game must be carefully designed so that the only way to be rewarded is to participate in good faith... rather than on providing compensation for doing something that would otherwise feel boring, trivial or pointless.

And yes, I'm totally going to play Top Secret Dance Off. I hope you'll come play too.

POGO Interview

2011-04-07T20:00:00.000-04:00

The Program On Government Oversight (POGO) blog posted a sweet interview with yours truly. Bryan Rahija and crew came up with some great questions and I'm really psyched with how it all came together. POGO's Watchdog Fu is the stuff of legend and I'm honored they asked me to share some ideas.

I'll spare you the longish story of the effort involved with getting this thing approved - let me just say I'm glad to see it all paid off.

So - stop on by the POGO blog (they've always got interesting stuff) and maybe even click the Share button to pass the link along to your various internets and friends.

Stuff That Matters

2011-04-07T07:00:00.041-04:00

The RPL thought for the day comes from the always brilliant Hugh MacLeod. I couldn't agree with him more.

The idea of doing stuff that matters is something I've been thinking about for a long time. In fact, that's what my first book (The Radical Elements of Radical Success) was all about.

See, it's so easy to get caught up in the tyranny of the urgent. To get distracted by artificial emergencies and to waste time on activities that nobody thought of yesterday and nobody will remember tomorrow. There are plenty of things that can be safely left undone, with little to no impact on anything at all.

Someone recently asked how I find the time to write books and magazine articles, on top of my day job, etc. Part of the answer is that writing is recreational for me. It's something I really enjoy doing (and yes, recreational activities matter!). But another part of the answer is that writing is important to me. It's how I process my experiences. It helps me understand the world around me and has led to all sorts of new relationships with readers around the world. Writing is something that matters, so I make the time to do it.

How about you? Are you doing stuff that matters?

Change The World

2011-04-05T07:00:00.024-04:00

It's amazing to me that some people don't want to change the world, at least in some small way. I'm a rather content guy, but I have a hard time fathoming how a person could look at the world around them and be satisfied with the status quo.

And yet, Hugh MacLeod's commentary is right - not everyone wants to make a big difference. I know some people have a hard enough time just surviving, let alone changing the world. I understand that. What I don't understand is the comfortable & competent people who don't make an effort to improve things.

For those of you who want to change the world, the opportunities are endless. The trick is figuring out how to do it.

Lately I've been told, emphatically and with great conviction, that change only happens when it's led by Top Leaders. As in, people who sit at the peak of the org chart, people with corner offices and multiple stars on their shoulders... or better yet, people who tell people with stars on their shoulders what to do. Those are the only people who can institute big, meaningful change.

Other times I've been told the only real change is grassroots driven, that it's all about Power From The People. You need to harness the power of the masses in order to bring about real change.

I'm not sure either opinion is quite correct. Instead, I think Hugh is right - the key to making change is to want to make change. I'm not sure it matters how much formal authority a person has. Ghandi and Jesus seemed to do just fine. Martin Luther King wasn't exactly a Formal Authority Figure either.

Bottom line: I'm not convinced you and I need to become CEO's or Generals or High Ranking Public Officials if we're going to change the world. I'm not even sure we need to get those people on board with our ideas... for that matter, I'm not sure how much their support really helps. I think the key to changing the world is to want to do it... and as Hugh explained, not everybody does.

Free Books! (and Cheap Ones Too!)

2011-04-04T07:00:00.000-04:00

Wanted to invite all the new RPL readers to download their very own free copy of The Simplicity Cycle over at the Rogue Press site. It's a quick read and takes a practical look at ways to deal with complexity in your designs. It applies to everything from building a PPT deck to an organization to a technical architecture. I hope you find it interesting & useful... and you can't beat the price.

If you're so inclined, you can also pick up inexpensive eBook versions of several of my books, either from the Rogue Press site or Amazon's Kindle store. If you want to read before you buy, the Rogue Press site lets you "preview" the entire text of each book.

And for old school readers like me, there's a dead tree version of each one.

Happy reading!

Changing The World

2011-03-31T07:00:00.001-04:00

This is a brilliant, beautiful TED talk about how to change the world... by giving a ~~good~~ great presentation.

I learned a lot here. I bet you will too (and thanks to Dan Taylor for the link!).

Nancy Duarte's talk at TEDx East from Duarte Design on Vimeo.

Awesome Packaging

2011-03-29T07:00:00.001-04:00

As a father of two daughters, I have had frequent opportunities to spend countless quiet hours straining mightily to open the @#$!@!% packages that encase various dolls and small plastic toys. I'd almost come to the conclusion that the Package Engineering profession is wholly populated with misanthropic sadists who are paid by the hour... and when I say hour I mean the amount of time it takes to open the packaging they design.

However, today's post is not a rant about bad design. Quite the opposite. I am writing to report some good news of great joy. After years of suffering through unending inconveniences and unnecessarily difficulties associated with removing Object A from Package B, I am happy to report the discovery of an example of packaging design so simple, so thoughtful and so right that I almost wept.

The picture below, taken as always by my my handy-dandy, oh-so-out-of-focus little camera phone, shows this magnificent piece of customer-loving art:

In case it's difficult to tell, let me explain. This is a photo of a car charger for a cell phone. It is still in the package... except for the part that isn't. On the right side of the picture, you can see that the business end of the charger is actually sticking out of the package. When it's on display, that particular bit is snapped into a snug little concavity... but this thoughtful design allows potential customers to tug the cord free and actually plug it into their phone to make sure it fits, before actually buying it, bringing it home and opening it!

On the side of the package you can see the obligatory list of all the phone models this charger supports. But if you have your phone with you in the store (and you probably do, right?) you don't have to actually look at the list. You can just plug it in. If it fits, you've found the right charger. Buy it! If not, then keep looking.

This is a great example of literally thinking outside the box. I'm sincerely impressed that someone was able to challenge the unstated assumption that a product has to be inside the package... and in doing so, made life much easier for the consumer.

Now if only they'd do the same thing for Barbie...

Development Principles

2011-03-28T06:53:00.000-04:00

OK, I've been poking at the still-sidelined F-22 a bit lately. Let's step back a bit and look at some of the principles involved.

For starters, I very much believe in planning ahead. I think it's a good idea to start cooking dinner before you get hungry. It's a good idea to save up some money before your car breaks down. And yes, we need to build weapon systems before the conflict arises. As my SOCOM friends often point out, "Competent Special Operations Forces cannot be created after emergencies occur."

I also believe the future is going to be surprising. We don't know what demands will arise, what seemingly eternal threats will go away and what new ones will emerge. We can't anticipate Black Swans. The only thing we can do is maximize our flexibility and our ability to respond to the unexpected. Read Taleb's book for more on that.

I'm also quite convinced we cannot build an effective fighter jet in 20 years, but we can do it in 3-5 years (the same holds true for all sorts of other technology genres). If we spend 20 years building something, we're going to end up with something that's technologically obsolete, operationally irrelevant or both. The basic principle here is it's important to minimize the time between stating the need and addressing the need. Our 1980's era predictions about the 21st century didn't quite pan out. And our current predictions about what we'll need 10 years from now aren't going to be correct either. There are many reasons I don't think we'll have an air war with China... and one of the reasons is that people keep predicting it as a likely future.

I think we need to take a closer look at the stuff Chuck Spinney wrote, about how less expensive systems tend to outperform more expensive systems, and simpler systems tend to out perform complex systems. I believe thrift and speed are not merely fiscal or political values. They are desirable technical attributes for a system. You want to build a really fantastic capability? Do it quickly & inexpensively (and keep it simple). And please keep in mind that the cost, delay and complexity associated with systems like the Raptor are not inevitable. We could rapidly deliver inexpensive air superiority jets if we wanted to, but only if we try. Speed, thrift and simplicity were never objectives on the Raptor.

So let me be really clear: if we want to ensure air superiority (or any other technical advantage), spending billions and decades is the wrong way to go about it.

Finally, I believe our development efforts should be guided by a prioritized set of requirements (as our Agile development friends do). Deliver the most important capabilities first. Deal with less important capabilities later. So, for example, if you're in the middle of two or three wars where air superiority jets aren't relevant, maybe bump that particular capability to a lower position on the stack.

I'm just sayin'...

FIST on FB

2011-03-26T19:38:00.002-04:00

Just another reminder / invitation to become a FIST fan on Facebook & link up with other people who are pursuing the Fast, Inexpensive, Simple, Tiny approach to system development & acquisitions.

How To Fix Acquisitions

2011-03-25T07:00:00.000-04:00

When it comes to the defense acquisition process, change seems to be the only constant. In fact, we change things often enough that it's pretty difficult to attribute any improved (or degraded) results to a particular change, because by the time the weapon system is delivered, the policies and procesess have changed a five or six times (or more). Hard to get any correlation going with that much flux.

Of course, if we'd just shorten program timelines we'd be able to finish projects before the process changed excessively and thus could measure the impact of our "improvements," but that's a topic for another day.

Here's the thing - all too often the changes are blatantly superficial and have virtually no impact on the actual management or engineering of weapon systems. It's bananas but it's the sort of behavior the system rewards. Anyway, that observation inspired this sketch, originally intended for the 13 Theta series for Defense AT&L magazine. I figured I'd post it here instead.

For those who aren't familiar with the structure of the defense acquisition process, it involves moving through a series of milestones. In 1996, we used Milestones O, I, II and III. In 2000 it changed to Milestones A, B and C. And now here's the gag:

What would I recommend doing instead? Focus on honing decision-making skills and using the FIST approach to rapidly deliver affordable systems.

Spoke Too Soon?

2011-03-24T07:00:00.004-04:00

In an earlier post, I mentioned a report that the F-22 Raptor might finally see some action over Libya, after watching Iraq and Afghanistan from the sidelines for five years. Alas, according to the Air Force Times, that seems to not be the case.

One might wonder why we wouldn't use "the most capable air superiority fighter" to accomplish a mission or two over Libya. Say, accompanying B-2's on their bombing runs... which is one of the things the F-22 is supposed to do, right?

Well, the article points to the fact that it can't communicate well with other aircraft as a big reason for not using it. Also, that it can't actually hit ground targets very well. So the Libyan Air Force's strategy of staying on the ground looks like a pretty effective counter-measure against the Raptor.

Other than its inability to communicate with the good guys or to make the bad guys go boom, it's a fine, fine aircraft. Technically, the only thing wrong with it is that it apparently doesn't support any of our actual mission needs.

Now, I'm not an operations guy. I'm not even an airplane guy. I really don't know much about what sort of capabilities this country requires when it comes to jet fighters. But I am an acquisitions guy and a techie. And I know the objective of acquisitions & system development is to deliver affordable systems that support mission needs. From where I sit, it seems like we've spent a whole lot of time & money developing a system that doesn't contribute to any of the various fights we're currently engaged in. Where I come from, that doesn't count as success.

Might the Raptor contribute to some future mission? Of course. And I can't say for sure that these hypothetical future scenarios aren't actually right around the corner. All I know is that given current operational and fiscal realities, the Raptor looks like a strange investment. I might even say an unfortunate investment. This isn't hindsight - I've been saying this sort of thing for a pretty long time now. Frankly, even if we start using it 10 years from now, I'm not sure that would quite make up for the long trail of non-contributions.

Is there a lesson to learn here? Maybe something about the wisdom of shortening our development timelines, using the budget to constrain the design and focusing our requirements on a prioritized set of real-world needs. The opposite of the FIST approach - spending decades and billions to develop a multi-role system that doesn't support any of the three major operations we're currently performing - leads to situations like the Raptor.

Someone once told me that the FIST approach would never have produced a weapon system like the F-22. My answer to that: precisely!

Ask Your Question

2011-03-23T07:00:00.021-04:00

Here's a special, exclusive offer just for you, the RogueProjectLeader Reader:

You are personally invited to send me your questions about innovation, technology development, the FIST (Fast, Inexpensive, Simple, Tiny) method, or anything else you may want to ask about.

I'll make up some weird answer and post the whole shebang right here, on RPL!

Submit you question in the Comments section, or drop me an email to my gmail account (The.Dan.Ward).

Leadership

2011-03-22T07:00:00.000-04:00

I keep coming back to my post titled The Effectiveness Of Signs. It's one of my favorite posts on this blog. I like the way it blends design principles with an important aspect of leadership - namely, doing stuff.

Now, the topic of Leadership-with-a-capital-L generally turns me off (I blame John Maxwell's horrible books for that - and no I'm not linking to them). But this blog is titled Rogue Project Leader, so I guess I'm not completely against the topic.

Anyway, several years ago I sat in the office of a very high ranking person. In the course of our conversation, he expressed his frustration over his inability to get the people who ostensibly worked for him to do what he asked them to do. I was part of a small bureaucratic spetsnaz team that he had put together for the purpose of undermining the Defenders Of The Status Quo who were ignoring his direction. That conversation, and his frustration, have haunted the back of my mind ever since.

Now, with the perspective of some years, I wonder if maybe he was a bit like the sign maker in my earlier post. His sign was clear and unambiguous... but still the trashcan was not where it was "supposed to be." It's not a perfect analogy - I'm not saying he posted his sign behind the door or was asking anyone to put the trashcan in an inconvenient place. But clearly there were divergent priorities and interests. And just like with the trashcan story, the power lay in the person who actually moved the can.

F-22 in Libya?

2011-03-21T07:00:00.039-04:00

It looks like the F-22 might finally fly its first combat mission, in support of the Libyan No Fly Zone.

The Raptor was declared operational in Dec 2005, but so far it hasn't flown any combat missions. There's talk now about possibly using it to take down radar sites in Libya... that is, if there are any radar sites left after the US Navy's bombardment with their Tomahawk missiles. Also, the French, British and Canadian Air Forces already have fighters in the air over Libya, so if the Raptor is going to see any action it's going to have to move quickly.

One might wonder whether the F-22 is really the best platform for doing this kind of work, or if perhaps Tomahawks and Rafales are sufficient.

On a completely unrelated note, check out Krog's New Weapon, a sci-fi story I published in Defense AT&L magazine in March, 2008. Why? Oh, no reason...

Be A FAN!

2011-03-19T09:33:00.000-04:00

There's no excuse for why it took so long to do this, but I finally made a FIST page on Facebook. It's called the FIST Acquisition Network (FAN), because Dan's Acquisition Network (DAN) was just too self-referential. Stop on by and click the Like button to clip in.

My plan is to use the FAN page to announce upcoming events and provide links to new articles & blog posts - stuff like that. But it's also a place for people to ask questions, meet other people who are trying to do this FIST thing.

See you on Facebook!

Welcome IC'ers

2011-03-18T20:18:00.000-04:00

Just a quick shout out to all the new friends I met at the DIA Acquisition conference in Miami this week (and to the old friends too, of course). It's encouraging that so many of you said the FIST concept resonates with you and what you're trying to do. I hope you came away with some new ideas you can use.

Looking forward to continuing the conversation...

A Departure Plan

2011-03-17T07:00:00.022-04:00

Watching recent events in the Middle East got me thinking about, what else, project leadership.

Specifically, the revolution in Egypt reminded me of one of the most important aspects of just about any kind of leadership, project or otherwise: planning for your eventual absence.

People like Castro, Mubarak, Gaddafi and Steve Jobs drive me nuts. Why? Not just because they won't go away, but because they have no succession plan. That's fine if you're immortal, but even Castro will kick the bucket some day (seriously, how is that guy still around? He's going to out live me at this rate.). And please, a half-hearted hand-off to your brother Raul doesn't really qualify as a plan.

Yes, I know it's difficult to find a replacement. Good help is hard to find, blah blah blah. If you've been leading a place for 30 or 40 years, it's hard to imagine anyone else can take your place. Nobody else knows as much as you do. Nobody else is as well informed as you are. Nobody else is as connected. But here's the thing - at some point, you won't be around. Also, the world won't end when that happens.

This isn't just an issue for dictators. It happens in organizations as well. I've come across more than one senior authority figure who regularly make it clear they zero plans to ever leave... and thus they don't taken any steps to groom a successor. That's irresponsible. It's bad leadership. Also, it's lazy.

As a leader, the best legacy you can leave is a good hand-off to the next guy. If you really want to keep doing the same thing until you drop dead, that's fine... just don't take one of those top-of-the-pyramid jobs, where large numbers of people will be negatively affected by the chaotic impact of your sudden departure.

Sure, it's easy for me to say all this stuff. I never stay in one place for more than a year or two. One of the first things I do when I come into a new job is start thinking about how I'll hand it to my successor. Not because I'm itching to move on, but because I don't want to leave a mess behind... 'cause unlike some people, I know I won't be here forever.

Welcome Coasties!

2011-03-16T22:03:00.000-04:00

I had a great time at Coast Guard HQ today, talking about FIST with a very cool group of America's Maritime Guardians. I wanted to say a public thanks for the warm welcome and the engaging questions... I hope they enjoyed our time together as much as I did. And a special thanks to those who were able to stick around for lunch afterwards. I look forward to continuing the conversation and hope you'll all keep in touch!

I also wanted to mention I recently updated the FIST Handbook. for those who haven't seen it previously, I should explain that in keeping with my preference for simplicity, the handbook is just a Google Document with a bunch of links for further reading. The big update is this: it now it also has links to some of the tools I talk about (extreme programming, SEI's Acquistion Archetypes report, etc). Whee!

Happy reading!

Defaults, Signs and Doors

2011-03-15T07:00:00.099-04:00

Let me start by stating the obvious: the default status of a door is "Usable."

I mention that because in my experience, there's no need to put up a sign saying "This Door Works" on every door that works. People just assume if the door is there, it can be opened. It's a reasonable assumption.

On the other hand, doors you can't use generally merit an explanatory sign to warn would-be openers that such behavior is not allowed. These signs generally say "Door Blocked" or "Use Other Door" or some such thing. With me so far?

And continuing the theme of "let me state the obvious," a red sign with white lettering generally means one thing: DANGER! Yes, they can also mean STOP or DO NOT ENTER, but these three concepts are related, are they not? They're all variations on the theme of "do not proceed." You hardly ever come across a red sign with white letters that says FREE KITTIES, and if you do, don't take one 'cause they're probably demon kitties.

Given these facts, can someone please explain the sign below? It's posted on the door that leads out of my office area.

Tell me you didn't have to read it twice, just to be sure you read it right. And no, this is not an emergency exit. It's the door I go through several times a day.

Now, I get that as a military organization we use words like Egress. Fine. I won't quibble over word choice, even though it's a stupid word (ok, I'll quibble a little bit). My objection is that this sign is on the door I'm supposed to use. It gets better. The twin door right next to it, the one that's locked in place and cannot be opened... is unmarked.

Let me just say Aw, come on! Seriously? Who does that? Jeez!

Ahem.

Alright, it's not a huge deal, but it does cause some unnecessary confusion. For example, we recently had a visitor to the office. He'd never been here before. When our meeting ended we all walked towards the exit. We were talking. He was distracted. He didn't read the sign, but simply did the logical thing - steered away from the RED DANGER sign he saw out of the corner of his eye and instead slammed into the unmarked, unopenable door. He didn't read the sign because a) he was in a conversation and b) he didn't think he'd have to read it, 'cause it's a RED DANGER sign. Like I said, demon kitties.

The point, of course, is that standards matter. They are powerful shortcuts to communication and when used well, they allow a person in a conversation to catch a warning and steer away from the locked door. Yes, inverting their meaning can be a useful exercise in creativity. It can make some thought-provoking art or deeply funny pranks. But sometimes the right answer is to let a door be a door, and put the red sign on the door that doesn't open.

Future Combat Systems

2011-03-10T07:00:00.033-05:00

I've often said that any program with the word "Future" in its name is doomed from the start, because if you're building a system for the Future, well, you'll never deliver it because the future never comes. We all live in the present. Two infamous examples are the Future Combat System and the Future Imagery Architecture (both were cancelled).

Seriously, what was the plan for those two once they were fielded? Were we going to change the name to the Present Combat System? Or how about Today's Imagery Architecture? Lame.

The thing is, these names reveal something about their purpose and design values. Calling something the Future X means we think it's going to be cool (eventually) as we fly around in our silver jumpsuits and jetpacks. It's also an explicit acknowledgement that the thing isn't relevant to today's activities. To borrow the old cliche, it's the system of the future... and it always will be.

But it occurred to me that in the FCS case, maybe the word Future wasn't the only problem. Maybe the word System was inappropriate as well.

See, FCS wasn't really building a system. It was a collection of largely immature technologies that were not ready for prime time. The FCS program was trying to bring these technologies together before they were actually usable, integrating things that had no business being integrated. The phrase "it's not soup yet" comes to mind. That's not how you build a system. That's building new technologies, which is a whole other ball of wax.

Just something to keep in mind on your projects. If you're building a fieldable system, it should consist of mature, proven technologies. If you're still messing around in the lab with breadboards, call it what ever you want, but don't call it a system.

The Odd Duck

2011-03-08T07:00:00.060-05:00

In a land of reptiles and mammals, a bird is an odd duck.

That is, if the only two categories you have are reptiles and mammals, where do you put a bird? It's warm blooded, so it's clearly not a reptile. Therefore, it must be a mammal. But it lays eggs and has no hair, so it's not a mammal. Therefore it must be a reptile. If you find enough birds you'll eventually make a new category. If you only find one or two, you're just gonna have a problem.

And what about Australia? Is it a continent or an island? Um... both? Neither? If we had more land masses like Australia, we'd have a term to describe them. But it's the only one, so we're kinda stuck. This doesn't mean the concepts of continents and islands are useless... just that the boundaries between the categories aren't as firm as they might appear. Incidentally, by some definitions, Madagascar actually counts as a continent! And one could certainly make the case that Europe is really just a set of peninsulas sticking off the western edge of Asia rather than an independent continent.

This is a problem with almost any taxonomy. Sure, it's useful to group like objects together, but outliers require adjustments. When we encounter something that doesn't quite fit, we can make a new category (Bird!), change an old category's definition (continental status is now based on local belief), or just shrug.

The thing is, our categories affect our perception... and that's a big deal. For example, different cultures divide up the color spectrum differently, and thus they "see" colors that people in other cultures do not. The way we categorize things affects our perceptions, and the way we perceive things affects the way we make decisions. Different perceptions will lead to different behaviors which leads to different outcomes. That's some serious stuff. The point is, even when we're being logical, we may be heading in the wrong direction.

George Lakoff has a book titled Women, Fire and Dangerous Things that explores the impact of categories on the mind. The title comes from an term found in an aboriginal Australian language which refers to a category that includes "women, fire and dangerous things." Definitely worth a read if you want to explore this idea further.

The point of all this is simply to say that boundaries between categories are often not as solid as we'd like to think. Beware of excessively binary thinking - and don't be too surprised when you come across a duck-billed, egg-laying creature that is otherwise mammalian (man, those Aussies have a knack for messing with categories, don't they?).

Want to read more about the relationship between perception, mental models and decision making? Check out my article titled Metaphors Are Mindfunnels, from the Nov/Dec 08 issue of Defense AT&L magazine.

The Waterfall Method

2011-03-03T07:00:00.007-05:00

The traditional approach to system development is often described as the Waterfall Model, which is a series of sequential steps that makes sense at first glance. Unfortunately, it doesn't work in practice (let me say that again: as a general rule, it does NOT work).

In fact, the first documented description of the Waterfall is from a 1970 paper by Royce, in which he describes it as a failed, broken approach that people should not use. Naturally, it's been widely adopted. Despite frequently disastrous results, people still talk about it as if it was a best practice.

I put together this little sketch for the 13 Theta comic series but decided to post it here instead.

Evil Plans

2011-03-01T07:00:00.028-05:00

I'm a huge fan of Hugh MacLeod. His cartoons-on-the-back-of-business-cards are everything that art and comedy are supposed to be - compelling, insightful, entertaining and thought-provoking, all in a wee-little package. I signed up for his daily emails as soon as he started doing that. It's the only daily email signup I've ever not regretted (sorry Writer's Almanac).

Hugh's first book, Ignore Everybody, was brilliant. And even though I adore his work, I must admit I was a little skeptical about his second book, titled Evil Plans. I was a bit worried about how much of it would just be a rehash of the first book. That didn't stop me from pre-ordering it, of course. But as I did so, I braced myself for disappointment. It turns out I needn't have worried.

Evil Plans is even better than the Ignore Everybody. Wait, can I really say "better" when the two books are so different? For that matter, maybe "different" isn't the right word either - they're both full of his trademark cartoons and insights. You won't mistake this book for a book by anyone else in the world. So they're the same in that sense. But they're also, well, distinct from each other.

I hope you'll pick up a copy, then start making your own Evil Plan.

Should You Use A Decision Tree?

2011-02-24T07:00:00.003-05:00

As a follow-up to Tuesday's post, I want to offer the following decision tree to help you determine whether or not to make a decision tree.

Trimming Tool

2011-02-22T07:00:00.008-05:00

Genrich Altschuller's Theory of Inventive Problem Solving (aka TRIZ - pronounced trees) is a brilliant framework that designers and engineers should all be familiar with.

One of the many tools included in the TRIZ methodology is an approach called trimming. Basically it involves arbitrarily removing one element from a design, then trying to make the system perform all the necessary functions without that piece.

I put together this little flowchart to help explain how Trimming works. To quote John Hodgeman, you're welcome.

Bonus Post: On Failure

2011-02-17T19:38:00.000-05:00

The first Tom Robbins book I ever read was Fierce Invalids Home From Hot Climates. It was brilliant - funny, thought-provoking, insightful and inspiring. I quickly ran out and got Half Asleep In Frog Pajamas, which was coated in just as much awesomesauce as Invalids (ok, maybe a little bit less awesomesauce, but not much). And no, I'm not talking about success-guru and awakener of giants within Tony Robbins. They're two different guys.

Now I'm reading Even Cowgirls Get The Blues and it's knocking my socks off. Just like the other two, I find myself underlining parts that are particularly memorable... and deliberately not underlining some parts because they're just so darn good they stick in my head forever even though they're not underlined.

In honor of some recent discussions about failure, I'd like to pass along a few lines by Mr. Robbins, from Even Cowgirls Get The Blues

"… you must have learned by now that we pay just as dearly for our triumphs as we do for our defeats. Go ahead and fail. But fail with wit, fail with grace, fail with style. A mediocre failure is as insufferable as a mediocre success. Embrace failure! Seek it out. Learn to love it. That may be the only way any of us will ever be free.”
- Tom Robbins

Dark Side of Systems Engineering

2011-02-17T07:00:00.001-05:00

I thought I'd share a couple of the comic ideas that didn't quite make it into Defense AT&L's 13 Theta series (more than TWICE as good as six sigma!).

I must confess this one isn't an entirely original idea but it did make me laugh.

Simple Is Hard

2011-02-15T07:00:00.003-05:00

Several friends recently recommended The King is Dead, the latest album by The Decemberists. I must admit I wasn't familiar with their music so I figured I'd check them out. I like it quite a bit, but that's not why I bring it up.

The writeup on Amazon had some interesting comments about simplicity and complexity, explaining that this album "...marks a deliberate turn towards simplicity after the band's wildly ambitious and widely acclaimed 2009 song-cycle The Hazards of Love."

The description goes on to say their simpler sound is just as good as their previously complex efforts: "The King Is Dead showcases the ways in which The Decemberists... sound just as glorious in simple, stripped-down compositions as they do on the elaborate structures that have defined their work for years."

From an aesthetic point of view, complexity can be really attractive. I love-love-love the intricate flavor of steampunk tech, for example. Part of the appeal is historical, I'm sure. I like the way steampunk highlights an older, more effortful way of doing things. Steampunk is cool because the complexity involved is something we've moved beyond. But it's also cool because, well, it just looks cool. But I also totally dig the stripped-down, simple and elegant designs of iPods, for example.

So The Decemberists' album isn't praiseworthy because their earlier albums were lousy - nobody's saying that. It's just a different approach to making good music. A simpler approach.

What really caught my eye was when one of the musicians explained that "creating straightforward, unadorned songs can be at least as hard as building complicated musical epics. "For all my talk about how complex those records were, this one may have been harder to do," he says. "It's a real challenge to make simple music, and lot of times we had to deliberately hold off and keep more space. This record is an exercise in restraint."

An exercise in restraint. That's a good exercise for musicians and artists as well as program managers and engineers. The results, well, I think they speak for themselves.

Want to read more about simplicity and complexity and how they relate to design and user experiences? Download your free copy of The Simplicity Cycle at RoguePress.

The Effectiveness of Signs

2011-02-10T07:00:00.000-05:00

I had to chuckle when I came across this sign taped to the wall of an unnamed university. Naturally, I whipped out my ever-present, oh-so-fuzzy little camera phone and took a picture or two.

This sign is clear and unambiguous. Where does the trash can belong? It belongs here. Right below the large, red arrow. There's even a helpful picture of a trash can, lest there be any confusion. So there's nothing wrong with the design of this sign, right? Right.

Well, let's zoom out a bit and see how things worked out:

Hmmmm.... I see the sign. I see the top of the trashcan. And yet, there seems to be no correlation between the sign's request and the can's position. Why is that?

Maybe it's unintended disobedience, rooted in the fact that the sign is tucked away behind the door and therefore goes unseen. Maybe it's deliberate, because that's an inconvenient place to put the trashcan.

Regardless of the reasion, this grievous transgression of refuse receptacle locationage tells me what we've got here is an ineffective sign. And that got me thinking.

Someone clearly cared enough to design, print and post the sign. But they didn't care enough to follow through, either by talking with the janitor or stopping by to make sure the trashcan is where it belongs (this is where the can was for the whole 4 weeks I was in class).

This isn't a big deal, but it's worth mentioning because it's a small example of how bigger things go wrong. See, even clear, unambiguous direction can fail to deliver results if not paired with follow-through, a solid understanding of the environment & situation and personal involvement. Someone wants the can behind the door, and someone else wants it in the middle of the hall. Who wins? Not the person who makes a sign. The winner is the one who actually moves the can.

Press 1 for...

2011-02-09T07:00:00.000-05:00

I got a call from American Airlines the other day, letting me know my flight from Chicago to Cedar Rapids had been cancelled and I was being rescheduled on a new flight. The automated voice on the other end kindly provided the new flight information and a confirmation code, which I dutifully wrote down.

Only problem - I wasn't actually flying anywhere that day.

Yup, some poor schmoo inadvertently gave the airline my phone number and thus missed getting notified about the flight change.

Being the diligent dude that I am, I called the airline to let them know their message didn't reach its intended recipient. Let me tell you, this is not a situation the system designers anticipated. There was no option to Press Seven If You Received A Call That Was Supposed To Go To Someone Else. My conversation with the chipper computer went something like this.

Computer: Please state the traveler's name.
Me: Um, I don't know.
Computer: Did you say Turnbull?
Me: No
Computer: Please state the traveler's name.
Me: I don't know.
Computer: Did you say Durnho?
Me: Help
Computer: I would be glad to help. Please state the traveler's name.

Would you believe I hung in there long enough to get through to a person? And of course, that person did not have an alternate phone number, so this hapless, unnamed traveler would have to wait until arriving at the airport before finding out the flight was delayed / rescheduled... which I guess isn't a huge deal, right?

Should the automated message have included an option for someone to provide a "Sorry, wrong number" response? I don't know. Maybe this doesn't happen often. And when it does happen, the impact is relatively minimal - I mean, the guy was probably on the way to the airport anyway. But it doesn't seem like it would have been that much effort to add a short "If this message was not intended for you, press 7" or something, if only to avoid inconveniencing people in situations like mine.

Seeing Differently

2011-02-08T07:00:00.001-05:00

No, the glasses in the picture below aren't broken. They're supposed to look like that.

These reading glasses belong to my buddy Chris Gunderson, shown modeling the specs in the picture below. The first time I met him, he was wearing the glasses. Then he went to take them off and did a move like this:

... and my head sort of exploded, in a classic I-was-NOT-expecting-THAT moment.

Here's the thing: everyone knows how glasses work. You put them on from the front, with thin bars stretching across your temples and hooking over your ears. If you want extra security, you can add a loop on the back side, connecting one temple bar to the other. But if they break at the bridge, you're either out of luck or risk looking like a dork by taping the break.

Someone obviously noticed that glasses sometimes break at the bridge. It happens often enough that it's sort of a cliche. So why not break it there from the start? And let's use magnets (how DO magnets work?) to keep things together.

A little research showed that the design has been around for a while. I guess I'm just a bit behind when it comes to reading glasses technology. But late or not, I still think it's a pretty sweet design, no doubt produced by someone who sees things a little differently. I think there's a lesson there for all of us...

Bonus Post: Better, FTW

2011-02-05T15:32:00.000-05:00

I just finished reading Atul Gawande's book Better. In a word: breathtaking.

I'm at a loss to describe how this book affected me. It's about how to perform well in a complex, high-stakes profession, and I find many parallels to my own work.

It's also an example of truly fine writing. As in, his writing is so good you almost don't notice how good it is. The quality of his prose blends in to the background of his story, then halfway through the chapter you notice that reading his words is like drinking cold water on a hot day.

I wish I could write half as well as Dr. Gawande.

If you haven't read any of his books, today's not too soon to start. He's really that good.

Types of Innovation

2011-02-03T07:00:00.027-05:00

Just for fun, I asked Mr. Google for information about different types of innovation. I quickly discovered that there are four / ten / six types of innovation (and, interestingly, five types of innovation snake oil salesmen).

Now, most of these innovation ~~salesmen~~ experts laid out taxonomies that omitted some of the more interesting types of innovation. So I decided to put together my very own list. It's not comprehensive. It's not authoritative. No snake oil for sale here, please. It's just a different way to think about how to approach this thing called innovation.

I have my favorite types - I bet you can pick them out in the list below. How about you? Got anything to add to the list?

Frugal innovation - using minimal resources to deliver new capabilities.
Disruptive innovation - products or practices that disrupt the current market
Innovation without permission - innovation by rogues who don't technically have authority to proceed but who deliver meaningful advancements anyway. Sort of like Thoreau's "majority of one." Often related to Disruptive (see above)
Open innovation - Using crowd-sourcing, open architectures and broad collaboration. Innocentive is one of the leaders in this area.
Sustaining innovation - the opposite of disruptive; it's expected innovation that expands the current market
Operational innovation - innovations in how things are used and implemented
Process Innovation - innovation in process design & execution
Incremental Innovation - delivering increased capabilities in small steps
Radical Innovation - the opposite of Incremental, similar to Disruptive, it is "competence-destroying" because it changes the game space so completely.

Anything to add?

Location, Location, Location

2011-02-01T07:00:00.013-05:00

Today's design lesson comes to us from the local grocery store. Let's start with a photo, shall we? Who can tell me what this is a photo of?

A gold star to anyone who said "an example of terrible design." Other acceptable answers include "the worst location in the world for a cup holder" and "a Customer Inconvenience Device that blocks placement of certain grocery items." Minus ten points for anyone who even thought the word "innovative."

Now, it may be a bit hard to tell from this photo, but that is indeed a cup holder. It is awkwardly far from the part of the cart you push to make the cart go forward. As in, it's so far away that the handle doesn't even show up in the photo. I promise, it's well out of reach if you're standing behind the cart. And while you can't tell from my photo, that thing definitely gets in the way as your cart fills up.

Personally, I usually manage to survive a trip to the grocery store without needing caffeine, but for those who do appreciate a cup of joe while strolling the aisles, this device offers no assistance at all. I've got to wonder what people were thinking when they designed, sold, bought and installed it. I suspect somewhere along the way they congratulated themselves for being innovative ("It's a cup holder! On a shopping cart! We're so clever!") From experience, I know what people are thinking when they use it: "Hey, I can't reach my coffee from way over here," and "Dang, this thing is in the way of my groceries."

This is not an example of innovation - it's an example of superficially satisfying the requirements. Somewhere along the line, someone said "Hey, wouldn't it be nice if our shopping carts had cup holders?" Someone else said "Hey, great idea!" But insufficient thought was put into answering questions like "Um, where should we put the cup holder? Does it need to be accessible from the typical cart-pushing position? Does it matter if it blocks the groceries?"

It's not like they don't have options. The photo below shows a very simple cup holder from a different store.

This one is positioned perfectly for the convenience of someone who's actually pushing the cart. Now, it's also within reach of any toddlers who happen to be riding along and are interested in splashing themselves or others with hot coffee, but that's a topic for another post. For now, I'd better go put my groceries away.

Being A Writer

2011-01-29T20:16:00.001-05:00

One of the first pieces of writing wisdom I ever came across was simply this: writers write.

That is, people who have ideas for books aren't writers. People who put words on paper are writers. Once those words are on paper, they sometimes develop a life of their own... much to the writer's surprise. That's sort of what happened with my first book, The Radical Elements of Radical Success.

Here's the thing: I continue to have mixed feelings about my Radical Elements book (now available for the Kindle - just $2.99!).

Well, maybe the mixed feelings aren't so much about the book as the success-lit genre in general. There's a thick ribbon of scam & futility running through that particular shelf in your local book store, and I'm deeply skeptical of any approach that offers five easy steps or three hidden truths or a dozen hollow cliches guaranteed to change your life.

Even though I worked mightily to avoid that approach and to stand the genre on its head, the fact that my first book was in that genre has always rankled me a bit. I can't believe I wrote one of those books (and I hope it's not one of those books). At the same time, I always felt I had to write that book. I always felt it was important that I write it. Whether or not it's worth reading is a whole other question. I can only say the process taught me a lot about myself and about how to be a writer.

The fact that it continues to sell always comes as somewhat of a surprise. I don't do any marketing. I don't run around and give my Radical Elements presentation anymore. Now, it's not like I'm selling thousands of copies or anything - just a steady little trickle - but that trickle is way more than I ever expected. Occasionally, my royalties are even enough to buy a pizza. I wonder what might happen if I actually put effort into selling it.

I don't think it's a bad book - it's actually pretty good. I also don't think it's a great book. For that matter, I wouldn't even say it's my best book (but please don't ask me to pick which one I do think is my best). But good, bad or ugly, it's my book.

Then... every once in a while something happens that makes me step back and reconsider the book in a kinder light. When I went to update the Kindle version with the new cover, I found a 5-star review someone had left on Amazon... last March. I don't know Mr. Shipman, but I do appreciate his kind words. Here are some of them:

Ward provides a no-holds barred view [of the] elements necessary to succeed. He says on the back cover (something to the effect); "if you're looking for a get rich quick book, keep looking." There is a lot of fluff in the motivation/self-help genre--Ward's book is anything but "fluff." His advice is practical, his wisdom timeless. Highly recommended.

Being a writer is weird. You put words on paper and send them out in to the world, never knowing where they'll find a home. Never knowing if they'll have an impact, if they'll be accepted or if they'll even be noticed. But in this digital age it's easier than ever for those words to make a life of their own, to go places I'll never go and meet people I'll never meet.

I just wanted to say I think that's pretty amazing.

New Look, Same Great Taste

2011-01-28T07:00:00.004-05:00

I always groan when I see words like New Look, Same Great Taste printed on the package of some product or other.

I suppose the producer is trying to reassure the public that what's inside hasn't changed (we all learned a lot from New Coke, didn't we?) even though the wrapper looks unfamiliar. But to me it always sounds like they're bragging about using a new layout on the package... as if that makes a big difference when you consume what's inside.

Sure, wine in expensive bottles tastes better than wine in cheap-looking bottles (even if it's the exact same wine), but something's fishy if the main message to consumer is "Look! New colors on our package!"

Having said all that, I'm proud to announce that my Radical Elements of Radical Success book has (drumroll please)... a brand new cover!

Now, I didn't rewrite a single word inside. I just replaced the craptastic original cover with a new one designed by the amazing Andrew Figel. New look, same great taste!

A quick look at my blue, yellow & red cover should make the need for change obvious. It looked like a 2nd grader did it. A second grader who only had 3 crayons. And who was told he couldn't go to recess until it was done so he'd better hurry up. Also, points would be taken off for creativity.

OLD --> <---NEW

The nicest thing I can say about my old cover is I managed to color inside the lines, but given the content of the book, I'm not sure that's a meaningful compliment. It's not even bad enough to be so-bad-it's-good. It's just bad. You'd think a guy who jabbers about design so much would be able to do something better than this. Sadly, this blue and yellow hideousness is literally... the best cover I could make.

Andrew's cover, on the other hand, is gorgeous.

Will the book sell more copies now that it's got a better cover? Dunno. In a sense, that's not really the point (ok, it's kind of the point). Will readers enjoy the book more, ala the expensive bottle/cheap bottle wine experiment? Maybe. But the real reason for the change is to replace something sucktacular with something cool, by enlisting the assistance of someone who knows what he's doing (thank you, Andrew!) instead of relying on my own fumbling efforts.

I'm a big advocate of the DIY approach to making things. But I'm also in favor of collaboration. I think there's much wisdom in working together with people whose skill sets complement your own. Particularly if you're a writer whose visual skills are obviously limited to primary colors. A graphic designer I'm not.

So, stop on by Rogue Press to get your copy of the New Look. Thanks to improvements at Lulu, the price even dropped from $12 to $7.95 (and it's only $3 for the eBook, or read it online for free!).

The Project Pitch

2011-01-27T07:00:00.014-05:00

I came across this advertisement at the local metro stop. It's an ad for a campaign called Region Forward, which is trying to make the Washington DC region "a better place to live, work, play and learn."

What was it about this sign that made me whip out my handy-dandy, oh-so-fuzzy little camera phone? Was it the chance to win an iPad? Was it the mix of fonts and display of questionable copywriting skills? Was it the unfortunate use of a garish orange color instead of, say, any of the iconic images that could represent DC? (Seriously - they're pushing the DC region and the only image they use is an iPad? Come on!)

No, it was none of those. Let's take a closer look at that iPod, shall we?

Notice anything funny here? Like, the fact that it's displaying The New York Times? Yes, everyone knows the DC area doesn't have its own newspaper... oh, wait a minute. It does! It's called the Washington Post. But maybe the Washington Post is't available on the iPad? Actually, there is an app that lets you read the Post on an iPad.

Now, I'm no advertising expert. Maybe this was a clever ploy to get people to talk about the campaign (I guess it worked - I'm talking about it). Or maybe not. I suspect it's just one more example of a lack of design thinking.

I could understand an oversight if this was a complex layout. Maybe people were so busy with all the other design elements that they failed to notice a NY newspaper in an ad about DC. But the iPod is the only image in the display. Color me puzzled.

What does this have to do with project leadership? Just about everything. See, when you're leading a project, part of your job is to make the pitch, to sell it to leadership, to customers and to the project team itself. To explain it to the world in a clear and compelling way. I'm going to go way out on a limb and suggest the pitch should be (among other things) internally consistent. For example, if you're plugging DC, don't use the NY Times in your ads.

No doubt all the highly-trained, well-groomed professionals who read this blog already knew that. But apparently this bit of insight is news to some people here in the DC area...

There's a right way and a wrong way...

2011-01-25T07:00:00.003-05:00

Today's design lesson is on user behavior and how to influence it.

The image below is of a metal cabinet I encountered at a particular educational institution which shall go nameless. Let's just say it's a university that teaches the defense acquisition community.

Inside the cabinet you'll find a bunch of shelves. On each shelf is a laptop. The whole contraption is on wheels, the better to roll in and out of classrooms. With me so far? Excellent.

Imagine that you were asked to move this wheeled cabinet from Point A to Point B. Imagine yourself approaching the cabinet. See yourself reaching out to put your hands on the conveniently located handle that someone thoughtfully installed near the top of the cabinet. Grip the handle. Feel its cold metal against your skin. Lean in towards the cabinet and feel the wheels begin to turn. You're moving forward.

STOP!

Wait a minute! What does that yellow sticker say? Let's zoom in on the photo a bit, shall we? As always, this image was captured by my handy-dandy, oh-so-fuzzy little camera phone. I apologize for the quality but I'm sure you can understand the diagrams even if you can't make out the words...

Um, if the directions say "never apply force at top - always push near middle," then why in the world did someone install a handle at the very top of the box? What's the point of a a handle nobody is supposed to ever use? And really, who thinks a sticker is going to trump a handle?

See, installing a handle is one way to say PUSH HERE. Posting a wordy label is another way. And when the two contradict each other, the user is left a bit confused. There's a good chance they'll simply grab the handle and push, not paying any attention to the sticker.

As my brilliant colleague and friend Dr. Joel Sercel often says, designers need to make the right way easier than the wrong way. Installing a handle at the top of the cabinet does the reverse - it encourages the wrong behavior. It makes it easy to push from the top. As an alternative, installing the same handle in the middle of the cabinet practically guarantees proper pushing behavior. And with all due respect to my friends in the Sticker Engineering profession, a yellow sticker is a poor substitute for a well-placed handle.

What's In A Name? (part 2)

2011-01-20T07:00:00.000-05:00

A few more thoughts on The Naming Of Things.

If it's at all up to you, don't let the engineers name the technology (and I say this as a guy with more than one engineering degree). An engineer is likely to end up giving the system an engineering-based name which probably won't make much sense from a customer's perspective.

For example, those little communication devices we all carry around and use to send text messages (and occasionally to connect with someone voice-to-voice). We call them "cell phones" because they rely on a communication architecture based on "cells" that link up and provide continuous coverage over a geographic area and which zzzzzzzzzz. Oh, sorry, I fell asleep for a minute.

The point is, an engineer obviously named the cell phone. Sadly, we all fell for it.

The Brits do it better. They call these things "mobile phones," because you can move around with them. See, they're mobile. Get it? And really, how many users care what sort of communications architecture their mobile runs on? It honestly doesn't matter.

Here are a few more examples of unnecessarily techy names: Microwave oven, X-ray, MP3 Player, Cable Television, Radio-Frequency Identification (RFID), convection oven... you get the picture.

Who cares that the Fast Cooker uses the microwave portion of the electromagnetic spectrum to heat up my Hot Pocket(tm), or that the Inside Viewer uses the X-ray portion of the spectrum to watch that same Hot Pocket work its way through my GI tract?

And seriously, "MP3 player"? That stands for MPEG-1 Audio Layer 3, 'cause it's really important we give the Motion Picture Experts Group credit for helping develop the "lossy compression standard" that enables large music and video files to be zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Sorry, I fell asleep again. I think I need to turn up the volume on my iPod.

Bonus Post: 2011 Reading List

2011-01-19T07:00:00.006-05:00

In one of life's weird little paradoxes, the worst thing about my current job is also one of the coolest.

I'm talking about my commute, of course. It's an hour each way, a fact I try not to think about too much. Frankly, it kills me that I spend 10 hours each week just getting to work and back. Gak - I literally hadn't done that math until just now. Pardon me, I need a moment.

Ahem.

OK, I'm back. Where was I? Oh yeah, I was saying my commute is simultaneously one of the worst and best things about my job. What could possibly be good about spending that much time in transit? Two words: I get to do a lot of reading. Not sure that quite makes up for the (gulp) 10 hours a week, but it does take the sting out.

So, I figured I'd recommend a few recent reads and post my current List Of Books I'm Gonna Read. I'm hoping my readers will pass along a few recommendations of your own.

I recently finished Mary Roach's Packing For Mars, which was brilliant and hilarious. I haven't read her previous books yet, but if they're anything like this one, sign me up. I also just wrapped up Steve Martin's new book, An Object of Beauty. I loved his The Pleasure of My Company, and this new one didn't disappoint. Not a funny book per se, but thoroughly enjoyable. Cory Doctorow's Little Brother brought out the hacker in me, although politically conservative readers may find his political commentary off putting. And speaking of hacking, it's always fun to flip through 2600 magazine.

What's ahead? Here's my current list:

Better, Atul Gawande (I read Complications a few years ago. Amazing!)
Earth, The Book, Daily Show Staff
Colonel Roosevelt, Morris (Best.President.Ever. Morris' other two books - Rise and Rex- were incredible)
Scouting The Divine, Feinberg (My wife loves Margaret Feinberg and this book looks remarkable)
The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, Larsson (heard so much about it figured I should pick it up)
Alcatraz vs the Knights of Crystalia, Sanderson (Kid lit = my favorite genre)
The Wordy Shipmates, Vowell (She cracks me up)
The Ghost Map, Johnson (picked this one up on the bargain rack - looks interesting)
The Ragamuffin Gospel, Manning (this one's a re-read. Knocked my socks off the first time through)
Naked Heat, Castle (I know, it's not really written by Richard Castle, 'cause he's not real. But any tv show with a writer as the main character has my attention right away)
Kon Tiki, Heyerdahl (Picked this up at my parent's place, and the first page grabbed me by the shoulder and wouldn't let go)
Man's Search For Meaning, Frankl (Heard about this one for forever, figured I'd take a look)
The Gospels of Luke & John (technically not commute related - I'm reading these over breakfast)

And of course there's Wired magazine and a recent issue of Analog Santa brought me.

A Brief Comment On Design

2011-01-18T07:00:00.006-05:00

There I was, waiting for an elevator to take me downstairs when a ding sounded and a light indicated that an elevator door was about to open. With lightning-fast reflexes honed by years of practice, I whipped out my handy-dandy, oh-so-fuzzy little camera phone and snapped this shot of the indicator light above the elevator doors, moments before they glided open.

Why did I take a picture of an elevator indicator light, you might ask? Permit me to answer that question with a question of my own: Which way is this elevator going?

Tell me - do you think a red light on the right side mean the car is going up or going down? The alternative is a yellow-ish light on the left, if that helps. Any guesses?

This design seems almost willfully wrong, doesn't it? I mean, you've got to really TRY to deliver a signal this ambiguous.There are so many different ways they could have designed this indicator correctly.

For starters, the lights could have been oriented on top of each other instead of side by side. Not enough room to put them on top of each other? Fine! They could have been shaped like arrows or triangles instead of circles. Can't change the orientation or the shape? No problem - just paint arrows, triangles or the letters U and D on the side by side circles. Can't paint on the circles themselves? Alrighty - put an indicator (arrows, etc) next to each circle.

My point is the elevator people had many options... and they picked the worst one.

An indicator that doesn't indicate anything is pointless. In fact, it's worse than pointless, because it creates the impression of communicating something even though the signal is actually content free.

And that's when it hit me. This set of lights is actually a metaphor for formal communication in offices these days, particularly when PowerPoint is involved. Lots of lights & inexplicable colors. An occasional *ding.* And if you stick around long enough you'll eventually figure out that Red means Down. But you'll never discover why they didn't just say Down in the first place.

BONUS POST: Names Redux

2011-01-17T08:34:00.000-05:00

A buddy who wishes to be anonymous sent me a short note in response to the last post. He shared a story about a particular system that started out with a long, unpronounceable acronym name.Then someone came along and directed the team to shorten the name, because projects with 3-letter acronyms succeed and projects with longer acronyms don't.

Wow.

Have you heard the phrase Cargo Cult? The term comes from actual religious practices in certain Pacific islands. In broader terms, a cargo cult basically involves copying "the superficial exterior of a process or system without having any understanding of the underlying substance." That seems to be what's happening here, based on a superficial observation that 3-letter acronyms succeed.

The point is that even though systems with 3-letter acronyms may succeed more often than their more encumbered counterparts, a good / short name doesn't drive success. The name is just a symptom, an external indicator of a deeper thought process. You can't fix the bad design thinking by simply shortening the name. The underlying cause persists.

By all means, let's change long, convoluted names to shorter ones. But it's not enough to stop there. Again, the name is a symptom, not a driver.

What's In A Name?

2011-01-13T07:00:00.017-05:00

Let's talk about names for a moment, shall we?

I don't mean people names like Erwin or Matilda or Mr. Giggles. I mean names of technology systems, projects and products. Names reveal a lot about how the project leader thinks and how well he or she understands the customer. You could almost say a bad name is a symptom of bad design or an indicator of a lack of design thinking. It's possible for a bad system to have a good name, but a bad name is almost always a sign of a bad design.

In the case of the soup I photographed in a local grocery store (with my handy-dandy camera phone), I wonder how well the soup maker really understands American tastes. For all I know they sell a million of these, but I'm going to take a wild guess and say they probably don't. Yes, I know it's chicken flavor but I can't imagine ever buying this soup mix... and not because I don't like chicken.

Moving from actual soup to acronym soup, let's take a look at a project called DIMHRS. In an earlier post I wrote about how DIMHRS was cancelled after 12 years and $1B dollars. In the words of the SECDEF, all it delivered was an unpronounceable acronym. This shouldn't have been a huge surprise. The thinking process which decided "DIMHRS" is a good name is going to make similarly unfortunate decisions when it comes to designing the system and its associated processes and organizations.

In a similar note, the NRO's Future Imagery Architecture and the Army's Future Combat System were similarly troubled. Both were cancelled after eating up a ton of time and money. I contend their doom was written in their names (and in FIA's case, I even called it at the time). Any project with the word "Future" in its name is never going to deliver, because the future never quite arrives. On the off chance it does deliver, it'll need a new name right away, 'cause if we're using it now, it's not a "Future" system, is it? So why not pick a better name in the first place?

The AFC4ISR Center is an example of an organization with an indecisive name. My highly advanced counting skills tell me there are seven different specialties represented in that organization's name. What we need is a single word that represents this collection of activities. Until that time it's just a collection of competing interests, each jockying for inclusion in the organization's moniker. Not exactly a formula for success, is it? I'm not sayin' the AFC4ISR Center isn't successful - I really don't know much about their operation and I'm sure they're world class in everything they do. I'm just pointing out their name isn't helping them very much.

The issue here is not a question of taste. It's not about a name's complexity. Bad names and long acronyms often indicate unclear thoughts and indecisiveness (i.e. bad leadership). A simple, clear, descriptive name not only communicates what the system or organization is about, it demonstrates that the leaders understand their customers and their mission. That understanding (or lack thereof) is going to show up in the design of the system as well. For example, look out if you're on the receiving end of a process named the Senior Leadership Approval Process (sadly, I didn't make that one up).

Now, who wants some soup?

Sell, Buy, Need

2011-01-11T07:00:00.023-05:00

Every computer I've ever owned has done WAY more than I needed it to do. The same goes for just about every piece of software, every digital camera... you get the picture. Even something as simple as a newspaper has a ton of content that I'm completely uninterested in, but the publisher sells the whole thing to me anyway.

A couple years ago, I paid a little extra for some additional features on a dishwasher, then promptly failed to ever use those features. I knew better but just couldn't help myself.

I think the only electronic gadget I own that doesn't have a bundle of unused features is my 1st generation iPod shuffle, circa 2005. That little musical wonder basically only has one feature - it plays music (either in order or shuffled) and you could get any color you wanted as long as it's white. Side note - the 4th Gen Shuffle now sells for $47 and has more buttons, VoiceOver, playlists and comes in 5 colors.

A while back I read a study that said consumers tend to have a positive view of extra features, even if they are features that'll never get used. That is, when given a choice between two similar cameras, people tend to purchase the one that has a few extra capabilities (and a correspondingly higher price), even though they don't really need to ever (ever ever ever!) use them.

So there's a reason consumer electronics have so many never-to-be-used features: it's what sells. It may not serve the customer well, but it's what the customer wants to pay for. [Sadly, I haven't been able to track down that report - lemme know if you have any more luck.]

When we think we're buying a superior gadget because it's got more features, what we're actually taking home is extra complexity, unused capacity and unnecessary expense. That means the company is selling one thing and we're buying something else. The end result is that we pay extra for stuff that's more complicated than it needs to be and which has features we'll never use. The funny thing is, most of the time what we need is a simpler, more focused capability. That applies to software, computers, electronics and military tech, to name a few.

I mapped it out on the Simplicity Cycle framework below. The sales guy pitches the objet du désir as if it resides in the upper right quadrant but in actual use it's in the upper left quadrant. What the customer needed was in the lower right...

Keep this in mind when buying or designing things. Don't get distracted by shiny objects and unnecessary complexity. Instead, aim for the lower right quadrant - simple, good, low-cost technology. I'm not saying everyone has to rock a 5-year-old 1st Gen iPod Shuffle like I do. I'm just suggesting there are better ways to shop and better ways to build. And for that matter, there are better ways to sell... i.e. taking into account what the buyer actually needs.

Check out The Simplicity Cycle book (It's free! It's simple! It's in the lower right quadrant!) for a more detailed discussion... and don't forget to add your own thoughts in the comments section.

Big Slow Fail

2011-01-09T08:24:00.000-05:00

Hey everybody!

The latest issue of Defense AT&L is posted online now and it's a doozie! Check out "My Big Slow Fail," an article that took me more than a year to write. I'd love to hear what you think of it!

Innovation Hurts

2011-01-06T07:00:00.003-05:00

Everyone loves innovation. It sounds uber-fun, exciting and desirable. We're all supposed to be innovating in innovative ways, developing new ways to do new things with new tools... at least if we want to be among the 1337.

What most people don't ever tell you is that innovation hurts. If you're doing it right, innovating in ways that are truly, well, innovative, it's going to rub your friendly neighborhood Defenders of the Status Quo the wrong way. They won't like it, and chances are they'll respond by doing things you don't like. Ironically, these are often the same people who insist they want more innovation... they just don't want the kind of innovation that involves actual change. And so they trigger the Corporate Immune Response, which beats down any new ideas. That generally hurts.

Then there's the sheer effort involved in real innovation. It hurts like running a marathon hurts (or, in my case, like a half-marathon hurts) - I guess it's a hurt-so-good kind of thing, but pain is pain.

The first type of pain (i.e. the Corporate Immune Response) is probably the worst, since it's externally induced. Personally, I find self-induced discomfort, like running 13.1 miles, more manageable. But I suppose that could differ from person to person.

While the Status Quo Defenders can often make life uncomfortable for innovators, there is something profoundly cool about being punished for doing the right thing. For what it's worth, I think innovation is generally in the "do the right thing" category. Even though it's the worst kind of discomfort, it may also be the coolest.

Anyway, I'm sort of surprised this topic doesn't show up more often in the various books and articles about innovation. The phrase "innovation hurts" isn't exactly a googlenope, but most search results point to articles with titles like "Lack of innovation hurts..." Hardly anyone talks about the fact that innovation itself can hurt.

Change the search words to "innovating hurts" and you get exactly two results. They're both from a report from a 2008 Poultry Innovations Conference (seriously?) that assures its readers they have nothing to fear from innovation because "none of [the conference speakers] said innovating hurts!" Seems to me even the Poultry Innovators aren't getting the whole story.

Yeah, innovation is fun. It's exciting. It's important. But it's not all donuts-with-sprinkles and unicorn farts. There's real pain involved with innovation. Don't let anyone tell you any different.

One last observation: those first google results are right. Yes, innovating hurts, but not innovating hurts even more...

What is innovation?

2011-01-04T07:00:00.001-05:00

It's always fun to ask people to define innovation, particularly people who say they want more of it. Many definitions begin with "Um, well, er..." The definition that follows seldom stands up to even the mildest prodding (the same thing happens with the phrase "system of systems" by the way).

Here's the thing: innovation is different than invention. It's not the same as creativity. And please, let's not equate innovation with simply "thinking outside the box."

Real innovation may involve an invention or two. It certainly requires creativity. And yes, thinking outside the box helps. But innovation is more than the sum of those parts. Inventing, creating and thinking unusual thoughts are cool as far as they go, but they're not innovating. Innovation involves delivering, fielding and/or actually implementing new things. It's not about having ideas. It's about taking making stuff happen.

Steve Martin famously defined comedy as "the art of making people laugh without making them puke." In a similar vein, I'd like to suggest that innovation is the art of introducing something new without making people puke.

Successful innovation requires a connection to actual users and adopters. It involves bringing a new product or process to the field and seeing it implemented/purchased/used. The customer base doesn't have to be enormous, but it has to exist.

You can invent something that never gets to a market and it's still an invention. You can have a creative idea that you keep to yourself and it's still creative. But you can't keep a new thing to yourself and call it an innovation. You've got to introduce it to the world.

Keep that in mind the next time someone asks you what innovation means. Keep that in mind the next time someone says they want more innovation.

And remember, the key is to not make people puke.

Dan's Back!

2011-01-03T07:00:00.007-05:00

Happy New Year everyone!

After a book-related hiatus, I've decided to start blogging again! Tweet your twitters, poke your FB Friends(tm), spread the news - Dan's back!

Thanks to everyone who took the time to answer the short survey I put together. The fact that so many of you answered the survey in the first place was enough to convince me to return to the blogosphere... and your specific answers were genuinely helpful (even the guy who offered a critique of the survey itself).

I plan to post stuff twice a week. I'm thinking Tuesdays and Thursdays at 0700. We'll see how that goes.

In answer to the question about topics, 70% of you checked Humor, so hopefully I can be funny. Innovation was the most requested topic, with writing and the Simplicity Cycle rounding out the top slots, so I'll aim to focus on those areas. For the 9 of you who picked "cooking" as a topic you'd like me to write about, can I just say "Really?"

So, watch this space for a whole new set of hijinks. I hope to have an interesting and useful discussion about innovation - what it is, how to do it... all that sort of thing. I've also got a collection of photos captured by my oh-so-fuzzy, handy-dandy little camera phone, sure to make you laugh (and maybe even think). I'll share some thoughts about my latest novel writing experience. Maybe I'll even post a video or two. Along the way, I hope you leave lots of comments. I like getting comments. And if you see something you like here, I hope you'll tell a friend.

It's good to be back.

(Want to see what I was up to instead of writing this blog? Stop on by Rogue Press to check out my books, read previews and buy your very own copies - they're cheap and Lulu delivers super fast)

Coming soon!

2010-12-29T11:15:00.002-05:00

Yup, I'm making progress.

A fresh batch of RPL shenanigans is lined up and ready to go. The fun begins again on 3 Jan!

Under Construction

2010-12-15T06:56:00.002-05:00

Watch this space - fresh posts coming in the new year!

Upcoming talk

2010-09-19T20:12:00.000-04:00

I've been asked to put together a talk based on an article I wrote a while back (Acquisition As Deterrent) - and frankly I'm a bit stumped on how to do it.

The conference coordinators also said I could basically talk about whatever I want... but they'd really like me to do it based on that bit of nightmare fiction I wrote.

So I need to decide - do I do my usual FIST presentation, which I'm constantly updating to keep it fresh, but still, it's the safe presentation... or do I knuckle down and come up with a presentation based on that article... or do I come up with something entirely different?

Watch this space for updates...

New FIST Comic

2010-08-28T15:52:00.000-04:00

For those who haven't already heard, the latest issue of Defense AT&L is now available - online and in a mailbox near you (also often found in HQ waiting rooms & base libraries... so, yeah, mostly online).

In this, the July/Aug 2010 issue, we've got our third installment of the FIST Superhero Comic, in which our heroes go after a baddie called The Incredible Inevitable.

So here's my question - did you know that already, either via my facebook post, my direct email or your own access to the magazine? Anyone finding out about new AT&L developments for the first time via this blog?

I'm asking 'cause the value of blogs seems to be decreasing in some circles. I've seen a few friends stop blogging altogether. I've personally taken to reading fewer blogs than I used to. And even this one has scaled back to a weekly post instead of daily.

I still like writing it... but with other social media outlets & opportunities, perhaps my time & energy should go elsewhere.

Book Update

2010-08-24T07:00:00.028-04:00

Just a quick update on the latest book news from Rogue Press. I've been playing around with Amazon's new Digital Text Platform, which gives self-published authors like yours truly the ability to quickly & easily publish eBooks for the Kindle.

There's a lot to like about DTP - it's quick, easy & free, for starters. The author has full control over the price, and the royalty structure is a generous 70% for the author. Now, Amazon only sends royalty payments 60 days after the end of the month in which sales occur (as opposed to Lulu, which pays royalties monthly), but that's still faster & more frequent than traditional publishers. And I'm not really doing this 'cause it makes any money anyway - it's mostly 'cause it's fun.

So, if you're so inclined, you can pick up The Radical Elements of Radical Success (Not a Major Motion Picutre), Skyler and the Shadows on the Sun and The Boomer Sisters Meet Champy. Each book is just $2.99, delivered virtually instantaneously through the magic of the interweb. I'll probably add a few more titles in coming days.

Happy reading!

Lean lessons

2010-08-17T07:00:00.000-04:00

I've long been a critic of things like six-sigma, business process reengineering and lean. My critiques have ranged from how easy it is to misapply these approaches, flaws in the underlying assumptions & theories, and the well documented lack of results (or the lack of well-documented results). I always tried to be careful not to say these approaches are worthless or never work... just that they're largely oversold, overapplied and overstated.

As previously mentioned, I recently had a chance to attend an in depth 2-week class on Lean (and that other stuff too). I really enjoyed the class and have been pondering the lessons ever since. Here are a few observations:

Business efficiencies allow us to do what we were hired to do in the first place (i.e. be awesome) and not get distracted & dragged down by low-value activities. In a non-efficient place (i.e. just about everywhere) not much happens on any given day even though everyone's busy.

Doing things the right way should be easier than doing them the wrong way.

This stuff has to be strategic if it's going to work. If we get distracted by questions of how many printers to have and where to put them, we might overlook the fundamental question - whether we really need to print things in the first place.

Even when this stuff is taught well, it's still frighteningly easy for a group to wind up labeling all the staplers and cleaning out the supply closet, rather than making truly significant improvements.

More to follow, I'm sure...

Wikileaks

2010-08-13T10:30:00.001-04:00

Let me start by saying I don't approve of releasing classified information. Just so we're clear about that. Releasing classified info is a bad idea. People shouldn't do it, unless they're properly authorized to declassify and release it.

But here's the thing: when classified information is released, I'm pretty sure it ceases to be classified (recent objections to the contrary not withstanding). The definition of classified material is information that would cause harm if it were released. As soon as it's released (inadvertently or otherwise) the proverbial genie is out of the bottle and the damage has been done. The released information it can't be re-released any more than it can be un-released (particularly in this digital age), and once it's out, I don't think it can do any further damage by being "more out."

Because of that, I don't understand the recent ban on troops accessing WikiLeaks. Never mind the fact that we're saying the bad guys can look at this stuff but our guys can't, which has its own logical flaws. And it's not as if I really want to go read any of that stuff. I'm just confused because as far as I can tell, the released stuff doesn't qualify as classified anymore - unless I'm missing something. (And just to be clear: I have not personally visited the wikileaks site and have no plans to do so).

The other thing I wanted to point out was that we're talking about digital files. Asking that WikiLeaks return the digital documents sounds kinda funny to me - it's sort of like asking someone to return a fax by faxing it back to you. Yes, the Pentagon also asked that WikiLeaks also delete their files, but the request to "return" them made me laugh a little. Would they like the files to be delivered on a flash drive (which isn't allowed on government computers) or as an email attachment (which would get stripped by the file server because it's too large)? Maybe they could return the stuff by posting it on a website somewhere so the DoD could just retrieve the files... oh, never mind.

As for deleting, the doc's have already been posted online and copied by more than one or two people. So even if WikiLeaks decided to cooperate, that would simply mean they don't have a copy anymore... but it wouldn't exactly take the info out of circulation. Such a move might have merit as a symbolic gesture, but it wouldn't do anything (a-n-y-t-h-i-n-g) to solve the problem.

By all means, let's go after people who break the law. Let's encourage WikiLeaks (and others) to not solicit this sort of thing or repeat this sort of thing. If they've got a stack of unpublished classified stuff, let's encourage them not to expose it. But let's also keep in mind that we're not dealing with paper. Concepts like "return" and "delete" simply don't have the same meaning they used to.

Boyd on CyberWar

2010-08-11T00:14:00.005-04:00

The hacking (cracking) attack on Google et al has caused a phenomenon that actually puts those companies and even countries at risk. Over the last year, the response by companies and countries to these cracking episodes has been to lock down their intranet/internet systems, filtering content and making access more restrictive. As an example, the Air Force Material Command, even after relenting on bans with certain types of social media, still enacts a robust filtering policy that continues to restrict blogs, wikis, and the like. Australia is even considering filtering incoming internet traffic echoing China and other totalitarian countries.

The giant risk of this fortress mentality is that it actually makes the organization less secure because it makes the organization less nimble. By enacting more security, an organization inevitably enacts more bureaucracy which creates friction and slows reaction ability to a grinding halt. This phenomenon is captured well in the Starfish and the Spider (I synopsize it here) and was a central tenet in John Boyd’s discussions on how armies win wars. I propose that rather than locking down access to the internet, organizations relinquish control and let employees, partners, and other supporter’s route crackers and malcontents via an organic set of decentralized tactics (this may already be taking place). Twitter is indeed mission critical. In cyber operations, observing, orienting, and acting faster than the adversary is the only way win.

Speeding Dolphins

2010-08-10T07:00:00.034-04:00

In a recent visit to the National Aquarium in Baltimore, we saw a dolphin show. I really enjoyed it 'cause dolphins are awesome, but there's one thing the announcer said that really bugged me: "Dolphins swim faster than they should be able to."

It's sort of like the old myth that according to the laws of aerodynamics, bumblebees can't fly. The basic concept here is that people have a complete understanding of laws of motion (flight, swimming, etc), and these doggone animals are violating our laws.

The truth is, the animals have it right and we've got it wrong. When our math indicates one thing and observation reveals something else, um, that means our math is wrong. Rather than saying things like "Bumblebees shouldn't be able to fly" or "dolphins shouldn't be able to swim that fast," we should go with something like "Our understanding of physics is wrong / incomplete / etc." But let's not blame the animals when their behavior doesn't comply with our "laws."

In the case of dolphins' speed, the discrepancy is known as Gray's Paradox, posed in 1936 by biologist James Gray. He basically thought dolphins couldn't be strong enough to overcome the force of drag as they swim through the water. He was wrong, but that wasn't proven until 2008.

So, when there's a mismatch between our model and reality, don't criticize reality. Fix the model. When a theory is "mathematically correct but operationally wrong," it's wrong and needs to be modified... no matter how rigorous the math appears to be.

And yeah, this has something to do with project leadership. It's all well and good to have theories and guesses about how much a project should cost, how long it should take or how people should behave in certain situations. But when reality diverges from expectations, it's time to adjust the expectations.

Special Bonus Post: Beth & Jenna Explain Comedy

2010-08-04T15:57:00.000-04:00

As part of my ongoing effort to be a producer and not just a consumer, here's a little comedy video my kids and I did (with some script assistance from my comedian brother-in-law).

Aside from the fact that this was way fun to do and a nice way to spend time with the kiddo's, there's something really cool about making something and sharing it with the world. It's also a nice stretch to go beyond written text and branch out into video.

And if I do say so myself, the result is pretty darn funny. Enjoy!

Bad Design - Hotel Internet Box

2010-08-03T07:00:00.064-04:00

As promised, in this edition of Bad Design we're moving out of the bathroom and into... the sleeping area.

Specifically, we're in a hotel room somewhere in Tennessee. The photo below shows a small electronic box mounted on the wall. This box provides internet connectivity to any traveler fortunate enough to get a room at this fine establishment. As an added convenience, the Magic Box Of Wall-Mounted Electronics has a pair of LED which flash in a Very Helpful And Informative manner, providing all sorts of useful information to anyone who speaks LED.

What's wrong with this design, you ask? Well, the soft white object in the lower left corner of the shot is a pillow, resting on the bed. If perchance a weary traveler places their head upon that pillow and attempts to sleep on their left side, they are treated to a magical light show as they drift gently off to sleep... and who doesn't enjoy having blinking lights flashing at them as they try to sleep?

OK, the obvious fix here is to reposition the box - it could have been placed lower on the wall or on some other wall. It could have been reoriented so the LED's were pointing down or away. But mounting it in perfect alignment with the level of the bed is absolutely inexcusable. I can only conclude it was installed by either a blind person, someone who believes that nobody sleeps on their left, or by a misanthropic insomniac.

But issues of location aside, I have to wonder why the blinking LED's are there in the first place. As far as I can tell, they only communicate one thing: your internet is working (or not). And I can tell that by the fact that I'm online (or not). Those blinking LED's are largely unnecessary and communicate very little 99% of the time. There's no reason for them to blink 100% of the time.

The main point here is that most bad design decisions aren't inevitable. Doing the right thing generally doesn't cost more. In this case they could have mounted the box a-n-y-w-h-e-r-e else in the room for the same cost and got better results. But the more subtle lesson has to do with signals and indicators. If we're going to make a light blink, it should do so for a reason, to indicate something meaningful. As Shakespeare wrote, blinking all the time is just "a sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Bad Design - Bathroom Redux

2010-07-27T07:00:00.043-04:00

I know, I know - I said I wasn't going to make a habit of taking photos of bad bathroom-related design, but apparently I just can't help myself. I double-super-promise this is really really really the last one I'll do (maybe).

Today's featured Bad Design is a very common paper towel dispenser which works (I use that word loosely) by exposing a small strip of paper towel which you're supposed to grab and pull to dispense the rest. You've all probably seen them... and probably had the same results I documented below:

I don't need to tell you that a person trying to pull out a towel generally has wet hands. Wet hands make wet paper... and instead of ending up with a full paper towel, we generally end up with two small corners of wet paper. I know I'm not the only one this happens to because the floor beneath these dispensers are always (A-L-W-A-Y-S) littered with scraps of paper towel corners.

From a design perspective, the problem here is that the dispenser's tension exceeds the strength of the wet paper towels. This makes it virtually impossible for a wet-handed person to pull a full sheet of paper towel and leads to litter & gnashing of teeth. But I bet the real problem is that when the designers tested the thing, their hands weren't wet.

So, the design lesson of the day is that when you're testing your design, you should make sure the test accurately represents operational conditions. If your users are going to have wet hands, your testers should too.

Updated Reading List

2010-07-18T10:41:00.000-04:00

Lately, I've had several requests for a list of recommended books. I figured posting the list here would probably make it accessible to the most people.

How to describe this list? These books shaped my professional development, captured my imagination and influenced the way I see the world. I've consistently recommended each one to people who are looking to make a difference and do things differently. I hope you find something interesting & helpful - as for where to start, they're all good. Start anywhere. Or drop me an email (or comment) and let me know what you're looking for, and maybe I can make a more personalized recommendation.

Happy Reading!

Alternative approaches to organizational structures & leadership
Orbiting the Giant Hairball, by Gordon MacKenzie
The Birth of the Chaordic Age, by Dee Hock
Losing My Virginity, by Richard Branson
Maverick, by Ricardo Semler
Reimagine, by Tom Peters
The Abilene Paradox, by Jerry Harvey
How Come Every Time I Get Stabbed In The Back, My Fingerprints Are On The Knife, by Jerry Harvey
Love and Profit, by James Autry
Up The Organization, by Robert Townsend

Military / Air Force issues
Boyd, by Coram
Pentagon Wars, by James Burton

Creativity, Marketing & Presentations
Ignore Everybody, by Hugh MacLeod (a book about creativity)
Understanding Comics, by Scott McCloud
Presentation Zen, by Garr Reynolds (want to give better presentations? Start here)
A Whole New Mind, by Dan Pink
Fascinate, by Sally Hogshead

Thoughts on Career Development & Transition
Crossing The Unknown Sea, by David Whyte
Radical Careering, by Sally Hogshead
The Adventures of Johnny Bunko, by Dan Pink

Short Reads
ReWork, by Fried & Hansson
The Peter Principle, by Lawrence Peter
The Simplicity Cycle, by Dan Ward (Download for FREE!)

Long Reads
The Fifth Discipline, by Peter Senge
The Reflective Practitioner, by Donald Schon

Lean Education

2010-07-13T07:00:00.016-04:00

I'm in the middle of training to become a certified Black Belt in the AF's version of Lean. I'm actually enjoying the course quite a lot - the instructors are great, the material's interesting and despite the strong flavor of manufacturing, I'm learning stuff I can actually use.

I've got to admit this Lean / Six-Sigma / Theory of Constraints stuff makes a lot of sense - still no fan of the late Dr. Hammer & his Business Process Reengineering though. I'm still figuring out how to use this stuff in my more creative pursuits, but I definitely see a place for it in the contract management part of my life.

I guess that's all I wanted to say - the class is good, I'm learning useful stuff and enjoying it.

Mediocrity

2010-07-06T07:00:00.015-04:00

Imagine how awesome you could be if the world didn't insist that you be mediocre.

Seriously, how much of the stuff we spend our time doing is done because someone else thinks it's important? Stuff that, even if it's done well, doesn't really make an impact? Stuff that gets in the way of doing the really high-impact, meaningful, leave-a-dent-in-the-universe stuff we dream of doing? Too much time, I tell you. Too much time.

The thing is, we all spend an awful lot of time doing an awful lot of stuff that doesn't really matter much... and that's awful. Time is precious, life is short and all that...

So, do you want to know a secret? It turns out, the world doesn't really insist on your mediocrity. I bet there's a way to really put your strengths to use, to do the Big Cool Stuff you're supposed to be doing... and a way to dodge the pointless timesucks that get in the way.

Step one is to try. Step two is to not give up. I'm pretty sure there is no step three...

Flawed

2010-07-01T07:00:00.005-04:00

My recommendation for the day? Let your self be flawed.

Do some things badly. Fail to do other things entirely. But be absolutely awesome at what matters most.

Play to your strengths and put them to use as fully as you can. Don't worry about filling in every chink in your armor, shoring up every weakness and improving every shortcoming. The days are too short to do all that.

Do what you can do. Be great at what you can be great at. And don't spend too much time on all that other stuff.

Being Busy

2010-06-29T07:00:00.031-04:00

In his book The Four Hour Work Week, Tim Ferris writes "being busy is a form of laziness." I couldn't agree more.

The busy-busy-hair-on-fire-ImsoburiedIdon'thavetimetopee style of work which masquerades as meaning in countless offices doesn't impress me at all.The fact that a person has frantically filled up all their time means they're running from thing to thing, and most likely they're not really thinking very much. As Ferris put it, being lazy is a form of mental laziness. It's an excuse to not think.

Personally, I make a point of not filling in every moment of every day. It's important to me to have quiet, unhurried moments to think, to reflect, to poke my head above the cloud of dust and get a little strategic. And when everyone around me complains (i.e. brags) about how busy they are, I don't chime in.

A lack of time isn't a sign that you're doing good things. A lack of time is actually a lack of priorities (that's Ferris again). The point isn't to be super busy - the point is to be productive. So don't tell me how full you schedule is. Show me what you actually accomplished - otherwise it's just brownian motion.

The Fear Question

2010-06-22T07:00:00.017-04:00

[NOTE: For the near future I'm aiming to post here once a week, on Tuesdays at 0700, in order to free up some time to write my next book.]

One of the questions that comes up a lot in my FIST presentations goes something like this: “Your ideas sound really different and counter-cultural. My organization simply won't / can't / doesn't reward this sort of thing. Although I agree with your recommendations, I might get criticized / fired / not promoted if I do it. So how can I do FIST in an environment that doesn’t encourage it?”

There are several variations on that question, but they all resolve around a single concept: fear. People are afraid to do something different, afraid to stand out, afraid of criticism, afraid of doing something that isn’t recognized & rewarded…

I’ve tried answering it several different ways, and I’m not quite sure I’ve ever answered it particularly well. My latest attempt goes something like this: “I’m not recommending this FIST approach because it’s easy or because I think it’ll get you promoted. It might even get you into trouble. But the impact on your career and promotability isn’t the point. If you just want to get promoted, then spend billions of dollars and manage a cast of thousands. Smile, nod and be as busy as you possibly can.As a general rule, that's what big organizations value and reward.

“On the other hand, if you want to help the warfighter and look after the interests of the taxpayer, do this FIST thing. Rapidly deliver affordable systems that are available when needed and effective when used. This approach might trigger the Corporate Immune Response… but I bet it won’t. I bet most of our negative fantasies about undesirable consequences won’t come to pass. But even if they do, there’s something profoundly cool about being punished for doing the right thing.”

Bottom line: don't let fear be your primary motivator. Surely you can find a nobler purpose than maintaining your personal safety (and like I said, 99.9% of our negative fantasies wouldn't come true anyway).