| ||||
I have put my record of the MasterMinds conversations into a blog. See http://phoneappprojectman.
Eventually we may something worth passing around, after some editing.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Jarvis - The Record - 3/21/12
Eventually we may something worth passing around, after some editing.
Keith - The Record - 3/19/12
Bron,
What I refer to as "the record" is whatever people decide
to put in "the record." This is usually in some published
form. It doesn't matter to me whether that stuff is in one
form or another.
I keep email longer than a lot of people do. That's due
to the fact that I find myself looking up something old
maybe once a month. I don't consider facebook like
what I call "the record." I suppose that's because I've
never learned how to look much up there. I don't read
facebook much and I guess I think of it more like a
newspaper rather than a letter. I've skipped past many
newspaper articles that I've never read, and I don't save
newspapers now, although I have done so in the past.
Bron - The Record - 3/19/12
Kim, Joe, Sally & I had an interesting conversation about a year ago.
It was about “what to do with old email”.
Kim and I both have a practice.. that is not even a goal of either Joe or Sally.
We don’t keep email.
We both think that when - whatever intended or immediate process thought or thing – happens - with the email
That the email then expires and should not clog the thought or email box any more.
We both basically think that the record shouldn’t reach back.
Says a lot!
To clarify, I like the record in general. All CRM business.. is establishing a “the record” for every single client and prospect. I believe in the record.
Facebook is the record.. and I love the timeline format for that reason.
But to turn email into the record.. I do not see this becoming a practice. I work hard to avoid this becoming the practice for me. Email is something else (to me).
I create all these long emails.. but what do I think my recipients should do with them? Think about them, maybe take an action or not, then.. delete.
Keith/Bron Software Features - 3/17/12
Bron,
I find that "most" of my friends are not as fond of
Google Chrome
Gmail
Google Calendar
Google Docs
In various discussions, where I ask them why or
why not, I find that the answer seems to be that
lots of people never really learn to operate more
than a bare minimum of the tools they have.
I can say the same about the three most popular
Microsoft tools as well (Word, Excel, Powerpoint).
Here's an explanation of a Gmail feature:
It's about giving extra powers to Gmail to handle
various Links.
Meanwhile, the "wrench" in Chrome hides a whole
bunch of features that are quite useful. The Calendar
tool lets you have multiple calendars, but you have
to choose to do so. Gmail lets you organize your
mail into folders, but many people don't bother.
With Docs and Calendars, the sharing is flexible
but only if you use it.
With Word and Excel, lots of features go unused
by many people, and lots of people never consider
using Powerpoint at all.
Anyway, I think we can all benefit from taking the
time to learn about the tools we have when we are
thinking about tools we'd like to have. Quite often
we'll have that helpful tools have been there already.
Bron replies
Oh I totally fall into the category of not-knowing how to do stuff then getting hung behind the task. I do like to pick a tool and drill into it to where I can adapt it to my needs. Sometimes that works and sometimes not.
The biggest thing I want to submit today to our triad relates to something I read over the holiday break a year ago. I found it on Joe Millers bookshelf. "Getting Real", by a fascinating development team out of chicago called, "37 Signals".
The thrust of the book was a quasi-mandate that everything needs to be simplified, that products and processes need to have the opposite of scope-creep.. They need nearly-entire unbundling.
The book has several examples of how teams are crippled by analysis and specs. The idea appealed to me immediately.
The examples were about webpages and applications. The message was simple: do less analysis, use the tool for yourself, when you encounter a stopping point, fix it. No more no less.
This doesn't do justice to what I read. I'm hoping the 37 Signals team is famous enough that you are already familiar with how their MO swims upstream from the way mainstream sw dynasties tend to operate today.
Do you know about them and their approach? They have a lot of interesting messages like, "people who write well make the best employees". I tell you its good stuff! If you're unfamiliar, I'd be grateful if you could find a copy.
I'd love to automatically send my favorite reference materials but I'm quite limited in my ability to do even tiny amounts of that.
I still think that there a ripe world out there that wants to connect to each other purely based on what they read. You guys think you could build something that linkedIN would want to acquire?
Keith/Bron - About Calendars - 3/17/12
The biggest thing I want to submit today to our triad relates to something I read over the holiday break a year ago. I found it on Joe Millers bookshelf. "Getting Real", by a fascinating development team out of chicago called, "37 Signals".
The thrust of the book was a quasi-mandate that everything needs to be simplified, that products and processes need to have the opposite of scope-creep.. They need nearly-entire unbundling.
The book has several examples of how teams are crippled by analysis and specs. The idea appealed to me immediately.
The examples were about webpages and applications. The message was simple: do less analysis, use the tool for yourself, when you encounter a stopping point, fix it. No more no less.
This doesn't do justice to what I read. I'm hoping the 37 Signals team is famous enough that you are already familiar with how their MO swims upstream from the way mainstream sw dynasties tend to operate today.
Do you know about them and their approach? They have a lot of interesting messages like, "people who write well make the best employees". I tell you its good stuff! If you're unfamiliar, I'd be grateful if you could find a copy.
I'd love to automatically send my favorite reference materials but I'm quite limited in my ability to do even tiny amounts of that.
I still think that there a ripe world out there that wants to connect to each other purely based on what they read. You guys think you could build something that linkedIN would want to acquire?
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
Keith/Bron - About Calendars - 3/17/12
Bron,
I have not run into 37 signals, but I do believe
in simplicity. I agree that good employees
write well, and I'll add that they should speak
well. I read an article recently that said there
are really only three relevant employee interview
questions:
1) Can you do this job?
2) Would you love this job?
3) Will our people be able to tolerate you?
| |||
Bron,
I see from http://37signals.com/
what they have to say.
You might find this recent article interesting:
http://techcrunch.com/2012/03/
Bron replies
That is completely righteous I really appreciate it. I have not heard a more-elegant thought template in a year's time. I will keep that awesome perspective for a long time. What 37-signals type methodology brings back to teams with analysis paralysis.. Is a banner I could carry for a lifetime, and also benefit from personally in the process. As applied to the hiring function, I am moved by the mere mention of an organization with the stones and skill to embody such a practical 3-stroke play on hiring. Brilliant. That is what I'd add to the record of this matter.
- - -
I've got a lot more thought and related material around this theme that I would add to conversation, but would not choose to add to "the record".. Because its more raw in nature, is not as well organized, and only reinforces the agreement which already exists.
- - -
So here is the extraneous bonus material. Basically, what pinches my paradox is this: that practical simplicity could be quickly integrated into a group-ethos, for short and long-term betterment.. but.. Does it shock anyone that I'm imagining over 50 different blockers ruining the application of this idea and not even knowing it? Every one of them is trying to build a name for themselves in the "Me First (American Way). Group dynamics are so messy! More and more I understand why secrecy pervades.
I probably have too much emotion around this. Now I'm seeing 25 more people who want to fire me for even implying that the previous thought on hiring is "not right". And I don't even live in China.
2 specific stories from this month, that demonstrate completely un-illuminated thought around the management of a small team.. One guy is a sales manager whose main goal in providing a CRM system - is complete orwellian handling of his team's sales data. It's not, "I'd like my team to responsibly handle a larger territory and give our clients a better experience". It's, "I need the ability to steal accounts from my employees and fire them without their previous knowledge.
Yes salesforce.com allows that, no I'm not interested in helping the guy, yes ill do it anyway.
Another is a data manager who couldn't tell you what he's looking for, doesn't actually distinguish between human traits and professional experience - but is easily ready to fire his hire in 2-3 months if they "are not right for the job".
I found them both - offensive! They both think they have their own interest in play. I found this so odd that I started imagining vampires keeping their pray alive for long-term feeding but not considering a release of their victim back to freedom.
As a consultant I have improved in the handling of my own disappointment around management misfires, though my own disappointment compounds in different ways. Maybe they are just reptiles, not vampires.
Its still overly dramatic thought, I know.
Joe sent an interesting fastcompany link about knowing who hates you in order to know who loves you. Kinda helps me not feel bad about sparring with the myopics of the world, even though they are said to be "just acting in their own perceived self-interest".
The sanitized response might be to suggest things like, "employment does not need to be such a one-way street", "a good boss is more enabler than pitchfork", "let's remember the goal here is success right?", and/or "is that a strategy for being at the top of a team you're proud of?"
What I wanted to say, is that "it would be difficult in the long term to attract and maintain top tier talent without a strategy that is based more on the plan for how the helpers can be successful, and less of a plan to harvest the human capital of people who've been made into losers prior to the beginning of the competition." I find it imprudent to speak of "long term" with most of the people I encounter in my roles.
It wouldn't make my blood boil if short-sighted behavior only affected the person doing it. As the old bumper sticker says, "stupidity should be more painful to self than others".
It would be great if the best parts of what I could offer along these lines- could somehow be leveraged in a viable way. What I find instead is that it scares the livin shit out of the people its intended to help, and that I often end up going down for it no matter what I say. And not because I'm a vocal hothead, (not at all the case, despite my emphatic prose in protected circles).
When people move against me along these lines, I'm typically the last one to know about it.
- - -
In short, I find that while I belong in places that already ascribe to "getting real" type strategies, -I struggle to find and affiliate with them to the extent that it becomes a viable long-term way of life and/or leads to larger-scope accomplishment. I sort-of think and hope that as I get older I'll be cooler with my own disappointment, better with tactically diplomatic expression, but also come to be a person from whom my coworkers expect that type of influence and disposition.
Bron,
- - -
I've got a lot more thought and related material around this theme that I would add to conversation, but would not choose to add to "the record".. Because its more raw in nature, is not as well organized, and only reinforces the agreement which already exists.
- - -
So here is the extraneous bonus material. Basically, what pinches my paradox is this: that practical simplicity could be quickly integrated into a group-ethos, for short and long-term betterment.. but.. Does it shock anyone that I'm imagining over 50 different blockers ruining the application of this idea and not even knowing it? Every one of them is trying to build a name for themselves in the "Me First (American Way). Group dynamics are so messy! More and more I understand why secrecy pervades.
I probably have too much emotion around this. Now I'm seeing 25 more people who want to fire me for even implying that the previous thought on hiring is "not right". And I don't even live in China.
2 specific stories from this month, that demonstrate completely un-illuminated thought around the management of a small team.. One guy is a sales manager whose main goal in providing a CRM system - is complete orwellian handling of his team's sales data. It's not, "I'd like my team to responsibly handle a larger territory and give our clients a better experience". It's, "I need the ability to steal accounts from my employees and fire them without their previous knowledge.
Yes salesforce.com allows that, no I'm not interested in helping the guy, yes ill do it anyway.
Another is a data manager who couldn't tell you what he's looking for, doesn't actually distinguish between human traits and professional experience - but is easily ready to fire his hire in 2-3 months if they "are not right for the job".
I found them both - offensive! They both think they have their own interest in play. I found this so odd that I started imagining vampires keeping their pray alive for long-term feeding but not considering a release of their victim back to freedom.
As a consultant I have improved in the handling of my own disappointment around management misfires, though my own disappointment compounds in different ways. Maybe they are just reptiles, not vampires.
Its still overly dramatic thought, I know.
Joe sent an interesting fastcompany link about knowing who hates you in order to know who loves you. Kinda helps me not feel bad about sparring with the myopics of the world, even though they are said to be "just acting in their own perceived self-interest".
The sanitized response might be to suggest things like, "employment does not need to be such a one-way street", "a good boss is more enabler than pitchfork", "let's remember the goal here is success right?", and/or "is that a strategy for being at the top of a team you're proud of?"
What I wanted to say, is that "it would be difficult in the long term to attract and maintain top tier talent without a strategy that is based more on the plan for how the helpers can be successful, and less of a plan to harvest the human capital of people who've been made into losers prior to the beginning of the competition." I find it imprudent to speak of "long term" with most of the people I encounter in my roles.
It wouldn't make my blood boil if short-sighted behavior only affected the person doing it. As the old bumper sticker says, "stupidity should be more painful to self than others".
It would be great if the best parts of what I could offer along these lines- could somehow be leveraged in a viable way. What I find instead is that it scares the livin shit out of the people its intended to help, and that I often end up going down for it no matter what I say. And not because I'm a vocal hothead, (not at all the case, despite my emphatic prose in protected circles).
When people move against me along these lines, I'm typically the last one to know about it.
- - -
In short, I find that while I belong in places that already ascribe to "getting real" type strategies, -I struggle to find and affiliate with them to the extent that it becomes a viable long-term way of life and/or leads to larger-scope accomplishment. I sort-of think and hope that as I get older I'll be cooler with my own disappointment, better with tactically diplomatic expression, but also come to be a person from whom my coworkers expect that type of influence and disposition.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
Bron,
Here's where I read about the three interview questions:
The "Call for Transparency in Job Interviews" referenced there is
a video worth watching.
> My hope is that you would either contribute insight
> or solutions to those things, or mirror me by bringing
> forth your own topics of interest, or perhaps questions
> which others could address. You may not need the
> calendar but I most certainly do!
My interest is much less about the calendar, and much
more about the priorities of competing activities leading
towards competing goals. So, in my mind, you want to
prioritize the goals, & then prioritize the activities leading
towards those goals.
I would very much like an "app" that would do all this.
It would let you specify goals. Then you would specify
activities tied to goals. Finally it would tell you in some
sort of color coded fashion what you "really ought" to be
doing next. The calendar would get contorted by this.
Jarvis - 3/18/12
Bron’s calendar needs approach the President of the United States. I have been told that the full calendar schedules his bathroom breaks. I worked for a guy who lived by the Microsoft Outlook calendar. If I had an idea he liked he asked me to schedule a meeting for it. I had to use my outside knowledge of the people and rooms most needed and/or hardest to schedule. Optional people were told in the inviting email that they were optional. Occasionally by boss’s boss would preempt the room just before the meeting.
I think of scheduling a meeting like packing the trunk of a car for a trip. The biggest and/or most essential things are placed first. Sometimes it has to be repacked when some next thing doesn’t fit.
Bron/Keith - About calendars. what? why? - 3/13/12
- What you describe makes me think you need an app that
- helps you keep track of your stuff in a way you want to
- think about it.
Any ideas what that might be? In my last corporate setting, to book a conference room, there was a profile we could access to see who was in the room. Since there were multiple conference rooms with multiple profiles, I might have routinely checked the schedule of my boss, maybe one other person, and the status of all conference rooms, before setting up any meeting. That would be like checking 5 calendar profiles, at the very-end of a live-call with someone, in order to assign the next action move, and assigning that action move with full notification to all parties.. in a matter of less than 5 minutes. I think if I tinker around with Outlook it’s probably in there somehow.. just not sure if that is only for Enterprise Server?
Thing is, being able to do this quickly and reliably gave me executive freedom in real-time scheduling events. Without that freedom.. to organize a group creates an endless game of checking everyone’s time, which could be immensely wasteful and incredibly dreaded by me. It’s not just about making an appointment. It’s the PROCESS of making and moving appointments into places where they won’t have to be rescheduled, and to where the scheduling itself is a nearly transparent aspect of the meetings themselves, for all parties involved but especially the initiator. To me, there is specific reason why it’s appropriate that this conversation would precede any substantive agenda material.
The “Hello World” operation for a mastermind group is the first time its members complete the process of pushing a shared agenda item into a shared time slot. These are not work-meetings but personal-topics mixed into social setting. I’m not making an agenda of things that interest you, but an agenda of things that interest me. My hope is that you would either contribute insight or solutions to those things, or mirror me by bringing forth your own topics of interest, or perhaps questions which others could address. You may not need the calendar but I most certainly do! The difference between a list of 12 overlays, and the actual annual schedule of each of those major-priorities is.. enormous. A partner who understands how my priorities are reflected via my schedule is also a more-potent partner.
At MSU I learned in Communication 101 that “disclosure which promotes reciprocation” is key to the greatest possible affinity in human exchange.
The way I see it, there is no current communication channel with which we are effectively and easily collaborating. Email.. not effective at conveying schedule or guaranteeing participation (from me).
I don’t see agenda items preceding the further build-out of a “system” that connects us better. The fact that Skype fails us – further increases the need.
Bron,
You cite some "problems" that I don't have. I consider Email useful
as a communication channel and as a collaboration tool. I consider
Skype useful for making phone calls of all sorts. I consider tools
for scheduling to be incidental, but you seem to be saying that they
are much more important than that for you.
I've spent a lot of time in the academic world doing collaboration with
people who are remote and who live and work in different timezones.
This is generally done with only a few meetings and a lot of other
communication outside of the meetings. The meetings are considered
less important than what academics like to call "the record."
If it's true that you consider the calendar/schedule issue as a topic
rather than an incidental tool, then I suggest approaching it like a
project, using project management tools. To me, this means making
a requirements list, followed by making an implementation plan that
addresses the requirements.
Anyway, if this makes sense to you, I can certainly try to write down
a requirements list based on what you have described.
Bron
> -- I think if I tinker around with Outlook it’s probably in there somehow
> -- I think if I tinker around with Outlook it’s probably in there somehow
> .. just not sure if that is only for Enterprise Server?
I suggest that you ignore Outlook and look at Google Calendar.
It allows you to have a separate calendar for each of your
segments. It also allows sharing of some of your calendars.
Bron,
I've made a Google MMBM calendar and I've shared it
with you and Jarvis such that you both ought to be able
to edit it.
Keith - Screen Share - 3/12/12
Bron,
> So, how can I see one of you - use your computer
> as a presentation device?
Jarvis and I have done testing of both skype and google+
hangout screen sharing, and we've had some problems.
With skype it is easy to screen share with two people,
but more than two requires getting Skype Premium,
which goes for $10/mo or $60/yr (half price). Only one
member of a group needs this.
Google+ hangouts are free, but they work poorly unless
you have more than a slow computer. These hangouts
use more than twice the cpu power that skype uses.
It takes a 3.0 GHz cpu to keep up with two people, and
more than that as you add people. I have such, but I
don't know whether you do.
Bron/Keith - Screen Share - 3/4/12
So, how can I see one of you - use your computer as a presentation device? I don’t have Windows 8 Metro.
I was thinking I’d have to pay for a “web conferencing” service to arrange this.
I don’t advise slow pace..
Bron,
You raise a good point that video conferencing like
with skype is not the whole story. There is a need
to be able to share a screen, or a window. I have
tried just pointing my webcam at something, but
it never shows up well. A direct window/screen
capture and share would be much better. The old
way has been to prepare and share a document,
that's not very spontaneous.
Windows 8 does not solve any of this. I just copied
you on my email to Jarvis about how to use it well,
which is different from windows 7 and windows XP.
I don't think it should be necessary to pay for a web
conferencing solution. That's where I was going with
some of the free google/youtube stuff. I see how the
google people use that themselves, but I've never tried
to initiate such a session myself.
I guess the reason that Jarvis and I have never come
up with a solution for this is that it's just too easy
for us to get together face-to-face.
When you are in a skype video call, you can
select the menu item: call>share screen
which sends your screen rather than your
webcam video. Jarvis and I just tried this.
This does the whole screen, so if you just
want a window, you can maximize that window.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)