Business Value with Oracle

Recently, I had one of our recruiters suggest that we “lower” the bar in our recruiting practices.
She suggested that our process was too detailed, was made up of too many steps and was too hard.
She said “I work with companies a lot bigger than yours – and their hiring process does not have as many steps as yours does.”

At first, I really didn’t know how to take her comments.
What was she really saying???
Was she really being honest?  Did she really want to work that hard for her commission?

I did give it some thought, but frankly I didn’t think about her comments for very long.

We look for top talent because we need top talent.  Our clients are demanding.  They expect for us to bring new and fresh ideas to the table each and every day.
They expect for us to be technically competent.  They expect our people to be trained on the latest technologies.  They expect that we know what we are doing and bring proven experiences that have been successful for our other clients.
They expect for us to be able to communicate – both in writing and verbally.
They expect for us to be able to deliver projects on time, on budget and be able to handle, with class, the various stresses that occur during the normal software development project lifecycle.

So, for the last 2 1/2 years, we have been defining and refining our hiring practices so that we “test” candidates on the various needed skills discussed above.
As a potential new hire, we will run you through a comprehensive screening process.  We want to understand to the best of our ability if this is a good fit for us – and you.
If it’s not, that’s not good for you, me or our client.

We have not and will not lower the hiring bar.  In the end, it’s just not worth it – for anyone.

What keeps CIOs up at night?  Is it the technology, the processes, the people – or a combination of all three?

Talent retention — Attracting, training and retaining top talent is always on top of the agenda, regardless of where your company is located.  Employee development programs recognize and reward job performance.  Employees want help understanding and planning their career path (including training).  If you don’t have an answer and they can’t “see” their future working for your firm, the search will continue elsewhere.

The Cloud — CIOs feel pressure to innovate.  Cloud computing is today’s most discussed and debated trend.  CIOs in more established companies with large IT infrastructures are in a unique position – with a lot to think about.  Like all other decisions, companies are advised to take a business-driven approach to cloud adoption.  If the key business requirement(s) are met by a cloud solution, then by all means analyze and potentially implement.

Mobility of IT — Employees have adopted the consumer electronics they are using at home, such as smartphones and iPads, and now expect those tools (and specifically the simplicity of those tools) to be offered and available while on the job.  However, from a CIO perspective, these devices are often not enterprise ready.  For example, they may lack the security required for an enterprise deployment.  CIOs and corporate trainers must educate employees on how to use these devices in a secure fashion at work.

I had an interesting discussion yesterday with three educators.  The topic was the oral and written communication skills of young adults attending college.

Each of these women teaches English in a Midwestern college or university.

Each told story after story of their frustration with today’s youth and their inability to communicate verbally – and in writing.

One particular story that is now stuck in my head is a student’s request for the teacher to read their paper in class so they would not have to read it themselves.  My friend (the teacher) firmly believes the student did not want to read their assignment because they could not accurately pronounce all the words within the paper that they had just written.  She thought that the student felt as if they had done enough by writing the paper and that it was “fair” to ask that the instructor read some of the paper to the class.

There were other discussions between the four of us about poor sentence structure, too much texting, inability to hold a meaningful conversation for any longer than about three minutes and too much Xbox.

I felt I had to chime in.  I told them about my experience earlier in the afternoon.  I was in the final stages of our on-boarding process with a potential new hire candidate.  The position we are hiring for is software developer.  This particular candidate had performed well with the various technical aspects of our recruiting process.  We were now at the R & D/writing assignment step.  The document that was submitted left much to be desired.  Not a lot of effort was put into the deliverable.  Sentence structure was poor.  And to top it all off – our recruiter had to send the document to me.  Why?  Because the candidate had a typo in my email address – and I never received their initial submission.

Issue: New software functionality needs to be added to your enterprise content management system

Option one: quick, “down and dirty” approach that will most certainly cause issues for all further down the line

Option two: a more thorough design approach that will take longer than option one (above)

Option one sets us up with a technical debt according to Ward Cunningham.  Technical debt is quite similar to a financial debt in that they both have interest payments in common.  What I mean is that there will be additional effort and time spent in the future because of the initial design choice.

Again, we are presented with two options.

Option one: continue to pay the interest

Option two: pay down principal by re-engineering the initial design into the improved design

Real-world example: customer timeline is short.  New functionality built.  Parties agree to deploy phase one deliverable into development environment.  Initial timeline met, code delivered to client.  Client deploys code directly to production environment.  Issues occur that increase stress for both parties.

Technical debt can be good or bad.

What makes this so interesting for those of us in the consulting field is that we must deal with technical debt while also reconciling it with the financial restrictions and timeline necessities of clients.  Meaning, we all need to be aware of this debt, and inform customers of this debt, but we will often need to live with it as a reality despite “knowing what’s best”.  This is written with complete humility.  Why?  Remember that we have been hired for our expertise.

As an entrepreneur in a highly competitive industry, we’ve learned that “good business” refers to positioning your business for greatness – and more importantly, always doing the right thing.  At all times, the right thing to do is to think long-term for the sake of:

• customers
• employees
• shareholders
• community

It is a balancing act – and it’s not easy.  Try simplifying.

If you treat people right and always do your best to give your best effort, new opportunities will present themselves.  Additionally, make sure these opportunities are the right type of business your company to make a lasting impact.

In the end, always take the high road and do what’s best for ALL parties involved, even if it isn’t lucrative at the outset.

That’s good business, and that yields long-term success.

I have great respect for Southwest Airlines.

I was recently reading an overview of some of their initial keys to success – and one in particular caught my eye.

Southwest began as a short-haul airline – offering routes from Dallas to Houston and Houston to San Antonio.  From the very beginning, they were offering a low-fare, high-frequency alternative to driving.

Much like Southwest’s approach, we set out to provide more value for the training dollar spent.  While others divide an agenda item into more than one class, we combine multiple topics into a single class – giving clients only the most needed information.
As such, we will offer a client eight (8) days’ worth of training in one five (5) day class, for example.

More of the needed information in less time at a lesser cost = more value!

One of the features of our offering that many clients appreciate is the customizing of their agenda at no additional cost.  Clients like this feature mostly because they feel they truly receive what they want/need from their training experience.

Giving people a better experience than they expect – and having them engaged in the entire process – leads to satisfied customers!

See below for a recent email exchange first between a Principal of an IT consulting firm and one of their prospective partners – and then the Principals of the consulting firm. Email communications start at the bottom of this post.

Principal #1: As we discussed last night – our employees need to know that we will go to the ends of the earth to protect them and our business. They are the real VALUE in the equation.

Principal #2: I am really proud of you and how you are handling all this.

Principal #1: I am staying involved to remind her that we have not yet come to a teaming agreement.

Principal #2: I am impressed that you’ve found someone so willing to just tell you how worthless you are. She treats you like a three year old.

Principal #1: I apologize. Too many high priority things to do yesterday just coming back from the Thanksgiving holiday.

I was surprised to hear from you about <consultant name withheld> as I thought you communicated during our last phone discussion that because <company and partner names withheld> had not come to an agreement, that you would not be presenting <consultant name withheld> resume to <client name withheld>.

I indicated yesterday that <consultant name withheld> has been resourced to a new project beginning 12/6 that will last 5-6 months.

We do have other resources – they are even more experienced than <consultant name withheld> – but their hourly rates are higher, but I certainly don’t want to “put the cart before the horse” as I think we are not yet close to coming to an agreement. The sticking point as I remember it is the specific project/task at hand vs. any/all future projects.

Prospect: I am very disappointed you didn’t tell me earlier in the day as I might have tried to reach out to someone else. I waited all day for your call.

Do you remember the 1995 movie Billy Madison staring Adam Sandler?

How about the business ethics category/question that stumped Eric Gordon at the end of the movie?

At Redstone, we constantly discuss honesty, integrity and treating people the way you like to be treated.  As a component of our employee on-boarding process, Executive Management staff and HR personnel meet with our new hires and go over with them our “Common Sense” presentation.  The core message within this presentation is this quote by Frank Lloyd Wright “There is nothing more uncommon than common sense.”  I think he was right.  There is another slide that quotes the Oracle of Omaha (Warren Buffett).  Mr. Buffett says “It takes twenty years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it.”  So true.

Especially in the consulting and software world, I will argue that ethical behavior is more important than technical competency.  The two together make a wonderful team.

Are these characteristics/traits becoming more and more rare?  If so, are the pressures at home a contributing factor to the demise?

Please let me know your thoughts.  I’d love to hear from you!

Do you think organizations that consistently pay late are doing so intentionally?

I believe that most folks want to do the right thing and pay for the services they have received on time.  Based on where the economy has been the last couple of years, I also think its conceivable that some folks may not on occasion have the money to pay on time – even if they want to.

In my example above, I am attempting to illustrate a scenario where services have been rendered and payment terms have been extended.  Consulting services often falls into this category.  Software sales and/or training are not as susceptible to late payments as the software or training class is often not delivered until full or partial payment is received.

I contend that organizations that consistently pay late have a company philosophy or directive to do so.  Unfortunately, I also think this directive comes down from top management.  We all know companies that are doing fine financially but have a reputation for and practice of paying late.

How should these folks be handled in your opinion?  Let me know.  I’d love to hear from you.

I have a theory.  End Users – I’d like your opinion and feedback.

Isn’t it true that the primary reasons for requesting on-site work stem from trust-related issues and previous poor experiences?  You could argue that these two reasons are related.

Let’s start with trust.
I contend that many brand new consulting engagements (client and consultant have never done business before) start with a request from the client that Phase I work be performed on-site.
I’m not talking about the facets of the project that SHOULD be done on-site (like initial scoping or requirements gathering).  I’m talking about a belief that I have that you earn the right to work remotely.  Clients want to “see” work being performed and project tasks being completed.  Certainly there is an element of getting to know one another, but I believe its human nature to want to make sure you touch/feel/see work actually being completely.

Now, onto previous poor experiences.
Isn’t it often true that the on-site work mandate many times stems from the last engagement or two having not gone so well?  The consultant said they would do “x”, but actually ended up doing “y”.  Is the brand new consultant being unfairly lumped into a “poor performer” category?

What do you think?