Conference 7.286::digital

     22 Feb '93	 						  Russ Doane
                               CONCLUSIVE MEETINGS
     
     We're all sick of management scrap and rework.  I'm afraid this turmoil 
     from reworking half digested decisions will kill us.  It's got to stop.
     
     I believe this plague comes from a self-proving hypothesis infecting 
     conveners of meetings.  Dumb decisions (or none) from a previous chairs-
     around-a-table meeting suggest meetings can't work.  So, on the theory 
     that working alone will always beat a meeting, we design the next one 
     hastily and keep it to the in-group.  Its inconclusiveness is our proof.
     
     Companies cured of this theory manage circles around us!  Alpha is great 
     equipment, but the greatest equipmant can't save Digital now.  Equipment 
     has been our middle name;  networked Lone Rangers make great equipment.  
     But equipment abounds.  Today, it's merely the price of admission.
     
     Customers will pay more if we integrate equipment and their business.  
     But that involves cross-functional complexities.  Lone Rangers linked by 
     language alone can't master that complexity fast.  Cross-funtional teams 
     need to use their eyes.  They need chairs-around-a-wall meetings.  They 
     must learn to co-create on a big wall with diagrams, charts, matrices.
     
     Re-Engineering leaders urgently need to exploit graphic methods too.  
     Unfortunately, many seem stuck in the old scrap and rework paradigm:
     Straw-Horse--->Review--->Rework--->Review--->Rework--->Review....  
     Inconclusive sequential little meetings, dribbling away our future.
     
     The new way gets ALL parties to co-create the possibilities on the wall.  
     Apply ALL criteria to ALL possibilities.  Together a cross-functional 
     group makes up its group-mind, and then takes action items.  CONCLUDED!
     
     When you hear complexity, face the wall.  5 minutes into complexity you 
     should begin a visible group-mind:  chart, graph, or matrix on the wall.  
     
     For 8 years we've educated Digital in these methods.  Thousands have 
     completed BPST.  Tens of thousands have scanned the pages of Teamwork 
     Tools.  Thousands have participated in at least one meeting structured 
     by flow-diagram, Pugh's matrix, fishbone, causal loop, or QFD.  Most 
     everyone is at least a bit educated now in chairs-around-a-wall methods.
     However, education is only the beginning.  Meetings conveners MUST get 
     themselves beyond education;  get into training in your actual meetings.
     
     Training.  It's the way you learned to ride a bicycle, do you remember?  
     Get on the saddle.  Get moving & wobble.  Wobble until it's 2nd nature.  
     If you won't move and wobble, get out of the saddle:  let someone else.
     
     If you can't or won't wobble using some appropriate chairs-around-a-wall 
     method, please do not convene even 1 more meeting in what remains of our 
     company.  Just stop.  Stop the inconclusive management scrap and rework.
     
     If this means you are out of a job, please face that reality, pack up, 
     and say a sad goodbye.  Harsh words:  I'm sorry.  We havn't much time.
     Get wobbling, or get out.

    I applaud your efforts (at this point ANY efforts) to help us turn
    things around.  However, although I think I got the gist of your
    letter, I really am not sure.  It appears to me to be liberally
    sprinkled with buzz words and phrases from some sort of
    seminar/program/motivational exercise - the meanings of the buzzes are
    obsure.  
    
    Perhaps I have been working in a vacuum up here and missed out
    on the appropriate classes; I just hope the folks you CC:d are not
    scratching their heads trying to understand.  If you don't mind, could
    you elaborate?  I have no idea at all what a "chairs-against-the-wall"
    meeting is, for instance.
    
    Unless, of course, I am the only one in a fog (happens, from time to
    time).  That being the case, don't open up a rat hole.
    
    Thanks,
    Dave

    
    
    re .1 i agree...

    Good base note. The problem is straight-forward: lack of accountability
    of management.
    
    An example --
    
    DEC. At a staff meeting it's agreed that a study project needs to be
    done. People to do it are chosen. Deadline picked. Deadline arrives.
    Project not done. "Had too much on my plate." "Couldn't get buy-in from
    [insert favorite scapegoat]." "Budget was pulled." "Downsizing resulted
    in too few people to do project." "The dog ate my project." At the next
    project, same "team" is launched again on another crash-and-burn
    exercise, with predictable results.
    
    NAVY. At a staff meeting it's agreed that a project needs to be done.
    People are chosen or volunteer. Deadline is picked. Deadline arrives.
    Possibility One: project completed. 
    Possibility Two: project not completed. Asses kicked, names taken. New
    team _does_ complete project, since it is not only their job, but also
    a matter of team and personal pride. Old team finds itself in a less
    demanding work environment (can you say "wash crew"?).
    
    This is a bit simplistic, but very real. People change, in general,
    because they are _forced_ to change. Without a reason to change how we
    operate, it is folly to expect a change. Consider the following
    definition if insanity: repeating the same actions and expecting
    different results.
              
    
    kbs
     

    
    	FWIW:
    
    	A friend who worked here at DEC for 10 years just recently 
    took a job in San Jose with a competitor, his first remark about 
    the job was "that decisions are made in seconds and implemented in 
    minutes, whereas at DEC it took 6 weeks to make a decision"  
    
    	       						Regards,
    							-David
    					

    I think I understand what the base note says, and largely agree...
    
    However it does lack 2 elements from a reader's point of view :
    
    1. What is this, and why should I read it ?
    
    2. So what (what should be done with this, ie: actions,
       accountability).
    
    If these were added, and as mentionned previously, jargon removed, I am
    sure the impact would be far greater, and perceived less as "moaning
    about management".
    
    
    Paul

	There is one other contrast between Digital and the Navy. In
	the Navy, the project team would most likely have adequate resources
	and authority to do their task, and would not find other people
	claiming infringement on their territory.

	In Digital, the way to get ahead seems to be to get visibility
	by getting credit for accomplishing something. (Note my careful
	choice of words). In many cases, if not most, this means "making
	bricks without straw" - you get credit for doing something
	surprising (like a little kid getting breakfast ready while parents
	slumber) not for doing your assigned tasks well. But if you are
	trying to "exceed expectations" by taking on something beyond your
	assigned tasks, you won't have any resources or authority - it all
	has to be done by influence and charm (or maybe threats and blackmail).

	Until I got involved in Marketing, I really had no idea how bad
	it was. Two concrete examples:

	(1) Major anouncements where the announcement text was changed
	    almost daily (often in significant ways), the final version
	    becoming available the day AFTER the press were told.

	(2) A major marketing campaign with, supposedly $250,000 of
	    "corporate funding". However, instead of getting on with
	    running the campaign, the leaders had to keep flying back
	    and forth to headquarters to meetings. Why? They were
	    continually having to "re-justify" the funding, and it
	    could always be pulled at practically zero notice - after,
	    for instance, commitmets had been made to customers or
	    bookings made.

	So maybe if we took commitments seriously, ad apportioned
	resources and authority together with responsibility, we might
	get results.

	/Tom

    I regret that I see .1 as part of the problem.
    
    Too much DECSPEAK, too little English.  Woolly ideas.
    
    Please translate for those of us without a dictionary to hand.
    
    Sorry to be so blunt.
    
    Tony

Re; -.1

I agree.

I'm glad that I'm not the only one that feels that way.

    what i extrapolated from this is, COMMIT to doing IT.
    if we're going to do IT, then lets allocate the resources
    and do it. lets dont twiddle each other by adding glorious
    goals on top of an already un-achievable agenda.
    the mandatory meeetings i attend are predominantly an absess
    of codependency. a customer revealed to me that they're perception
    had the post-office more competent and responsive than DEC.
    in the current c.y.a. paralysis we are doomed to be bested...
    .....by the   post - office ???????

    i was a little confused with what .0 is trying to get across. but a
    reply a few notes back really struck home. I to have friends who work
    for compeititors that get decisions made in minutes that would take an
    act of God at DEC. While in a management position in a job with a
    different company i made decisions mostly on the spot after consulting
    with the appropriate people. and i lived and died with the results.
    none of this review after review after review after meeting after
    meeting after meeting.......

Here is some mail that I think explains many of the ideas and terms
used in .1....

			Tom_K

 
Forwarded message follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: MLTVAX::SIMVAX::REGISTRAR "18-Aug-1992 1346"	Date: 18-Aug-92 03:04 PM
To: @NE_ENG_SW1
cc: REGISTRAR
Subject: Engineering in Meetings Course Offering
 
 
ENGINEERING IN MEETINGS
********************************************************************************
Please use COURSES, an on-line system, to register.
                
                          $SET HOST: SIMVAX
                          USERNAME: COURSES
                          PASSWORD: TRAINING
 
COURSE NUMBER(S): RECNR-01  1ST SESSION AUG 31-Sep1 2ND SESSION OCT 12-13
                  RECNR-02  1ST SESSION OCT 8-9 2ND SESSION DEC 3-4
                  RECNR-03  1ST SESSION NOV 10-11 2ND SESSION JAN 5-6
********************************************************************************
DESCRIPTION:
This is a course for technical professionals who are sick of wasting 
time in meetings.  Every engineering discipline has its graphical tools 
yet in meetings, diagrams and matrices are rarely exploited.  Meetings 
that try to get results through conversation alone may waste your time.  
     
But even the conversations can be designed, if you know the principles.
This course promises to have you accomplish more of what you're already 
committed to while you're in it than you get done in the same time now.  
And during the course you will significantly increase your capacity to:
     
* Design effective conversations so that action items will be delivered
     
* Use a diagram or matrix so your meetings won't bog down in complexity
     
* Know when to use graphical ("TQM") tools and when to use conversation
     
The course leader is Russ Doane, who started with Digital as a circuit 
designer in 1960.  He has led over 50 hardware and software engineering 
meetings using risk assessment fishbones, concept development matrices, 
and other Total Quality Management (TQM) tools.  Russ's own 30 years of 
irritation with inadequate meeting designs motivated his integration of 
TQM methods with conversations designed around four key "speech acts."
     
HISTORICAL TREND TOWARD MORE ENGINEERING IN MEETINGS (1/2 page):
When Digital was small, one Lone Ranger with a faithful assistant Tonto 
could engineer anything.  Later, we networked the Lone Rangers.
     
We used to sneer that a camel is a horse designed by committee.  To 
avoid the need for committees we modularized complex systems in layers.  
Each module was no bigger than the ability of an individual or a tiny 
team to accomplish.  The pivotal task was to define the standard 
interfaces.  We named the Lone Ranger who did this a guru or architect.
     
But networked Lone Rangers don't always succeed today.  To overwhelm 
complex problems thoroughly and fast you need to form a real posse.  
Call it Concurrent Engineering, Cross Functional Teamwork, or whatever.
     
In part, that's because the number of layers and the complexity of 
their interactions keeps growing.  Complex standards can exceed the 
ability of any lone guru to design, develop, and impose on everyone who 
must align with it.  So developing a standard may require big meetings.
     
Also, many customers aren't satisfied with the pieces of a solution.  
They want to buy it already integrated.  To integrate, many people and 
organizations must cooperate;  which often implies big meetings.
     
So divide-and-conquer methods are failing to deliver the integration, 
cost, and delivery customer want.  Straw horses and midnight prototypes 
mean critique, revise, retest.  This rework costs money and burns time.  
World class engineering avoids much of it using big effective meetings.
     
BRIEF FREE SAMPLE FROM THE COURSE:
The big new idea that lets big meetings work?  Exploit peoples' eyes.  
The acoustic bandwidth doesn't grow with the number of participants,  
but each added person adds a visual channel.  That's the secret in TQM.
     
However, the verbal channel is still necessary for speech acts:  
declarations, assertions, requests, and promises.  Parallel processing 
by many pairs of eyes has to be complemented by effective speaking.  
Combining verbal and visual channels should be planned on fundamental 
principles which this course allows you to learn and practice.
     
HOW YOU WILL LEARN AS YOU WORK:
Your initial two-day session will introduce the key concepts.  Most of 
the time you'll practice:  in pairs, trios, with the group as a whole.  
There will be reading on the evening of Day 1 for discussion on the 
second day.  All this is to prepare you to practice productively in the 
six weeks before the second two-day session.  During these weeks you 
can count on more than making up for your four days spent in class.
      
Participants will be expected to arrange partnering for mutual 
coaching, to keep their learnings active during the six week interval.  
Coaching by the instructor can also be arranged if schedules permit.
     
Your second two-day session will deepen your understanding and add some 
new methods.  There will be homework on the evening of day three.  You 
will do some real-work design using Pugh's concept-development matrix.  
At the end of day four you'll plan further actions back on the job.  
Again, coaching by the instructor after the course can be arranged if 
you wish to advance beyond what your partner-coaching structure allows.
     
PREREQUISITES:  None	LENGTH:  4 days over a 6 week interval
     
CLASS SIZE:  Minimum 5, Maximum 20.
     
COST:  $800 per participant in open-enrollment courses.
     
Arrange a course specifically for your intact group thru DRUID::DOANE.

    re .13
    
    Thanks.  At least now I have a better idea where all the jargon comes
    from.  
    
    Sigh.........
    
    Dave

>...and other Total Quality Management (TQM) tools.

I can't help feeling that this is a misuse of the term "TQM". 

Dave.