|
Robert N. Phillips
CEO, Lasotell Pty Ltd.
www.lasotell.com.au
Our company has worked in a wide variety of
fields—pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, information
technology (IT), radio communications, telecommunications,
defence, and television. It is interesting to make
comparisons between the different jobs and to consider what
intangible factors seemed to play a part in the progress or
outcome of the work. Two of the most striking factors appear
to be the culture of the company and the real background of
the people contributing to the work.
Generally speaking, the IT and telecommunications industries
seem to have the most negative cultural impacts. It is
interesting to observe how long the culture of an
organisation can persist after the circumstances of an
organisation have changed significantly. There is nothing
new in that observation. The sad thing is how much
management underrate the cultural impacts on the day-to-day
progress of the business. It is evident even in the simplest
of things.
For example, there is solid, statistical evidence based on
years of research that 65% of the test population (that was
slightly biased to higher education) had good comprehension
of material written in Times Roman whereas only 12% had good
comprehension of material written in sans serif fonts (such
as Arial). It is interesting to note that Rupert Murdoch
(News Ltd) spent $5 million to determine that Times Roman
was the most readable font for his newspapers. The
implication of these findings is that any company that
distributes information in sans serif fonts risks failing to
communicate adequately with nearly 80% of its intended
audience. (The data also means that if you want 100%
comprehension in your audience, printed material, on its
own, is not enough.)
Yet despite being faced with real data of this kind, most of
the staff of companies that have sans serif print standards
won't take the matter to the senior management (who for some
reason are always the ones who set such policies). And those
who do try to push the matter, more often than not, are
told, "But I think Arial looks nicer." If you went to the
same senior manager and said you have a
never-been-known-to-fail twinge in your right big toe that
means the company share price will drop 10% within 10 days,
you would be killed in the rush to put counter measures into
place. (If you doubt that statement, ask yourself how market
pundits make their predictions—it certainly is not on the
basis of statistical research.)
So the reality is that much of the culture and indeed many
of the standards and policies in a company are driven by the
"religious" beliefs of, basically, one or two people, which
raises an even more interesting question as to the real
value, place, or purpose of a standard that is based on the
"religious convictions" of one individual. Given the earlier
comment that the culture often lingers long after the
circumstances that created it have changed, it is no wonder
that large organisations lose management flexibility and
agility.
The other predominant factor in the progress or outcome of
work seems to be the real background of the people. One of
the great weaknesses of the IT industry, in general, is that
far too much work, and eventually authority, comes to be
vested in people who do not have backgrounds that support
the job titles thieved from the professions. Terms such as
architect and engineer are generally bandied around far too
freely in the IT industry and the difference becomes starkly
apparent when one works with real engineers and real
architects. These people have the professional
qualifications and work history that traditionally
accompanies such titles. That is not to say that no one with
those titles in the IT industry has similar professional
qualifications and work history.
The difference is that those who have the necessary
professional standing to set up office and render
professional services to the public are trained in a code of
practice, discipline, and approach as part and parcel of
their education. It is second nature for them to apply far
more of the practice of their professions than those with
the generic engineer and architect titles in the IT world.
The IT people always talk about it, but they so seldom do
it. In our experience in working on projects dominated by
traditional engineers, with projects of similar work-year
efforts and similar budgets as IT projects, the progress of
the projects, the levels of stress, and the project culture
are markedly different from the IT varieties. It is not that
the IT people do not know about the correct approaches; they
just do not apply them with the same rigour.
Obviously the process maturity of the IT industry is still a
long way from that of the traditional, professional
engineering profession. But why does the industry
collectively not learn? Is it because it is still young
enough to remember the scallywags and the legends of the
industry's birth? If so, does that imply that only time will
bring the necessary maturity to the industry? That
implication is too hard to figure, but it is certainly worth
thinking about what it means for trying to move any
organisation, and IT organisations in particular, to adopt
best practices. A useful point to bear in mind is that
traditional engineers and architects are potentially very
strong process champions and hence useful to have on your
side in the long haul of making cultural and process change.
|
