THINGEES

Have you ever noticed how we tend to use certain words when we either don't know the proper name for something or we simply forget what to call it? I don't know about other languages, but the English language is full of such words, for example:

* Thingee - this is an expression typically used either by young children or older people too reserved to curse. People using this word typically point at the object of their attention when saying "thingee," both young and old.

* Thingamajig - is an old expression you still hear every now and then. It's normally used to ask for something; e.g., "Can you hand me that thingamajig?"

* Thingamabob - an even older variation.

* Whatchamacallit - I find this is used more in regards to a person's title or profession; e.g., "Joe is a professional whatchamacallit." (I always wondered what P.W. stood for).

* Whatsajig - I think this is a southern variance of whatchamacallit.

* Schravits - this is an unusual one. I first heard this from a friend of mine from the Midwest who primarily uses it to describe a tool or instrument; e.g., "Hand me the schravits will you?"

* Doohickie - although this can be applied to just about anything, it is more commonly used in connection with a blemish or insect bite; e.g., "Boy, that's an ugly doohickie you have on your arm there."

These are words that have existed for many years and I think we're all guilty of using them now and then. This usually comes about when we are tired or lazy and don't want to engage the brain. You also see it when we're too preoccupied with something else and don't want to waste time searching for the correct expression.

My father would use such words for years, particularly at the dinner table, where he would ask for this or that. As he got older though, I noticed he stopped trying to ask for anything verbally and, instead, would just point at it with his finger, which we would instinctively know what he wanted, almost telepathically. It was quite amusing to watch, a bit rude, but amusing nonetheless. There's a word that describes this phenomenon, I believe it's called a .....

Such is my Pet Peeve of the Week.

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

Tim Bryce is the Managing Director of M. Bryce & Associates (MBA) of Palm Harbor, Florida and has over 30 years of experience in the management consulting field. He can be reached at timb001@phmainstreet.com

For Tim's columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Tune into Tim's new podcast, "The Voice of Palm Harbor," at:

http://www.phmainstreet.com/voiceph.htm

Copyright © 2009 by Tim Bryce. All rights reserved.

A CURRICULUM FOR SOCIAL SKILLS

On more than one occasion you've heard me talk about the deterioration of social skills in the work place, primarily due to the heightened influence of technology. It is not uncommon to find people who have basic problems interacting with customers, vendors, or fellow employees. This fundamental flaw has an adverse effect on teamwork, customer service, and sales.

I recently had a reader call me to task on this and asked what kind of curriculum I would recommend to teach proper social skills to younger workers entering the work force. From my perspective, I can think of three prime areas to concentrate on:

* Communications - both written and oral. It's not simply a matter of mastering the media to be used, but more importantly, the content. Text messaging and the Internet has basically destroyed civil discourse and how to write an effective business letter which, of course, is critical for customer service and sales. Beyond this, people need simple speaking skills, such as how to engage in conversation, the proper way of performing an introduction, how to make a presentation or conduct a meeting. This includes lessons in persuasion, negotiation, and rhetorical thought. In addition to writing and speaking, listening is equally important, after all, it takes two to Tango.

* Ethics - dictates our value system, and is a little more than what is right and what is wrong. It also includes respect for others as well as yourself (a "Do unto others..." philosophy). Ethics plays a significant role in terms of teaching such things as self-worth, dedication, integrity, ambition, and the value of a dollar. Ethics is an expression of the expected code of conduct for everyone to adhere to and abide by.

* Common Courtesy - represents basic manners and how to interact with others. It's a little more than "please" and "thank you", but that's not a bad place to start. It includes how to invite someone to participate in something, how to thank someone for a service performed, and how to include others and make them feel welcome. This also includes how to dress, personal appearances, how to act and conduct themselves with others ("right" versus "wrong"), etiquette and protocol, even the importance of being punctual.

Come to think of it, isn't this what parents are supposed to be teaching their children? Unfortunately, our youth are learning their socialization skills more from Hollywood, video games, and the Internet, as opposed to their parents, which, unfortunately, is doing a lousy job of raising our kids. Instead, I recommend some simple courses to teach these socialization skills, either as a group or, preferably, some one-on-one coaching such as in a mentoring program (of which I'm a big believer). And for God's sake, don't give them a DVD or video on this, have a human-being talk to them instead!

As an aside, something that might help in this regards is my book entitled, "Morphing into the Real World - The Handbook for Entering the Work Force," which is a survival guide for young people as they transition into adult life. (And makes for a great graduation present I might add).

Such is my Pet Peeve of the Week.

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

Tim Bryce is the Managing Director of M. Bryce & Associates (MBA) of Palm Harbor, Florida and has over 30 years of experience in the management consulting field. He can be reached at timb001@phmainstreet.com

For Tim's columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Tune into Tim's new podcast, "The Voice of Palm Harbor," at:

http://www.phmainstreet.com/voiceph.htm

Copyright © 2009 by Tim Bryce. All rights reserved.

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN EAST AND WEST

I've been to Japan several times over the years on business and have had the privilege of seeing Japanese work habits first hand, which are noticeably different than in the United States. As a small example, the first time I visited, I noticed that in addition to having Coke and Pepsi machines on a street corner, there were also beer and whiskey machines. I discovered the Japanese were not worried about the youth getting alcohol from the machines as it would cause their families to "lose face" through embarrassment. If we had such machines in this country, they would probably be emptied by our youth faster than the vendors could stock them.

Aside from this though, there are a few other differences I observed in corporate Japan:

1. Japanese do not like to say "No" to someone as they do not want to offend the person. Instead, they tend to say, "Maybe Yes," which, when translated, means "No." If they nod their heads in the affirmative, it only means they understand what you are saying but they don't necessarily agree with you. Because of this, it is not uncommon for American businessmen to fool themselves into believing they are being successful when they make a presentation in Japan. In reality, the Japanese understood the presentation but need time to digest and discuss it amongst themselves. If an American asks them something like, "Was I correct in this regards?" If they answer, "Maybe Yes," the American is in trouble.

2. I've been in a few large offices in Japan where I have seen young employees suddenly jump up on their desks and give a five minute speech on why he is proud of his company and what a pleasure it is to work with his coworkers. When finished, the rest of the office politely applauds before returning to their work.

3. It is not proper for an employee to be insolent and openly criticize his superior. Knowing this may lead to pent up frustrations, some companies have small closet-sized rooms where the disgruntled employee can go into, close the door, and quietly beat an effigy of the boss with a bamboo stick. It may sound kind of silly, then again, you don't hear of anyone going "postal" in Japan either.

4. It is still important for the Japanese to reach a consensus on any significant decision. This process may take some time to perform, but they want to emphasize team building and inclusion of employees in the decision making process.

5. When you join a major company in Japan it is common to first "pay your dues," whereby you and your "class" (those who joined at the same time) are put on the same employment level and work for ten years, after which it is determined who the hard workers are and reward them with a major job promotion. If you didn't work hard, the company won't necessarily fire you, but your advancement in the company is arrested. Nonetheless, the emphasis here is on teamwork and creating a spirit of cooperation.

In the United States though, things are a little different...

1. Americans are not afraid of offending anyone. So much so, that "Hell No!" (or stronger) is a natural part of our vernacular. Unlike the Japanese who digest something before speaking, Americans do not hesitate to tell you whether they agree with you or not.

2. Rarely do you find an American employee who is steadfastly loyal to his company. Instead, it is more likely he will start an anonymous blog to bitch about his company and slander the character of the boss and his coworkers.

3. Americans tend to vent their frustrations more publicly than the Japanese. For example, you might get attacked in the company parking lot, or someone may pull a gun out and start shooting.

4. Instead of group decision making, Americans prefer rugged individualism whereby decisions tend to be made unilaterally as opposed to seeking the counsel of others. Consequently, employees tend to undermine any decision which is jammed down their throats.

5. When you join a major company in the United States, you are rewarded more for individual acts as opposed to team playing. This results in a never ending game of scratching and clawing your way up the corporate hierarchy. Obviously, this approach promotes interoffice politics and cutthroat tactics as opposed to a spirit of cooperation.

Why the substantial differences? Primarily because Japan is a homogeneous culture, and the American "melting pot" is heterogeneous which includes people of all races, faiths, and beliefs.

Although the differences between east and west are noticeable, things are slowly changing in Japan, whose youth have grown up with the Internet and are starting to emulate the work habits of their counterparts in the west. In other words, instead of observing courtesy, honor and respect, Japan is slowly becoming Westernized and I fear that some time in the not too distant future "Maybe Yes" will mean nothing more than that.

Such is my Pet Peeve of the Week.

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

Tim Bryce is the Managing Director of M. Bryce & Associates (MBA) of Palm Harbor, Florida and has over 30 years of experience in the management consulting field. He can be reached at timb001@phmainstreet.com

For Tim's columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Tune into Tim's new podcast, "The Voice of Palm Harbor," at:

http://www.phmainstreet.com/voiceph.htm

Copyright © 2009 by Tim Bryce. All rights reserved.

SHRINES OF EGO

Is bigger really better? Let me give you a scenario: a small church is started whereby the congregation and clergy tend to their faith and enjoy spiritual harmony. Inevitably, someone suggests constructing a bigger building to encourage membership. A mortgage is secured from a bank, construction begins, and indeed membership starts to grow. So much so, new facilities are added and modifications are made to the building until it becomes a landmark of the community. This, of course, forces the church to become more financially motivated to sustain their operations and recruiting campaigns are initiated to bring in more members. Suddenly, members begin to realize they are more consumed with the business of the church as opposed to practicing their faith, and membership begins to decline.

Feeling the effects of a financial squeeze, the church asks for more offerings from the congregation, which helps for a while, but membership continues to decline. Inevitably, the church can no longer sustain their operation and are forced to sell the property and move into more humble facilities.

Sound familiar? This scenario is played out every day not only in a multitude of churches and temples, but in fraternal organizations, nonprofit groups, and in small companies. The yearn to grow beyond their means is simply irresistible to some people. The problem is people tend to lose sight of their product, which, in the church's case, is the spiritual well-being of the congregation. Any time you forget your mission, your product, you are inviting disaster.

So, is bigger truly better? Not necessarily. What we are seeing is a form of the Peter Principle whereby we grow our organizations beyond our level of competency to control. Personally, I tend to believe we build these huge edifices more for ego than for practicality. This puts us in a position of financially chasing our tail and losing sight of our original purpose. Next time someone suggests building something on a grand scale, instead of just asking, "What will it cost us?", how about "Who is it going to really serve?"

Understand this, a week doesn't go by where an ornate Masonic lodge isn't put up for sale or demolished. If you find your leaders are more consumed about finances as opposed to the organization's mission, the end is near.

Such is my Pet Peeve of the Week.

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

Tim Bryce is the Managing Director of M. Bryce & Associates (MBA) of Palm Harbor, Florida and has over 30 years of experience in the management consulting field. He can be reached at timb001@phmainstreet.com

For Tim's columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Tune into Tim's new podcast, "The Voice of Palm Harbor," at:

http://www.phmainstreet.com/voiceph.htm

Copyright © 2009 by Tim Bryce. All rights reserved.

HONEST DEBATE (OR THE LACK THEREOF)

Like any other red-blooded American male on a Sunday afternoon, I like to exercise my right to surf the television channels using my remote control from the comfort of my easy chair. Years ago, when there was only four channels on TV, such a device wasn't really needed, but now with the hundreds of available channels, it would be unimaginable to live without one. Nonetheless, I was flipping through the channels and started to notice something...

CLICK - a show describing the men and women serving in our military. The show highlights their spirit of teamwork and sacrifice for the betterment of all.

CLICK - a documentary describing the proliferation of street gangs and how people become territorial and find ways to beat the system for personal greed and vice.

CLICK - a Wall Street report on the virtues of the free enterprise system and how the entrepreneurial spirit of small companies promote job growth.

CLICK - a show describing the plight of the homeless and why it is necessary to redistribute the wealth in this country.

CLICK - a report on the Tea Party and 9.12 movements.

CLICK - a community talk show featuring a college professor discussing why conservative values are no longer valid in the world today.

CLICK - a variety of shows providing a forum to worship God.

CLICK - a program discussing the point of view of atheists and agnostics who want to have "In God we Trust" removed from American currency.

It struck me there were extreme opposites for just about everything in our society. The incompatibility between extremes is such, you start to wonder how this country survived for over 200 years. Then again, I guess it is not surprising as America's melting pot represents a heterogeneous society, most definitely not homogeneous. This is nothing new and has been with us a long time. Also, think how boring our society would be if we all thought the same.

The only difference is we no longer practice tolerance and have forgotten how to engage in honest debate. For example, on the Internet, rarely is there any respect for other opinions and beliefs. Instead, people are inclined to viciously attack others and slander their character, a sort of "attack mode" of operating. I guess this is the price we must pay for becoming a technology based society.

French writer Voltaire is credited with saying, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I don't think people feel this way anymore. Instead of talking through a problem or issue, as all of the great civilizations have done before us, we have to suffer through spin and attack. Plain and simply, we no longer know how to practice the art of honest discourse, which I interpret as a sign of deterioration of our culture.

We may not always agree with each other, but we must find ways to work together, not apart. This requires tolerance, respect, and the need to be a heck of a lot more articulate than just saying, "Up yours!"

Such is my Pet Peeve of the Week.

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

Tim Bryce is the Managing Director of M. Bryce & Associates (MBA) of Palm Harbor, Florida and has over 30 years of experience in the management consulting field. He can be reached at timb001@phmainstreet.com

For Tim's columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Tune into Tim's new podcast, "The Voice of Palm Harbor," at:http://www.phmainstreet.com/voiceph.htm

Copyright © 2009 by Tim Bryce. All rights reserved.

SYSTEM MISCONCEPTIONS

I've been writing about Information Systems for over three decades, mostly to I.S. professionals, and I've spent in inordinate amount of time trying to clarify our terminology and concepts, as well as dispel basic misconceptions about systems. For example, there are those who believe an Information System is a computer. Sorry but, No, that is a piece of equipment, a tool used within a system. Then there are those who think it is a computer program or collection of programs like what you find on an iPhone. As an aside, the word "app" (for "application") is indicative of the sloppy thinking in the industry; an "application" of what? No, let's call a spade, a spade; they're not "apps," they're "programs," but I digress.

Perhaps the biggest misconception regarding Information Systems is that you cannot have one without a computer. Sorry, but this is simply not so. The day a company goes into business, large or small, is the day when its Information Systems are born. For example, companies need to routinely manage their finances, pay employees, manufacture products, process customer orders, manage assets and inventory, schedule deliveries, etc. This has been going on well before the advent of the computer. The only difference is systems were implemented by manual processes as opposed to computer automation.

Perhaps the best way to think of an Information System is as an orderly arrangement or grouping of processes dedicated to producing information to support the actions and decisions of a business. Hundreds of years ago, systems were implemented using logs, journals, ledgers, spreadsheets, and filing cabinets. Over time, equipment was introduced in the form of such things as cash registers, typewriters, adding machines, and tabulating equipment, all of which eventually gave way to the computer. Incidentally, there are many manual processes still in our companies serving critical business functions, much more than you might think, most of which are not properly documented.

When I teach a basic class in this subject, I ask the students to design a totally manual system just to overcome the handicap of only thinking in terms of computers. For those imbued in programming, this exercise represents an epiphany and teaches them to think outside the box. Suddenly they realize writing a program is only a small part of a much larger puzzle.

The reason people have trouble understanding the difference between systems and programs is actually quite simple; a program is much more tangible than a system. You can touch and feel a program, particularly its screens, reports and source code; but a system is much less tangible as you are talking about several business processes that operate routinely, and are implemented by people and technology that will come and go over time.

This brings up an interesting point, the basic business processes of a system (aka "sub-systems") are logical in nature and only change when information requirements change. They are implemented by manual procedures and computer programs that are physical in nature and change dynamically as technology changes, but the business process remains essentially the same. Consider this, for any company who has been implementing payroll for a number of years; Has the process of paying your employees really changed or was it the method of its implementation? If, years ago, you paid your employees on a weekly or monthly basis, you are probably still doing so. The only thing that has changed is physically how you have been doing it. Whereas you may have started out preparing payroll manually years ago, this was probably replaced by a commercial package to do the same thing, which has probably been updated or replaced several times; but your employees are still paid weekly or monthly aren't they?

Next time someone promises you a womb to the tomb Information System on a computer, remind them that the first on-line, real-time, interactive, data base system was double-entry bookkeeping which was developed by the merchants of Venice in 1200 A.D. .... and there wasn't a computer within miles of it.

Such is my Pet Peeve of the Week.

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

Tim Bryce is the Managing Director of M. Bryce & Associates (MBA) of Palm Harbor, Florida and has over 30 years of experience in the management consulting field. He can be reached at timb001@phmainstreet.com

For Tim's columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Tune into Tim's new podcast, "The Voice of Palm Harbor," at:

http://www.phmainstreet.com/voiceph.htm

Copyright © 2009 by Tim Bryce. All rights reserved.

LIMITATIONS

One of my favorite lines from Clint Eastwood's Dirty Harry movies was, "Man's got to know his limitations." This implies a person can get in trouble if he tries to go beyond his scope of expertise. For example, I have a good idea of how to structure and organize things in business, but I'm a lousy electrician and plumber, which is why I tend to leave such tasks to others as I can only do a mediocre job of them at best. Maybe it's a left-brain, right-brain kind of thing, but I think it's important we understand our strengths and weaknesses and live our lives accordingly.

It disturbs me though when I see someone who obviously does not grasp his limitations and tries to be something he is not, and you see a lot of this in all walks of life, both personally and professionally. For example, we've all seen people who have risen above their level of competency at work and end up screwing things up not only for themselves, but for others around him as well. There is nothing wrong with aspiring to rise above our station in life, but we have to be smart enough to know our limitations.

Some people refuse to acknowledge this and, instead, create a facade about them to act as a smoke screen to blur the truth about themselves. As a small example, men who lose hair will wear wigs or get hair transplants in order to look younger and more virile, not just to attract the opposite sex but to project a certain image at work. Hair coloring, breast augmentation, face lifts, and other cosmetic surgery is done more for facade than anything else, they certainly do not make you smarter or enrich your business skills. You are what you are, and sooner or later people will wise up to you. Facade only delays the inevitable discovery, which might just be enough time to accomplish your objective and move along to the next one. Nonetheless, people who rely on facade possess a deep-seated embarrassment about themselves and probably suffer from an inferiority complex.

Age alone doesn't imbue us with any supplemental skills either, only education, training or experience does. Seniority is meaningless if the person has not enhanced their skill set. Yet, we often see people promoted at work simply because of age, not expertise. Age does not necessarily mean entitlement.

I may be far from perfect but I believe I know what my strengths and weaknesses are and have no problem walking around in my skin. It is beyond me how people not in touch with their limitations do it. Then again, maybe they know their limitations too well and draw upon facade to mask them. Somehow, Lincoln's observation comes to mind, "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time."

In other words, I know a lot of people who could use a dose of humility.

Such is my Pet Peeve of the Week.

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

Tim Bryce is the Managing Director of M. Bryce & Associates (MBA) of Palm Harbor, Florida and has over 30 years of experience in the management consulting field. He can be reached at timb001@phmainstreet.com

For Tim's columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Tune into Tim's new podcast, "The Voice of Palm Harbor," at:

http://www.phmainstreet.com/voiceph.htm

Copyright © 2009 by Tim Bryce. All rights reserved.

HUMAN RESOURCE DEPARTMENTS

Years ago, companies used to have what was called "Personnel" departments that basically took care of employee records, dealt with labor relations, and promoted jobs internally within a company. It wasn't glamorous work, but it was necessary nonetheless. This function evolved and blossomed over the years to what is now referred to as the Human Resources Department. It went from basic record keeping to recruiting, training, benefits, career development, and much more. Yet, time and again, I hear from friends and contacts in corporate America who speak with disdain when the term "H.R." is brought up. When asked why, they describe it as a huge and lethargic bureaucracy which is more of an impediment than an expediter for conducting business.

One area that is frequently criticized is recruiting which I have heard characterized as a "black box" whereby both candidates and department managers wait weeks or months for H.R. to make the necessary arrangements, and process paperwork. Candidates are frustrated and feel like they are left in limbo. Consequently, they start to look for work elsewhere and the company loses potentially good employees. Department managers are likewise frustrated as they are anxious to tackle pressing projects and assignments. Some have become so frustrated, they hire consultants as opposed to going through the arduous H.R. process of hiring employees. They simply want to get the job done and don't have time for bureaucracy.

Understand this, H.R. would not be the behemoth it is today if we didn't live in a litigious society where everything seems to end up in court. It is no small wonder they are often referred to as the "PC Watchdogs" ("Politically Correct") as their mission, in part, is to keep the company out of court. From this perspective, perhaps the best way to think of H.R. is as a necessary evil.

The intent of H.R. is to bring standard and consistent practices in the use of Human Resources, which is good. However, if H.R. is perceived as a roadblock to progress, you have to wonder about its usefulness and question how it is organized. For example, should it be a centralized or decentralized function? Ideally, the H.R. department must remember it serves the rest of the company, not the other way around.

Such is my Pet Peeve of the Week.

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

Tim Bryce is the Managing Director of M. Bryce & Associates (MBA) of Palm Harbor, Florida and has over 30 years of experience in the management consulting field. He can be reached at timb001@phmainstreet.com

For Tim's columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Tune into Tim's new podcast, "The Voice of Palm Harbor," at:

http://www.phmainstreet.com/voiceph.htm

Copyright © 2009 by Tim Bryce. All rights reserved.

STUFFING

Thanksgiving is my favorite holiday, probably because it has less to do with the marketing madness of Christmas, and more to do with family. Turkey Day has always been a big event in our household. We would get the kids up early to watch the parade on television, prepare the meal, feast, then close our eyes while watching football. In the last few years, we've started to invite friends over to the house at noon, which we call "halftime" before the big meals start, at which time we serve up Bloody Marys and cook up deep-fried turkeys for anyone interested (a southern specialty).

As a kid, I loved the white meat of the turkey, mashed potatoes and gravy, and turned my nose up at just about everything else, such as cranberries, string-bean casseroles, pearl onions, beets, sweet potatoes, Brussel sprouts, even stuffing. Now, of course, I'm a sucker for these delicacies, but to me, I've found the real trademark of the Thanksgiving dinner is not the bird but the stuffing instead, something that is unique to each family. In fact, unless it comes from a box, I believe no two families fix stuffing exactly the same, there is always some nuance that differentiates it from family to family.

Some people prefer a corn bread type of stuffing, others like stale day-old white bread or sourdough, some like to add oysters or perhaps sausage, ground beef, even venison. There is also wild rice, apples, raisins, cranberries, etc. I understand there is also an excellent recipe involving White Castle hamburgers I would like to try some day. The list is practically endless and is only limited by your imagination.

Despite the many combinations available to us, when it comes to stuffing, we suddenly become pretty picky about what we eat and loyal to the peculiarities of family recipes. Even the slightest suggestion of changing the stuffing recipe is strongly rebuffed by family members. You would think you were preaching heresy. If you really want to try a different stuffing, you have to either go over to a friend's house, or cook a turkey some other time and away from prying eyes. The only other food item I can think of that commands such loyalty and devotion is the family's Chili recipe, but that will be the subject of another article.

Yes, we should be giving thanks during Thanksgiving. Thanks for having the family and friends together, and for a bounty of food to share and enjoy. Thanksgiving is definitely a personal thing which is why it is endearing to me.

But I still hate those damn cranberries.

Such is my Pet Peeve of the Week.

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

Tim Bryce is the Managing Director of M. Bryce & Associates (MBA) of Palm Harbor, Florida and has over 30 years of experience in the management consulting field. He can be reached at timb001@phmainstreet.com

For Tim's columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Tune into Tim's new podcast, "The Voice of Palm Harbor," at:

http://www.phmainstreet.com/voiceph.htm

Copyright © 2009 by Tim Bryce. All rights reserved.

COMPUTER PRINTERS

In my 30+ years in the systems industry, I have seen a lot of computer printers; everything from high speed line printers that print 132 characters per line to the early laser printers and plotters, to today's consumer dot-matrix printers. I even have some of the original print wheels from the first high speed printer for the UNIVAC I. They're over 50 years old and I'm sure they're worth something, but I digress.

What bugs me though are today's consumer printers which can be unusually inexpensive, so much so, the ink cartridges for them are almost as expensive as the whole printer, which turns the printers into disposable commodities. It's no small wonder that our garbage dumps are filling up with printers as people change printers more frequently than years ago. This implies the real money is not in the printers themselves, but in the ink cartridges which bears a hefty price tag for replacements, be it new or recycled, which, to me, seems odd as ink should be relatively cheap. Then again, I suspect the manufacturers of such products probably have a better grasp of marketing than I do. As a consumer though, I object to paying $25 - $35 for a lousy little black ink cartridge which lasts no more than a month, and much more for color.

I generally don't have much of a problem installing printers, then again, I have a bit more experience than most people. To the novice consumer though, installing a printer can be a very traumatic experience, primarily because the software is designed by programmer geeks who haven't got a clue what "user friendly" means. Some of the common mistakes I've seen include:

• Installing a cartridge without first removing the tiny plastic strip under it.
  

• Trying to insert the cartridge backwards or upside-down.
  

• Inserting the black cartridge into the color cartridge position, and vice versa.
  

• Plugging the printer cables into the wrong sockets.
  

• For Wi-Fi printers, trying to get them to communicate with your network. Better yet, if something crashes, reestablishing the connection can be a painful experience, even for me.
  

• My personal favorite though is fighting with the printer to get the cartridges to reveal themselves in order to change them. You know, watching the cartridges as they zip from side-to-side in the printer thereby keeping them out of the person's reach, kind of like a game of Tag.
  

Then there are the printers that talk to you, such as "Printing started" and "Printing complete." Then it begins to get insolent with you when something goes awry, "Please fill paper in the auto sheet feeder" or "Your ink is low, time to replace the cartridge." These statements are all based on small sound bites that are assembled and broadcast as required. Interestingly, one of my computers suffered a crash which distorted the sequence of the sound bites. Now I get things like, "Problem started" and "Please fill your ink in the auto sheet feeder and replace the cartridge with paper." Frankly, if I'm going to be insulted in this manner, they could at least do it with a sexy voice.

The geeks may think this is funny. The rest of us do not.

Such is my Pet Peeve of the Week.

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

Tim Bryce is the Managing Director of M. Bryce & Associates (MBA) of Palm Harbor, Florida and has over 30 years of experience in the management consulting field. He can be reached at timb001@phmainstreet.com

For Tim's columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Tune into Tim's new podcast, "The Voice of Palm Harbor," at:

http://www.phmainstreet.com/voiceph.htm

Copyright © 2009 by Tim Bryce. All rights reserved.

HOW ARE YOU (REALLY)?

"How are you?" is a greeting we've been using for a long time and has spawned several mutations, such as the famous, "How ya doin?" The response is usually something like, "Fine, thank you." Over the years though, we've changed our response to indicate elation, such as "Great!", "Fabulous!", "Super!", "Wonderful!", etc., or to denote depression, such as "Lousy," "Horrible," or "I could kill someone!"

You can learn a lot about someone simply by how they answer the question and govern yourself accordingly. I used to hear a lot of people say things were "Terrific" or other such positive exclamations, but I haven't heard it in awhile. Instead, I tend to hear more negative responses which I interpret as a sign of the times.

I used to know a guy who thought everything was "Super!" and appeared to be very upbeat. Time and again, you can count on him saying everything was "Super!" He was quite a salesman. He moved out of our area years ago and I understand he did quite well for himself in land development. Then the recession came along which clobbered his company into bankruptcy. This snowballed into losing his house, his family, everything. Last I heard, he was sitting in jail somewhere. All his bravado had come crashing down on him. He may have been a positive type of guy, but he didn't know how to manage his business and overextended himself.

Shortly after learning of this story, I bumped into another friend and when I asked how she was, she looked directly at me and replied, "I'm okay." Simple, yet sincere. I smiled as I knew it was more of an honest appraisal of her condition than the other guy who said everything was unquestioningly "Super!"

Some people might think the response, "Okay," as a mediocre answer, if not rather negative. I tend to see it more as a sign of candor and honesty. I would much rather hear a person say they are "Okay" rather than "Super!" any day of the week. As a matter of fact, anyone saying they're "Great" I tend to treat suspiciously these days. To me, "Okay" is positive, everything else is negative.

Now all I have to do is figure out how to respond to, "Wha'zup?"

Such is my Pet Peeve of the Week.

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

Tim Bryce is the Managing Director of M. Bryce & Associates (MBA) of Palm Harbor, Florida and has over 30 years of experience in the management consulting field. He can be reached at timb001@phmainstreet.com

For Tim's columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Tune into Tim's new podcast, "The Voice of Palm Harbor," at:

http://www.phmainstreet.com/voiceph.htm

Copyright © 2009 by Tim Bryce. All rights reserved.

FORM & SCREEN DESIGN

I've been working with a new web site that offers some pretty powerful features for multimedia, I don't want to say which one. Fortunately, I have been around the Information Technology industry for a long time now and can find my way through just about anything. Although this particular web site offers some pretty sophisticated capabilities, it is painful to navigate around and has pitiful Help facilities. Basically, it's as intuitive to use as a dead slug. Although I have found my way around the software, mostly through trial and error, I wonder how many people simply gave up due to the frustration factor involved. I suspect a lot.

You see this same phenomenon in nonprofit organizations that rely on paper forms which are confusing to read with no effective way of cross-checking the data being recorded. Consequently, erroneous data is entered which permeates and corrupts the rest of the system, thereby causing considerable expense to correct errors and eliminate redundancies.

Both forms and screens serve the same purpose, as an input device to collect data. The only difference between the two is the media used. Aside from this, both should be designed according to some basic principles:

1. They need to be "clean" and inviting to use. Consideration should be given to the types of people intended to use the form or screen and their intellectual capacity to work with it. If it is perceived as difficult to use, it will be rebuffed, and people will avoid using them, thereby defeating not only the form or screen, but the entire system as well.

2. There must be a means to validate or cross-check the data collected. For screens, there should be no reason why certain editing checks cannot be added to obtain the results desired, such as checking basic math, upshifting/downshifting certain text characters, and enforcing the use of valid entries such as state mailing codes; e.g., FL, OH, NY, CA, etc. (thereby prohibiting invalid entries). On-line help should, of course, be provided, not just for the screen, but for each entry. For paper forms, preparation instructions should be included (such as on the back of the form), sample entries should be provided, and a simple means should be provided to check math, such as tabulating columns and rows in a table.

3. They should be designed according to standards thereby making it easy to learn and use which, in turn, means improved user acceptance (since they are already familiar with similar screens and forms) thereby promoting system success. Besides, why should designers reinvent the wheel with each development project? Standards for form and screen design are certainly not new. Such standards have been available for a long time, but is anyone using them? If the web pages found on the Internet represent any indication, the answer is "No."

Forms and screens are usually designed by people who, despite their good intentions, fail due to their obsession with the technical implementation as opposed to concentrating on the human dynamics involved. I've seen some beautiful web pages that are graphically alluring but fail miserably simple due to horrible navigation, cryptic commands, microscopic lettering, and poor editing checks. They may look beautiful, but they fail due to the elements mentioned earlier.

Just remember, forms and screens are the portals to our systems. Systems begin with people and end with people; systems are for people.

For more information, see my paper on "Effective Screen Design."

Such is my Pet Peeve of the Week.

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

Tim Bryce is the Managing Director of M. Bryce & Associates (MBA) of Palm Harbor, Florida and has over 30 years of experience in the management consulting field. He can be reached at timb001@phmainstreet.com

For Tim's columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Tune into Tim's new podcast, "The Voice of Palm Harbor," at:

http://www.phmainstreet.com/voiceph.htm

Copyright © 2009 by Tim Bryce. All rights reserved.

ADAPTING TO CHANGE

Not long ago I wrote an article entitled, "Why we get peeved," wherein I made the observation that there is a tendency by people to fail to notice changes as they occur, that it only becomes apparent over time. Coping with change has been an underlying part of my writings for a long time now, both in my management papers and in these columns. One of our most fundamental Bryce's Laws is, "If anything in life is constant, it is change." Throughout my walk through life, be it in companies, schools, nonprofit groups, neighborhoods, or wherever, it has always amazed me how people steadfastly refuse to recognize change and oppose adapting to it. Some actually become downright belligerent about it, unnecessarily I might add.

In an earlier paper, "Why We Resist Change," I noted the causes of change and why we resist it which, in a nutshell, is because we are creatures of habit, we tend to fear the unknown, and due to simple human emotion. The fact remains though, change is all around us, mostly small subtle changes that may not be noticeable to the human senses, but they are there nevertheless. Radical change is not very common, but it is perhaps the most offensive to us as it represents a significant variance to the status quo.

When we are presented with a change, large or small, we will either embrace it as something good for us, tolerate it, or reject it out of hand. When we reject a change, it is not necessarily because we truly understand the impact of the change, as much as it is based on our perceptions of it, right or wrong. In other words, despite the logical necessity of the change, it will not be embraced if it is perceived as something bad. This means some good old-fashioned salesmanship is necessary to make the change palatable to the consumer.

Before you can accept or reject a change, you must first be able to recognize it. As mentioned, most changes are not discernible to the human senses. If it is not detected it will be implemented unchallenged. However, if it is detected, we must apply our intellect and endeavor to understand it. If we recognize a change, apply our intellect, and come to a logical conclusion whether it is good or bad, then we should be comfortable with our decision. The problem though is that most people do not take the time to apply their intellect, and rely either on just their perceptions or the judgment of others whose opinion they trust, and this is where salesmanship or "spin doctors" come in handy. In other words, people are either too lazy or preoccupied to properly study a change.

If a change is substantial in size or complexity, it may be difficult for people to come to a logical conclusion regarding it, at which time the agent of change should reconsider how it is presented, such as breaking it down into smaller and more easier to digest pieces.

When it comes to implementing a change to the status quo, you must either change with the change, or the change must change with you. This means you must adapt and learn to cope with the change, or bend the rules to suit your needs. On more than one occasion I have seen changes to corporate information systems either readily embraced, fought and dismissed, or have had the change itself changed to suit a particular environment.

Despite all of the changes around us, be it cultural, technological, political, or whatever, change ultimately involves a personal change to the individual, and the question remains, "Do I really want to change?" Change can be made voluntarily, with a little persuasion, or jammed down our throats. Interestingly, this correlates to the degree of resistance to a change, from no resistance, to suspicion, to outright rebellion. This suggests resistance correlates to how it is presented to us.

Each of us handles change in our own way, but to flatly refuse to recognize and cope with change is called "denial" and an unrealistic approach for walking through life.

Such is my Pet Peeve of the Week.

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

Tim Bryce is the Managing Director of M. Bryce & Associates (MBA) of Palm Harbor, Florida and has over 30 years of experience in the management consulting field. He can be reached at timb001@phmainstreet.com

For Tim's columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Tune into Tim's new podcast, "The Voice of Palm Harbor," at:

http://www.phmainstreet.com/voiceph.htm

Copyright © 2009 by Tim Bryce. All rights reserved.

PROJECT MANAGEMENT

I was talking to a consultant in the Philadelphia area recently who was lamenting about the state of Project Management in this country. He had been employed for over thirty years as a Project Manager in plant construction, was certified in his craft, yet found the state of project management to be quite primitive, which is surprising when you consider all of the tools available for managing projects these days. This led to a dialog as to why the state of project management had deteriorated. I contended this was nothing new and should not come as a surprise. I then cited four reasons for the problem:

First, as my friend suggested, people tend to take a tool oriented approach to project management as opposed to thinking the problem through themselves. Here is another area where we have created a dependency on technology and come down with a bad case of the stupids when it fails us. The scope of project management is large and consists of a variety of concepts and techniques, most of which are not complicated and can be easily taught, but are not. Consequently, college students graduate knowing how to use certain tools, but lack insight into basic concepts which hinders their ability to solve problems and work with others.

Second, executive management does not have an appreciation of project management and does not understand its scope, nor the integration of concepts. For example, project planning is required prior to developing an estimate, which then fuels scheduling, all of which is a precursor for effective project reporting. Some executives naively believe project management is nothing more than producing a schedule or buying computer software to record worker time. Some even think project management is cheap and refuse to invest in proper training for their people or acquiring an integrated set of tools for them to use.

Third, project management is necessary when you need to control multiple people on multiple projects with complicated work breakdown structures. However, it falls flat in this age of short term thinking where there is a tendency to attack smaller bite-size project assignments in a "quick and dirty" manner (aka "agile").

Last but not least, it must be remembered that project management is a people oriented function, not administrative, clerical or technical. In other words, Project management is a philosophy of management, not a specific tool or technique. It is getting people to complete project assignments on time, on schedule, within budget, and in a particular sequence. If the truth were known, there is nothing complicated about Project Management; it just requires discipline, organization, and accountability; three ugly words in today's business vernacular.

At the end of the phone call, my friend thanked me for being a sounding board and said he felt better after talking with me. I replied I wasn't surprised, after all, misery loves company.

Such is my Pet Peeve of the Week.

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

Tim Bryce is the Managing Director of M. Bryce & Associates (MBA) of Palm Harbor, Florida and has over 30 years of experience in the management consulting field. He can be reached at timb001@phmainstreet.com

For Tim's columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Tune into Tim's new podcast, "The Voice of Palm Harbor," at:

http://www.phmainstreet.com/voiceph.htm

Copyright © 2009 by Tim Bryce. All rights reserved.

GOOD NIGHT CHET

For over 40 years I have been a loyal follower of NBC news. It began in the 1960's with the Huntley-Brinkley report which I still consider the preeminent newscast of all time, better than both Walter Cronkite (CBS) and Howard K. Smith (ABC), although I had a lot of respect for Smith as a no-nonsense newsman. Chet Huntley reported from New York and his delivery was both authoritative and unbiased. David Brinkley reported from Washington, DC and possessed a slight yet charming North Carolina accent. He would also deliver quips that were both humorous and thought-provoking. The correspondents on the show followed Huntley-Brinkley's lead and helped turn the show into the most credible and trustworthy news program of the day.

Huntley retired in 1970 to his beloved Montana, leaving Nightly News in the capable hands of Frank McGee, John Chancellor, and Brinkley. When McGee passed away prematurely due to cancer, the mantel fell to Chancellor with Brinkley offering commentary. Chancellor did a capable job until his retirement in the early 1980's and Brinkley moved on to other projects. It was during this period that NBC News underwent a transformation as executives worried about ratings, and a new generation of news people began to emerge, which lead to Tom Brokaw and Brian Williams. Similar changes were also being enacted by CBS and ABC at this time, probably due to the advent of 24/7 news reporting as introduced by Ted Turner's CNN. Whereas news had once been the exclusive domain of the networks, cable news turned it into a whole new ball game. Executives became obsessed with ratings and started changing the format and content of network news, and in my opinion, not for the better.

I should mention that morning news programs also started to change at this same time. Barbara Walters, Hugh Downs, and Frank Blair anchored a Today Show in the 1960's with impeccable trust, but as they eventually moved on to other projects, their replacements lacked their authority and credibility.

Then along comes Fox News in the 1990's which, to me as a loyal NBC News viewer, was meaningless. I rarely watched it, but over the years I started to hear my friends and relatives mention they were watching Fox as they preferred its format and content. Again, as a loyal NBC News viewer, I stayed the course. Then, during this decade, I started to hear the "Big Three" snipe at Fox News, which began to pique my curiosity about the upstart. It was also at this time when I lost confidence in NBC's ability to report news fairly. All of the news seemed slanted towards a political ideology. To me, it was no longer fair and balanced and, as such, they lost my trust and pushed me into the arms of Fox News which I now watch with regularity.

It is a sad day for journalism when we begin to think of television news as organs of a political party. Both Huntley and Brinkley would be spinning in their graves if they could see the state of network news today. I took great comfort in how they reported the news. I trusted and respected them. If they had something to say, I listened, and I miss this generation of newscasters greatly. I no longer trust network news, least of all NBC, not only have they lost credibility with me, I am now suspicious of the news they report. As a long time NBC viewer, this saddens me.

"Good night Chet. Good night David. And goodbye to NBC News."

Such is my Pet Peeve of the Week.

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

Tim Bryce is the Managing Director of M. Bryce & Associates (MBA) of Palm Harbor, Florida and has over 30 years of experience in the management consulting field. He can be reached at timb001@phmainstreet.com

For Tim's columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Tune into Tim's new podcast, "The Voice of Palm Harbor," at:http://www.phmainstreet.com/voiceph.htm

Copyright © 2009 by Tim Bryce. All rights reserved.

TAKING QUALITY FOR GRANTED

Back in the early 1980's there was a big push for "quality" in the work place. The sudden interest came about after it was discovered the Japanese were overtaking the Americans in building superior products. Interestingly, the works of quality pioneers such as W. Edwards Deming and Joseph M. Juran, who enjoyed success in Japan, were rediscovered. Books couldn't be written fast enough on the subject, seminars overflowed with attendees, and Deming and Juran became overnight sensations in their home country which, for many years, ignored their contributions. The International Standards Organization (ISO) introduced the ISO 9000 Series of standards for quality which were quickly adopted by Europe and grudgingly by the United States. Although there was a general raising of consciousness in the 20th century, interest in quality began to fizzle in the 21st. So much so, that you don't hear too much about it anymore and I fear "quality" is something we again take for granted.

In the Information Technology industry alone, I don't see any evidence to suggest that quality has improved. If anything, it is worse, particularly in software where bugs are still common, probably because vendors avoid structured testing and, allow customers to beta-test their products instead (a concept I still can't fathom).

Even to this day, the general work force still suffers with misconceptions about quality. For example, it is generally believed quality is a matter of "class" as in different "classes" of automobiles; e.g., compact, midsize, luxury), which is like mixing apples with oranges. No, it's not about "class" but rather, producing a product as specified with zero-defects. In other words, producing a product in accordance with its specifications. To do so, quality must be built into the product during its development, not inspected in afterwards. This means the entire development process must be well defined in terms of Who, What, When, Where, Why and How the work is to be performed. Perhaps the best way to think of it is as an assembly line with several stations of work to perform different tasks. Instead of waiting to inspect the product after it rolls off of the assembly line, where it can be difficult and expensive to correct problems, every step in the assembly process checks the quality of the product before it proceeds to the next work station, thereby assuring a quality product comes off of the assembly line.

Maybe this is why there are so many quality problems in computer software, since programmers typically have a problem relating to this analogy and insist on testing their work afterwards as opposed to performing rigorous design reviews earlier on.

Beyond the mechanics of quality though, people must learn to care about the work products they are charged to produce. This is an area once referred to as "pride in workmanship" or "craftsmanship." Without this spirit of caring about one's work, nothing can guarantee a quality product, regardless of the number of rules the ISO writes. Quality requires both discipline and a conscientious work force. You can't have one without the other.

Such is my Pet Peeve of the Week.

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

Tim Bryce is the Managing Director of M. Bryce & Associates (MBA) of Palm Harbor, Florida and has over 30 years of experience in the management consulting field. He can be reached at timb001@phmainstreet.com

For Tim's columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Tune into Tim's new podcast, "The Voice of Palm Harbor," at:

http://www.phmainstreet.com/voiceph.htm

Copyright © 2009 by Tim Bryce. All rights reserved.

DEADBEATS

I recently saw a local merchant close his doors after only one year of operation. I don't want to get into the type of business he was in, but suffice it to say it could have been successful had the proprietor tried a little harder than he did. Instead, he chalked the defeat up to the recession and simply walked away from the business without clearing out his shelves and equipment, or paying his bills. In fact, his mail piled up at the door unopened, and creditors hounded the landlord to let them in the building to retrieve their unpaid equipment. What I found most interesting from this experience though, was the proprietor's attitude who couldn't have cared less. He wasn't the slightest bit embarrassed, apologetic or ashamed of himself. In fact, if you talked to him, you would get the impression that everything was great and he had no problems. He literally just walked away from the company leaving behind a pile of bills and stiffing his creditors.

As a Floridian, this attitude is not exactly uncommon and we have seen many people happily declare bankruptcy at the expense of others. We have some of the most liberal bankruptcy laws in the country. One moment a guy is declaring bankruptcy and leaving his creditors in the lurch for considerable sums of money, and the next moment he wants to be their best friend in a new venture. There is no guilt, no shame, no embarrassment. And I guess I really don't understand this attitude. I don't care if he has a tune on his lips or a song in his heart, a deadbeat is a deadbeat.

I don't consider someone a deadbeat if they have failed in business, yet want to genuinely make amends for their actions. A deadbeat is someone who feels no guilt in abusing the system to his advantage. Even a beggar has honor if he acknowledges his own deficiencies. In contrast, a deadbeat is only interested in one thing, himself. He has no concern for his employees, his vendors, or his customers. He just moves along to his next scam.

I don't know where this mindset originated from. Years ago, declaring bankruptcy would be considered a scarlet letter in society, but it's not like that anymore. Now, people are congratulated for outfoxing the system and leaving a trail of debt in their wake, regardless of the people hurt along the way. Is our society so perverted that we applaud bankruptcy as opposed to success? I'm sorry, I just don't get it, and most likely never will.

Such is my Pet Peeve of the Week.

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

Tim Bryce is the Managing Director of M. Bryce & Associates (MBA) of Palm Harbor, Florida and has over 30 years of experience in the management consulting field. He can be reached at timb001@phmainstreet.com

For Tim's columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Tune into Tim's new podcast, "The Voice of Palm Harbor," at:

http://www.phmainstreet.com/voiceph.htm

Copyright © 2009 by Tim Bryce. All rights reserved.

PRODUCTIVITY

If you lookup the word "Productivity" in a dictionary, you'll probably find something like, "The rate at which goods or services are produced, especially output per unit of labor." This implies the best way to improve productivity is through speed. There is no consideration for mistakes made or challenging the process by which something is produced, just speed. This is one of the most fallacious concepts common to American manufacturing and I see it just about everywhere, not only in the corporate sector.

For many years, our company has touted the following formula:

Productivity = Effectiveness X Efficiency

To produce anything, be it a product or service, there are two aspects to consider, not just one: "Doing the right things" (effectiveness), and, "Doing things right (efficiency). Whereas efficiency is concerned with process speed, effectiveness considers the necessity of the task itself. For example, in an assembly line, robotics offer faster speed in performing tasks such as welding, but if the weld is being performed at the wrong time or in the wrong place, then it is counterproductive regardless how fast it works. In other words, in addition to speed, we should be challenging the whole process ("Doing the right things").

Effectiveness addresses more than just business processes though, it is also concerned with the work product to be produced. After all, there is little point in building something efficiently that should never have been built at all. To illustrate, there is no doubt in my mind the automobile industry in Detroit knows how to make cars efficiently, but it has become painfully obvious they were building the wrong cars. What's the point of putting something on a menu that nobody is going to order? While Detroit focused on efficiency, foreign competition concentrated on building the right products and captured the American market.

We also see this difference of effectiveness and efficiency in our daily lives. For example, you may believe you had a great day at work; that you accomplished a lot, and maybe you did. Then again, maybe you didn't do as much as you might think. A lot of people believe just because they were a model of efficiency, they were being highly productive, but were they working on the right things? To quantify your personal productivity, I devised a simple calculator to compute your personal productivity which can be found at:

Bryce Daily Productivity Analyzer

Why are Americans consumed by efficiency and not effectiveness? Probably because we do a lousy job of planning and, as a result, routinely find ourselves in a crisis mode impatient for results. Not surprising, the emphasis in this country is on speed, speed, and more speed! Or as American programmers like to say, let's not waste time on planning, let's simply be more "Agile." I don't care how you try to spin it, "Quick and Dirty" is "Quick and Dirty." Quite often you hear workers lament, "We don't have time to do it right," which, when translated means, "We have plenty of time to do it wrong." Our foreign competitors are the antithesis of this mindset and spend more time planning and, in the process, are capturing the American market.

Such is my Pet Peeve of the Week.

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

Tim Bryce is the Managing Director of M. Bryce & Associates (MBA) of Palm Harbor, Florida and has over 30 years of experience in the management consulting field. He can be reached at timb001@phmainstreet.com

For Tim's columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Tune into Tim's new podcast, "The Voice of Palm Harbor," at:

http://www.phmainstreet.com/voiceph.htm

Copyright © 2009 by Tim Bryce. All rights reserved.

WHY WE GET PEEVED

I was recently talking to a friend who was commenting on some of my pet peeves, many of which he could relate to. Inevitably, he asked me why the world was so screwed up today. I thought about this for quite some time afterwards and believe I finally have an answer; it has always been screwed up, we simply weren't paying attention. Let me explain...

As we enter the work force, usually in our 20's, we're full of vim and vigor. We tend to tackle assignments brashly, some would say recklessly or impetuously. Because we want to make a name for ourselves, we tend to knock down obstacles in order to reach our goals and be rewarded. What we lack in knowledge and experience, we make up for in sheer energy.

In our 30's we're still energetic but we become smarter as we gain experience in what we do. As we enter our 40's, we tend to slow down a bit but think of ourselves at the top of our game.

In our 50's, we've become fully experienced in our profession and life, and from this we become acutely aware of our limitations. It is then when we begin to realize time has passed too quickly and we finally start to recognize the changes in the world. In other words, in our youth we were preoccupied with starting our lives; so much so, we were distracted and did not realize the world was changing around us. As we get older, we slow down and suddenly become cognizant of the changes and ask why things aren't the same as they used to be in our youth.

Our world is a big and complicated place. So big, it is impossible to stay on top of all of the changes going on around us, even in spite of the 24/7 news media. Changes come at us from many directions: politics, science and technology, the arts, competition, fashion, customs, public opinion, social issues, international affairs, and a wide range of changing laws, rules and regulations. However, change is so slow, it is almost transparent to us and if we become distracted, as most of us do, we don't recognize it. Only after a few decades do the changes become vividly clear to us and by then, it is usually too late to do anything about them as we should have been paying attention earlier on. Suddenly we realize people are acting and looking different, particularly the next generation, that social and moral norms are different, and the world has changed.

So why do we get "peeved"? I think it is simply because we have suddenly realized the world is different and the status quo is unlike what we remembered from our youth. And we don't like it.

Such is my Pet Peeve of the Week.

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

Tim Bryce is the Managing Director of M. Bryce & Associates (MBA) of Palm Harbor, Florida and has over 30 years of experience in the management consulting field. He can be reached at timb001@phmainstreet.com

For Tim's columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Tune into Tim's new podcast, "The Voice of Palm Harbor," at:

http://www.phmainstreet.com/voiceph.htm

Copyright © 2009 by Tim Bryce. All rights reserved.

MAN HOURS

I've never been comfortable with the concept of "Man Hours," not that it's a gender issue, but rather it implies ignorance of how time is used in the work place and fumbles away some simple management concepts needed to run any business, namely accountability and commitment. Actually, I thought the "Man Hour" concept disappeared with the passing of the 20th century, but it appears to be making a comeback.

The fallacy of the "Man Hour" concept is that it assumes a person is working productively 100% of the time. This, of course, is hardly the case in any company. Workers are either working on their assignments, be they what they may, or there are interferences keeping them from their work, such as meetings, phone calls, e-mails, reading, breaks, etc. Time spent on work assignments is referred to as "Direct," and time spent on interferences is referred to as "Indirect." The relationship of Direct to Indirect time is referred to as an "Effectiveness Rate" delineating the use of time during the work day. For example, in an office environment, 5.6 hours are typically spent on Direct work, and 2.4 hours are typically spent on Indirect interferences (assuming an eight hour business day), or an Effectiveness Rate of approximately 70%. In no way should Effectiveness Rate be confused as an efficiency rating; the two are NOT synonymous. Whereas an efficiency rating measures how well someone performs a task in a given time, Effectiveness Rate simply measures the use of time during the work day.

Effectiveness Rate teaches us that a person cannot be 100% effective all the time, which is at the crux of the problem with "Man Hours." Let's go beyond this though and show how this simple concept should be applied in the work place. For example, Direct time is the responsibility of the individual worker to manage, and Indirect time is the responsibility of the manager to manage. Both Direct and Indirect time should be recorded either using computer software (such as a Project Management system) or with a paper time sheet. To make this work, the individual must participate in the estimating process of an assignment. Instead of an estimate being forced on to a worker, as in a micromanagement scenario, the worker is asked to consider the complexity of the assignment and make a personal commitment in terms of the Direct Hours needed to complete the task. As work progresses, the worker posts his/her time to the time sheet/screen and updates the amount of time remaining on a given task, not in terms of "percent complete" but by the number of Direct hours remaining (aka, "Estimate to Do"). This emphasis on estimating and reporting Direct Hours means the individual must supervise him/herself, thereby the manager spends less time supervising the worker. In other words, workers are treated like professionals and are expected to act as such in return.

Because the manager is responsible for managing the work environment, he/she monitors and controls the worker's indirect time. Again, it should be remembered that a person cannot be 100% effective. If pushed too hard, the worker may start to make mistakes or accidents which would certainly be counterproductive. This is why, for example, Japanese assembly lines will stop periodically to allow workers to back away from their machines and briefly perform some basic exercise before resuming their work, thereby clearing their heads. The exercise is most certainly an Indirect activity that keeps them from their tasks, but it refreshes them and allows them to refocus.

In the average office, each person will have a different Effectiveness Rate which the manager will monitor. Again, there is a big difference between Effectiveness Rate and an Efficiency Rating. To illustrate, a novice worker may have a high Effectiveness Rate, but it may take him/her more time to perform a task than an experienced worker who might have a lower Effectiveness Rate. Here, the manager must consider the skills and proficiencies of the workers when selecting personnel to perform a task. For more information, see my paper on "Creating a Skills Inventory."

One of the main benefits of Indirect Time, is its use in calculating schedules. For example, if 100 hours have been estimated to perform a given task, under the "Man Hour" approach, the task would be performed in 12.5 business days (assuming an eight hour business day). By studying Effectiveness Rate though, the manager can use it to calculate a more realistic schedule; for example, assuming a worker is 70% effective, this means there are 5.6 Direct Hours in the business day to perform the work, which calculates into 17.8 business days (and substantially different than the "Man Hour" approach). The point is, Effectiveness Rate builds reality into a schedule.

As work progresses on an assignment, the worker reports his/her time which the manager monitors. If the manager observes the worker's Effectiveness Rate dropping, he will endeavor to determine the reason why and exercise authority to try to raise it (within reason of course) in order to keep the schedule on track. For example, the manager may instruct the worker to minimize personal phone calls and attendance at meetings. By doing so, the manager is controlling the work environment.

To make this all work, the workers need to report their use of time, something that some office workers spurn claiming it is "unprofessional." Nonsense. Being a professional means you are held accountable for your actions and committed to delivering on your promises. Since professionals such as lawyers, doctors and accountants keep track of their time, why not other workers? If workers truly want to be treated like professionals, with less micromanagement, then they must accurately report their use of time. Bottom-line, this interpretation of the use of time promotes the concept of the "Mini-Project Manager" whereby workers supervise themselves. In other words, the company is managing from the bottom-up as opposed to top-down. If done properly, the manager will find he/she will spend more time managing and less time supervising. The concept of "Man Hours" is simply the antithesis of this approach.

As an aside, this concept can hardly be considered new as it was derived from construction projects in the 1950's. Do you know what the average Effectiveness Rate of a construction worker is? 25% Call the Ripley people, they don't even believe it.

Such is my Pet Peeve of the Week.

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

Tim Bryce is the Managing Director of M. Bryce & Associates (MBA) of Palm Harbor, Florida and has over 30 years of experience in the management consulting field. He can be reached at timb001@phmainstreet.com

For Tim's columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Tune into Tim's new podcast, "The Voice of Palm Harbor," at:

http://www.phmainstreet.com/voiceph.htm

Copyright © 2009 by Tim Bryce. All rights reserved.

LAWN MOWING

I have been mowing lawns for 46 years now. When I was a kid in Connecticut, my family had a reel mower; you know, one of those plain push mowers where the blades twirl faster as you push the mower. When we moved to Chicago in the mid-60's my father bought our first power mower at Montgomery Ward. The engine only turned the blade; you still had to push it as there was no self-propulsion. Over the years I've had a variety of lawn mowers, both push and riders. The fact remains though, year after year I've been mowing my lawn. I've had help from my son over the years, but now he is off to college, leaving me to fend for myself again.

In my neighborhood, I'm one of the few guys remaining who mows his own lawn, if not the only one. People stare at me as they drive by my house while I'm mowing. I guess they think I'm either eccentric, too poor to hire a lawn service, or maybe I'm a lawn service worker myself. Actually, I don't mind doing the lawn as it is an excellent way for me to get some exercise, and I take great pride in my work if I can get the lawn to look the way I want it to.

Most of the people in my neighborhood use a lawn service. I don't think I have ever seen a youth in our subdivision push a lawnmower either. As for my family, both my son and daughter have taken their turn with the lawn mower over the years, but mostly the burden fell to the boy. I've always looked upon such work as a great way to teach responsibility and pride in workmanship. Over the years, my son has learned to use all of my power tools and is now pretty handy with them. He also understands safety issues as well. I've asked some of my friends why they don't have their children mow their lawn and they look at me incredulously like I've taken leave of my senses. I guess they're afraid their kids might learn Spanish and become professional landscapers. As for me, I've always seen it as a way to teach children how to carry their weight in the household. Then again, I guess I'm old fashioned.

Down here in Florida, the main type of grass we have is Floratam St. Augustine, or just plain "Floratam," which was developed to resist all the little bugs and critters we have in our soil down here. It's not quite the same type of grass as you find up north which looks thin and puny by comparison. Actually, I think down here they've got us all conned into believing that Floratam is something special when, in reality, it is nothing but an expensive form of crab grass.

It's interesting the ensemble of lawn tools you collect and use over the years. In addition to the lawn mower, I have a fertilizer spreader, an edger, a weedwhacker, a hedger, a chain saw, different pruning clippers, saws, rakes, etc. It can become quite an investment in equipment if you want to do the lawn yourself. No wonder I get Christmas cards from Home Depot and Lowes.

The only thing I dislike about mowing is when the mower breaks down, which happened to me recently. I have a riding mower and a bolt popped out causing the undercarriage to fall off and snapped a belt. It wouldn't be a big deal if was a push mower, but because it is a rider, I had to schedule an appointment for it to be fixed and call on a friend with a truck to help me move it which, frankly, is a pain in the ass. Otherwise, when the mower is working properly I can get it done in no time at all.

While the lawn mower was in the shop for repair, which was for a few weeks, I arranged to have a service come in to take care of the lawn for me, and I admit they did a remarkable job. However, it seemed very strange to me not to mow the lawn and I started to go through withdrawal symptoms. I know I won't be able to take care of the lawn forever and at some point I'll have to acquiesce the responsibility to someone else. I suppose it's been a matter of pride and determination for me (or just plain stubbornness). I guess I fear someone saying, "What? You're getting too old to do the lawn?" Maybe I'm just confused; that mowing lawns for over 50 years is not so much considered a feat of strength, but an act of stupidity. I'm not sure which.

Such is my Pet Peeve of the Week.

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

Tim Bryce is the Managing Director of M. Bryce & Associates (MBA) of Palm Harbor, Florida and has over 30 years of experience in the management consulting field. He can be reached at timb001@phmainstreet.com

For Tim's columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Tune into Tim's new podcast, "The Voice of Palm Harbor," at:

http://www.phmainstreet.com/voiceph.htm

Copyright © 2009 by Tim Bryce. All rights reserved.

WHY THE LEFT HATES RUSH & COMPANY

When you hear the name "Rush Limbaugh" mentioned by liberals and the press, the adjectives "controversial", "polarizing", "bombastic", "inflammatory", and "shock-jock" are often mentioned. Actually, such descriptions are also used to characterize Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and anyone who opposes liberal policies and positions. Although these on-air personalities are generally regarded as the "Dark Side" of politics by Democrats, they also enjoy great ratings on the air waves.

I contend the reason they are condemned by the left is not because of what they say, but how they say it. After all, conservative doctrine is well known and rather predictable. Yet, people tune in regularly to get their daily dosage of conservative viewpoints. The difference lies in their tactics; whereas the liberal media is more covert in their spin on politics and world events (at least they like to believe they are), Rush & Company are more overt and unafraid of a good argument, some would even call it an "in your face" form of broadcasting. They actually relish a good challenge and welcome the opportunity to spar with virtually anybody. Whereas liberals like to spin their agenda using repetitive subliminal messages through the media, conservatives have become more proactive and animated in their discourse, which leads to better ratings.

Liberals have been orchestrating attacks against conservatives for quite some time; yet, when someone like Rush & Company openly fights back, the opposition is appalled and cries foul. Since they will not publicly debate Rush & Company, for fear of losing, the liberals vilify them through innuendo and sniping. Such attacks doesn't discredit or deter them one bit; In fact, it emboldens them. Any time the liberals openly attack them, on the air or in print, their ratings actually go up, not down, and fills their coffers. In addition to confounding the liberals, it puts them in a no-win situation with Rush & Company; if they attack them, they invigorate their ratings; if they do not, they suffer guilt by silence. Rush & Company, of course, are cognizant of this and know they have nothing to lose.

The Democrats only have three options to thwart Rush & Company; first, they can continue their program of vilifying the opposition, which only makes them stronger; second, they can publicly debate them, whereby they run the risk of losing an argument, or; third, they can completely ice them out by not recognizing them in any manner or form. As Oscar Wilde correctly observed, "The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about." Then again, Rush & Company has already developed legions of devoted followers. I'm betting they will simply continue with the first option.

I find it interesting that personalities such as Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews are not considered "controversial", "bombastic", etc. They can hardly be called newscasters as they openly spin liberal doctrine. Yet, they are not criticized by the press. Hmm...I guess what is good for the goose is not good for the gander. If you say you agree with Rush & Company, you are openly accused of being "as crazy as they are." Yet, the opposite isn't true.

One thing is for sure, Rush & Company is not going away any time soon and will continue to publicly gnaw away at liberal principles (and become rich in the process). I'm not so much convinced the left despises them as much as they are afraid of them. Regardless, whether you love them or hate them, it all makes for great political theater.

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

Tim Bryce is the Managing Director of M. Bryce & Associates (MBA) of Palm Harbor, Florida and has over 30 years of experience in the management consulting field. He can be reached at timb001@phmainstreet.com

For Tim's columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm

Tune into Tim's new podcast, "The Voice of Palm Harbor," at:

http://www.phmainstreet.com/voiceph.htm

Copyright © 2009 by Tim Bryce. All rights reserved.