Tag: managerialism

More National Broadband woes

Australia’s National Broadband Network project hits a hiccup with installation contracts.

This is not good for the National Broadband Network project; contractor Service Stream announced it was handing back the Northern Territory rollout contracts to the Australian Security Exchange this morning.

It raises serious questions about the timetable of the project.

Service Stream advises that Syntheo, a 50/50 joint venture with Lend Lease, has reached agreement with
NBN Co to hand back the remainder of its design and construction activities in the Northern Territory. Syntheo is committed to working with NBN Co to complete its work in Western Australia and South Australia.
Given NBNCo abandoned its construction tender in April 2011 amidst hints of price fixing by contractors, this is a worrying development that indicates those ‘overpriced quotes’ may have been closer to the money after all.
I’ll be writing something up later today for IT News.

Similar posts:

The high cost of new media experiments

The BBC’s expensive exit from their Lonely Planet investment shows the costs and risk for old media empires as online business models evolve.

The BBC yesterday sold Lonely Planet to US media company NC2 Media. Their £80 million loss on the venture puts them in good company as established media struggle to find new online channels and revenue streams.

While the losses aren’t trivial, they are not quite in the league of News Corporation $545 million loss on MySpace or Time Warner’s billion dollar adventure with AOL.

All three stories show how tough it is for ‘old media’ adapting to a new landscape.

The problem is there for ‘new media’ as well, most ventures struggle to make money and many of the success stories like Huffington Post rely on a combination of free content and a greater fool buying them.

No-one has really figured out what the new media revenue models are; not the established publishers or the online upstarts.

Lonely Planet’s online success was due to their forums which, like most web discussion boards, can feature discussions politely described as “robust”.

This was always going to a problem for the BBC’s public service management culture and it resulted in the shutdown of the Lonely Planet Thorn Tree forums over Christmas.

So it’s not surprising that the BBC has decided to end its experiment and now the corporation’s management is dealing with the criticism of those losses.

While it’s easy to criticise the BBC for the deal, at least the broadcaster was attempting something different online, doing nothing is probably a poorer strategy than buying MySpace or Lonely Planet.

Over time, we’re going to see a lot more experiments and many will be public embarrassments like those the BBC and News Corporation have suffered, but there will be successes.

Someone will crack the code and they will be the Randolph Hearsts of this century. It could one of the Murdoch heirs, it could be the owners of NC2 Media or it could be some young, hot shot developer working in a Rio favela or the slums of Kolkata.

But it will be someone.

It’s an exciting time to be in business.

Similar posts:

First we kill email, then Powerpoint

French company Atos intends to eliminate email, Powerpoint and meetings from their business. Few organisations are brave enough to follow them.

Two years ago French technology firm Atos raised eyebrows after announcing the company would go email free.

Atos CEO Thierry Breton said at the time,

We are producing data on a massive scale that is fast polluting our working environments and also encroaching into our personal lives. At [Atos] we are taking action now to reverse this trend, just as organizations took measures to reduce environmental pollution after the industrial revolution.

Eighteen months on, the Financial Times reports Thierry is well on the way to eliminate the office pollution that is email. Lee Timmons, one of Atos’ Vice Presidents, tells the paper,

“At the 2012 London Olympics, we were able to zero-email certify some processes – a first – and (we) look set to be email-free internally by the end of 2013,”

Now Atos is looking at eliminating other business distractions, notably Powerpoint presentations and meetings.

Eliminating inboxes, Powerpoint and meetings from the workplace seems a noble cause. Few organisations would be prepared to even consider this.

For many staff and managers, spending hours sorting email, attending pointless meetings and futzing around with over-elaborate Powerpoint presentations is how they justify their time.

It’s going to be interesting to see how Atos goes with thier objective of streamlining the workplace and how many other companies are prepared to copy them.

Man sending an email image courtesy of Bruno-Free at SXC.hu

Similar posts:

Door to door blues

How short term management thinking caught energy suppliers and telecommunications providers short.

The news that energy companies have decided to drop direct door to door selling in the face of prosecution is the latest example of poor thought out performance metrics and managers unsuccessfully trying to shift risks out of their business.

Electricity and gas distributors Energy Australia and AGL embarked on a door-to-door sales campaign to gain more customers. Like most modern corporations, they don’t do this stuff themselves and engaged outsourcing companies who in turn took on commission salespeople to do the ground level selling selling.

It didn’t work well and in face of complaints, both companies had to back away from their campaigns after suffering legal and reputational damage.

The sad thing this has happened before, at the time of telecoms deregulation in the 1990s telcos did the same thing to grow their market share. Door to door sales teams fanned out across the suburbs to sign households up to telephone plans.

In one example, a company hired dozens of backpackers, bussed them to outlying suburbs and sent them out on the streets to sign up as many households as possible.

Initially the campaigns were a success with providers reporting increased signups, greater market share, fat executive bonuses and happy commission earning salespeople.

Then the complaints began.

Customers discovered they’d been lied to, or in some cases falsely signed up, as hungry salespeople did everything they could to get a commission.

At first the telcos thought they could throw the problem over the fence so they blamed the contractors. Eventually the damage became so great the telcos had to back down on their door to door selling as problems multiplied and consumer protection agencies expressed their irritation.

At the heart of the problems with this type of door to door selling is the mismatch of incentives – for managers, contractors and the teams going door to door in the suburbs.

Door to Door Blues

At the coalface are the salesteams trudging around suburbs. In the 1990s telco boom they were largely made up of backpackers whose interests were to sign up as many customers as possible in order to fund the next stage of their travels.

Often, the telco or its contractor would only discover a sign up was the family dog or toddler long after the traveller was sunning themselves at Koh Phi Phi.

Using Indian students as the energy contractors were doing largely fixed some of the worst excesses of the 1990s but it didn’t address all of the problems

Management misalignment

Driving the rush for sign ups are usually poorly designed  management Key Perfomance Indicators – a dumb set of executive benchmarks rewards poor  behaviour and creates unforeseen risks. Particularly when those KPIs are focused on short term metrics.

Very quickly the risks in the short term focus become apparent and managers back off from these programs.

In this case it appears Energy Australia’s managers heeded the early warnings and backed off before the problem became too great, unlike the telcos who let the sales teams run rampant before reigning them.

What’s saddening about Energy Australia’s and AGL’s problems is they were totally forseeable and those who warned of the risks in a door-to-door customers acquisition strategy – and there were almost certainly some in these organisations – were overuled by enthusiastic executives aiming to bust their sales and market share metrics.

Sometimes we are condemned to repeat history repeatedly in business.

Similar posts:

Employment’s changing face

Is it management’s and white collar workers’ turn to deal with the change of contracting and business process outsourcing?

Last Thursday recruitment company Talent2 launched its 2013 Market Pulse Survey looking at the employment trends across the Asia Pacific.

According to the survey, things are looking good with 61% of businesses across the Asia Pacific forecasting growth and 45% expecting to hire more staff.

However there’s an interesting underlying theme to the good news, employment is changing in large organisations.

One of the give-aways is the fact that while nearly two-thirds of businesses expect to grow in 2013, less than half intend to increase staff. Businesses are doing more with less.

Part of this is because of increased automation. Despite the headlines, productivity is increasing in workplaces – particularly offices – as technology automates many business functions in fields like logistics and workforce management.

Another aspect driving the lack of employment is outsourcing, Talent2 say the proportion of Australians working as full time employees dipped below 75% in 2012 with a four percentage point drop over the year.

With more businesses contracting work out, one could expect the number of sole proprietors to be increasing. However this seems not to be the case.

The number of non-employing Australian businesses

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the number of sole traders is barely moving – between 2006 and 2011 the number of “non-employing Australian businesses” only increased 5% while the population grew over 8%.

This implies the proportion of contractors in the workforce is actually shrinking.

Much of this is probably due to the work going offshore, particularly to Business Process Outsourcers (BPOs) in countries like the Philippines, Malaysia and Sri Lanka.

Saturday’s Australian Financial Review looked at what the BPOs are doing in the Philippines and they aren’t carrying out the call centre and basic clerical work that’s made up most of the outsourcing over the last twenty years. Now it’s management roles that are going offshore.

The bigger issue confronting Australians, however, is not call centre workers being relocated to the Philippines. It’s low- to mid-level professional jobs, being moved out of companies, accounting firms and law offices.

Legal outsourcing has been growing for a decade as large law firms have moved many of their para-legal and routine tasks offshore to countries where legal graduates are plentiful but work at lower rates than their western colleagues.

An interesting aspect in legal offshoring is that much of the work that was done by young lawyers has now gone to overseas contractors, which probably means there’s going to be a shortage of experienced legal practioners in the medium term. This is going to have profound consequences for law firms and their partners.

It’s also going to mean law and associated degrees are going to be less popular with school leavers as career prospects dwindle.

The biggest impact though is for managers – we’ve grown used to the assumption that management jobs stay at head office while the lower level jobs go to the lowest cost provider.

Now is those lowest cost providers are offering good quality management staff along with support desk and call centre staff.

During the restructurings of the 1980s and 90s, it was blue collar workers who were the most affected by change. Now it’s the turn of the office workers and managers.

It will be interesting to see how many of the people who thought they were secure in their roles deal with the uncertainty they now have. For some it’s going to be a tough decade.

Similar posts:

Will the top level domain milk cow save Melbourne IT?

The new global top level domains promise to be a rich cash cow, but is it enough to save Melbourne IT?

Beleaguered domain registration company Melbourne IT hopes the new breed of global top level domains will be its salvation after a decade of indifferent returns and a wallowing shareprice.

When the top level domains – known by their geeky acronym of gTLDs – were proposed five years ago they smelled like a revenue grab and so it has turned out.

To date 1930 organisations have applied for one of the top level domains, with a $135,000 evaluation fee that’s a juicy 260 million dollar pot to be shared between ICANN and the various domain registrars. No wonder Melbourne IT’s management is drooling.

One of the assurances of ICANN when the top level domains were announced was that trademark ownership would be part of the expensive evaluation process. That Melbourne IT is now spruiking gTLDs as a defensive intellectual property tactic is a notable backflip from ICANN’s earlier position.

The trading names aspect of the new global TLDs is going to be problematic for the registers and ICANN, a quick look at the applicant list for the new names sees domains like Tennis, Fail and Compare being applied for.

Good luck with defending those names in court – although having a spurious claim on the global use of the word ‘tennis’ will no doubt keep an army of Tennis Australia’s well paid lawyers occupied for years.

Even more delicious is Telstra’s claim to the domain name ‘yellowpages’. Despite being a declining business the Yellow Pages trademark is fiercely defended by various incumbent phone and directory companies around the world so it’s hard to see how that application will get passed without strong objections.

The real tragedy in the Melbourne IT story is how the company has gone nowhere for over decade after being the darling of the stock market when it was floated in 1998.

Melbourne IT shareprice

When Melbourne IT floated, it attracted controversy with it’s shares being priced at 2.20 and opening at $8.80. A stag gain of 300% for the insiders who got shares.

Despite the beliefs of those brainwashed by government privatisation campaigns in the 1990s, a staggering stag (pardon the pun) is money straight of the pocket of the listed company’s existing shareholders – Melbourne University in this case – and is evidence of either gross incompetence or malfeasance by the board and its advisors.

Given the Victorian government’s Auditor-General cleared the Melbourne IT board of any wrongdoing, the only explanation for the company’s botched float is gross incompetence.

The company’s share price since is clear evidence that gross incompetence remains a problem within the organisation’s leadership.

Whether the strong demand for global Top Level Domains can drag Melbourne IT out of it’s long term mediocrity remains to be seen but with the management’s track record it’s difficult to be optimistic.

Disclaimer: I was a director of a company that was a Melbourne IT reseller. There’s a long blog post in the poor, 1995 IT systems used by MelbourneIT and those might be related to the company’s poor performance over the last decade.

Similar posts:

People like us – could poor hiring practices bring down Silicon Valley?

Are poor hiring practices putting Silicon Valley at risk?

A strange little story appeared in Business Insider a few weeks back, 9 Things Your Resume Needs if you want to be Hired by Apple or Google is a curious view into the mindset of Silicon Valley.

Purporting to be an extract from a book written by a former recruiter who claims to have worked for Apple, Google and Microsoft, the story exposes a weakness in Silicon Valley and the technological elite which may cause the very disruptions they have unleashed to work against them.

The nine items are fascinating for the elitist, US-centric view of the world they portray and each is worth investigating on their own.

If you graduated from an elite college, your chances of getting an interview vastly improve

Yes, where you went to school does matter to the tech giants. Of course there are exceptions, but McDowell says an Ivy League or other top university will get you noticed.

There’s not much more to add to this, except to note that the vast majority of students whose families can afford such an education are from the upper middle class.

The Googles and Apples like to see relevant internship experience.

If you waited tables when you were 19, that isn’t attractive.

If you are lucky enough to get into a an Ivy League school on a scholarship or manage to scrape together the money you may still not make the cut.

To the author, only those with sufficient wealth to participate in unpaid internships are going to get jobs at the top Silicon Valley companies.

Your major matters

Sorry liberal arts people or chemical engineers, you’ll need another way in to Google or Apple.

This is an interesting one, Silicon Valley boosters often talk about the creative process and how coders are artists however according to the recruiter that’s just lip service.

She encourages students to pick majors that are directly relevant to Google or Apple. Finance, accounting, marketing or computer science majors have the best shot of being noticed by a tech recruiter.  At the very least, minor in one of those fields.

A focus on finance, accounting and marketing is the same as any old corporation – you could be going for a job with AT&T, Goldman Sachs or the government with qualifications like that. So much for unique.

Dissing chemical engineering is particularly interesting as Chem Eng graduates have passed one of the toughest university degrees. Whats more, the demands of mobile computing devices means battery technology is one of the most pressing issues facing Silicon Valley at the moment. Chemical Engineers are the folk who will solve this problem.

Big tech companies like to see people giving back to their communities.

Volunteering can be a great way to buff up your resume. That said, McDowell warns: “don’t serve soup in a soup kitchen.”

Instead she suggests hunting for a sales or marketing position, or offering to help a charity with its website and design.

This is a really obnoxious statement – basically saying we want to you volunteer, but we don’t want you to help people.

Just how many sales and marketing people are needed by soup kitchens, volunteer fire brigades or community pantries is open to debate.

A bigger issue with this mentality is that it favours bureaucrats and paper shufflers rather than doers. Which again is something anathema to the public statements of Silicon Valley’s leaders.

They also like good spellers and speakers.

Writing and communications skills aren’t just necessary for media jobs. They’re important in any career you’ll have.

Well, duh.

If you are buddies with college professors, that’s a plus.

Professors aren’t just impressed by how you do in their classes.  McDowell suggests helping them with research projects, asking for help and attending office hours, or becoming a teaching assistant.

That doesn’t hurt, but it’s pretty basic vanilla advice and again it’s tough luck if you have to do a shift at the local fast food restaurant so you can feed yourself.

Show you understand multiple positions at Google or Apple

If you want to work at one of the top tech companies, it helps to have at least a basic understanding of multiple positions in the organization.  McDowell calls this being a Generalist.

On one hand this advice makes sense but on another many technical roles are not generalist positions.

Generally having a knowledge of the company’s structure and roles is going to look good to any interviewer, assuming you can get past the gatekeeper at the recruitment company.

Entrepreneurs have a better shot of being hired.

This is a funny one, if you’re a real entrepreneur then the thought of working in cubicle at Apple or Microsoft while answering to a middle manager straight out of a Dilbert cartoon ranks with getting hot pine needles thrust under  your toenails.
One of the conceits of modern corporate life is that they value entrepreneurs and the free-wheeling spirits – the truth is they don’t and the first true hint of entrepreneurialism among the ranks will be smothered quickly with a deluge of paperwork.
Funnily enough, being a successful tech entrepreneur is a path to getting a good job at a tech company although it’s more likely to happen as an acqui-hire than through a recruiter.

Good news: Your GPA doesn’t matter very much

Most people think tech companies, Google in particular, harp over candidates’ GPAs. McDowell says there is little truth to that rumor.

This is only good news if you’ve ticked most of the other boxes, which means you’ll be considered if you’re middling graduate from Stanford or Harvard but forget it if you went elsewhere, regardless of how good your marks are.

The danger of recruiters

What the Business Insider story really illustrates are the risks of relying on third party recruiters as gatekeepers to filter out new employees.

Regardless of how good the recruitment consultant is they are going to apply their own cultural filters and biases onto the selection process and as a result knock out most good candidates.

More importantly, a company risks developing a monoculture if the recruitment process is too effective at filtering out people who don’t fit a narrow stereotype.

A new breed of officemen?

Reading the Business Insider story leaves one with the feeling that many of these companies are beginning to look like IBM in the 1960s – monocultures more concerned about the colour of an employee’s tie and choice of shirts rather than the talents they bring to the organisation or the value they can add to customers.

This is probably the greatest risk of all to the tech industry, that they end up with an insular group of people with fixed mindsets.

Should that happen, then the wave of disruption Silicon Valley has unleashed on the world will end up being the industry’s undoing as smart kids working out of garages in Michigan or slums in Delhi will out innovate the staid, comfortable incumbents.

It’s also interesting to consider how many other industries are now suffering after several decades of similar recruiting practices where leading businesses are now dominated by insular, unworldly monocultures.

Image courtesy of Alexfurr on SXC.HU

Similar posts: