Improving ROI of your time: 18 simple questions you should keep asking

 

February 20, 2011, 7:57 AM PST

Takeaway: Your time is precious. Life is too short. Fortunately, there is something you do to dramatically improve return on your time.

“Of course, I can help you with your IT strategy,” I said to a caller. “Since you mentioned that this is urgent, can you meet for an hour? The next week? The week after? Well, when will you have the time?”

No organization or individual has unlimited resources, and we certainly cannot buy more time, no matter how much we are prepared to pay. Yet the calendars of executives, managers, and professionals are booked solid with activities that don’t belong there in the first place: phone calls to “touch base,” meetings “to be in the loop,” projects that shouldn’t have started in the first place. With the “wrong” items taking up all the space, there is no way for the “right” things to get the attention they deserve.

Your time is precious. Life is too short. Fortunately, there is something you can do to dramatically improve return on your time. I would like to share with you a handful of simple questions you should be asking in a variety of business situations. Is this a comprehensive list? Of course not, but I am being respectful of your time.

On receiving a proposal or request to initiate an action or project — anything that will require investment of time from you or your team

You don’t want to spend any time on half-baked ideas, projects that are misguided or that generate no value, or complex solutions to simple problems.

1. Why? The old consulting technique of posing this question five times in a row might at times annoy the other party. That should not matter to you as much as the fact that you have just gotten to the bottom of an obscure problem.

2. What other alternatives did we consider? People forever jump to solutions before the problem at hand is well understood. IT is notorious at throwing complex technology and processes at simple issues. Challenge yourself and others to look at all potential solutions.

3. How does it align with our strategy/values/key priorities? Projects are often initiated for the wrong reasons, such as sudden availability of funding or someone’s flight of fancy. Nip them in the bud.

4. Why is this important at this time? Timing is everything, as the old adage goes. Why now?

5. How would you like me to be involved going forward? This is how you save yourself from being dragged into endless meetings. Let the other party state their preference, and if it does not match your expectations, offer an alternative that would meet the same objectives at a lesser cost to you.

6. What would be the best outcome from your perspective? This is one of the best questions to ask a client or a sponsor of a project. Getting them to state it explicitly will enable you and your people to concentrate on the right things. Additionally, you will be able to measure progress toward what is considered to be a success.

7. Who else needs to be consulted before we proceed? I have seen numerous projects initiated on the whim of a self-appointed sponsor, just to be stopped soon thereafter by someone with more clout within the organization. The effort of all participants could have been directed to a more worthy cause.

8. Is there business on the table? As an IT leader, you often get offers to collaborate, to get together to participate in a committee, and so on. These are potentially huge time wasters. Asking a polite but pointed question helps to protect you from the time vampires.

In a meeting - planning, problem solving, group decision making

The typical problem here is the inefficiency due to lack of facilitation skills, deficiency of the process, or the obscure objective. I have no patience for these things and neither should you.

9. How do we know that? What evidence do we have? You want to hear objective facts. Massive projects are launched based on attribution bias, and countless hours are spent on solutions to problems that don’t exist. You don’t want to be a part of that.

10. Are we disagreeing on the goal or on the method of implementation? This is the best question I know to get control of a disagreement. You will find that it is the implementation that is a problem, not the final goal. Getting an acknowledgment of that sets you on a path to a speedy resolution. Otherwise, you will spend hours listening to bickering.

11. What are the next steps? There is a rampant problem of meetings and discussions from which participants emerge without a sense of what is expected of them in the light of the conversation that just happened. This is a horrible waste of time and energy.

12. Who should be responsible for this step/item? This is similar to the previous point. You want to make sure that accountability is clearly defined.

13. What is the agenda of the meeting? How can we prepare to make it more productive?

14. May I summarize? I learned this technique from Dr. Alan Weiss. It is great for controlling a conversation, especially if it is starting to look like a runaway train. You will be able to wrap up and move the group onto the next topic.

15. Is this A or B ? Frame the conversation through a series of dichotomous questions to focus people on the key concern and not on the vast confusing perimeter. Is the problem with performance or functionality? Is it all functionality or a specific area? Is it geographically dispersed or concentrated? This will save you hours of unstructured discussions.

16. Can you please elaborate/explain? If you don’t understand an argument, ask to clarify. This is never a sign of an inadequacy but a sign of confidence.

17. What’s the right thing to do? This is a great question to ask to accelerate resolution of a difficult or contentious issue. It works remarkably well.

18. Is there further information available on this issue? If you have a group discussion on your hands that seems to spin around the same issue and there seems to be no interest of moving on, simply ask the audience if there is any new information on this issue, point out that it has been discussed at length, and move everyone onto the next topic.

By TechRepublic

Lookout Identifies Which iPhone And Android Apps Want Your Sensitive Data

 

Lookout, a company that offers security data backup services for smartphones, is announcing the results of its App Genome Project, a continued effort to map and study mobile applications to identify security threats in the wild, and determine how apps are using users’ personal data.

The App Genome Project has already scanned nearly 300,000 free applications, and fully mapped nearly 100,000 applications available in both Android Market and the App Store.

Early findings show differences in the sensitive data that is typically accessed by Android and iPhone applications and a proliferation of third party code in applications across both platforms.

For example, results found that Android applications are generally less likely than iPhone apps to be capable of accessing a person’s contact list or retrieving their location, with 29% of free applications for Android having the ability to access a user’s location, compared to 33% of free applications on iPhone. Of course, this isn’t a huge difference, but again, this is early data.

Additionally, Lookout says that nearly twice as many free applications have the capability to access people’s contact data on iPhone (14%) as compared to Android (8%). The App Genome Project also found that a large proportion of applications contain third-party code, which is used generally for advertising or analytics. The project found that 47% of free Android apps included third-party code, while that number is just 23% on iPhone.

Lookout’s web-based, cloud-connected application indentifies and block threats on a consumer’s phone. Users simply download the software to a device, and it will act as a virus protector much like security software downloaded to a computer. Lookout, which just raised $11 million from Accel, Khosla and others, says the growth in smartphone adoption, mobile app downloads and increased consumer awareness of mobile security threats have helped make the offering a popular and necessary option for users.

For now Lookout, which is on more than 400 mobile networks in 170 countries and recently topped one million users, is only available for BlackBerry, Android and Windows Mobile devices. Lookout has over 80% of its users on Android and BlackBerry with the remaining users on Windows Mobile. And 70% of users are in the US.

VMware ouvre la porte aux clouds hybrides avec vSphere

 

VMware d’annoncer officiellement vCloud Connector, un plug-in gratuit pour vSphere qui doit simplifier la mise en oeuvre de clouds hybrides.

vCloud Connector permet aux utilisateurs d’infrastructures vSphere de migrer de manière transparente leurs machines virtuelles entre nuages publics et privés. Un module qui vient compléter vCloud Director : celui-ci, anciennement connu sous le nom de code «projet Redwood» permet d’assurer le provisionning et la gestion de clouds privés et publics. Sylvain Sioux, directeur technique de VMware France, nous expliquait, lors du lancement de vCloud Director, que cette solution permet de créer des pools de ressources virtuelles - machines virtuelles, réseau (avec plan d’adressage IPv4 interne), et stockage - comme autant de mini centres de calcul virtuels avec, chacun, ses stratégies d’administration, son niveau de service et sa tarification. Mieux, au sein d’un même groupe, il est possible de créer des vApp, un ensemble de plusieurs machines virtuelles dédié, par exemple, à la production d’un service précis. Avec, là encore, un plan d’adressage IP interne spécifique et une exposition, à l’extérieur, des seuls ports TCP/UDP utiles à l’exploitation du service produit, avec, en prime, une couche de translation d’adresses IP.

Une couche d'abstraction

De son côté, vCloud Connector doit offrir une vision de plus haut niveau, regroupant l’ensemble des machines virtuelles sans distinguer celles qui fonctionnent dans le cloud privé de celles qui s’exécutent sur une infrastructure en nuage publique. Bref, on parle là d’un niveau d’abstraction supplémentaire. Et pour VMware, c’est bien là tout l’intérêt : «en tant qu’administrateur vSphere, votre boulot consiste à vous assurer que le service est fourni par votre Cloud, peu importe qu’il le soit grâce à des ressources internes ou externes», explique l’éditeur. Pour autant, vCloud Connector permet bien de transférer automatiquement des machines virtuelles d’un nuage privé à un nuage publique et vice-versa. Enfin presque.

Car, comme le précise VMware, «il ne s’agit pas de vMotion à longue distance», à savoir transférer des machines virtuelles en activité : il s’agit de commutation entre copies de machines virtuelles dans le nuage privé et dans le nuage public.

Source MagIT

Does Merit Pay Really Work?

 

 

B Y   C A R O L E E   C O L T E R

 

The idea of merit pay seems simple enough. If you pay high-performing workers more than low-performing ones, the former will stay and keep producing at a high level, while the latter will leave or have incentive to improve. And it can work like that-if employees are clear on exactly what it takes to earn a higher raise, if there are no other factors but performance in pay decisions, if there are enough funds to pay out significant differences in raise amounts, and if managers have the confidence to "bite the bullet," be honest, and stand up to emotional pressure.

If, if, if....still, based on the experience of several co-ops and independent natural food stores I've worked with, I believe that under the right circumstances, merit raises can fulfill their promise.

The eye of the beholder

Edward Lawler, one of the most respected and prolific academic experts in human resources of the past 30 years, describes the conditions that permit the effective use of money as a motivator:

• employees attach a high value to pay,
• employees believe good performance will result in higher pay,
• employees have enough control over the job that their own efforts can have a material impact, and
• superior performance leads to more positive than negative results (e.g. more acceptance than rejection by coworkers).

Notice how much these factors depend on the "eye of the beholder." Employee attitudes have a lot to do with the success of merit pay programs. Perhaps comments I've gleaned from employee surveys can shed some light.

In workplaces where non-management employees earn raises through seniority only, there is always a faction calling for merit raises. Frederick Taylor, founder of the school of scientific management, wrote, "The common tendency to 'take it easy' is greatly increased by bringing a number of men together on similar work and at a uniform standard rate of pay...When a naturally energetic man works for a few days beside a lazy one, the logic of the situation is unanswerable. 'Why should I work hard when that lazy fellow gets the same pay that I do and does only half as much work?'" A century later I hear that sentiment expressed in practically so many words by co-op employees. But would their supervisors and co-workers share their self-assessment? Would their performance warrant the maximum under a merit pay system? And would denying a "lazy" coworker a raise or giving her/him a smaller raise do anything to improve performance?

Fighting over crumbs?

I wish the employees who long for merit-pay paradise could hear the complaints of employees at co-ops where a merit pay system exists. They might hear about vague or subjective criteria, alleged management favoritism, disparities between departments, late evaluations and therefore late raises, and demoralization from fighting over "a lousy 15 cents per hour." This last may be the most serious obstacle to realizing the purpose of merit pay.

The paltry amount of money at stake in many co-ops' merit programs is due to factoring seniority and cost of living when determining the size of the total raise. If your co-op has experienced high turnover, you may feel that longevity is worth paying for. You may wish to reward the people who come to work every day, even if their performance leaves a lot to be desired. You may also wish to protect employees from the impacts of the rising cost of living, especially housing, which may make it hard for them to afford to live within commuting distance of the store. These are reasonable aims for a pay program. But by taking up so much of a pay increase budget, and by diluting the message of a raise, they blunt the potential impact of merit pay.

For example, if all employees are guaranteed a raise of at least $.25/hour with top performers getting raises of up to $.50/hour (a common formula I've encountered in co-ops), the difference between a high performer and an acceptable performer comes to three percent for an employee earning $7.50 an hour. Maybe the symbolic reward of knowing they are regarded as a high performer and therefore got the highest possible raise is enough for the employees who earn it. But what about all the others? Were they expecting a 50 cent raise, too? What will happen to their motivation over the next year?

Automatic "merit" raises

Then there are the workplaces (and they are legion) where so-called "merit raises" are actually automatic. Employees come to expect the maximum and are outraged to receive any less. Managers may succumb to rating inflation on performance reviews. While sometimes this is due to cowardice or inertia, some managers feel that the pay is so low, they need to give their people the top allowable increases just to keep them.

I am reminded of something one of my earliest mentors told me 20 years ago: Merit pay only works when people are already making enough to meet their basic needs. If employees are just barely making ends meet, they won't be motivated to higher performance by merit pay. They'll only be dissatisfied not to get the maximum possible raise.

Performance reviews are often a casualty of a not-well-thought-out merit pay system. I don't believe that performance reviews can simultaneously fulfill their potential both for determining pay increases and for establishing future goals. The former role tends to overshadow the latter. The goal-setting function of the performance review gets lost in the employee's anxiety about the amount of the anticipated raise. Furthermore, the evaluation criteria may not be job-specific enough or the rating scale may be too vague (one person's "5" is another person's "3") for employees to feel fairly treated. While this ambiguity would not be a problem if a rating were only a platform for discussion, it becomes a very big problem when it is the basis for denying an employee a raise of the size he or she expected.

When using performance reviews to determine pay increases, you are looking backward, rewarding the employee for what has already been done. Social scientists have long noted that to motivate behavior, a reward must be perceived to be a direct consequence of that behavior. Employees need a "line of sight" between their pay increase and the performance that earns it. In studies of employee motivation, the impact of a pay raise is said to average eight weeks-two weeks in anticipation of the raise and six weeks after receiving it. If you want to motivate employees to their best level of performance for the long haul, you need a forward-looking mechanism that encourages people to work toward a reward.

Separate performance and pay reviews

There is a solution to this dilemma-separating the performance review from the pay review. For example, on the six-month anniversary of hire, employees get a performance review with feedback on their strengths and areas for improvement. At the end of the review meeting, manager and employee both agree to a limited number of specific performance goals. For strong performers, the goals could be more developmental than remedial. Six months later, on the one-year anniversary of hire, employees receive a pay review. At this meeting the manager informs the employee of the amount of her or his raise, based on progress observed toward the goals.

This approach prevents the tendency I've observed for annual goals to be set and then forgotten. Perhaps not incidentally, I've noted that in co-ops with separate pay and performance reviews where I've done employee surveys, I don't hear grousing about how pay raises are awarded. Throughout this article I've been focusing on non-management employees. For management and other professional jobs, merit pay seems well accepted and easier to implement. People in these positions are usually higher-paid, and their "line of sight" is likely to be annual, not just from one paycheck to the next. Also, the difference between good and poor performance in these jobs can significantly impact the whole co-op.

My conclusions

If you can't afford significant pay differences between high and low performers, or if you believe that your staff is underpaid in relation to the cost of living in your labor market, I suggest that you postpone the implementation of merit pay for non-management employees. Instead, give everyone predictable seniority raises and reward the high performers with positive feedback, new responsibilities, and promotions. Put your managerial time and attention into better coaching and counseling of employees with performance problems, and more timely corrective action, including removal of poor performers who demoralize the rest of the workforce. It won't bother employees so much that everyone is earning the same raise if no one is visibly screwing up and making everyone's job harder.

If you do implement merit pay, separate the performance and pay reviews by at least several months. At the time of the pay review, base your pay raise decisions on progress observed toward the goals set in the performance review. Also, make sure your pay ranges are wide enough to allow for significant differences in amounts of raises.

There is no pay system on earth that will satisfy all your employees. But you can have a pay system that supports your goal for a high-performing and motivated staff.

Carolee Colter is a consultant to cooperatives and community-based organizations.

11G Data Guard Setup project - Oracle Wiki

11G Data Guard Setup project - Oracle Wiki

Performances Appraisal 'Remember money isn't everything!' :)

 

  PA cartoon

From the web by YAS