Pearl Zhu's Blog, page 1388
November 12, 2015
The Monthly Leadership & Governance Insight Nov. 2015
Leadership without influence, is just like the air without oxygen!
The “Future of CIO” Blog has reached 1.1 million page views with about #2300+ blog posting in 59+ different categories of leadership, management, strategy, digitalization, change/talent, etc. The content richness is not for its own sake, but to convey the vision and share the wisdom. Here is the special edition of Board Leadership/Governance monthly insight of the “Future of CIO” blog.
The Montlyly Leadership/Governance Insight Nov. 2015
Agile Governance: Governance is like a steering wheel, to ensure your project or business as a whole to run towards the right direction. However, the traditional governance processes are overly rigid, not flexible enough to adapt to the accelerating speed of changes and business complexity. What’s the Agile governance all about, and what’re the best practices and next practices, and what’re the pitfalls need to be avoided?
An Agile Board: Many forward-looking organizations are shifting from doing Agile to being Agile. Agile is more as a mindset, a set of principles and a type of digital culture, rather than the methodology or technology only. Corporate Board as one of the most important governance bodies in the modern business, defines governance principles and practices, oversees business strategy, provisions resources, and sets business culture tones as well. The agile shift is one of the most significant aspects of digital transformation, but how to build an Agile Board that help lead the business toward the right direction?
What is the Driver of GRC? The important characteristics of digitalization are over-complexity, uncertainty and ambiguity. Hence, GRC (governance, risk management, and compliance) becomes more critical than ever. Here's the context; how should GRC programs be approached? Should technology be a driver? Can you achieve any level of GRC without automation? Can you achieve any level of GRC without people? What is the real driver of GRC”?
Data Governance, IT Governance, and Corporate Governance: Governance has been one of those concepts that has received a lot of "lip service," the speed of business is accelerated, opportunities and risks co-exist, and a CIO owns delivery of one of any organization's key assets - its information. A failure to deliver because the IT function is so tied up with risk or its own governance rules is unforgivable. Data governance, IT governance, and corporate governance, CIO need master them all.
Board Room Debate: Governance vs. Risk Management: Hand in Glove? A cliché definition for governance is the manner in which an organization is directed and controlled. Governance and Risk Management do indeed overlap and are both important to achieving the To-Be state. While the board is the custodian for both, you cannot exercise the same control with risk management as with governance, and good governance does control the practice of good risk management, but not the other way around. More specifically, how would you define the relationship between governance and risk management?
Blogging is not about writing, but about thinking and innovating the new ideas; it’s not just about WHAT to say, but about WHY to say, and HOW to say it. It reflects the color and shade of your thought patterns, and it indicates the peaks and curves of your thinking waves. Unlike pure entertainment, quality and professional content takes time for digesting, contemplation and engaging, and therefore, it takes the time to attract the "hungry minds" and the "deep souls." It’s the journey to amplify diverse voices and deepen digital footprints, and it's the way to harness your innovative spirit.
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
The “Future of CIO” Blog has reached 1.1 million page views with about #2300+ blog posting in 59+ different categories of leadership, management, strategy, digitalization, change/talent, etc. The content richness is not for its own sake, but to convey the vision and share the wisdom. Here is the special edition of Board Leadership/Governance monthly insight of the “Future of CIO” blog.
The Montlyly Leadership/Governance Insight Nov. 2015
Agile Governance: Governance is like a steering wheel, to ensure your project or business as a whole to run towards the right direction. However, the traditional governance processes are overly rigid, not flexible enough to adapt to the accelerating speed of changes and business complexity. What’s the Agile governance all about, and what’re the best practices and next practices, and what’re the pitfalls need to be avoided?
An Agile Board: Many forward-looking organizations are shifting from doing Agile to being Agile. Agile is more as a mindset, a set of principles and a type of digital culture, rather than the methodology or technology only. Corporate Board as one of the most important governance bodies in the modern business, defines governance principles and practices, oversees business strategy, provisions resources, and sets business culture tones as well. The agile shift is one of the most significant aspects of digital transformation, but how to build an Agile Board that help lead the business toward the right direction?
What is the Driver of GRC? The important characteristics of digitalization are over-complexity, uncertainty and ambiguity. Hence, GRC (governance, risk management, and compliance) becomes more critical than ever. Here's the context; how should GRC programs be approached? Should technology be a driver? Can you achieve any level of GRC without automation? Can you achieve any level of GRC without people? What is the real driver of GRC”?
Data Governance, IT Governance, and Corporate Governance: Governance has been one of those concepts that has received a lot of "lip service," the speed of business is accelerated, opportunities and risks co-exist, and a CIO owns delivery of one of any organization's key assets - its information. A failure to deliver because the IT function is so tied up with risk or its own governance rules is unforgivable. Data governance, IT governance, and corporate governance, CIO need master them all.
Board Room Debate: Governance vs. Risk Management: Hand in Glove? A cliché definition for governance is the manner in which an organization is directed and controlled. Governance and Risk Management do indeed overlap and are both important to achieving the To-Be state. While the board is the custodian for both, you cannot exercise the same control with risk management as with governance, and good governance does control the practice of good risk management, but not the other way around. More specifically, how would you define the relationship between governance and risk management?Blogging is not about writing, but about thinking and innovating the new ideas; it’s not just about WHAT to say, but about WHY to say, and HOW to say it. It reflects the color and shade of your thought patterns, and it indicates the peaks and curves of your thinking waves. Unlike pure entertainment, quality and professional content takes time for digesting, contemplation and engaging, and therefore, it takes the time to attract the "hungry minds" and the "deep souls." It’s the journey to amplify diverse voices and deepen digital footprints, and it's the way to harness your innovative spirit.
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
Agile from Engineering Management Perspective
The Agile framework or method you choose to implement is where practicality meets the philosophy.
Agile is a set of principles, but it comes from many different groups of practices finding common ground. Principles alone aren't enough, though - you still have to do development and to do this you'll want to use some management and engineering "practices" to improve agility and increase quality. So in order for a project, or even a whole organization to be truly agile, you need to follow some engineering management practices, without which you cannot be Agile enough, but if you aren't Agile enough, it is not solving the entire problem. What are the best practices required for an Agile project to be truly Agile?
Agile Planning: Regardless of the size of an organization developing a road map is important. How much time we spend understanding the low-level details of that roadmap is what is different in Agile. There is plenty of planning in most agile systems, keeping well in mind that Agile is a philosophy and expressed through a set of values and principles - the framework you choose to implement is where practicality meets the philosophy. Assuming you're using Scrum, there is more than enough room for program, project, and release planning, as well as Sprint planning. Those all have different goals and work at different levels, but work together.
Agile Management: The biggest change organizationally that you must address is management. Agile frameworks and methodologies are not easy nor are they magic. They are much more simple than massively administrative waterfall systems, but that catches many people out. Simple does not equal easy or magical. Getting it right requires knowing what you're doing and how it needs to be done in real, concrete terms. Management is used to having projects approved and then get updates along the way and don't know until the very end that the project is off the rails and they will only get some pieces of the project, often the parts that were easiest to deliver and ones that keep the project running. In Agile management, it is now engaged every step of the way, they get to decide what is most important today and have teams work on that. What they aren't used to is being engaged in this manner, it's harder for them, they aren't experienced in making decisions from a scope perspective in the here and now. They own the scope of the project in a much more integrated manner.
Agile Delivery - In large scale organizations with specific major release dates, teams need to organize their roadmaps around these delivery dates. You will want your teams to come together for a formal Release Planning event that will allow everyone to review all of the planned work across all teams. This is ideally done together and all of the work is on the wall and very visible. Dependencies and such are identified and addressed here. The hard part to get right is delivering the most valuable work first. There is also a great deal of cognitive bias to work through, especially in "we've always done it this way" organizations, organizations new to agile, etc. Getting that right and knowing how to both break down and prioritize the work, are real challenges. Although it is true that estimates turn to be fuzzier, the further out you get, it does not mean you don't have estimates, requirements, or timelines. Especially when there are clear timelines for deliverables, the team needs to develop a plan which can help the business meet the need, or inform of impediments, trade-offs, etc., when it cannot.
One of the important Agile principles is to focus on value. The idea is to always do the most valuable thing first. That way, when you reach some arbitrary date, you will have developed the most valuable software that you could have developed in the available time. You can't expect a development team to fully understand what's valuable. However, that's why business people and developers must work together daily throughout the project. There is a different level of planning and delivery. The "macro" level is a technology roadmap that ties together key technologies with the strategic capabilities/outcomes/products you need as an organization. It evolves slowly. The "Meso" level is "release cycle," where you balance out will drive the most value in the next 6 months. This is usually a balance between "epics" and smaller features, as well as a balance between "strategic epics" and "feature epics." To what extent you need detailed meso and macro planning depends on context. The key is to develop a level of comfort in quick delivery and realization of value, and then in plans for value realization in the distant future.
Basically, Agile success depends on management, leadership, culture or in another word: PEOPLE; not just processes or frameworks, where those are the means and tools to help you get there. The key should be selecting the right tool at the right time and situation to try to take the best decisions, without blaming Agile or Waterfall for one’s own mistakes.
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
Agile is a set of principles, but it comes from many different groups of practices finding common ground. Principles alone aren't enough, though - you still have to do development and to do this you'll want to use some management and engineering "practices" to improve agility and increase quality. So in order for a project, or even a whole organization to be truly agile, you need to follow some engineering management practices, without which you cannot be Agile enough, but if you aren't Agile enough, it is not solving the entire problem. What are the best practices required for an Agile project to be truly Agile? Agile Planning: Regardless of the size of an organization developing a road map is important. How much time we spend understanding the low-level details of that roadmap is what is different in Agile. There is plenty of planning in most agile systems, keeping well in mind that Agile is a philosophy and expressed through a set of values and principles - the framework you choose to implement is where practicality meets the philosophy. Assuming you're using Scrum, there is more than enough room for program, project, and release planning, as well as Sprint planning. Those all have different goals and work at different levels, but work together.
Agile Management: The biggest change organizationally that you must address is management. Agile frameworks and methodologies are not easy nor are they magic. They are much more simple than massively administrative waterfall systems, but that catches many people out. Simple does not equal easy or magical. Getting it right requires knowing what you're doing and how it needs to be done in real, concrete terms. Management is used to having projects approved and then get updates along the way and don't know until the very end that the project is off the rails and they will only get some pieces of the project, often the parts that were easiest to deliver and ones that keep the project running. In Agile management, it is now engaged every step of the way, they get to decide what is most important today and have teams work on that. What they aren't used to is being engaged in this manner, it's harder for them, they aren't experienced in making decisions from a scope perspective in the here and now. They own the scope of the project in a much more integrated manner.
Agile Delivery - In large scale organizations with specific major release dates, teams need to organize their roadmaps around these delivery dates. You will want your teams to come together for a formal Release Planning event that will allow everyone to review all of the planned work across all teams. This is ideally done together and all of the work is on the wall and very visible. Dependencies and such are identified and addressed here. The hard part to get right is delivering the most valuable work first. There is also a great deal of cognitive bias to work through, especially in "we've always done it this way" organizations, organizations new to agile, etc. Getting that right and knowing how to both break down and prioritize the work, are real challenges. Although it is true that estimates turn to be fuzzier, the further out you get, it does not mean you don't have estimates, requirements, or timelines. Especially when there are clear timelines for deliverables, the team needs to develop a plan which can help the business meet the need, or inform of impediments, trade-offs, etc., when it cannot.
One of the important Agile principles is to focus on value. The idea is to always do the most valuable thing first. That way, when you reach some arbitrary date, you will have developed the most valuable software that you could have developed in the available time. You can't expect a development team to fully understand what's valuable. However, that's why business people and developers must work together daily throughout the project. There is a different level of planning and delivery. The "macro" level is a technology roadmap that ties together key technologies with the strategic capabilities/outcomes/products you need as an organization. It evolves slowly. The "Meso" level is "release cycle," where you balance out will drive the most value in the next 6 months. This is usually a balance between "epics" and smaller features, as well as a balance between "strategic epics" and "feature epics." To what extent you need detailed meso and macro planning depends on context. The key is to develop a level of comfort in quick delivery and realization of value, and then in plans for value realization in the distant future.
Basically, Agile success depends on management, leadership, culture or in another word: PEOPLE; not just processes or frameworks, where those are the means and tools to help you get there. The key should be selecting the right tool at the right time and situation to try to take the best decisions, without blaming Agile or Waterfall for one’s own mistakes.
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
How to Handle Change Inertia with Empathy
Look at resistance as a source of energy and where there is energy there is still passion and potential.
Change is the new new normal, but it also becomes fundamentally difficult in most organizations due to the change inertia, also because it is treated as something distinct from running the business, evolving performance and increasing results over time. Statistically, more than 70% of change management effort fail to achieve the expected result. So which principles should you follow to communicate changes, and transformation is dimensionally bigger, and much more pervasive/ invasive, how to weave all important elements in Change Management more seamlessly to orchestrate a harmonized digital transformation symphony?
Analysis: The golden key is to acknowledge resistance and deal with it properly. There is nothing wrong with resistance. On the contrary, it is a good sign! By saying, "it is ok to feel resistance," the resistance will go down significantly because people feel that they are being heard/seen. People often resist changing because they don't understand how it is relevant to them. Sometimes it helps to get people talking about positive change they have experienced and what made it positive then how they can use that to make small transformations towards the new goals. There are two types of resistance: overt - outspoken, and covert - hidden disagree. The symptom of resistance include active attack, propose alternatives, debate approach, list issues or problems, create reasons to postpone, request further information, delay approval. The resistant attitude includes: passive, lip service, foot-dragging, lack of engagement, no participation, no show to meetings, not responsive, silence. Resistance is usually from the three areas of; in your thinking -doubt/uncertainty, feeling -resentment/hatred or action life-Fear. Often these also determine workplace cultures as well as change challenges, passive aggressive or defensive. Resistance is mostly about not engaging at the right time with the right people to have right communication.
Empathy: Looking at the change in a way that addresses empathy. Resistance is the outcome of an inward mindset. Empathy is the key as it allows each person to get where the other person maybe at. What they are experiencing and how they see it through their eyes. Empathy is not sympathy and this will need to be confirmed. As Leaders, Empathy is the key to great leadership allowing you to speak to a person from space they stand not where you think they should be. Let them know you are going to help them learn how to be curious! There will always be some resistors even where the change program has been well planned and is fully consistent with the organization's business drivers. People typically don't resist for the sake of it. It may be due to fear of the unknown, lack of faith that they will be successful in the new future state. So take logical steps to:
-Identify the stakeholder and their needs-Understand the change impact and what is important to them (what fears or concerns they would have in changing) and then-Developing a plan to ensure they will be successful.
Support: People’s feelings need to be addressed. Alternatively, there are also situations when resisters DO understand the relevance, but they don't like the implications. The question then becomes one of: "how well do we understand the individual, their goals, and how the change will affect them?" This usually requires a dialogue to answer their questions and address its relevancy. They may well have valid concerns, but if you fail to understand those concerns and address them the 'resisters' will continue to resist change. Addressing the concerns doesn't necessarily mean altering, postponing or cancelling the change, it often means explaining the rationale and may mean difficult decisions. For example, if the organization has made and remains committed to the change, the resisting individuals will have to decide whether to accept it (even if they don't like it) or to find a more amenable solution. People rarely develop feelings based on what they THINK, rather, they develop opinions based on how they FEEL, disguising their feelings as rational arguments or rationalizations. Sometimes those resisting changes do not understand the real reasons themselves. Emotional responses indicate a disparity between what people think and what they feel are at least two separate questions we all face: what to change? And how to change? When people feel like something is being "done" to them it gets personalized and the resistance increases. When "bottoms" experience decision-makers empathetically acknowledging the impact of change and the sense of powerlessness that "bottoms" feel in the process, they remove one of the most significant contributors to an individual's resistance - the pain of not being heard/understood.
-People’s feelings need to be addressed:
-Fears have to be dealt with realistically
-Everybody has needs that have to be met
-Expectations need to be managed
-Loss is part of change and needs to be understood
-People react differently to change
Process: Exploring why they are resistant might uncover some aspects of the change process that have been poorly designed or overlooked. It might then be possible to enlist their help in finding out how things might be done better. Even better: getting resistant people involved in the design process can help to design out flaws in the early stages. Of course not all resistance is logical or rooted in a constructive analysis of the change, but equally it is almost never 'just being a saboteur.' Investigating the root causes and looking for the nuggets of gold may well be a valuable exercise for all. At a practical level, a traditional stakeholder analysis map is useful - degree of 'Influence/Power' on one axis and 'Degree of Commitment' on the other, and marking where to locate stakeholders. Those with 'High Influence/Low Commitment' being the ones to be most concerned about, where you need to concentrate your efforts. Those with 'Low Influence/Low Commitment' - in a well planned and communicated change program - should be few in number and tolerable.
Practices: Build practices to overcome culture inertia. All change is dependent on individual’s capacity to change and the language used during a change initiative provides clues to diagnose and act upon resistance and support. There is a definite connection between the psychology and brain physiology in humans that makes change difficult for many people. Perhaps one key would be to do a whitespace exercise whereby the team members practice clearing their minds of distracting thoughts to allow the value and purpose of the change to sink in. This assumes of course that the proper research and organizational feedback has been done to vet the change strategy in the first place. It’s also important to build in an objective fault tolerance to allow for a certain amount of dissension. The key is to enlist the dissenters to provide input during the process to maintain engagement. To help them identify AND CHOOSE what to change and there are clearly many options. There are excellent workshops that encourage reflection on current habits/attitudes/expectations/ beliefs/ comfort zones, or if in 1-1 coaching mode Kinesiological techniques can put them in touch with their unfulfilled un/subconscious aspirations. It takes people to engage with something that is being pushed at them, and then you are talking about increasing commitment rather than overcoming resistance.
Look at resistance as a source of energy and where there is energy there is still passion and potential. Much more dangerous is the disengaged. As change leaders, it is about finding what motivates them to change and if they resist, either possibly change strategy is misdirected or you haven't found the right way to get people to want to be involved, remembering too that in many cases people have had a very poor experience of workplace change. You have to create a positive experience for them and this builds a more open culture where change becomes much more well regarded.Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
Change is the new new normal, but it also becomes fundamentally difficult in most organizations due to the change inertia, also because it is treated as something distinct from running the business, evolving performance and increasing results over time. Statistically, more than 70% of change management effort fail to achieve the expected result. So which principles should you follow to communicate changes, and transformation is dimensionally bigger, and much more pervasive/ invasive, how to weave all important elements in Change Management more seamlessly to orchestrate a harmonized digital transformation symphony?
Analysis: The golden key is to acknowledge resistance and deal with it properly. There is nothing wrong with resistance. On the contrary, it is a good sign! By saying, "it is ok to feel resistance," the resistance will go down significantly because people feel that they are being heard/seen. People often resist changing because they don't understand how it is relevant to them. Sometimes it helps to get people talking about positive change they have experienced and what made it positive then how they can use that to make small transformations towards the new goals. There are two types of resistance: overt - outspoken, and covert - hidden disagree. The symptom of resistance include active attack, propose alternatives, debate approach, list issues or problems, create reasons to postpone, request further information, delay approval. The resistant attitude includes: passive, lip service, foot-dragging, lack of engagement, no participation, no show to meetings, not responsive, silence. Resistance is usually from the three areas of; in your thinking -doubt/uncertainty, feeling -resentment/hatred or action life-Fear. Often these also determine workplace cultures as well as change challenges, passive aggressive or defensive. Resistance is mostly about not engaging at the right time with the right people to have right communication.
Empathy: Looking at the change in a way that addresses empathy. Resistance is the outcome of an inward mindset. Empathy is the key as it allows each person to get where the other person maybe at. What they are experiencing and how they see it through their eyes. Empathy is not sympathy and this will need to be confirmed. As Leaders, Empathy is the key to great leadership allowing you to speak to a person from space they stand not where you think they should be. Let them know you are going to help them learn how to be curious! There will always be some resistors even where the change program has been well planned and is fully consistent with the organization's business drivers. People typically don't resist for the sake of it. It may be due to fear of the unknown, lack of faith that they will be successful in the new future state. So take logical steps to:
-Identify the stakeholder and their needs-Understand the change impact and what is important to them (what fears or concerns they would have in changing) and then-Developing a plan to ensure they will be successful.
Support: People’s feelings need to be addressed. Alternatively, there are also situations when resisters DO understand the relevance, but they don't like the implications. The question then becomes one of: "how well do we understand the individual, their goals, and how the change will affect them?" This usually requires a dialogue to answer their questions and address its relevancy. They may well have valid concerns, but if you fail to understand those concerns and address them the 'resisters' will continue to resist change. Addressing the concerns doesn't necessarily mean altering, postponing or cancelling the change, it often means explaining the rationale and may mean difficult decisions. For example, if the organization has made and remains committed to the change, the resisting individuals will have to decide whether to accept it (even if they don't like it) or to find a more amenable solution. People rarely develop feelings based on what they THINK, rather, they develop opinions based on how they FEEL, disguising their feelings as rational arguments or rationalizations. Sometimes those resisting changes do not understand the real reasons themselves. Emotional responses indicate a disparity between what people think and what they feel are at least two separate questions we all face: what to change? And how to change? When people feel like something is being "done" to them it gets personalized and the resistance increases. When "bottoms" experience decision-makers empathetically acknowledging the impact of change and the sense of powerlessness that "bottoms" feel in the process, they remove one of the most significant contributors to an individual's resistance - the pain of not being heard/understood.
-People’s feelings need to be addressed:
-Fears have to be dealt with realistically
-Everybody has needs that have to be met
-Expectations need to be managed
-Loss is part of change and needs to be understood
-People react differently to change
Process: Exploring why they are resistant might uncover some aspects of the change process that have been poorly designed or overlooked. It might then be possible to enlist their help in finding out how things might be done better. Even better: getting resistant people involved in the design process can help to design out flaws in the early stages. Of course not all resistance is logical or rooted in a constructive analysis of the change, but equally it is almost never 'just being a saboteur.' Investigating the root causes and looking for the nuggets of gold may well be a valuable exercise for all. At a practical level, a traditional stakeholder analysis map is useful - degree of 'Influence/Power' on one axis and 'Degree of Commitment' on the other, and marking where to locate stakeholders. Those with 'High Influence/Low Commitment' being the ones to be most concerned about, where you need to concentrate your efforts. Those with 'Low Influence/Low Commitment' - in a well planned and communicated change program - should be few in number and tolerable.
Practices: Build practices to overcome culture inertia. All change is dependent on individual’s capacity to change and the language used during a change initiative provides clues to diagnose and act upon resistance and support. There is a definite connection between the psychology and brain physiology in humans that makes change difficult for many people. Perhaps one key would be to do a whitespace exercise whereby the team members practice clearing their minds of distracting thoughts to allow the value and purpose of the change to sink in. This assumes of course that the proper research and organizational feedback has been done to vet the change strategy in the first place. It’s also important to build in an objective fault tolerance to allow for a certain amount of dissension. The key is to enlist the dissenters to provide input during the process to maintain engagement. To help them identify AND CHOOSE what to change and there are clearly many options. There are excellent workshops that encourage reflection on current habits/attitudes/expectations/ beliefs/ comfort zones, or if in 1-1 coaching mode Kinesiological techniques can put them in touch with their unfulfilled un/subconscious aspirations. It takes people to engage with something that is being pushed at them, and then you are talking about increasing commitment rather than overcoming resistance.Look at resistance as a source of energy and where there is energy there is still passion and potential. Much more dangerous is the disengaged. As change leaders, it is about finding what motivates them to change and if they resist, either possibly change strategy is misdirected or you haven't found the right way to get people to want to be involved, remembering too that in many cases people have had a very poor experience of workplace change. You have to create a positive experience for them and this builds a more open culture where change becomes much more well regarded.Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
November 11, 2015
How to Overcome Innovation Challenges?
The purpose of Innovation Management is to prepare everything to maximize the transformation of an idea to innovation, through well-prepared process and structures.
Innovation is to manage novel ideas and generating business value from them. Even innovation is the light every organization is pursuing, but often the term "innovation" has become so diluted or meaning it is hard to have even a basic conversation about it without problems of definition or interpretation arising - and perhaps in part why all sort of things can feel like innovation - even if they are faking it. So which factors are causes to innovation failure, and how to survive from innovation fatigue and pitfalls?
Innovation is not equal to creativity - Innovation is an important business capability to decide business’s long-term prosperity. Lots of ideas don't result in innovation success. Because innovation culture and innovation management underpin an organization’s innovation capability which enables the business to manage innovation in a systematic way and drives a high rate of innovation success. Because no one can always forecast future technological advances or the next business and industry disruptor accurately, however, one can create a system that will recognize and capture technological advances as they appear. A way of doing this is by creating innovation ecosystems in which innovation can be nurtured and fruited into its maturutity.
Speak the same language and practice creative communication to harness innovation. Speaking about innovation is very important. But in order to make this conversation productive, all parties in or beyond the organization (innovation ecosystem) need to speak the same language. And often there lies the problem because C-levels, HR, employees, customers, and business partners often speak different innovation languages. Therefore, establishing a language of innovation is the first--and perhaps the most important step toward creating the culture of innovation. Even your CxOs are not "innovation native" to say such a language, they need to learn the new innovation dialect and understand in the context of innovation. And they understand that they will check new ideas against feasibility and customer acceptance! After that digested, they eventually could start to BELIEVE in innovation and implement innovation management tools and processes. In addition, you begin the innovation with well-aligned structure and process. And if you keep perfecting them while communicating the results to the rest of your organization via clarified language, sooner or later, structure and process will become culture.
At the heart of innovation, much of what needs to happen is just change management -So there is an extra paradox, which is that it is easy to set up an innovation management process or team, but very difficult to find the fuel for this engine. And that is why most of the innovations are carried by a startup. the challenges are most of well-established businesses today is wired for explicit/data driven/quarterly measures. Therefore, building a culture of innovation is important-for those that are not or not innovating well. Sometimes, you have to fake it till you make it! Meaning you have to work hard and keep at it even if the results and behaviors are not there yet. Innovation culture is about habits, beliefs, arts, and innovation is about change. Therefore, Change Management mechanism needs to be well embedded in innovation processes to foster innovation culture and lubricate the innovation engine. It starts with understanding the causes to innovation failures in order to make change more effectively: a) poor innovation culture b) innovation novicesc) innovation lip serviced) focus on operations and enhancements (only incremental, low-risk territory) e) lack of mature innovation culture and execution (balanced incremental & radical innovation)
The purpose of Innovation Management is to prepare everything to maximize the transformation of an idea to innovation, through well-prepared process and structures, to overcome innovation lip service, innovation fatigue, and innovation pitfalls, and build organizational level innovation capability seamlessly.
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
Innovation is to manage novel ideas and generating business value from them. Even innovation is the light every organization is pursuing, but often the term "innovation" has become so diluted or meaning it is hard to have even a basic conversation about it without problems of definition or interpretation arising - and perhaps in part why all sort of things can feel like innovation - even if they are faking it. So which factors are causes to innovation failure, and how to survive from innovation fatigue and pitfalls?
Innovation is not equal to creativity - Innovation is an important business capability to decide business’s long-term prosperity. Lots of ideas don't result in innovation success. Because innovation culture and innovation management underpin an organization’s innovation capability which enables the business to manage innovation in a systematic way and drives a high rate of innovation success. Because no one can always forecast future technological advances or the next business and industry disruptor accurately, however, one can create a system that will recognize and capture technological advances as they appear. A way of doing this is by creating innovation ecosystems in which innovation can be nurtured and fruited into its maturutity.
Speak the same language and practice creative communication to harness innovation. Speaking about innovation is very important. But in order to make this conversation productive, all parties in or beyond the organization (innovation ecosystem) need to speak the same language. And often there lies the problem because C-levels, HR, employees, customers, and business partners often speak different innovation languages. Therefore, establishing a language of innovation is the first--and perhaps the most important step toward creating the culture of innovation. Even your CxOs are not "innovation native" to say such a language, they need to learn the new innovation dialect and understand in the context of innovation. And they understand that they will check new ideas against feasibility and customer acceptance! After that digested, they eventually could start to BELIEVE in innovation and implement innovation management tools and processes. In addition, you begin the innovation with well-aligned structure and process. And if you keep perfecting them while communicating the results to the rest of your organization via clarified language, sooner or later, structure and process will become culture.
At the heart of innovation, much of what needs to happen is just change management -So there is an extra paradox, which is that it is easy to set up an innovation management process or team, but very difficult to find the fuel for this engine. And that is why most of the innovations are carried by a startup. the challenges are most of well-established businesses today is wired for explicit/data driven/quarterly measures. Therefore, building a culture of innovation is important-for those that are not or not innovating well. Sometimes, you have to fake it till you make it! Meaning you have to work hard and keep at it even if the results and behaviors are not there yet. Innovation culture is about habits, beliefs, arts, and innovation is about change. Therefore, Change Management mechanism needs to be well embedded in innovation processes to foster innovation culture and lubricate the innovation engine. It starts with understanding the causes to innovation failures in order to make change more effectively: a) poor innovation culture b) innovation novicesc) innovation lip serviced) focus on operations and enhancements (only incremental, low-risk territory) e) lack of mature innovation culture and execution (balanced incremental & radical innovation)
The purpose of Innovation Management is to prepare everything to maximize the transformation of an idea to innovation, through well-prepared process and structures, to overcome innovation lip service, innovation fatigue, and innovation pitfalls, and build organizational level innovation capability seamlessly.
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
The Good, Bad, and Ugly of Argument
The argument is “an exchange of diverging or opposite views, typically a heated or angry one; a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.” (dictionary.com). The world are still full of arguments geographically, scientifically, economically, politically, and religiously. Is argument healthy or toxic? What’re the good, bad, and ugly perspective of argument?
Arguments are indeed healthy and a proof we are alive, it is necessary most of the times Arguments, given for the sake of simply proving or leading to some valid conclusion based on facts and different logical angels regardless of biases or intentions of maligning or pulling down the other party, are vital. Having arguments where you practice dissociating from your beliefs and your feelings about them are the ones that lead to learning, empathy, and self-awareness. It's all about letting go of the "looking good" syndrome we all have so deeply embedded in us. That's when we truly connect with others and learn from them. After empathy, these are the tools to understand the other side of view or story.
But if arguments are not leading to some constructive and peaceful scenario, it is not necessary at all, and sometimes turns to be ugly. Having an argument when you are emotional and egotistical leads nowhere. They are the most dangerous kind of arguments because your beliefs end up overpowering the truth. It’s better to remain silent or not to drag unnecessarily for embracing the diversity of perception. It is possible to learn nothing from an argument. But, still there remains potential to learn very much, both about the opponent’s view and one’s own. One can take measures of the level of zeal, rigor of reasoning all around. And from post-mortem reflection, one can emerge with a solid self-assessment of the strong and weak areas of self-control. If you listen to give a thoughtful response based on experience as to why you disagree, you might mind a new view.When how we feel about something is getting in the way of us hearing someone and the same is true for the other person, we both need an opportunity to be able to really stand in our truth, to really speak for it and have it witnessed. Problems arise when this need and a process for dealing with it are not made mutually conscious and agreed on. Those who are vehement, forceful, over-reactive, out-of-control and who summarily dismiss viewpoints that do not align with their own in order to prevail, do not necessarily 'win' arguments; rather, they distinguish themselves as ego-centered individuals or low EQ persons.
Definitely we can learn a lot from arguments especially constructive arguments but when an argument steers away from reasoning and common sense then we should listen more than talking at this point. It is important to create a trusted environment where we can openly share our thoughts without any fears and all statements are allowed. Not easy to do - but any time worth trying. It is important to live by the principles of listening carefully, asking insightful questions, and communicating honest caring for others, even when they disagree. In this way, exchanges of diverse thoughts and ideas are kept civil and the higher ground is achieved. If we are well grounded in our beliefs, others do not pose a threat -- and when we offer ourselves with empathy -- they are often compelled to consider more carefully the information we have to offer. So understand the good, bad, and ugly of argument, and let constructive arguments catalyze change and move the world forward. Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
Three “S” Factors in Running a Digital IT
IT transformation is a significant part of the business transformation, IT becomes change drivers and strategy enabler for business to unleash its full potential.
Technology is pervasive, business transformation or business initiatives today nearly always involves some form of technology implementation or data analysis; IT touches both hard business processes and soft human behaviors. But how to run a value-added digital IT? There is an “alphabetic soup” in running a digital IT which must lead in reaching high-level performance and maturity; besides triple “I”s - Information, Innovation, and Integration, triple “A”s - Automation, Analysis, and Agility, triple “C”s - Change, Collaboration, and Cloudification, triple “P”s - Principle, Process, and Performance, triple “E”s Enablement, Exploration, and Effectiveness & Efficiency, triple “V”s - Vision, Value, and Variety, triple “F”s - Fast, Flow, and Flexibility; Triple "T" factors - Transformation, Transparency, and Talent Management. Here we introduce three “S” factors in running a high-performing and high mature digital IT:
Strategy: IT Strategy lifecycle has progressively shortened for many business models due to the "VUCA" characteristics of digital dynamic. IT is not just to support strategy, IT strategy is an integral part of business strategy. The main problem is that business executives still limit their vision of IT as “IT supports a strategy,” thus, IT leaders have to rebrand IT as a value creator, not just an order taker. CIOs role as C-level needs to contribute to the formulation of the business strategy where new trends of technology will provide strategic business capabilities to the business that will enhance the competitive advantages of the organization. CIO should have the knowledge and ability to demonstrate that IT capabilities as a strategic enabler of the business and CIO to be part of the executives for articulating the business strategy.
Speed: This is a process of evolution. Different departments or divisions within an organization have different speeds. And now it is the reality to run a bimodal business with both industrial speeds for stability and digital speed for agility. In practice, even in the simplest organizations, the 'Speed' is not homogeneous across the enterprise, there are differences between 'front office' and 'back office,' enterprises with multiples businesses and associated business models. So many organizations will have to 'mix & match' at least two different speeds' with appropriate IT governance styles, accommodating the resulting different IT strategy cycles. IT is often perceived to be too slow to adapt to the changes in the majority of organizations. IT now plays a pivotal role in digital transformation, so IT needs to focus on the fastest speed available - because that is where the main threat is to competitiveness. Also, it is necessary to understand that no department will suffer from being challenged too often. Now with the emergent digital technologies such as Cloud, Mobile, Social, Analytics and IT consumerization trends, IT has better opportunity to run faster with digital speed but also be cost effective with high-quality delivery.
Simplicity: IT is complex by nature, but complexity is not the opposite of simplicity. Sometimes "complex is simple as it gets." IT System complexity arises from the interaction of dynamic components, and can be layered and intricate. Even simple interactions can create amazing complex systems. But IT needs to overcome complication. Complication is a better antonym for simplicity. Complicated systems will no doubt have layers of complexity as well, but can be simplified by reducing the number of components or changing the way they interact. Sometimes the way to do this is to make one of the elements of the system more complex, designed in such a way so that the complexity of other elements of the system is reduced. Some complexity factors cannot be simplified, you need to become more complex in order to serve customers better. The reason many would have simplicity principle but act complexity is because they don't know HOW to make it simple. IT needs to manage complexity via consolidation, integration, modernization, innovation, and optimization. It's also worth pointing out that agility is closely related to simplicity. The simpler the business processes, the agiler the business is. Analyze “CRAMPS” factors, the actual order in which factors are assessed is:1). Performance — what is the expected performance for the solution, is it within acceptable limits. 2). Availability — what availability is required for the application system, and does the solution provide it. Reliability, Robustness part of Availability Sensitivity, depending on how you mean this, it is an aspect of Availability, Performance.3). Scalability — what is the scalability of the solution, is it within acceptable limits.4). Manageability — is the solution manageable, and how would it be managed.5). Cost — what are the costs for the solution, are they acceptable.6). Risk — what are the risks associated with the solution. Is the level of risk acceptable to the enterprise?
IT transformation is a significant part of the business transformation, IT becomes change drivers and strategy enabler for business to unleash its full potential, from built to last and good to great. Thus, IT strategy is sub-component of business strategy, IT speed needs to be faster than the rest of the organization in order to lead change because often technology is the innovation disrupter, and information provides the business insight for the very reason to changes. IT agility means the speed to change, the simplicity to manage, and the flexibility to have alternative solutions. And IT transformation is synchronizing with business transformation.
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
Technology is pervasive, business transformation or business initiatives today nearly always involves some form of technology implementation or data analysis; IT touches both hard business processes and soft human behaviors. But how to run a value-added digital IT? There is an “alphabetic soup” in running a digital IT which must lead in reaching high-level performance and maturity; besides triple “I”s - Information, Innovation, and Integration, triple “A”s - Automation, Analysis, and Agility, triple “C”s - Change, Collaboration, and Cloudification, triple “P”s - Principle, Process, and Performance, triple “E”s Enablement, Exploration, and Effectiveness & Efficiency, triple “V”s - Vision, Value, and Variety, triple “F”s - Fast, Flow, and Flexibility; Triple "T" factors - Transformation, Transparency, and Talent Management. Here we introduce three “S” factors in running a high-performing and high mature digital IT:
Strategy: IT Strategy lifecycle has progressively shortened for many business models due to the "VUCA" characteristics of digital dynamic. IT is not just to support strategy, IT strategy is an integral part of business strategy. The main problem is that business executives still limit their vision of IT as “IT supports a strategy,” thus, IT leaders have to rebrand IT as a value creator, not just an order taker. CIOs role as C-level needs to contribute to the formulation of the business strategy where new trends of technology will provide strategic business capabilities to the business that will enhance the competitive advantages of the organization. CIO should have the knowledge and ability to demonstrate that IT capabilities as a strategic enabler of the business and CIO to be part of the executives for articulating the business strategy.
Speed: This is a process of evolution. Different departments or divisions within an organization have different speeds. And now it is the reality to run a bimodal business with both industrial speeds for stability and digital speed for agility. In practice, even in the simplest organizations, the 'Speed' is not homogeneous across the enterprise, there are differences between 'front office' and 'back office,' enterprises with multiples businesses and associated business models. So many organizations will have to 'mix & match' at least two different speeds' with appropriate IT governance styles, accommodating the resulting different IT strategy cycles. IT is often perceived to be too slow to adapt to the changes in the majority of organizations. IT now plays a pivotal role in digital transformation, so IT needs to focus on the fastest speed available - because that is where the main threat is to competitiveness. Also, it is necessary to understand that no department will suffer from being challenged too often. Now with the emergent digital technologies such as Cloud, Mobile, Social, Analytics and IT consumerization trends, IT has better opportunity to run faster with digital speed but also be cost effective with high-quality delivery.
Simplicity: IT is complex by nature, but complexity is not the opposite of simplicity. Sometimes "complex is simple as it gets." IT System complexity arises from the interaction of dynamic components, and can be layered and intricate. Even simple interactions can create amazing complex systems. But IT needs to overcome complication. Complication is a better antonym for simplicity. Complicated systems will no doubt have layers of complexity as well, but can be simplified by reducing the number of components or changing the way they interact. Sometimes the way to do this is to make one of the elements of the system more complex, designed in such a way so that the complexity of other elements of the system is reduced. Some complexity factors cannot be simplified, you need to become more complex in order to serve customers better. The reason many would have simplicity principle but act complexity is because they don't know HOW to make it simple. IT needs to manage complexity via consolidation, integration, modernization, innovation, and optimization. It's also worth pointing out that agility is closely related to simplicity. The simpler the business processes, the agiler the business is. Analyze “CRAMPS” factors, the actual order in which factors are assessed is:1). Performance — what is the expected performance for the solution, is it within acceptable limits. 2). Availability — what availability is required for the application system, and does the solution provide it. Reliability, Robustness part of Availability Sensitivity, depending on how you mean this, it is an aspect of Availability, Performance.3). Scalability — what is the scalability of the solution, is it within acceptable limits.4). Manageability — is the solution manageable, and how would it be managed.5). Cost — what are the costs for the solution, are they acceptable.6). Risk — what are the risks associated with the solution. Is the level of risk acceptable to the enterprise?
IT transformation is a significant part of the business transformation, IT becomes change drivers and strategy enabler for business to unleash its full potential, from built to last and good to great. Thus, IT strategy is sub-component of business strategy, IT speed needs to be faster than the rest of the organization in order to lead change because often technology is the innovation disrupter, and information provides the business insight for the very reason to changes. IT agility means the speed to change, the simplicity to manage, and the flexibility to have alternative solutions. And IT transformation is synchronizing with business transformation.
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
November 10, 2015
Talent Management Brief: See Through Talent from Different Angles Nov. 2015
Discovering the right people takes microscope, macroscope, telescope, and perhaps many lenses in between.
The “Future of CIO” Blog has reached 1.1+million page views with about #2300+ blog posting in 59+ different categories of leadership, management, strategy, digitalization, change/talent, etc. The content richness is not for its own sake, but to convey the vision and share the wisdom, to inspire critical thinking and spur healthy debates.
People are always the most invaluable asset in businesses. “Hiring the right person to the right position at the right time,” is the mantra of many forward-thinking organizations. The question is how would you define the right people? How do you define wrong, average, mediocre, good, great or extraordinary person? Or put simply, for what should they be right? Traditional Performance Management focusing on measuring what an employee does (mainly being told to do) in a quantitative way is not sufficient to identify high performance or high potential, so should we see through talent from different angles?See Through Talent from Different Angles Three Questions to Assess a Person's Ability to think strategically? There is no doubt that strategy becomes more important, not less in organizations large or small today, because of the fierce competition, rapid changes, and hyper uncertainty. Digital professionals have to continuously set up standards of competence and ability to enforce professional responsibility, with good intentions, and having capabilities to think strategically, but is there such one question to ask to determine a person’s ability to think strategically?
Three Questions to Assess Talent Creativity? As businesses get more cut-throat in the face of fierce competitions and unprecedented changes, this puts stress on the labor force that is not conducive to creative, experimental thinking. Thus, it’s no surprise that creativity is emerging as the #1 desired quality for the digital workforce. From talent management perspective, which questions shall you assess the creativity of your staff and, how to unleash the potential of collective creativity in your workplace?
Three Questions to Assess a Person’s Character CHARACTER is kind of things that education can’t help a lot. The understanding of the character is very relevant and timely for leading organizations to overcome mediocrity, and for the leaders who are seeking new ways to maximize themselves and human capital initiatives in their organizations. And measuring ROC - Return on Character has become the trend in many forward-looking organizations for both developing leaders and identifying high professional employees with integrity to innovate culture and improve organizational maturity. However, what is the character? And how to assess a person’s character or CQ (Character Quotient) though?
Three Questions to Assess the Quality of an Employee? Quality s the characteristic or feature that someone or something has that can be noticed as a part of a person or thing; a high level of value or excellence; peculiar and essential character, an inherent feature, etc (merriam-webster.com). We are what we think, the quality of a person is decided by the quality of his/her thinking and behavior. Here are three questions to assess the quality of a leader or an employee from talent management perspectives.
Three Questions to Assess Employees “Problem-Solving” Capability? People are always the most invaluable asset in organizations because the collective capabilities underpin business strategy execution and amplify business influence. But how can organizations “value” their employees, and more specifically, evaluate each individual’s capability, especially the “problem-solving’ ability more effectively and objectively? Here are three questions to assess employees problem-solving capability.
Blogging is not about writing, but about thinking and innovating the new ideas; it’s not just about WHAT to say, but about WHY to say, and HOW to say it. It reflects the color and shade of your thought patterns, and it indicates the peaks and curves of your thinking waves. Unlike pure entertainment, quality and professional content takes time for digesting, contemplation and engaging, and therefore, it takes the time to attract the "hungry minds" and the "deep souls." It’s the journey to amplify diverse voices and deepen digital footprints, and it's the way to harness your innovative spirit.
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
The “Future of CIO” Blog has reached 1.1+million page views with about #2300+ blog posting in 59+ different categories of leadership, management, strategy, digitalization, change/talent, etc. The content richness is not for its own sake, but to convey the vision and share the wisdom, to inspire critical thinking and spur healthy debates.
People are always the most invaluable asset in businesses. “Hiring the right person to the right position at the right time,” is the mantra of many forward-thinking organizations. The question is how would you define the right people? How do you define wrong, average, mediocre, good, great or extraordinary person? Or put simply, for what should they be right? Traditional Performance Management focusing on measuring what an employee does (mainly being told to do) in a quantitative way is not sufficient to identify high performance or high potential, so should we see through talent from different angles?See Through Talent from Different Angles Three Questions to Assess a Person's Ability to think strategically? There is no doubt that strategy becomes more important, not less in organizations large or small today, because of the fierce competition, rapid changes, and hyper uncertainty. Digital professionals have to continuously set up standards of competence and ability to enforce professional responsibility, with good intentions, and having capabilities to think strategically, but is there such one question to ask to determine a person’s ability to think strategically?
Three Questions to Assess Talent Creativity? As businesses get more cut-throat in the face of fierce competitions and unprecedented changes, this puts stress on the labor force that is not conducive to creative, experimental thinking. Thus, it’s no surprise that creativity is emerging as the #1 desired quality for the digital workforce. From talent management perspective, which questions shall you assess the creativity of your staff and, how to unleash the potential of collective creativity in your workplace?
Three Questions to Assess a Person’s Character CHARACTER is kind of things that education can’t help a lot. The understanding of the character is very relevant and timely for leading organizations to overcome mediocrity, and for the leaders who are seeking new ways to maximize themselves and human capital initiatives in their organizations. And measuring ROC - Return on Character has become the trend in many forward-looking organizations for both developing leaders and identifying high professional employees with integrity to innovate culture and improve organizational maturity. However, what is the character? And how to assess a person’s character or CQ (Character Quotient) though?
Three Questions to Assess the Quality of an Employee? Quality s the characteristic or feature that someone or something has that can be noticed as a part of a person or thing; a high level of value or excellence; peculiar and essential character, an inherent feature, etc (merriam-webster.com). We are what we think, the quality of a person is decided by the quality of his/her thinking and behavior. Here are three questions to assess the quality of a leader or an employee from talent management perspectives.
Three Questions to Assess Employees “Problem-Solving” Capability? People are always the most invaluable asset in organizations because the collective capabilities underpin business strategy execution and amplify business influence. But how can organizations “value” their employees, and more specifically, evaluate each individual’s capability, especially the “problem-solving’ ability more effectively and objectively? Here are three questions to assess employees problem-solving capability.
Blogging is not about writing, but about thinking and innovating the new ideas; it’s not just about WHAT to say, but about WHY to say, and HOW to say it. It reflects the color and shade of your thought patterns, and it indicates the peaks and curves of your thinking waves. Unlike pure entertainment, quality and professional content takes time for digesting, contemplation and engaging, and therefore, it takes the time to attract the "hungry minds" and the "deep souls." It’s the journey to amplify diverse voices and deepen digital footprints, and it's the way to harness your innovative spirit.Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
Agile Quality
The well thought-out Agile value via different approaches are "Focus, Courage, Openness, Commitment, and Respect."
Agile is not about free thinking or doing without structure, Agile does not take less discipline, but needs more engineering and management discipline. Agile also shouldn’t sacrifice quality, so what’re the best practices to ensure Agile quality?
A hybrid approach isn't always necessary for quality, but a well thought out and tailored one always is. The whole notion of "agility" is to follow the set of Agile principles that you have to stay flexible and choose the right approach each time you approach a project or even running an organization as a whole to maintain the core values. But sometimes that may mean doing something that seems less "Agile" from an academic perspective. The correct approach is always going to be the one that is tailor made for the project you're on. In cases where the life-expectancy of an app is measurable in decades, you simply must keep a set of long-range lenses on and take the extra time and steps necessary to plan it well even if it doesn't seem "agile." In other cases, being puristically Agile might be the exact fit.
Building a high performing team with complementary skills is crucial to Agile quality: Shortage of skills causes problems, no matter what approach is used. And agile approaches are allowed to pick and mix practices from all sources, where they are appropriate practices in the context. In the case that your system is poorly structured and "a very complicated, confusing, and hard to maintain codebase," the problem is that your teams don't have the skills (or possibly aren't allowed to apply them) to create a system that is well designed and easy to maintain. Complexity has built up, whether owing to shortage of skills or shortage of prioritization. If you don't have skills, or you are not allowed to use them is not Agile problem, it is an organizational problem, it is a management problem. What Agile does is to highlight the problem for all to see, agility means using what works and adapting to make it continue to improve, even it that means removing things that no longer work. There are times you have to introduce something that might make Agile "purists" cringe, even if it is just to facilitate learning a concept.
Business Value will always be an important consideration. Risk will sometimes be an important consideration. Opinions on priority change with time, so you ought to have something that allows ready re-prioritization whenever needed. Business people should know the business value and the risk from a business perspective. It might take some eliciting unless they are accustomed to evaluating risk and value. Technical people should be able to give you an initial idea on the cost and the technical risk, and on their capacity to adjust to the risk later if the feature doesn't get prioritized. Five Scrum values and most of other Agile approaches have similar values are "Focus, Courage, Openness, Commitment, and Respect."
Agile is both philosophy and methodology; mindset and framework, strategically, Agile means customer-centricity and quality; technically. Agile focuses on three Is: Iteration, Interaction, and Improvement. So the organizations and teams just need to experiment and learn; run and adjust; interact and improve; with the end business goals in mind, to achieve business result with high quality, customer satisfaction, and value creation.Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
Agile is not about free thinking or doing without structure, Agile does not take less discipline, but needs more engineering and management discipline. Agile also shouldn’t sacrifice quality, so what’re the best practices to ensure Agile quality?A hybrid approach isn't always necessary for quality, but a well thought out and tailored one always is. The whole notion of "agility" is to follow the set of Agile principles that you have to stay flexible and choose the right approach each time you approach a project or even running an organization as a whole to maintain the core values. But sometimes that may mean doing something that seems less "Agile" from an academic perspective. The correct approach is always going to be the one that is tailor made for the project you're on. In cases where the life-expectancy of an app is measurable in decades, you simply must keep a set of long-range lenses on and take the extra time and steps necessary to plan it well even if it doesn't seem "agile." In other cases, being puristically Agile might be the exact fit.
Building a high performing team with complementary skills is crucial to Agile quality: Shortage of skills causes problems, no matter what approach is used. And agile approaches are allowed to pick and mix practices from all sources, where they are appropriate practices in the context. In the case that your system is poorly structured and "a very complicated, confusing, and hard to maintain codebase," the problem is that your teams don't have the skills (or possibly aren't allowed to apply them) to create a system that is well designed and easy to maintain. Complexity has built up, whether owing to shortage of skills or shortage of prioritization. If you don't have skills, or you are not allowed to use them is not Agile problem, it is an organizational problem, it is a management problem. What Agile does is to highlight the problem for all to see, agility means using what works and adapting to make it continue to improve, even it that means removing things that no longer work. There are times you have to introduce something that might make Agile "purists" cringe, even if it is just to facilitate learning a concept.
Business Value will always be an important consideration. Risk will sometimes be an important consideration. Opinions on priority change with time, so you ought to have something that allows ready re-prioritization whenever needed. Business people should know the business value and the risk from a business perspective. It might take some eliciting unless they are accustomed to evaluating risk and value. Technical people should be able to give you an initial idea on the cost and the technical risk, and on their capacity to adjust to the risk later if the feature doesn't get prioritized. Five Scrum values and most of other Agile approaches have similar values are "Focus, Courage, Openness, Commitment, and Respect."Agile is both philosophy and methodology; mindset and framework, strategically, Agile means customer-centricity and quality; technically. Agile focuses on three Is: Iteration, Interaction, and Improvement. So the organizations and teams just need to experiment and learn; run and adjust; interact and improve; with the end business goals in mind, to achieve business result with high quality, customer satisfaction, and value creation.Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
Five Advices to Digital Leaders
The substance of leadership never changes, it’s all about making the positive influence, and providing direction, both for oneself and others.
Leadership is complex yet simple. Complexity is in that there are so many traits and characteristics that are considered when evaluating a leader. The emphasis is on trying to determine which competencies or skills should be used in which combination and with what level of weight for each, for every different situation. The simplicity comes from knowing that there is no one competency more important than the other in the larger scheme of things and that we all have leadership skills within us. There are a lot of the negative symptoms and lack of effectiveness come from a prevalent view that leadership is power, top-down and unquestionable. So what’re the best advice you could offer to the leaders?
Leadership is about a clear vision and a planned attitude of free mind, risk-taking, initiative, and innovation. Leadership does not mean being followed up by followers based on titles. To be a leader, an individual has to prove him/herself of a free mind, risk-taking, initiative, and innovation. Others lacking in these qualities then would have to follow him/her to trend toward the leader’s vision. First and foremost, remove the filter of your biases in your vision. By doing so, you will be able to perceive the business opportunities and risks more clearly.
A leader creates more authentic leaders, not his/her own copy, but be authentic on their own purposes. And the capability of being Humanity starts with being able to really look and feel inside, who am I really, this is a not easy task but will bring inner love and from that stage an individual leader will be able to give humility. How? If you can find your own purpose and you can live your purpose every moment you will also encourage others to find & live their purpose. Peter Drucker said that the role of a leader is to create leaders and not to create followers. In order to do so, the essence of leadership must be close and emotional involvement with people via the communication channels more effective to them. One of the main characteristics of a leader is being deeply engaged with people in order to be able to develop them.
Besides soft quality, the hard core of leadership is knowledge, insight, and wisdom in order to make a sound judgment and solid decisions. Knowledge sharing and understanding organizational culture is a way to start. There are a lot of information and different sources to obtain information. What is key and crucial is how we adapt or align the new ideas to our business. Innovation is part of leadership. Leadership is not just soft qualities, there is also hard core such as knowledge and wisdom. Therefore, leaders have to be life learners and insightful managers to practice expert power for gaining respect.
Leaders need to learn how to delegate and not to micromanage. Leaders need to get the work done through other people. Leaders need to learn how to delegate and how to get the best work from people, which includes giving the person the authority to do the assigned job. So often, leaders micro-manage. They assign the job, then constantly following up, telling others how to do the job etc. Leaders need to accept that sometimes jobs will not be done the way they would do it. Assign the job, monitor to ensure it is being done & oversee timelines.
All great leaders are continually looking for ways to take themselves and their people to the next level. Leaders need to know their staff's strengths and provide opportunities in the workplace for staff to use those strengths. Very often managers think that the way to motivate employees are the same things they themselves are motivated by, but each individual is unique. If we all act based on our hearts, follow the golden rule and do what we think is right for the good of others, we will be respected for that, will be trusted and will earn the title of leader. “If you treat an individual as he is, he will remain how he is. But if you treat him as if he were what he ought to be and could be, he will become what he ought to be and could be. “ -Wolfgang von Goethe
The substance of leadership never changes, it’s all about making the positive influence, and providing direction, both for oneself and others. However, transforming leadership from good to great is a journey, leadership is about striking the balance of both the hard and soft elements. Leadership is about vision, also about alignment, integration, and delegation.
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
November 9, 2015
Agile is the State of Mind
Agile is a state of mind, not a process.
Almost every organization is using agile today, but the misunderstood idea is that people can 'DO' Agile only. There's not so much to 'do,’ "mechanical agile" will stop at some point because Agile is a state of mind. Ultimately, you need to 'be' Agile.
Agile is a state of mind, not a process. It’s the basic underlying principles of Agile! You can not expect big bang mindset change so you need to start with some initial philosophy and some initial practices that pay off and reinforce, a mindset change is more difficult of a change and involves coaching/training/teaching and important discussions around what Agile is to the team/department/company. Any process is inherently non-agile, to some extent, and most supposedly 'agile' processes are nothing of the kind. Processes are put in place by managers requiring control of projects, and from the classic management perspective, which is the first step in helping the team become agile? The first is to build very good team players with agile mindset, help the team build soft skills and help them remove "e" from "ego" and help them in making "respect for each other" as their second nature.
To keep an Agile mindset, you should put a high effort into making them productive within the context of a team environment. The 'Why' you are doing the practice might occupy a small portion of thinking, and the practice with a large portion of your daily effort, but it’s not necessarily an unhealthy scenario. The danger is when you start practicing because 'The book said to do it this way' or 'Because we have always been doing it that way.' Practices should always be under scrutiny to see if the ones which were successful under yesterday's context are still going to be successful in today's context. Agile is not the goal but can it be a goal in order to reach the real business outcome. Without agile mindset, if team members are not able to resolve their conflicts, are they going to collaborate over problems? They might achieve individual goals, but team goal will not be achieved. If team goal is not achieved then product increment will not be done. Winning teams, not winning individuals, create winning products. Such high mature teams will be in a very good state to decide which is the appropriate tool and process to achieve results, respond to change quickly, develop high-quality software repeatedly and frequently.
Agile is about people and not tools and processes. Tools and processes are definitely going to be add on, in being agile, but they are not mandated to become agile. In practice: on one hand, organizations focusing on artifacts, metrics, ceremonies without ever understanding the why from inside, will not get far. On the other hand, evangelists of agile who lose touch with business, do agile for its own sake. Agile is an open mindset, where you are open to fail and learn from mistakes. Agile is about people and not tools and processes, being agile means respectful to each other, open to other's views, being a good listener, being collaborative.
Mindset change takes time, and small successes help people move towards that mindset. It is not a bad idea to start with practices, but it’s important to change the mindset, focusing on values and principles. from doing Agile to being agile.
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
Almost every organization is using agile today, but the misunderstood idea is that people can 'DO' Agile only. There's not so much to 'do,’ "mechanical agile" will stop at some point because Agile is a state of mind. Ultimately, you need to 'be' Agile.
Agile is a state of mind, not a process. It’s the basic underlying principles of Agile! You can not expect big bang mindset change so you need to start with some initial philosophy and some initial practices that pay off and reinforce, a mindset change is more difficult of a change and involves coaching/training/teaching and important discussions around what Agile is to the team/department/company. Any process is inherently non-agile, to some extent, and most supposedly 'agile' processes are nothing of the kind. Processes are put in place by managers requiring control of projects, and from the classic management perspective, which is the first step in helping the team become agile? The first is to build very good team players with agile mindset, help the team build soft skills and help them remove "e" from "ego" and help them in making "respect for each other" as their second nature.
To keep an Agile mindset, you should put a high effort into making them productive within the context of a team environment. The 'Why' you are doing the practice might occupy a small portion of thinking, and the practice with a large portion of your daily effort, but it’s not necessarily an unhealthy scenario. The danger is when you start practicing because 'The book said to do it this way' or 'Because we have always been doing it that way.' Practices should always be under scrutiny to see if the ones which were successful under yesterday's context are still going to be successful in today's context. Agile is not the goal but can it be a goal in order to reach the real business outcome. Without agile mindset, if team members are not able to resolve their conflicts, are they going to collaborate over problems? They might achieve individual goals, but team goal will not be achieved. If team goal is not achieved then product increment will not be done. Winning teams, not winning individuals, create winning products. Such high mature teams will be in a very good state to decide which is the appropriate tool and process to achieve results, respond to change quickly, develop high-quality software repeatedly and frequently.
Agile is about people and not tools and processes. Tools and processes are definitely going to be add on, in being agile, but they are not mandated to become agile. In practice: on one hand, organizations focusing on artifacts, metrics, ceremonies without ever understanding the why from inside, will not get far. On the other hand, evangelists of agile who lose touch with business, do agile for its own sake. Agile is an open mindset, where you are open to fail and learn from mistakes. Agile is about people and not tools and processes, being agile means respectful to each other, open to other's views, being a good listener, being collaborative. Mindset change takes time, and small successes help people move towards that mindset. It is not a bad idea to start with practices, but it’s important to change the mindset, focusing on values and principles. from doing Agile to being agile.
Follow us at: @Pearl_Zhu
