Just saw this new site in beta. www.everyscape.com
Defintely worth checking out. It's a mapping site with a difference. You can browse a location as if you are inside it. You can walk into a restaurant in New York City and walk past the diners to the back, turn around and walk out again. Kind of like those 3D virtuals tours. Nothing new right? Wrong. This time you get to walk out the resturant, along the street and check out another building by going in the front door. Very cool.
You also get to see the 2D map to the right in a side panel to see where you are walking.
They've got trial versions of 4 US cities at the moment.
There's some pretty interesting revenue opportunities here for them if it takes off. Hoteliers, ticket brokers, restaurant booking agents, travel agents, they'll all want to get linked it if gets critical mass.
Tuesday, 30 October 2007
Monday, 29 October 2007
Try This In Your Next Team Meeting
You want to say "well done" more to your team?
I know I do. However, I'm just not a gushing type. Every management course I've ever been on emphasises the need to praise, to recognise, to make folks feel valued. The idea being of course is that feeling valued is motivational and sustains a team. Most of this I agree with of course.
Essentially, you want your team to do a good job. Giving praise is only a tiny part of that equation though. For some people, praise is their fuel, their driving force. Praise them and they'll do anything. For others, it's not so simple. Sure, I like to be told I'm doing a good job. Who doesn't? But does it get me out of bed in the morning? Nope. For me it's all about being engaged. Being engaged in what you're doing and feeling that your effort has some real value. Being engaged, plus doing every day what you do best. Learning new tricks and solving challenges, that's good too. Oh yeah - and a "well done" afterwards is a good bonus. Did I mention the money?
Anyway, you see my point - praise isn't the magic ingredient in management. It's not going to do much if all the other motivational factors are not in play. It's the icing on the cake. (Except for the few people that get so high on praise that it's their wonder drug - give them praise and it will be like a turbo charge).
It's hard to praise well. For me this is because firstly, the person needs to feel like they deserve the praise and secondly, the best praise is delivered in front of others. Tricky.
So - here's my idea. I've tried it out and it seems to work.
At the beginning of your team meeting, ask each team member to write up on a white board (or flip chart) one thing that they or the team (or another team member) did well last week and that helped them work towards achieving their objectives.
It's great! The team write up on the board things they know are worth highlighting. They are happy enough that these achievements are worthy of praise. So - problem one is solved, the person feels the achievement was praise worthy.
Often, team members will highlight things that they have done that aren't actual deliverables but are changes to the way in which the team works together. This is good, because it highlights process optimisation, communication and/or infrastructure improvements.
On other occasions they might highlight softer things like new starters joining the team.
And sometimes they praise each other rather than themselves. A double whammy - public and peer praise!
One interesting thing about this technique is that the team are creating a sense of positive behavioural re-enforcement. By writing the achievement on the wall, they are committing themselves to a viewpoint that this achievement was a good thing to do. Writing something down commits the person in a very strong way to continuing to behave in the same way in the future. It helps form their identity.
The process is unusual. By adopting it the team create a ritual that is a way to mark them out from other teams. Although it's not a big deal, it's an act that they share that others don't. So it strengthens the team identity, and it does so in a positive context.
Once everyone has had a go (I would go last), I then ask each team member to write on a post-it the item that they think was the best achievement of the week. We post the notes together on the wall at the same time. Usually one achievement stands out and I can then spend a few moments praising that effort in front of the whole team.
With everyone in a good mood and in a "team" mode, we then set about the rest of the agenda.
Saying "well done" has never been so easy or so much fun!
I know I do. However, I'm just not a gushing type. Every management course I've ever been on emphasises the need to praise, to recognise, to make folks feel valued. The idea being of course is that feeling valued is motivational and sustains a team. Most of this I agree with of course.
Essentially, you want your team to do a good job. Giving praise is only a tiny part of that equation though. For some people, praise is their fuel, their driving force. Praise them and they'll do anything. For others, it's not so simple. Sure, I like to be told I'm doing a good job. Who doesn't? But does it get me out of bed in the morning? Nope. For me it's all about being engaged. Being engaged in what you're doing and feeling that your effort has some real value. Being engaged, plus doing every day what you do best. Learning new tricks and solving challenges, that's good too. Oh yeah - and a "well done" afterwards is a good bonus. Did I mention the money?
Anyway, you see my point - praise isn't the magic ingredient in management. It's not going to do much if all the other motivational factors are not in play. It's the icing on the cake. (Except for the few people that get so high on praise that it's their wonder drug - give them praise and it will be like a turbo charge).
It's hard to praise well. For me this is because firstly, the person needs to feel like they deserve the praise and secondly, the best praise is delivered in front of others. Tricky.
So - here's my idea. I've tried it out and it seems to work.
At the beginning of your team meeting, ask each team member to write up on a white board (or flip chart) one thing that they or the team (or another team member) did well last week and that helped them work towards achieving their objectives.
It's great! The team write up on the board things they know are worth highlighting. They are happy enough that these achievements are worthy of praise. So - problem one is solved, the person feels the achievement was praise worthy.
Often, team members will highlight things that they have done that aren't actual deliverables but are changes to the way in which the team works together. This is good, because it highlights process optimisation, communication and/or infrastructure improvements.
On other occasions they might highlight softer things like new starters joining the team.
And sometimes they praise each other rather than themselves. A double whammy - public and peer praise!
One interesting thing about this technique is that the team are creating a sense of positive behavioural re-enforcement. By writing the achievement on the wall, they are committing themselves to a viewpoint that this achievement was a good thing to do. Writing something down commits the person in a very strong way to continuing to behave in the same way in the future. It helps form their identity.
The process is unusual. By adopting it the team create a ritual that is a way to mark them out from other teams. Although it's not a big deal, it's an act that they share that others don't. So it strengthens the team identity, and it does so in a positive context.
Once everyone has had a go (I would go last), I then ask each team member to write on a post-it the item that they think was the best achievement of the week. We post the notes together on the wall at the same time. Usually one achievement stands out and I can then spend a few moments praising that effort in front of the whole team.
With everyone in a good mood and in a "team" mode, we then set about the rest of the agenda.
Saying "well done" has never been so easy or so much fun!
Sunday, 28 October 2007
Dunbar's Number, Cross 150 With Caution
Do organisational structures need to transform once they exceed 150 members in number?
In the fast growing companies of the dot com boom, and now in boom 2.0, many companies must experience the aggressive growth that takes them past the 150 team member mark without them realising what's happening to them.
Why 150? What is it with 150 that makes it significant?
The idea was first floated by British anthropologist Robin Dunbar (b. 1947), but subsequently popularised by Malcolm Gladwell in his book "The Tipping Point".
Known as "Dunbar's number", the number 150 is a theoretical maximum number of individuals with whom a group can maintain a social relationship where each knows who each other is and how they all connect socially.
So - in a group of 150, it is still possible to know everyone else, understand their roles and their relationships with each other. Beyond that, forget it.
This number is pretty significant therefore when it comes to shaping organisational structures. With a team of 150 you can still manage with a relatively flat reporting structure, fairly informal communication processes and decision making.
Once you cross from the "medium" company threshold into "large", the old ways just don't work any more. You need a different way of managing communication, direction, decision making. What's more the people that worked well in that environment most probably aren't the same type of people that work well in the smaller team. "Things aren't the same around here any more", "It's not what it used to be"... suddenly you've got 30% attrition and a super stressed out recruitment team.
Gore Associates (makers of Gore-Tex among other things) apparently keep their manufacturing plants under 150 persons. They found this size keeps people in touch with each other. If they need more production capacity, rather than expand a plant that's at the 150 limit, they'll start a new one.
Army regiments work in a similar manner. And just for good measure, Dunbar's surveys of settlements in ancient times show a tendency to be limited at about the 150 number.
Good companies require effective teams to succeed. Most companies however grow organically and rarely do leaders stop and ask how the social relationships in their teams work and what the effect of growth on those relationships might be.
So, a word of caution: if you are a small company doing well, and aim to hire employee number 150 in the coming months, start thinking about what your world needs to look like as you become a medium sized company.
See also: Wikipedia, Dunbar's number
In the fast growing companies of the dot com boom, and now in boom 2.0, many companies must experience the aggressive growth that takes them past the 150 team member mark without them realising what's happening to them.
Why 150? What is it with 150 that makes it significant?
The idea was first floated by British anthropologist Robin Dunbar (b. 1947), but subsequently popularised by Malcolm Gladwell in his book "The Tipping Point".
Known as "Dunbar's number", the number 150 is a theoretical maximum number of individuals with whom a group can maintain a social relationship where each knows who each other is and how they all connect socially.
So - in a group of 150, it is still possible to know everyone else, understand their roles and their relationships with each other. Beyond that, forget it.
This number is pretty significant therefore when it comes to shaping organisational structures. With a team of 150 you can still manage with a relatively flat reporting structure, fairly informal communication processes and decision making.
Once you cross from the "medium" company threshold into "large", the old ways just don't work any more. You need a different way of managing communication, direction, decision making. What's more the people that worked well in that environment most probably aren't the same type of people that work well in the smaller team. "Things aren't the same around here any more", "It's not what it used to be"... suddenly you've got 30% attrition and a super stressed out recruitment team.
Gore Associates (makers of Gore-Tex among other things) apparently keep their manufacturing plants under 150 persons. They found this size keeps people in touch with each other. If they need more production capacity, rather than expand a plant that's at the 150 limit, they'll start a new one.
Army regiments work in a similar manner. And just for good measure, Dunbar's surveys of settlements in ancient times show a tendency to be limited at about the 150 number.
Good companies require effective teams to succeed. Most companies however grow organically and rarely do leaders stop and ask how the social relationships in their teams work and what the effect of growth on those relationships might be.
So, a word of caution: if you are a small company doing well, and aim to hire employee number 150 in the coming months, start thinking about what your world needs to look like as you become a medium sized company.
See also: Wikipedia, Dunbar's number
Thursday, 25 October 2007
The Long Tail and Brand Communication
The Elongating Tail of Brand Communication: An Approach to Brand-Building Incorporating Long Tail Economics by Iqbal Mohammed, Ogilvy & Mather Advertising, January 2007
You know when you get sent a link or article, and you're kind of interested, but you just don't have the time to digest it all? Usually, you skim read it, get the general idea, and then just move on?
When I received a link to this paper earlier this year, it stopped my day. I sat there and read it, word by word for 45 minutes. Wow - a really well articulated idea relevant to our changing world!
The main idea behind the article is that there is a real side effect from our increasing media diversity and multi-platform advertising. It is a fundamental shift to the way we should consider brand-building.
Based on Chris Anderson's Long Tail theory, the paper presents the case why the single-minded brand proposition is out of date and will fail in the future. A brand needs to be many things to it's audience. How can you use "long tail" thinking to build complex, layered and engaging brands through advertising?
Download the paper, it's available at SSRN:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1007403#PaperDownload
You know when you get sent a link or article, and you're kind of interested, but you just don't have the time to digest it all? Usually, you skim read it, get the general idea, and then just move on?
When I received a link to this paper earlier this year, it stopped my day. I sat there and read it, word by word for 45 minutes. Wow - a really well articulated idea relevant to our changing world!
The main idea behind the article is that there is a real side effect from our increasing media diversity and multi-platform advertising. It is a fundamental shift to the way we should consider brand-building.
Based on Chris Anderson's Long Tail theory, the paper presents the case why the single-minded brand proposition is out of date and will fail in the future. A brand needs to be many things to it's audience. How can you use "long tail" thinking to build complex, layered and engaging brands through advertising?
Download the paper, it's available at SSRN:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1007403#PaperDownload
Wednesday, 24 October 2007
Planning Poker
Planning Poker is an unsual method of estimating tasks that I came across and have tried it out on a few projects. It's a good way to get maximum accuracy from minimal effort and it sounded interesting enough to have a go.
Objective: to estimate time required to complete projects not yet started
Why Planning Poker works
It brings together multiple expert opinions to do the estimating. Because these experts form a cross-functional team from all disciplines on a project, they are better suited to the estimation task than anyone else.
A lively dialogue ensues during planning poker, and estimators are called upon by their peers to justify their estimates. This has been found to improve the accuracy of the estimate, especially on items with large amounts of uncertainty.
Studies have shown that averaging individual estimates leads to better results as do group discussions of estimates.
Planning poker works because it’s fun.
How to play
1. Each member of team is given a deck of 6 cards.
Cards have the following values: 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, Joker
Numbers on the cards represent days.
A Joker = more than 8 days (unknown)
2. For each user story (see: Introduction to Scrum) to be estimated, the moderator reads the description. Any questions arising are then answered.
3. After all questions are answered, each person privately selects a card representing their estimate. Cards are not shown until each estimator has made a selection. At that time, all cards are simultaneously turned over and shown so that all participants can see each estimate.
4. If the estimates are close, a consensus is reached and players move to the next user story. If the estimates vary wildly, the team can discuss their reasons for their estimates. They are only allowed 2 minutes to do this and then a new round is played and cards are put on the table again. This time limit is absolute. No exceptions.
This continues until a consensus is reached.
More information
You can now play planning poker online for free. Try it out at www.planningpoker.com
The orginal idea came from Agile Estimating and Planning by Mike Cohn
Objective: to estimate time required to complete projects not yet started
Why Planning Poker works
It brings together multiple expert opinions to do the estimating. Because these experts form a cross-functional team from all disciplines on a project, they are better suited to the estimation task than anyone else.
A lively dialogue ensues during planning poker, and estimators are called upon by their peers to justify their estimates. This has been found to improve the accuracy of the estimate, especially on items with large amounts of uncertainty.
Studies have shown that averaging individual estimates leads to better results as do group discussions of estimates.
Planning poker works because it’s fun.
How to play
1. Each member of team is given a deck of 6 cards.
Cards have the following values: 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, Joker
Numbers on the cards represent days.
A Joker = more than 8 days (unknown)
2. For each user story (see: Introduction to Scrum) to be estimated, the moderator reads the description. Any questions arising are then answered.
3. After all questions are answered, each person privately selects a card representing their estimate. Cards are not shown until each estimator has made a selection. At that time, all cards are simultaneously turned over and shown so that all participants can see each estimate.
4. If the estimates are close, a consensus is reached and players move to the next user story. If the estimates vary wildly, the team can discuss their reasons for their estimates. They are only allowed 2 minutes to do this and then a new round is played and cards are put on the table again. This time limit is absolute. No exceptions.
This continues until a consensus is reached.
More information
You can now play planning poker online for free. Try it out at www.planningpoker.com
The orginal idea came from Agile Estimating and Planning by Mike Cohn
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)