PRH Consulting Blog

In the training business, one of the things we try to do is manage complex content. That is, we create models and categories, etc. to organize concepts and information so that it can be learned. Part of learning is taking a new thing (skill, concept, fact, etc.) and figuring out what it is and what it means to you. Then, you have to “file” it where it belongs. If it changes or supersedes something that is already there, you have to resolve that conflict.

For example, if the government changes a law that affects hiring decisions, I have to understand what that law means to my organization. (Does it apply to the types of employees we have? When does it go into effect? What are the consequences of non-compliance?) Then, we have to decide what processes and practices need to change in order to be compliant. The same is true of a new concept. If “everything is a process” I have to decide if I agree. (Is there anything I can think of that isn’t a process?) Then I have to figure out what it means. (What do I do differently now? What do I stop doing?)

When there are lots of concepts, facts, new tools and skills, it gets complicated. We shouldn’t just “tack on” the new thing–we should take just a little more time to figure out how to really integrate it because in the long run, that will create less confusion than just adding it and expecting every employee to figure out where it goes. Too often though, companies spend all the time talking about what the changes should be and “fussing” details, and not anywhere near enough time actually figuring out what the changes really mean and how to integrate them into work processes, tools, training, policy.

This all means that change can’t always go as fast as we might like. But, it also means change can be much less chaotic. Probably the reason companies don’t do a better job of integrating new things is that they don’t have a structured process for doing so. Without a process, problems or open issues just keep popping up. Then they take over the discussion and they get written down…but without a good place to put them they can’t be comfortably deferred to the appropriate point in the process where they will be addressed.

We have used our analysis and design process for planning change integration–that process defines what people need to do and what capabilities and resources are needed to do it. It captures the raw data and requirements needed to design a new/changed organization, work processes, tools, and policies (i.e., an entire work system) in a way that address the details without getting bogged down in them.

And, the data can be used going forward to identify where new changes fit and how they should be integrated. These are tools that companies need and, in many cases, they could get much more ongoing benefit from them.

Filed under: Pete's Blog | No Comments »

The Wall Street Journal ran an article (maybe last week?) about how the word “bucket” has become a hip word to use in place of “category” or “group.” As in, “how do the earnings ‘bucket’ out between the various products?” Maybe it really is a trend. Maybe there is a deeper significance as mentioned in the article. Bucket is a friendly, low tech term and it makes us feel comfortable… My guess is that it just shows how people like to create new words and use existing words in new ways to sound cool. As in How will you ‘project manage’ this? or we’ll begin implementation and deployment after we staff up or…

Of course creating a unique vocabulary is one way to build a culture–you are “inside” if you know the slang, acronyms, jargon. And if you are enthusiastic about what you are doing, it is much easier to come up with these types of usages than if you are more objective or rational in your attitude about the subject. (Try it!) So it isn’t surprising that leaders (who often become leaders at least in part because of their enthusiasm) do this kind of thing a lot and then their people pick it up because they do what the leaders do.

I’ve noticed lately that the term “pairing” is used a lot in articles about food. Such and so wine pairs well with such and so cheese. I would pair this micro-brew with that barbecue. I wonder if there is a way to make “pairing” the next trendy term in business. Try pairing this cost-cutting measure with that new technology…

Filed under: Pete's Blog | No Comments »

I have been visiting Tom Peter’s website occasionally and enjoy it immensely. It conveys the same sense of energy, enthusiasm, ideas, and (a little) scare factor as his talks and books. Lot’s of great links to other blogs and sites as well.

Peters recently posted a powerpoint from a presentation he did–if you can take the very in-your-face style (in terms of text, colors, and layout…and it gets grating at times) and can sort of fill in between the bullet points by imagining him talking around them, it is worth a scan. Some similar themes but some terrific quotes and, even when you don’t agree, he makes you think. (I always disliked “Ready, Fire, Aim” but there is a point where too much analysis is paralysis…)

I also followed a link from his site to a high school media director’s site (Karl Fisch, Director of Technology at Arapahoe High School in Colorado, to be specific) where there was an excellent powerpoint titled “Did You Know” that uses statistics to drive home the changes that are coming as demographics shift to favor India and China. (As far as I could tell, the only way to get the music was to view it from the webpage using the windows media link…downloading the powerpoint doesn’t bring the sound files.)

Filed under: Pete's Blog | No Comments »

Recently, Christopher Null’s blog on Yahoo (The Working Guy blog) addressed the topic of multitasking. There were a LOT of comments and many were VERY emotional. He clearly hit a nerve and a quick review of the comments revealed that they started to fall into some common categories.

• Those who blame management…Multitasking is just a way to squeeze more work out of us
• Those who attribute the ability to multitask to gender differences…Women multitask all the time but men can only do one thing at a time
• Those who blame “electronic toys”…If people would quit playing with their Palm Pilots™ and just get to work it wouldn’t be a problem
• One who explained why multitasking permanently harms your brain function…If you have to multitask, you will overuse your short term memory until it doesn’t work anymore

Multitasking has become one of those buzzwords that has been so overused that it now means nothing. Unfortunately, that isn’t useful. The real answer to “Is multitasking bad?” is “It depends.” If you analyze the things labelled as “multitasking” you will see that there are really three very different types of work.

1. Trying to fill in “wait time” occurring in one task by working on something else.
2. Trying to do one real task and one that can be done with little to no attention if needed. (For example, cooking while watching TV).
3. Trying to do two real tasks (i.e., those requiring attention) at once by switching back and forth quickly. (This one is the evil one.) 

The multitasking in #1 above is just good work habits. Experienced employees of all kinds typically do this without a second thought and usually without being told to. In fact, when analyzing work with master performers, we find that we often have to “untangle” this to get at the logic of the work process.

Multitasking type 2 above is also no big deal. Richard Feynman figured out that different parts of your mind (pretty much corresponding to different senses) process separately. So, you can listen to something and watch something else. (This explains why most of us can drive and talk on a cellphone perfectly well but, let’s face it, we don’t drive as well while punching in the phone number.)

All the angst about multitasking is related to type 3 above. And rightly so–it just doesn’t work. In fact, when analyzing a job we look for this kind of “task interference” as something to eliminate from the job to improve productivity. The bottom line for me is that any knee jerk reaction is always part wrong…even if it is part right. But to come up with any kind of useful conclusions, you need to analyze the work first, and then decide what to do about it.

Filed under: Pete's Blog | No Comments »

If you think ideas and change are happening more quickly than they used to, you are probably right. On the Conference Board’s website is an article describing how the rate of change is impacting the business of managing organizations. 

“Ideas are circulating faster,” Clark says, “with the consequence that the lifespans of recent management fashions are considerably shorter than those for ideas which came to prominence in earlier periods; their peaks are much higher.” Research confirms this. A recent academic study found that the period of time between the introduction of a fashionable management idea or technique and the peak in its popularity has fallen from a mean average of 14.8 years in the 1950s through the 1970s, to 7.5 years in the 1980s and to 2.6 years in the 1990s.

 (For the entire article, click here http://www.conference-board.org/articles/atb_article.cfm?id=346&pg=4.)

This may mean that we are increasingly impatient for new approaches to deliver results, and when they don’t (or if they take too long) we abandon the approach.  But it may also mean that we have become so addicted to the new and novel that we are ready to jump on whatever the next bandwagon happens to be because we have to be the first in line.

For management consultants, this can result in continuous morphing of your identity. “TQM? Sure, we do that. I mean, Six Sigma? Yes, we have that.” For businesses, it can mean wasting a lot of time and effort training people, creating powerpoint decks, re-positioning initiatives, changing labels on things, and so forth. But little benefit. Running a business requires more than just applying the latest idea. You have to really understand your market, your technology, your value proposition. It isn’t often (ever?) simple.

Filed under: Pete's Blog | No Comments »

There was an article in Wall Street Journal recently about schools overusing automated phone message systems, resulting in some families getting up to five calls in the same night and some with no real information (e.g., “your child is a pleasure to have in class”)!! The desire to communicate but the ease of doing it en masse and automatically.

Even worse than automated calling out systems is the over-reliance on “knowledge bases” and voice recognition for incoming technical help call centers. There is nothing more futile than trying to get a quick answer to a system technical (usually computer-related) question. It will work like this:

1. Waste a bunch of time trying to find your problem in the “knowledge base” of pre-built questions and answers. It is great if they have your question but, if not, you better get comfortable.

2. Waste more time going on a user forum. These have a worse case of the same problem as the knowledge bases–the information is not organized so you have to use a random search and/or browsing strategy which will likely yeild either no results or the teasing promise of results just around the corner of the next click.

3. Waste more time trying to find a phone number to call an actual person. Once you find the number, you will not get a person who can answer on the first call.

You could always email for help on a non-urgent problem. The likely outcome will be an instant reply telling you to check the knowledge base!! (and probably a warning not to reply to that address…and probably a message asking you to take a survey to report how satisfied you were with how they handled your case).

The only thing worse is calling cellular directory assistance. Technology is great but, when you want an answer quickly, technology really can’t match the satisfaction of asking someone who knows. You can clarify, you can discuss other similar situations…in short, you can actually learn how something works so you can do it yourself next time. Using automation for basic, easily answered questions or for triage is fine but have a person who can help when you need it.

Filed under: Pete's Blog | 1 Comment »

We just posted the January issue of “Building Capability,” our company newsletter. It focuses on the need for large-scale architectures to provide structure to human performance systems such as training, qualification, knowledge management, and other systems.

In addition, there are extended versions of the lead article and project profile.

• Why Companies Need Large-Scale Architectures for Human Performance-Related Systems  
• Project Profile: Designing a Performance Support Architecture for Multiple Target Audiences   

The entire newsletter can be viewed as either an html document or a (printer-friendly) pdf. 

PRH Consulting has been busy working on a new website for our visitors. This will include a new look and feel, more resources, and an RSS feed. Check back soon for updates.

Filed under: What's New | No Comments »

The April issue of our newsletter  “Building Capability” has been posted in the library. The focus was on methodologies as a way to codify performance and performance support and transfer capability to others. Both the lead story and project profile addressed this topic. “The List” proposes the top five human performance technology and ISD concepts.

Extended versions of two articles have also been added to the library. 

• “Leveraging Know-How Using a Methodology” –in the Training and Knowledge Management section

• “Capturing and Transferring a Methodology” –in the Project Profile section.

Filed under: What's New | No Comments »

As usual, the summer is very busy with client work–too bad we can’t seem to find a way to spread it evenly. We have also been experimenting with some web-based software tools to help with project management, communication, and even collaboration. They are a lot of fun but we aren’t sure they are enough benefit to fully embrace them. But, not every experiment works the first time so we are committed to giving them a shot for three entire projects…unless we get tired of all the logging in!

We are also at work on issue #3 of the newsletter. You can check out the past issues in the on-line library. Just send us an email if you would like to be added to the distribution list. (It is distributed as an email with the pdf attached.)

Filed under: What's New | No Comments »