By Stephen Ibaraki

When I think about “Professionalism” in IT and management, it brings to mind Colin’s Powel’s (CP) lessons on leadership which I’m reproducing here as extracts. All of them apply to IT Managers. I have added a few words of interpretation to each as I see them.

Enjoy!

CP 1: “Being responsible sometimes means pissing people off.”

Change management is the byword today. What is crucial for organizational growth or agility requires repurposing of processes and people. Not everyone wants this change. Strong leadership through continual communication and team involvement works to manage this process.

CP 2: “The day soldiers stop bringing you their problems is the day you have stopped leading them. They have either lost confidence that you can help them or concluded that you do not care. Either case is a failure of leadership.”

You need to keep an open door policy where people are encouraged to express their ideas and challenges too! How can there be innovation or improvement without an open dialogue?

Moreover, it is productive to setup a dynamic exchange or interactive incremental improvement model. Rather than just agreeing or disagreeing with ideas, also provide an environment for solutions or added insights to problems or innovations to move forward. “I don’t like this new company policy because…and I feel by doing this…there can be improvement.” “We need to move into this new area…by trying this approach…”

CP 3: “Don’t be buffaloed by experts and elites. Experts often possess more data than judgment.”

Diversity of input from a variety of perspectives leads ultimately to deeper insights than depending upon one expert. Isolated data without meaningful context and interpretation can lead to problematic solutions. As one example, there is a drive to broaden the audience and participants here in IP3. This makes for a much richer environment. There are benefits to maintaining an entrepreneurial spirit in your teams where everyone is actively engaged and contributing. I have blogged about it before, but it is one of Gartner’s recommendations to building your career – to work for a start-up where everyone takes a share of the load and takes on many tasks. In this entrepreneurial environment, there isn’t a dependence only upon experts.

CP 4: “Don’t be afraid to challenge the pros, even in their own backyard.”

Ask questions to provide deeper insight and to explore all the nooks and crannies. Have confidence in your abilities to connect to your needs and challenges, mining expertise from a variety of sources.

CP 5: “Never neglect the details. When everyone’s minds is dulled or distracted the leader must be doubly vigilant.”

The key here is to have both viewpoints: the overall roadmap but also the necessary details required to manage and push for success. It sponsors growth to encourage input and maintain active communications with those on the front lines too.

CP 6: “You don’t know what you can get away with until you try.”

There is a certain truth to asking for forgiveness later. I believe that there is success in taking the next step and not to be overwhelmed with the uncertainties. If you have an idea that moves your organization forward, why not try to take it into action? Beware of over-thinking everything which leads to inaction!

CP 7: “Keep looking below surface appearances. Don’t shrink from doing so (just) because you mind not like what you find.”

I have blogged about conducting a frequent SWOT analysis—either for personal career growth or to support the success of your organization. This is where you assess internal Strengths and Weaknesses versus external Opportunities and Threats. What this really means is to ensure you have a continual assessment of your environment and your place in it. Plus you make adjustments to ensure growth.

CP 8: “Organization doesn’t really accomplish anything. Plans don’t accomplish anything, either. Theories of management don’t much matter. Endeavours succeed or fail because of the people involved. Only by attracting the best people will you accomplish great deeds.”

People are the centerpiece of every great innovation or success. Community is an extension to this rule such as with IP3; or with the audience for this forum, reading, commenting and blogging. Professional Societies such as members of IFIP provide a local, regional, national, and internationally home or base for IT professionals where you can network, exchange ideas, find real solutions, and enhance your career.

The glue that binds people are relationships and interaction and for IT managers, continual collaboration and discussion, with your team is the basis of great leadership. In my podcast with Ben Grebinski, 2005 Computing Canada IT Executive of the Year Award recipient, he talks about taking a little time up front in his meetings to address the individual contributions of each of his staff. This keeps his team working together and having passion about their work.

CP 9: “Organization charts and fancy titles count for next to nothing.”

I see a lot of flat “high touch” organizations who are making inroads in many areas. If you watch the upswing in the market it is about quick uptake, instant communications, working in communities. Everyone can share their ideas and feel heard. Energy and passion drive organizational spirit no matter where they exist in the hierarchy.

CP 10: "Never let your ego get so close to your position that when your position goes, your ego goes with it."

You and the value and resources you represent are not defined by your role. Look to continually grow your skill sets, and the differentiation and value that you provide. Over time, this builds your value and it’s not role dependent.

I have blogged about this in:

http://www.ipthree.org/blog/the-it-talent-gap/107-careertips

Moreover look towards your next position and moving forward. Develop your team to take over your current duties.

CP 11: "Fit no stereotypes. Don’t chase the latest management fads. The situation dictates which approach best accomplishes the team’s mission."

In talking with many senior executives, I find they follow a series of core or basic principles and then keep to them. They add to this core due to insights they develop over time however they don’t make a wholesale shift in their core views. They also are agile in their ability to assess threat and opportunities and to react quickly which is essential to survival and growth today. If you get a chance, look at some of the writings/views of Warren Buffet.

CP 12: "Perpetual optimism is a force multiplier."

In the more than 400 interviews I have conducted since 2001 with the top authorities in business and technology, this is one common attribute--continual optimism including under the most serious challenges. As a manager, motivation is driven by taking a forward looking view of enablement and success for your team. And encourage an entrepreneurial risk taking approach or continual innovation, even incrementally.

CP 13: "Powell’s Rules for Picking People." "Look for intelligence and judgment, and most critically, a capacity to anticipate, to see around corners. Also look for loyalty, integrity, a high energy drive, a balanced ego, and a drive to get things done."

I find that attitude and approach are the best predictors of future success for picking your team and those you want to engage with on a long-term basis.

The rules say it all!

CP 14: "Great leaders are almost always great simplifiers, who can cut through argument, debate, and doubt, to offer a solution everybody can understand."

There are various indices for writing where the writing level is measured. One example is the FOG Index. The key is to simplify and it’s a rule for general publication writing too.

These principles apply to any kind of communication. If you can’t communicate your ideas simply, no matter how great they are, you will lose your effectiveness and this will delay your career.

One side note: It is always good to contribute to a discussion through new research, experience examples, and summarizing existing arguments. Simple agreement and non-agreement is not enough. I call this dynamic learning. You will notice that the bloggers here are always looking to add value. The famed, Gary Kawasaki, talks about this too.

CP 15: Part I: "Use the formula P=40 to 70, in which P stands for the probability of success and then numbers indicate the percentage of information acquired."

Part II: "Once the information is in the 40 to 70 range, go with your gut."

This is the most common challenge I encounter with ICT professionals. It is easy to get into ‘preparation paralysis’ where you put something off since you are not 100% ready. I use a mountain analogy sometimes to describe what I mean. Imagine it’s dark and you have to get to the mountain top. You can’t see the entire path but you can make out the next 50 meters which is the extent of your flashlight. So go the 50 meters and you will see the next 50 along the path to the top. You will get there if you are patient and keep trying!

CP 16: "The commander in the field is always right and the rear echelon is wrong, unless proved otherwise."

One of early lessons I learned is that you need to reach out to your team and listen to their views. They are on the front lines and can give you a perspective from actually being involved directly and on a day-to-day basis with your products, services, and with customers/clients. I have seen companies fail when this continual interaction and communication is not occurring with the team—the front lines. I recommend this approach no matter what level of management you reach. As a board director, I found it of great value to talk with developers and project managers. You get insights that you cannot get anywhere else.

CP 17: "Have fun in your command. Don’t always run at breakneck pace. Take leave when you’ve earned it: Spend time with your families. Corollary: surround yourself with people who take their work seriously, but not themselves, those who work hard and play hard."

I have no further comment here.

CP 18: "Command is lonely."

Ultimately it’s your responsibility and this entails making the hard decisions. However it always helps to be an inclusive as possible and to have transparency in dealing with associates. Be up front but also solicit valued input.

"Leadership is the art of accomplishing more than the science of management says is possible."

By Meera Joseph

Information Technology (IT) field has shifted its focus from mere software and hardware engineering to include the ‘C’ aspect – the ‘communication’ technologies. The cultural attitudes of women are impediments to realising the full potential of women in ICT. Women need IT and ICTs, in spite of all the barriers they face. Information Technology field has opened new opportunities for women in service sectors such as call centres and data entry jobs. The ‘gendered’ division of labour is emerging in the IT field with very few women in managerial and software development fields and more women involved merely in displaying information electronically. Women especially in the disadvantaged communities have not been able to keep abreast with the rapidly changing technology due their cultural backgrounds. There was gendered exclusion of women from studying science and mathematics till recently in most developing countries. This cultural stereotype led to fewer women studying IT and subsequently seeking IT jobs. This led to low participation of women in IT, low professional development and few skilled women in the IT field. The increase in mathematical expertise amongst women in countries such as India, Singapore and China, has been attributed to the success of IT women-power. In spite of this, skilled women make up a small percentage of the total IT workforce in these countries. More than education, language and culture have been barriers for women unlike men. It is important to cultivate the use of official languages other than English to develop software.  This would probably encourage more women from both urban and rural communities to enter the IT field. Professional women can also contribute by mentoring and supporting other women to women to choose IT as a career. Some useful links for Science and Maths online education are given below.

http://www.easycalculation.com/

http://www.mathguru.com/

http://www.vedicmathsindia.org/

http://www.indianmathonline.com/

http://www.sciencemag.org/

http://classroom.jc-schools.net/sci-units/

http://www.sciencenews.org/

By Meera Joseph

Many international organizations have shifted their focus from ICT4D to Information and Communication Technologies for Women’s Development (ICT4WD).  Women play a significant role in food production in rural areas. More women in rural areas are looking for productive opportunities and other opportunities that can improve their quality of life. ICT projects can help the marginalized women to improve their communication needs in areas of education, health and agriculture. The third Millennium Development Goal (MDGs) by the United Nations is the empowerment of women and the promotion of gender equality. The goal can be achieved if there is active participation of women in ICT developmental projects that address gender issues. Women are getting engaged in these projects to get the sense of community or individual ownership of ICTs that benefit them. The empowerment of women through ICTs can address many issues such as elimination of poverty through income generation opportunities and provide access to information in all sectors.  Various communication technologies such as radio, internet and mobile phones have improved the socio-economic well being of women in rural and urban areas. Which technology can empower women is debatable, but access to information (through ICTs) can certainly empower individuals. Moreover the modes of communication and what information is communicated are crucial for rural women’s development through ICTs. Rural women are unknowingly using internet and mobile technology as the communication tool. When I posed the question - “Do you use internet” to a rural women living in Eastern Cape, South Africa, she replied- “I do not use internet but I use MXit”. People noticed her using internet connectivity via GPRS to run it. Many donor organizations and software giants have been role players in providing “access” and “technology” at low-cost taking into account the effectiveness of “communication” and “information” in rural development goals. It is crucial that women and men proactively participate with the organizations in meeting MDGs and get the partnership benefits in using technologies. ICT and access to ICT resources are crucial for WD (women’s development).

By Graham Jones

I firmly believe that given a free choice most of us strive to do our very best. But is our best good enough? We are all inevitably “limited” by our personal knowledge and experience. Constantly seeking help from others is one of the smartest things that we can do. I have always had the attitude “I will take help from whomever and wherever I can get it”. Not only will you learn and be better equipped for the future but you gain the respect of other people by showing that you value them. Sometimes people are motivated to write down their accumulated knowledge and experience, perhaps in the form of a book, a published article or a procedure in a company. This is “Best Practice” [BP] for a particular technology or subject according to that individual. Unfortunately, documenting what we “know” is somewhat compromised by our “opinion”.  I have yet to meet anybody who doesn’t have an “opinion” on something. “Opinion” is based upon knowledge, experience and beliefs. Even though as individuals we may have similar knowledge and experience our beliefs can lead to different interpretations, and thus create “differences of opinion”. It isn’t that differences of opinion are necessarily wrong, for they can promote constructive debate, but they are counterintuitive when it comes to developing an accepted BP. Further there can be no “absolute” BP because it can only ever be based upon current knowledge and experience. It should be described as “current BP”.

To arrive at a usable result “collective” input from a wide range of “trusted” sources is required. The word “trusted” is very important if we are to use the BP with confidence. Web technologies and more recently Web 2.0 have greatly facilitated “collective” input via blogging, microblogging, social networking and wikis both in public and within companies. Wikipedia for example has become one of the more well known public knowledge bases. However, we should exercise care with all such tools since they have no independent “authoritative” standing. In many industries what started out as BP, perhaps within a company, has progressed to “standards” backed by national or international bodies and possibly eventually to legally enforced “regulations”. I mention this because such things are often closely aligned with “Professional Practice”. A knowledge of such “standards” and “regulations” and how they should be applied may be required to obtain and maintain Professional Certification. In relative terms the ICT industry is quite young and much of today’s working practices may have only progressed to the BP stage and in some cases to “standards”. In other industries people accept, as part of their daily routine, that they will be REQUIRED to follow “standards” and “regulations” which have evolved often over long periods of time with input from perhaps thousands of people.

I doubt that the typical ICT person today would take kindly to being “told” EXACTLY how to do certain things. We need “freedom” to express ourselves, right? Or is it freedom to make mistakes? The reason that things have progressed as they have in other industries is very simple; “too many disastrous outcomes” when there is inadequate control over the scope of judgment of the individual. Does this mean that we have driven out “ingenuity” and “creativity”? At first I am quite sure that is how some people may have felt but in time it was realized that well crafted “standards” and “regulations” provide a solid base from which to work and that there is still lots of scope for personal “satisfaction”. Why do I mention this? Well, there have been plenty of “less than satisfactory” outcomes in the ICT industry, either financial  or societal. So the ICT industry must prepare itself for more “regulation” in the future if it is to be trusted both by the public and within companies. However, “regulation” is no panacea. It is only useful if documents are kept up to date with the latest knowledge and practices and readily available.

I started by saying that “most of us strive to do our very best”. So “enforcement” is unfortunately necessary for those who don’t see fit to follow or don’t believe in the “rules”. A very obvious example is driving. We are tested on the basis of a driving BP and then, sadly, few of us actually maintain those high standards. We have the Police to try and correct us when we get caught transgressing. Regrettably that is a reflection upon human nature. Ethics is an important component of Professional Practice and adherence to “standards” and “regulations” is closely associated. The parallels in the established “Professions” are clear. There are bodies which oversee “certification” and bodies which act as the “police”, the two often being the same organization. Such bodies do exist in the ICT industry but tend, at this time, to be viewed as either only for a certain sector of the ICT population or as participation being purely optional. That may well have been the case initially in other Professions but now Professional Certification is closely aligned with career.

Driving presents an interesting “model” for comparison with Professional Practice. Does anybody think that the quality of driving would not improve if annual re-testing was required? It would not be a stretch to assume that there might be much fewer accidents, injuries and fatalities, all of which are very costly to both individuals and society. I have to wonder if the “savings” would more than cover the cost of annual re-testing allowing for a re-testing fee. At the moment driving is basically a de-merit system, ie. get caught enough times and you get punished. Annual re-testing would move towards a merit system. Professional Certification must be a merit system based upon BP to be most effective, which means that the equivalent of “re-testing” must be present. For the PMP designation the PMI requires the accumulation of so many “merits” which can take the form of education, attendance at seminars, conferences, etc.. Similar requirements now exist in most Professional Engineering jurisdictions. A well run Professional Certification system needs elements of both a “merit” system to retain Certification and “de-merit” to deal with transgressors who no longer deserve the “privilege”. Obviously we hope that the latter is few and far between.

BP doesn’t mean that one size fits all. There must be scope for differences in approach to problem solving but within different approaches we must strive to reach and document BP. One example might be different software development methodologies. I am absolutely sure that the proponents of different methodologies are all equally passionate about their belief that a particular approach is the “best”.  What matters is that the best current guidance on how the methodologies should be applied is documented and available. It is up to the “users” to decide which is appropriate for them. If, over time, one particular methodology proves to be superior then that may evolve into a “standard”. That raises the question of who owns a “standard”. Typically “standards” bodies are born from within and funded by an industry for the common good of the industry and ultimately the consumers of the “products” of the industry. One example for the ICT industry would be W3C. “Regulations” are quite different. “Standards” are essentially guidelines which you can either choose to use or ignore [perhaps at your peril].  “Regulations” usually have the force of law which means that jurisdiction is relevant. A “standard” in one place may be a “regulation” in another. I can think of several examples in the engineering industry where that is the case and doing business internationally means being aware of such things.

In a perfect world the “playing field” would be the same everywhere and Professional Certification would be recognized across jurisdictions. Regrettably that is not the case in most Professions. At least in the case of Professional Certification through a body accredited by IP3 we are assured that it is accepted internationally which is a fundamental improvement over other industries. Professional Certification bodies may have input to national and international standards and regulatory bodies but they are independent and must be so. Their role is to determine what “standards” and “regulations” are pertinent to attaining and maintaining Professional Status. As an individual if I can’t find BP for a particular subject or technology what can I do? The answer is simple; write one and get input from others. Don’t sit around and wait for somebody else to do it. If you think your “opinion” counts then let the world know. Who knows it may form the basis of something much more one day! Everything that we have for reference today started from exactly that.

0 Comments

By Graham Jones

The other day I was driving down the highway and came across a sign indicating that there would be road closures due to construction of a pedestrian overpass. Unlike the majority of people driving by, who were likely mostly interested in any inconvenience that it might cause, I have some appreciation as to what it took to get to that point and what will happen before the public are permitted to use it. We don’t typically drive by thinking “I wonder if it will fall down”. In other words, as of today, we take it for granted that it will be designed and constructed appropriately. Was that always the case? Go back far enough in time and the procedures, processes and standards that now give us some measure of confidence didn’t exist. Back then there were no highways but people still needed to build bridges. So what happened over time to make it different? Well, first of all some of the bridges did fall down and I am sure that people weren’t very happy about it. Then local authorities formed to govern and they decided if you were allowed to build a bridge or not. Did that stop all of the bridges from falling down? No! It just meant that when they did there was somebody to try and apportion responsibility. Then local authorities decided to either create their own “standards” or follow established or establishing national/international “standards” which defined how you should build a bridge. Did that stop all of the bridges from falling down? No! Setting “standards” with no means of ensuring that they are followed is no better than no “standard” at all. People design and build bridges and unfortunately unless there are ways to ensure “standards” compliance there will always be a few who will find a reason to ignore them. Local authorities/governments are not ideal for “policing” the situation since their major interest is that bridges don’t fall down “on their watch”. The next logical step was for people to “police” themselves. If I am an honest practitioner and also want to improve “standards”, I don’t want to be affected by those who are less scrupulous. This was often the beginning of Professional Associations many of which operate today under a legal Act. Why am I referring to the engineering industry? First of all “bad” engineering tends to be rather obvious to the general public when something fails and I spent a large part of my career as an engineer in the process industries, and thus feel qualified to use engineering for illustrative purposes.

Do we now have a perfect engineering industry? No far from it; witness what is happening in the Gulf of Mexico right now. But it is considerably better than it used to be. It has taken many disasters with considerable loss of life and livelihood over 150+ years to get to today. Without that progress there wouldn’t be deep sea oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico, for good or bad. Understandably the current focus is on fixing the oil leak but there will come a time when the cause is the focus. At that time some standards, processes and procedures may be found lacking but I absolutely guarantee that somewhere people will definitely be found lacking! Unfortunately, we cannot always make people follow the preferred route of good “practice” but we can try and make them accountable. This may be punitive but there is a positive purpose. At the very least we must try and prevent people from acting out of ignorance. How can we attempt that? We set “standards” of conduct and technical competence to which people are held accountable and we don’t permit them to “practice” unless they demonstrate and maintain those “standards”. That is called Professional Practice and reflects “responsibility with accountability”. I was a practicing Professional Engineer for over 25 years starting in the UK and then in Canada. That included being an Engineering Manager with the “responsibility” for the “quality” of ALL engineering that was under my direct or indirect control. There was a time when somebody other than a Professional Engineer would have been permitted to do that job. That is not very likely anymore in “developed” countries. Were those people incompetent? Very likely not but how do we know? In fact I know some very competent people who didn’t achieve “Professional” status and their careers stalled. Does being a Professional Engineer guarantee that all will be well? No, but those who don’t continue to maintain and upgrade their skills and knowledge may lose the “license” to practice, and hence their livelihood, or suffer some form of disciplinary action. The public has the right to expect the highest standards.

By now I am quite sure that as someone probably working in the ICT industry you are wondering “Why Should I Care?”. That is very simple. Yesterday’s bridges that fell down are just like the ubiquitous presence of the use of computers today. For example, design calculations are now done using software for the flexibility and speed that offers. How do I, as a design engineer, know that the software correctly reflects the right computations. There can be an unfortunate tendency to implicitly “trust” data manipulation done by computer. Computers only do what “people” engineer and “people” are definitely flawed. A software vendor will refer to the contractual “small print” if things go wrong and hide behind a lawyer. We need the same assurance about the “tools” that are used as we do about the people using them, and the assurance about the tools can only come from some assurance about the people generating them. Computers affect all aspects of our lives and as a member of the general public it is unnerving to have so much of MY life in somebody else’s hands and have little surety that it is being well managed.

ICT Professional Associations do exist in some countries and are mostly well established, respected and long standing. Tell somebody who cares, you say. Nobody is insisting that I get Professional Certification, you say. Well that is beginning to change, especially for those who will find themselves in clear positions of responsibility. You won’t feel it next month, probably not next year but five to ten years from now it could be very different. It took a long time to get to today’s Professional Practice in engineering. Today, engineering graduates fix their objectives firmly on “Professional Status” without which their career ambitions WILL not be fulfilled. The typical ICT graduate fixes their objectives on specific technical certifications. That might work for now but one day an employer will decide between apparently equal candidates on the basis of a Professional Certification or not. That has happened very obviously in Project Management over the past 10 years with the PMP. Try getting and keeping a more senior PM job today without the PMP designation! Why did that happen? Employers wanted better guarantees about the “quality” of who they were employing [every new employee with decision making responsibility is a costly investment] and they saw competitive advantage in being able to tell clients that their PM’s had their PMP.

You have been warned! It is a question of when and not if. The ICT industry must move towards a greater measure of Professional Certification to be trusted and respected by all. Those who are already there made a smart choice and have a head start. At the very least do yourself a favour and find out what is involved. Don’t limit your career options and expectations by thinking “I am OK and will continue to be OK!”. Be proactive and take care of tomorrow, starting today.

0 Comments