When Management Won't Hear the Truth: A Dialogue

A consultant writes: "I find that when I tell management the truth of what a task will take, they can't hear it. In fact, my diagnosis has sometimes meant the end of the interview. But it seems to me if I take a job without giving them my honest assessment, then I'm signing up to do something I can't do."

Jerry: I've often had this experience, with several different outcomes:

1. I don't get the job.

2. I get the job because, they say, "you're the only one who told us the truth."

3. They say, "Look, we just want to get CMMI certified. [or whatever] Show us the minimum we can do to fool the assessors." I leave.

4. I don't get the job. Somebody else lies to them, and X months later, they client comes back to me and says, "They lied to us, and it didn't work the way they said. You told us the truth, so we want you." Sometimes I come back. Sometimes I'm too busy. But if I come back, they're much better listeners the second time.

The consultant also wrote: "Another consultant, working for a large firm, told me that in some cases they do whatever the client wants and don't let it bother them if it blows up. They send an invoice, say 'well, we did what you wanted,' and move on. But I can't imagine myself taking this route, either. I'd like to know how other people deal with situations like this."

Jerry: You could do this if you had employees on the payroll that you had to farm out on billable hours. That's why I never had employees who had to be billed out, and why I always kept up my personal savings so that I, myself, didn't have to be billed out. Like you, I could never say, 'well, I did what you wanted,' and therefore could never work for a company that did. So, I'm not dependent on a company, and no employees are dependent on me. That's essential if I'm to be an honest consultant, and that's important to me.

The consultant further wrote: "Currently, I'm taking a university course called 'Ethical Decision Making for Leaders.' Our first paper is to be a case study of an ethical dilemma we've faced in our careers. I chose to discuss a job in which I was hired as project manager over a troubled product line, only to realize far too late that those in power did not want a solution as much as they wanted an excuse. My group and I were making some real positive change when I was tarred, feathered, and run out of town -- not by the systems engineers and consultants who had to deal with the angry customers (they loved what we were doing), but by the management in R&D above me. That company no longer exists -- a huge company acquired what was left. The incompetents at the top most responsible moved over to executive positions at the acquiring company. Over two-thirds of the rest lost their jobs at the time when the IT industry tanked (about five years ago).

Jerry: That's usually the (wrong) way these things are handled--bottom up--probably because it's the executives who are making the deal.

Finally, the consultant says: I've been through experiences similar to this so many times that I've wondered whether I'm really cut out for this kind of consulting work.

Jerry: The fact that you've weathered these situations means that you're as cut out for this kind of consulting work as much as anyone. Over time, you may get better at seeing these situations coming, so you don't get hooked into so many of them. That's one of the big things I'm trying to teach my readers. And a big part of being able to do this is financial independence.

Thanks for letting me quote you on my Secrets of Consulting blog. This is one of a handful of really essential topics for consultants of all kinds.

Blatant Advertising

Some readers of The Computer Consulting Kit's recent post on the "Working Conditions Thread" may see it as blatant advertising for their meta-consulting service (consulting about consulting). Those readers are right.

Some readers may see blatant advertising of consulting services as somehow distasteful or immoral. Those readers are wrong.

CC Kit's services seem heavily focused on marketing yourself as a consultant. They are right on target. Most consultants who fail, fail because of inadequate marketing. They somehow feel that clients should just seek them out as if by magic.

Warning: Blatant Advertising Ahead: Those consultants who feel that way should (buy and) read my book, The Secrets of Consulting. Then they should probably take a look at the CC Kit website, and any other marketing advice they can find.

But only if they want their consulting business to be successful.

Introducing New Technology: Agile Methods

It's one thing for a consultant to have great ideas that would help your clients. It's quite another to actually help those clients actually implement those ideas.

I've recently been interviewed by PM Boulevard about introducing agile methods. They asked me five questions:

Why use Agile methods?

What is the biggest challenge of implementing Agile methods?

In what environment will Agile be most successful?

What is the future of Agile?

What other information source about Agile do you find interesting or intriguing right now?

On the same site, you can also read answers to these same five questions by David Anderson and Steve McConnell. Check it out: PM Boulevard

Working Conditions that Prevent Consultant Misery

In my workshops, I always set aside time for consulting with participants on any situation they choose. In a recent Problem Solving Leadership workshop, I spent some of this time with Celia, a programmer working as a consultant/contractor. Because she questioned some of the company's business practices, Celia was deeply troubled by the implications of her latest contract offer. "What they want me to do for them will affect the lives of thousands or millions of people," she told me.

"That's not unusual," I said. "It's the nature of networked information systems."

"But my programming is invisible to them, and most of their customers won't know what's being done to them by the system–and that it's being done by me. That's too much power for me," she complained. "What can I do about it?"

Celia wasn't willing to accept those meaningless standard explanations: “That’s the way the computer must do it,” or the even more insidious, “That’s the way things are.”

I reminded her that some consultants in her situation salve their conscience by sabotaging their client's information systems in small ways. In many cases, it’s difficult to tell whether this is an conscious or unconscious reaction to their client's questionable practices. I've seen cases where I didn't doubt the subversion was conscious, but Celia wasn't interested in sabotage. "It's not in my nature," she said.

I then explained that at least she wasn't alone. Many consultants have complained to me that their current assignment holds no meaning. They don’t know what is being done with their work, or they do know and don’t approve. Their response is to stay on the job, draw the fee, and badmouth their client at every safe opportunity. Again, Celia said this wasn't her way.

I know lots of consultants like Celia, consultants who feel an enormous responsibility to the people whose lives will be impacted by their work. These people ask me, as did Celia, "If I don’t believe in what my client is doing, or I don’t understand it, then why should I be I working there? To draw a fat fee? If so, what does that make me?"

I offered Celia a set of principles I've always used when taking a new assignment, principles that have kept me out of certain kinds of troubles for many years:

1. I will not work for an organization whose goals are not consonant with my own beliefs.

2. I will not work on projects whose goals I do not understand, or cannot agree with.

3. Before becoming part of a project, I will first obtain agreement on what percentage of my time I can (and must) spend on continuing professional development, and what resources will be provided me for that purpose.

4. I will not work under measurement schemes that pit one person’s performance against another’s. Rather, I will cooperate totally to help others in the project achieve their full potential, as I expect them to help me do.

5. I will not accept work without understanding what is to be done, and why, nor will I pass work to others without their similar understanding.

6. All my work will always be open and available for critical comments (circumscribed, as appropriate, by real security considerations); and I will always stand ready to review the work of others in exchange for them returning the reviewing service to me on my work.

7. As long as the above conditions are met, I will devote myself in the utmost to achieving the goals of my project and the organization that has retained my services.

Sometimes, a manager trying to hire me is outraged at one of these conditions. That's unfortunate, but it's a sure indication of trouble later, if I make the mistake of accepting that assignment.

Over the years, I’ve found that consultants who ask these questions and set those conditions don’t wind up in assignments that make them miserable. Sometimes, when they ask them honestly, they leave their present position for somewhere else that makes them happier, even at a lower fee.

How Good Are Expert Predictions?

Magazines are ephemeral, but some of my friends compulsively keep stacks of copies of old magazines. I've always wondered what possible use these collections can be, but here's a lovely contribution one of my readers sent, taken from Popular Science of May, 1967, page 93.

"Time sharing, most experts agree, is the key to the computer's future, at least for general use. A few years ago, when people thought about household computers at all, they though of some small, inexpensive, individual unit that would keep track of the family checking account and automatically type of Christmas-card labels. Now we know it won't be like that at all.

"The reason is economic. The bigger and faster the computer, the cheaper it makes each computation. Consequently, it will be far cheaper to build one monster computer with thousands or even millions of customers hooked into it than to have small, individual machines in individual homes."

Now we know that "most experts" were wrong: we know it would be like that, because today, 40 years later, it is like that. I was something of an "expert" in 1967, and I'm proud to say that I wasn't one of those who made such a piss-poor prediction. That's probably because I don't make predictions—except the prediction that almost all of the predictions we make today will turn out to be piss-poor 40 years later.

Why do I make such a meta-prediction? Well, I've researched the past, and, as Patrick Henry said, "I only know the future from the past." But don't take Patrick's or my word for it. Here's how you can find out for yourself. Beg, borrow, or steal a copy of some old computer magazine. Spend as much time reading it as you typically spend on this month's issue of the same publication (or an equivalent one, if the old one is no longer around). I guarantee that the time spent on the old one will be more productive.

Because I was an "expert" in the 1960s, I published a number of articles in the leading computer magazine of the time, Datamation.. I do save my old articles, so I happen to have a copy of Datamation. from September, 1962. My article in that issue is entitled, "How to Automate Demonstrations."

Although the print magazine Datamation. itself shuffled off this mortal coil in 1997, I'm proud to say that my 1962 article would stand up pretty well even today. Perhaps even better today. Now that hardly any part of the computer moves, demonstrations are much more challenging to create. Of course, this was supposed to be a humorous article, though not everyone realized it at the time. I received a dozen requests for the Demonstration Compiler—that is, the compiler that compiled fake demonstrations. (Hmm, is there any other kind?)

On page 79 of that issue of Datamation., there's an advertisement from Computer Dynamics of Silver Spring, Maryland. (What ever happened to them.?
"MEMO Re: COMPUTER TIME
Solve your computer problems efficiently and economically by using our 32K, 10 tape IBM 7090 at $450 per hour." (That's about $5,000 per hour or more in today's dollars.)

Today, 45 years later, I own five computers, each of which is far more powerful than that 7090. As far as their value, I've thrown away a more computing power than that because nobody wanted it. Yes, the ten tape drives would still be a bit expensive today, but why would I want them? I own more than a dozen disk drives, each of which stores far more than those ten tapes.

The list of advertisers from that issue contains many forgotten names of companies selling computers, plus a few companies that are still around but no longer selling computers. Here's some examples:

PHILCO "Philco's on the move."

RCA "What's new at RCA is news in EDP."

GENERAL PRECISION (Surely everyone remembers the RPC-4000.)

ASI "More computation per dollar—on the ASI-210."

GENERAL ELECTRIC "Progress is our most important product."

FRIDEN "This is Practimation."

AUTONETICS "It's called RECOMP III."

TRW "Be operational now with the TRW-130 (AN/UYK-1)"

BENDIX "Is your programming career in a closed loop?"

Bendix didn't actually advertise their machine (no, it wasn't a washing machine), but they were crying out for programmers. And so were most of the others, "from $7,000 on up."

Even IBM (who, at last look, was still around), was desperate for programmers to "shape the future of a new technology." Sound familiar? Although machines are millions of times faster and cheaper, some things—human things, mostly—don't seem to change in 45 years:

"IBM programmers ... are devising programs that in turn use machine capability for formulating new programs. They are creating programs that enable computers to diagnose their own faults through self-checking. And they are helping to design the systems that will let scientists and engineers 'talk' to machines in the everyday language of science and engineering."

Gee, I hope they finish these projects soon. I've been waiting a long time to talk to my computers.

Perhaps, in the end, all this flux of companies and jargon and sales promises is merely an illusion. Perhaps it's what doesn't change that teaches us the most important things about ourselves.

And what is it that doesn't change?

Us.

Oh, the faces change. The names change. But the behavior, the hopes, the visions, the gullibility—they don't change. Maybe that's a prediction you can safely make.

The Exception is the Rule

Recently, I was trying to help a client (let me call them "StartupCompany") mired in conflicts, exceptions, errors, anomalies, lapses, modifications and other deviations from the norm. These annoying exceptions were playing tricks with my blood pressure, so I had to be wired to a wearable blood pressure computer for twenty-four hours. As if StartupCompany didn't have enough interruptions, now my wearable computer was inflating a blood pressure cuff at random intervals throughout the day.

Every time the cuff inflated, I petulantly asked myself: Why can't they run a project like real people living run-of-the-mill, low-blood-pressure lives?

That night, I was using the Yellow Pages, and in the A categories in the Yellow Pages index, I chanced to notice a curious pattern. Here are the first few items:

Abortion Services and Alternatives. These were the first two entries in the index. I decided to skip them both, so as not to take sides in the pro-choice/pro-life conflict. I had enough conflicts within StartupCompany.

Abuse - Men, Women, Children. I decided to continue my scan of the index, and this was the next entry. The normal process of family living involves people loving and respecting each other, communicating well, and behaving appropriately according to societal norms. But when people start behaving inappropriately, they need Abuse Services. In StartupCompany, people normally respected one another, communicated well, and behaved appropriately according to societal norms. But they sometimes didn't, and they lacked "abuse services" for coping.

Academies (including private schools and special education). When the formal education system doesn't provide special knowledge or handle special cases, private academies and special education are called for. People within StartupCompany often needed to know things they hadn't learned in the public schools, but StartupCompany had no provision for special education.

Accident Prevention. Accidents aren't "supposed" to happen, StartupCompany had accidents. In order to improve, they needed processes to prevent accidents and to mitigate their consequences.

Accordions. Despite what some people think, accordions are perfectly normal, though not everybody learns to play them or appreciate them. Still, StartupCompany could have used some entertainment to lighten the mood once in a while.

Accountants. Accounting is also normal, but, if everything always went according to plan, we wouldn't need to account for things so carefully. We have to protect our financial well-being from mistakes and misbehavior, and that's what accountants do - and also what they should have been doing in StartupCompany.

Acetylene Welding. Some welding is normal, and some is for repairing things that are not supposed to break - but do anyway. StartupCompany lacked a "welding team" to handle lots of stuff that broke.

Acrylic Nails. Most normal people have fingernails, so why is there a nail business? Oh, yes, it's the human interface, and StartupCompany had to cope with conflicting ideas of what made a system beautiful - but they had no special beauty experts to resolve the conflicts.

Acting Instruction. We all need to "put on an act" now and then when we're caught by surprise. StartupCompany's people certainly needed training in how to behave in improvisational situations, but there was no acting instruction.

Acupressure/Acupuncture. If we were all healthy all the time, we wouldn't need medical services, and if "normal" Western medical services worked all the time, we wouldn't need acupressure and acupuncture. So, there are not only abnormal services, but meta-abnormal services - the services when the normal abnormal services fail - certainly true in StartupCompany.

Addressing Service. Have you ever tried to maintain a mailing list? Almost all the work is not the mailing itself, but maintaining the addresses. It's even worse for email, because email services haven't yet evolved "normal" ways of dealing with changes. Gee, neither had StartupCompany.

Adjusters. Adjusters, of course, are an abnormal service from the get-go. Without accidents, we wouldn't need insurance, and if things stayed on course, StartupCompany wouldn't have needed risk analysis. But they did.

Adobe Materials and Contractors. Adobe materials may not be "normal" where you live, but here in New Mexico, adobe is a normal building method. StartupCompany, too, has its idiosyncratic processes that are not normal in other projects - and newcomers have to learn about them or pay the price. But StartupCompany had no special services to bring newcomers up to speed.

Adoption Services. Yes, sometimes people are not wanted by their parents, and StartupCompany certainly had some unwanted people. But, they lacked "adoption" services for moving unwanted people around.

Adult Supervisory Care. "Normal" adults can take care of themselves without supervision, and normal workers wouldn't need much managing at all. But StartupCompany had two adults who could not take proper care of themselves, and the managers spent an inordinate amount of time on these two out of a hundred.

I stopped there, sobered by my reading. It was now clear to me that StartupCompany, being a startup, had an overly simplistic picture of what it takes to run a company. I needed an adjustor to adjust my blood pressure - I needed to see that my job as their consultant was to teach them that deviations are normal, and that they (and I) could do what real people do:

• stop whining and deal with them

• create systems to deal with them

• create systems to prevent them

And, of course, I have to do these three things in my own company - like not whining about my blood pressure.

Why Would an Old Consultant Retire?

A Letter From An Old Colleague

I received thought-provoking email today from another old-timer, about ten years younger than I, but still pretty old. Here's what he said:

"I was having dinner with another old lamenting engineer, and we talked about times past, and those that have since drifted into retirement (here he gave a list of well-known luminaries in our profession: J). A bunch of them have drifted away, and if you asked present day professionals about some of these names they would look at you with uncertainty in confusion. Maybe it was the wine, but I offered up the possibility of holding a 'Sage Oracle' conference to put these industry leaders front-stage-center.

"My wife suggested that maybe a better venue would be a book where each would contribute a chapter of noteworthy wisdom. To pilot this I quickly set about drafting an email to these parties asking if there was interest (from a monetary standpoint we would self-publish and donate the proceeds to some worthy venture, and not our own wealth building). What surprised me was the comments that I received:

- 'No, I'm retired and intend on staying that way.'

- 'Thanks but no thanks, I tried to make a difference, and I did in the short term but look at things now.'

- 'Sorry, not interested since it seems that software engineering has evolved into a science of excuse methodologies that don't strike at the cause of the problem but rather attempt to appease and cajole.'

"I guess I'm not surprised, but at the same time isn't it amazing that our short time on this earth, regardless of how much we think we have accomplish, has produced a batch of undurable stuff? Thought I would share this and maybe it might be a topic for interesting discussion in one your sessions."

My Reaction

Well, I thought it might make an interesting discussion on this consulting blog, so here are a few thoughts of mine:

I never thought I would make a "big" difference in the profession, so I'm not disillusioned. I figured that one person could do the most by working one-on-one with other people, and that's the way it's worked for me. Sure, I've written a lot of books, but the knowledge underlying those books has come from my work with individuals over half a century. And, when I see how they are continuing to work, to write, to influence other people, I would never say that I have "produced a batch of undurable stuff."

When you work with people, your work endures through them. I have not grown cynical, or bitter, but intend to keep on working through the marvelous people in our profession until I drop dead. I'm an old guy now--pretty much all of my contemporaries are gone--but I continue to work, even though my emphasis on different methods has changed. For example, it's harder to do long, intensive workshops that Dani and I did for so many years, but the AYE Conference is a format my old bones can tolerate. I can still do three hours, non-stop, and do it every day through the conference.

[After writing the above paragraph, I thought about how much I miss those workshops. I decided to do something about it, so I asked two of my younger colleagues, Johanna Rothman and Esther Derby if they would support me through another Problem Solving Leadership Workshop (PSL). They heartily agreed, and we're going to give it a try this June. If I can ease off a bit and let them do some of the hard stuff, I should be able to keep going for a few more years. We'll see.]

I continue to write, though it's a bit harder on my fingers (and I've had no luck with talk-and-type software, so far). But I have changed the emphasis of my writing. I continue to write non-fiction (like my new book on writing, Weinberg on Writing), but I'm now writing novels that I hope will catch the attention of the rising generations. My protagonists are just like the people I've worked with over these many years--people with special talents who face a world that doesn't understand them, but wants to commandeer their talents.

I think I can indefinitely continue my on-line SHAPE Forum (Software as a Human Activity Practiced Effectively)--again, with some assistance. It's such a pleasure to hear from the best minds in our profession every day and share thoughts and feelings with them. What a privilege it has been to work in this fascinating profession for all these years. How could anyone ever want to give it up for mere retirement?

Innocent but Dangerous Language

To be successful as a consultant, you need to pay attention to seemingly innocent language. The computer software field is filled with such language booby traps, but let me introduce the subject by citing a field that might be more familiar to more people—dog training.

My wife, Dani, is an anthropologist by profession, and so naturally is a skilled listener. She's now retired from her anthropology career, but brings all her skills and experience as an anthropologist and management consultant to her new career of behavioral consulting with dog owners and dog trainers. The combination produces many interesting ideas, like what she told me about the way attack dogs are trained. As usual, the big problem with attack dogs is not the dogs, but the people.

When someone hears that a dog is attack trained, chances are about one in three that they'll turn to the dog and command: KILL!

As a joke.

Or just to see what the dog will do.

To protect against this idiotic human behavior, this carelessness with words, attack-dog trainers never use words like "kill" as the attack command. Instead, they use innocent words like "health" that would never be given in a command voice.

This kind of protection is needed because a trained dog is an information processing machine, in some ways very much like a computer with big teeth. A single arbitrary command could mean anything to a dog, depending on how it was trained—or programmed.

This arbitrariness doesn't matter much if it's not an attack dog. The handler might be embarrassed when Rover runs out to fetch a ball on the command ROLL OVER, but nothing much is lost. But if the dog were trained to respond to ROLL OVER by going for the throat, it's an entirely different matter.

Maintenance, or Computers with Teeth

It's the same with computers. Because computers are programmed, and because the meanings of many words in programs are arbitrary, a single mistake can turn a helpful computer into one that can attack and kill an entire enterprise. That's why I've never understood why some of my clients take such a casual attitude toward software maintenance. Time and again, I hear managers explain that maintenance can be done by less intelligent (and cheaper) people, operating without all the formal controls and discipline of development—because it's not so critical. And no amount of argument seems able to convince them differently—until they experience a costly maintenance blunder.

Fortunately (or unfortunately), costly maintenance blunders are rather common, so managers have many lessons, even though the tuition is high. I keep a confidential list of expensive programming errors committed by my clients, and all of the most costly ones are maintenance errors. And almost all of those involve the change of a single digit in a previously operating program.

In all these cases, the change was called, innocently, "trivial," so it was instituted casually by a supervisor telling a low-level maintenance programmer to "change that digit"—with no written instructions, no test plan, nobody to review the change, and, indeed, no controls whatsoever between that one programmer and the day-to-day operations of the organization. It was exactly like having an attack dog trained to respond to KILL—or perhaps HELLO.

Just Change One Line

I've done studies, confirmed by others about the chances of a maintenance change being done incorrectly, depending on the size of the change. Here's the first part of the table:

     Lines         Chance of

    Changed        Error

          1                    .50

          2                    .60

          3                    .65

          4                    .70

          5                    .75


Developers are often shocked to see this high rate, for two reasons. In the first place, development changes are simpler than maintenance changes because they are being applied to cleaner, smaller, better-structured code. Usually, the code has not been changed many times in the remote past by unknown hands, so does not contain many unexpected linkages. Such linkages were involved in each of my most costly disasters.

Secondly, the consequences of an erroneous change during development are usually smaller, because the error can be corrected without affecting real operations. Thus, developers don't take that much notice of their errors, and thus tend to underestimate their frequency.

In development, you simply fix errors and go on your merry way. Not so in maintenance, where you must mop up the damage the error caused, then spend countless hours in meetings explaining why it will never happen again—until the next time.

For these two reasons, developers interpret this high rates of maintenance errors as indicative of the ignorance or inexperience of maintenance programmers. But if we continue down the table a few lines, we can see that the cause cannot be either ignorance or inexperience:

     Lines         Chance of

    Changed        Error

          10                   .50

          20                   .35


The decrease in error rate as the size of the change increases shows that maintenance programmers are perfectly capable of doing better work than their record with small changes seems to indicate. That's because these "trivial" changes are not taken seriously, and so are done carelessly and without controls. How many times have you heard a programmer say, "No problem! All I have to do is change one line."

Who Coined These Innocent-Sounding Words?

And how many times have you heard these programmers' managers agree with them? Or even to work "quick and dirty" when "it's only a minor change"?

This carefree attitude would be sensible if "minor" changes were truly minor—if maintenance of a program were actually like maintenance of an apartment building. Not that janitorial maintenance can't be dangerous, but the janitor can assume that changing one washer in the kitchen sink won't incur great risk of causing the building to collapse and bury all the occupants. It's not safe to make the same assumption for a program used every day to run a business, but because we are so free and arbitrary with words, the word "maintenance" has been misappropriated from the one circumstance to the other.

Whoever coined the word "maintenance" for computer programs was as careless and unthinking as the person who trains an attack dog to kill on the command KILL or HELLO. With the wisdom of hindsight, I would suggest that the "maintenance" programmer is more like a brain surgeon than a janitor—because opening up a working system is more like opening up a human brain and replacing an nerve than opening up a sink and replacing a washer. Would maintenance be easier to manage if it were called "software brain surgery"?

Think about it this way. Suppose you had a bad habit—like saying KILL to attack dogs. Would you go to a brain surgeon and say, "Just open up my skull, Doc, and remove that one little habit. And please do a quick and dirty job—it's only a small change! Just a little maintenance job!"?

The Moral

Of course, you as a consultant would never be this careless with language, would you? But when you're called in by a client who's having trouble—like disastrous small maintenance changes—listen to their "innocent" language. It may contain just the clue you need to make one small change and fix the problem.

Oh, wait a minute!

Protecting Your Client Communications

We hear a lot in the consulting literature about "communications," but mostly they (me, too) are talking about the psychology of getting information from one person to another. That's a tough topic, but there's also the physical problem of getting information from one person to another. In the past week, I've been alerted to several instances where electronic communications have been corrupted or diverted. It's time to take a serious look at what's happening to your electronic messages.

Case 1. AOL Security Hacked

This is a note from one of my correspondents:

Last night was horrific. I lost my screen name. Some hacker stole it from me and no one - *NO ONE* - from AOL would help me. When the hacker got in, he changed my password, my security question, my billing. Yep, he changed it so that he would be billed. Why? Because he liked my screen name. It's XXXXXX. He wanted it. He was willing to pay for it. And he was willing to screw me over to get it.

I was on a secondary screen name at the time - one that I use when I'm online and I don't want to be distracted by e-mails and such. I got an e-mail. It was from AOL telling me that the master screen name's password was changed. I didn't change it. No one has that password but me. No one.

I immediately tried to access that name. No luck. I called AOL and suffered through repeated recordings that tried to "solve my problem" for me before sending me to a real person. No... hitting "0" didn't work. But I found out that "9" does. I talked to everyone I could.

No one would talk to me. Why not? Because I was no longer the owner of the account. I've had this account since 1996 and they would not listen. They told me that since I was not the current owner, they could not talk with me. They claimed to have no record of me at all. The guy had had control for less than an hour and they wouldn't budge because I wasn't the owner of record.

You can't imagine my frustration. Or maybe you can. I conduct *ALL* my consulting business from this screen name. Losing it would be disastrous. Hideously so. I was apoplectic. I offered to prove that I owned the account - to no avail. THEY WOULD NOT TALK TO ME.

They referred me to the Fraud department, which was closed till nine this morning. But I couldn't wait. I couldn't stand it.

I was still on my secondary e-mail and I waited till the (expletive deleted) signed on. And then I IMed him. I called him a nasty name and then started in on the questions - why? how?

He laughed. Sent me "LOL" and told me I'd just learned a lesson the hard way.

He knew I was a consultant. And I asked him how he knew.

Here's what happened: I'd put some information in my AOL profile, thinking that it was a cool way of promoting my services in case anyone was browsing. Mistake. That gave him my name. He googled me and found out what college I went to. Bingo. That gave him the answer to my security question.

He didn't even need my password to get in. He used the "password reset" option and used the security question to bypass it all. This bears repeating: HE DIDN'T NEED MY PASSWORD.

He said he collects screen names for a living and laughed at me.

All this in an IM.

And then, I asked, please. I told him that he was messing with my career. That my screen name was my lifeblood and that losing it would hurt more than he could ever imagine.

And then the hacker did what AOL refused to do. He gave me my screen name back. He gave me the new password (which I promptly changed) and the new security answer. He got suddenly chatty and started giving me hints about him and where he lives and such. Not that I believe any of it. He made my XXXXXX to a lower case xxxxxx and offered to send me the program he used to change it. I declined, telling him that the lower case "x" would be a constant reminder to me to be vigilant.

I have no idea why he did this. But he did. He said he was a hacker with a conscience. I believe it. I still hate that it happened. But I learned a lot last night, in the midst of all the angst. I have a cryptic answer to my security question now. I have all new passwords. I have NO profile on AOL now. I'm sure someone can still make the connection, but I'm taking steps to protect myself.

Jerry, can you make this into a well-worded warning and try to get it out there on your blog for other consultants?

AOL did not help me when I needed them. I called the Fraud department this morning and I ripped into them. Did they care? No.

They're the ones who forced me to set up a security question. I never wanted one. I foolishly believed that the question would come into play only *AFTER* the password was given. I was wrong.

Double check your security. Do not go through the agony I went through last night.

MORAL: 1. Don't count on AOL for security help.

2. Don't count on any ISP for security help. It's your responsibility.

3. Don't be stupid about your passwords.


Case 2. Don't Be Spoofed and Don't Be a Pfish


I receive income from Amazon for my short essays posted on their site. Yesterday, someone tried to hijack my Amazon account. If they had succeeded, they could have diverted my income directly to their bank account. Even worse, there are cases where they could post counterfeit writing under my name, which could kill my reputation.

I received an email that looked exactly as if it had come from Amazon and asking me to update my account information. Heeding previous advice, however, I did not click on the link but instead wrote directly to Amazon using their website (which I reached by typing the url myself). I received the following information and advice, which applies to all such 'update your account" messages:


Greetings from Amazon

The e-mail you received was not from Amazon.com. We are investigating the situation, and we appreciate you letting us know that you received this.

For your protection, we suggest that you never respond to requests for personal information that may be contained in suspicious e-mail. It is best to assume any e-mail that asks for personal financial information (or web site linked to from such an e-mail) is not authentic.

If you did not click on the link in the fraudulent e-mail, your account at Amazon.com is fine--there's nothing more you need to do. If you did click the link, but didn't enter any personal information (such as your login or password), the phishers will not have your Amazon.com account information.

However, please know that if you ever respond to a phishing e-mail and do enter your Amazon.com login and password (or any other personal information) on the forged web site, the phishers will have collected that information and you should take appropriate action. We recommend that you update your Amazon.com password immediately, and, if you entered financial information, you may want to contact your bank or credit card provider.

If you encounter any other uses of the Amazon.com name that you think may be fraudulent, please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Thank you for contacting Amazon.com.

WHAT IS PHISHING?

Phishing e-mails have been around for years. The term phishing comes from the use of increasingly sophisticated lures to "fish" for users' personal or financial information. In phishing, the scam artist usually sets up a spoofed a web page, which looks like the real one, but is owned and operated by the phisher.

Go to www.amazon.com/phish to read more about ways to protect yourself from phishing.


WHAT IS SPOOFING?

Spoofing, in this context, refers to a counterfeit web page or e- mail that is made to "look and feel" authentic but is actually owned and operated by someone else. It is intended to fool someone into thinking that they are connected to a trusted site, or that they have received an e-mail from a trusted source.

MORAL: Don't be so trusting. These are not people you're dealing with.


Case 3. They're Faster Than You Are


Fraudulent abusers of the internet are at work 24/7, and there are thousands of them, so one little lapse will cost you. As the Amazon warning said, by the time you notice you've been pfished or spoofed, they will already have your "secure" information, which they will sell many times over.

My SHAPE forum is subscription-only, and guarded by a password. The other day, however, we accidentally published a "clean" email address for special use, but mistakenly put it outside the protected area. In less than 24-hours, we started receiving spam on that address.

Imagine what would happen if you exposed one of your clients' email addresses or secure websites--or, heaven forbid, one of their passwords.

MORAL: One mistake, for one minute, can cost you your business.

Case 4. Watch Your Blog: They're Not Script Kiddies Playing Around


The other day, some of us started seeing strange, obscene material on Don Gray's blog. Don asked the AYE Conference hosts about this, and Dave Smith, our internet guru, gave this reply:

I took a close look at your blog. You've been hacked. Pull up http://www.donaldegray.com/tiki-view_blog.php?blogId=2 and View Source. The chunk of JavaScript at the bottom adds a hidden section that will render the links invisible to modern browsers (Some probably saw it because she's using an older browser like Lynx). Google will see the links, and will drop your site from the Google index. I'll dig up the procedure to get reinstated.

I suggest checking with the TikiWiki people to see about security updates. I recall there being an issue several months back that caused someone else I know to get hacked. Might be the same issue. You might also want to check the rest of your blog to see how widespread the damage is.

Don wrote back: I'm curious, what good does it do someone, if the primary result is dropping the site from the Google index? Script kiddies having fun?

Dave replied: This stuff isn't script kiddies. Basically, it's organized minor crime. By using automatic attack tools to hide a bunch of links for their clients, they're bumping up the "rank" of their sites on various services that aren't (yet) as aggressive as Google in culling out junk. Using automated tools is cheap; just park a laptop in a coffee shop with an open wifi, and let it rip. If you get caught, move down the street. The more sophisticated crooks rent time on large networks of compromised home windows machines. It's a huge problem. This, sadly, is why nobody who tries unfiltered or unmoderated blog comment systems survives for long in the open. I don't have comments enabled on my blog, but still see daily evidence of automated attack attempts in my server logs.

My own blogs, including this one, receive numerous spam messages every day, which I block, but some of my colleagues still have unmoderated blogs. Everything that goes up on your blog reflects on you. Just the fact that you allow it to go up there reflects on you. Yes, you can moderate posts off your blog after they're posted, but that's too late. You want your clients to read your blog, don't you? Some of them will see the posts before you are able to remove them, so stop them before they reach the site.

MORAL: Everything on your blog or your website reflects upon you. Make sure it's the reflection you want.

META-MORAL: I could go on endlessly with examples of corrupted or diverted communication, but I couldn't keep up with the new scams that appear every day. You have to be super-cautioius, and well-informed, but many consultants I know are failing in this responsibility.

Yesterday, I talked to a consultant who uses "password" for her password. When I asked her why, she said, "Yes, I know better, but it's just not a high priority." Well, maybe this is the psychology of communication after all.

What Should Designers Know?

I recently received a letter from Catherine (cat) Morley, Design & Development Director of Katz-i International Web & Graphic Design, http://www.katzidesign.com

She's also Project Manager at Creative Latitude. a worldwide community that unites various creative disciplines for collective promotion, education and ethical business practice, http://www.creativelatitude.com as well as Project Manager for the NO!SPEC crusade, http://www.no-spec.com

She was responding to posts on my writing blog, but I think my response ought to go here on my consulting blog, given that all designers are, in fact, consultants. She wrote:

Cat: No, I am not a writer, but I do have your book 'Weinberg on Writing' and will be using it in the near future. I love it and have suggested all my design friends who are serious about writing to buy a copy.

Jerry: Just so you know, I am not a writer, either. Well, I am a writer, but I was a designer (of computer systems) first, and my first books and many other have been on the subject of design.

Cat: Short explanation - I'm creating a series for designers called 'working with' (writers, programmers, photographers, marketers, printers, etc). Target market - those new to the business of design. Reason - to help those coming into the business of design avoid the costly mistakes of seasoned designers. Additional benefits - clients will (hopefully) avoid being on the receiving end of those very same costly mistakes. ... Which brings me to you ... we are interviewing the industries designers deal with in business. Two wee questions ...

Question 1: As a professional writer, what are the main points that you'd expect / want designers to know before contacting you about a project?

Jerry: I am both a designer and a writer, so I have high expectations of designers. Just last month, I worked with a young designer, Brandon Swann, on the cover design for my new novel, "The Aremac Project" (you can see his design on my website home page now). I expected him to know how to listen to my requirements and ideas, then take his own initiative to present me with at least three sketches of possible solutions to the design problem. I expected him to know something about the purposes of book covers in general--what they were supposed to accomplish--and to balance his creative urges with my needs as a client. I expected him to be prepared to go back and forth with me and my publisher as we refined the design, and to complete his assignments as agreed.

Brandon, by the way, did all of these things and produced a striking and effective cover.

Question 2: When working with designers, what do you see are the top
>problem areas?

Number one: Ego. A designer needs to have a rather large ego, but needs to keep it under control in service of her client. Many do not do this well. (My book, Becoming a Technical Leader, deals with this problem, as does my book (with my wife) General Principles of System Design.)

Number two: Maybe related to number one: Inability to listen and really hear. (My book on feedback (with Charlie and Edie Seashore) What Did You Say?: The Art of Giving and Receiving Feedback deals with this problem.)

Number three: Inability to surface assumptions (his or the client's) and to do the work to clarify them. (My two books with Don Gause, Are Your Lights On?: How to Know What the Problem Really Is and "Exploring Requirements: Quality before Design, deal with this problem.)

And, of course, many designers are simply poor communicators, either in writing or face-to-face, and my writing book and my consulting books deal with this problem.

That's not all, but that's enough.

Visit Cat's designer blog. You'll be glad you did.

If It's Okay To Want Anything, But Not To Expect It

There's a humorous letter by Mike Morgan, If Architects Had To Work Like Programmers, that relates to today's topic of how designers/consultants work with their clients. One of the things a designer has to know is how to keep cool and handle potential clients like the one who wrote this letter.

In the article, the client keeps adding and changing vague requirements, so the architect will have to have the qualities listed above which would allow him to deal with them. If not, he will be trapped by his ego when he could just walk away. He won't hear the underlying message—that this client needs to be kept in check and reminded that each of these conversations will cost money.

And, particularly, he will be unable to see or surface the dozens of assumptions that pepper this outrageous letter. Of course, the first thing he will have to do—if he deals with this client at all—is to get face-to-face and start a feedback session to educate this client about the costs and chances of success in doing business this way. This client has to know that it's okay to want anything, but it's quite a different matter to expect anything—and, certainly, to expect everything, and for free at that.

As an exercise for all consultants, I recommend you read this fictitious but essentially true letter and note how you would deal with each of the issues it raises. It could save you a fortune in the near future.

Predictions About Predictions

People are always asking consultants to make predictions. Would you be wise to accommodate them?

People especially crave predictions about their financial future. Which stocks will grow? Which dot.coms will fold? What jobs will be best? What should they study to prepare for their future jobs? What books will sell?

Predictions are difficult. Well, no, predictions are actually easy - unless you want some accuracy. Since I'd feel responsible if I hurt somebody with a poor prediction, I seldom accept their invitation to predict.

Predictions About the Success of Books

Let me give some examples, starting with some predictions that, had I listened to them, would have seriously hurt my career as a writer, which in turn would have hurt my career as a consultant. I have published about 40 successful books, yet I still don't understand how publishers make predictions. One of the most successful of my books has been The Psychology of Computer Programming, which was delayed more than a year by a series of publishers who couldn't decide what to do with it.

I first sent it to the company that had published all my previous books without hesitation. Here's what they said: "It just is not worthwhile pushing this project any further. It may be that the concept is good ... but the style and breadth of presentation is just not suitable. It could be that a major overhaul and rewrite will result in a marketable project. On the other hand, it may be wiser to forget the book concept entirely..."

The book was not overhauled, nor rewritten, but it was turned down by another publisher before it finally found a home. It's now been in print for more than 30 years, and has sold over 100,000 copies in English, and many more in other languages. For the company that eventually published it, Psychology sold more copies and made more money than the next five books in their line. In retrospect, the two publishers who declined the project proved not to have much predictive power.

My next highly successful book is An Introduction to General Systems Thinking. Naturally, I sent this manuscript first to the perceptive publishers of Psychology. Here's what they said: "Our referee believes that the market for such a volume is limited. With this in mind, I do not believe it is for us." This one has been in print now for over 25 years, and has also sold more than 100,000 copies.

The same pattern now holds for my third most successful book, The Secrets of Consulting, and the fourth, Are Your Lights On? - how to know what the problem really is, and the fifth, What Did You Say? - the art of giving and receiving feedback. And none of my less successful books, so far, have ever been turned down by publishers!

Experiences such as these have brought me to the reluctant conclusion that publishers know a lot about predicting the future success of a book - but what they know is exactly backwards. Or at least for new and different subjects. Shakespeare goes in and out of fashion, but even at low ebb sells pretty consistently. Algebra books compete with one another in a comfortable, steady market, as do introductory books in such subjects as economics, physics, philosophy. Books in such areas are more predictable, but, then, they're less likely to make a big splash.

In computing, it's not so steady, and predictions are even harder than with books. For publishers of computing books, the subject of tomorrow's best-seller is unknown to today's editor. Editors don't follow the field; they follow the publications in the field. Unless and until somebody else publishes a book on the subject, the editor doesn't consider it a subject at all. Those blinders are evident in the subjects of those books of mine that became the best sellers. Before The Psychology of Computer Programming appeared, the psychology of computer programming was not a subject.

Predictions about Computers

Magazine and newspaper publishers have an easier time than book publishers in a fast-moving field, because their publications generally get trashed before they become obsolete. Who reads last year's magazines to learn about the future of the job market?

But some of my friends do keep old copies of magazines, and I keep them if they contain an article of mine, so some evidence of successful or unsuccessful predictions remains for us to study. One of my friends sent me this prediction from Popular Science, May 1967, page 93:

"Timesharing, most experts agree, is the key to the computer's future, at least for general use. A few years ago, when people thought about household computing at all, they thought of some small, inexpensive, individual unit that would keep track of the family checking account and automatically type out the Christmas card labels. Now we know it won't be like that at all.

"The reason is economic. The bigger and faster the computer, the cheaper it makes each computation. Consequently, it will be far cheaper to build one monster computer with thousands of customers hooked to it than to have small, individual machines in individual homes."

Here's another prediction taken from the September, 1962 Datamation, which I happen to have because I had an article in it. (The article incidentally, was about how to make fake demonstrations, and that seems to be something we're still doing 40 years later. Sound familiar?) Anyway, IBM’s 1962 recruiting ad said,

"IBM programmers ... are devising programs that in turn use machine capability for formulating new programs. They are creating programs that enable computers to diagnose their own faults through self-checking. And they are helping to design the systems that will let scientists and engineers 'talk' to machines in the everyday language of science and engineering."

I don't know about you, but I hope they finish these projects before I retire. I so much want to talk to my computer in the everyday language of science and engineering. (Sound familiar?)

Predictions about Predictions

Patrick Henry once said, "I have but one lamp to guide my life. I only know the future from the past." So, if the past can be used to make predictions, what predictions can we make using past predictions as a guide? Here are some that I've made, for myself:

1. Editors will predict what will be popular in the future. So will recruiters. They will be wrong.

2. People will predict that computers will get so cheap that programmers will be eliminated. They will be wrong.

3. People will predict that thinking and problem solving and other human activities will not be as important in the future as in the past. They will be wrong.

4. People will predict that there won't be anything really new to do with computers (just Christmas-card labels and everyday language of science and engineering). They will be wrong.

So, here's my advice for the future. Read some books, but not too many on one subject—and don't take editors too seriously. Learn the most general of skills—how to think better and how to work with other people more effectively. Then look for assignments where you can apply those talents to build new things—but probably not things that are going to replace people. And, if you follow my predictions, you'll probably have a successful and prosperous consulting career.

But I'm probably wrong.

Weinberg's Consulting Target

I woke up so early one morning that I surprised a mouse making her rounds of my bathroom.

She surprised me, too, so I decided against further roaming in the dark house. I fetched Beverly, the calico cat, to protect me, then barricaded both of us in Dani's office, along with a stack of articles I'd been meaning to read.

One set of articles particularly interested me, as well they should. They were a set of views on "how computers affect our lives" - a topic I could hardly fail to find important. Perhaps I would learn how to program my Mac to trap mice, which would certainly affect my life!

Although I was doubly wide awake, I couldn't seem to finish the first article. Even though the essay was one page long, my mind kept drifting away. One sentence, three paragraphs deep in the article, kept losing me halfway through its 47 words. I consoled myself by stroking Beverly, but it didn't help.

Putting Bev back on the floor where she could do a better guard job, I decided to skip the first article and proceed to the second. Both proved wise moves. The mouse appeared from under the closet door, and the second article was almost as exciting as the ensuing cat-and-mouse interaction. (Beverly can't catch mice, but mice don't know that.)

I returned to the first article. No luck. Worse, in fact, than the original attempt, for the second article had set a high standard that the first couldn't possibly match. I pondered what I would have to do to reach the end of this article, and when I glanced there, my eye fell upon the author's name. Let's call him Dr. X.

As it turned out, I knew Dr. X well - to my dismay. I've attempted to read perhaps a dozen Dr. X articles, but I've never managed to finish even one. I once was so frustrated that I measured the Fog Index of a Dr. X article. A Fog Index of 12 is considered the maximum one ought to reach in technical writing. (This essay has a Fog Index of about 10.) Dr. X's Fog Index was 41!

Dr. X's writing reminds me of a third-year sociology graduate student trying to impress professors with superior erudition and obscurity. Too bad, I thought, that I hadn't tried to read Dr. X the previous evening. The soporific effect would have exceeded a glass of warm milk and two sleeping pills, and I wouldn't have risen early enough to see the dreaded mouse.

So what's the point of this story? Curiously, in spite of the deadening effect of his writing, I don't consider Dr. X a failed writer. His writing is so bad I can't really get involved in his subject matter. Consequently, I never associate his abominable writing with his content. Even though I've tried to read a dozen of his works, I've never lost my taste for his subjects.

In contrast, consider Mr. Y, an author who writes on another of my favorite subjects - systems theory. Mr. Y has a typical Fog Index of 18, considerably lower than Dr. X's and well within my tolerance for a subject that truly fascinates me. But there's a different quality to Mr. Y's writing - a quality that's not captured by the simple Fog Index. It's that quality that makes Mr. Y a failure.

What is that quality? Whenever I read his work, I acquire a bad taste about his subject. Whereas Dr. X leaves me unmoved, Mr. Y moves me against further learning. To me, that is the ultimate sin of any writer or teacher.

When I write a book or essay, or teach a course, I have one fundamental measure of failure, which I call Weinberg's Target:

After exposure to my work, does the audience care less about the subject than they did before?

If the answer is Yes, I've failed.

If the answer is No, I've succeeded, and I'm happy for it. Perhaps you consider my goal too modest. Perhaps you aspire to something greater, like making the student learn something, or even love the subject. Oh, I'm not dismayed by such fine outcomes, but I don't think it's a reasonable goal to expect them.

If you think my goal is too modest, reflect back on your own educational experiences - the books you've read, the courses you've taken, the films you've watched. How many have actually met Weinberg's Target? I rarely meet a person who's willing to claim more than one in ten for courses, or one in five for textbooks, or one in twenty for "educational" films.

So Weinberg's Target isn't so modest after all, but there's a more important reason for adopting it as your personal goal. Nobody really understands learning - not well enough to succeed with every student, or even seventy-five per cent of them. Learning, it seems, is a matter of repeated attempts, until one finds a teacher, a book, a film, an approach, a flash, or something that finally gets the point across. I want never to discourage a student's continuing search for enlightenment.

There's a moral here that stretches beyond teaching and learning, a moral that contractors often miss. A long time ago, Robert Burns also surprised a mouse - by turning up her nest with his plough. He told her those words we all know (and can read even though they're Scottish, not English):

But Mousie, thou art no thy lane,
In proving foresight may be vain,
The best laid schemes o' mice and men
Gang aft agley,
And lea'e us nought but grief an' pain,
For promised joy!

Burns knew nothing of computers, but he was a systems thinker, and he knew that mice and men wouldn't change much in 200 years. My best laid schemes still "gang aft agley," and contracts I take with promised joy sometimes leave me nought but grief and pain. When departing such disappointing situations, I'm often tempted to leave a bit of grief and pain for those who remain. Then I remember that morning with X and Y and the mouse, and Weinberg's Target emerges to restrain my worst scheming.

At such distressful times, I easily forget that I'm not just one individual, but part of a profession, one of thousands of consultants. It's a profession that has its share of Ys whose behavior spoils the profession for others. Even if I've done a lousy job, an X job, I want my clients to realize that if they have a bad taste, it's just me, and just in this situation. I don't want to reflect poorly on my colleagues, and I don't want to spoil them for some future consulting.

So, this is Weinberg's Target applied to consulting:

After I leave,
is the client less likely to hire a consultant than they were before?

I believe this is the minimum we owe our profession.

Yielding to Pressure vs. Negotiating

In my recent consulting clinic, we spent more than a day on negotiating—assignments, prices, conditions, schedules, and just about anything in the relationship between consultant and client. As homework, we were all supposed to negotiate something. I got a free meal for two. Someone else got $50 off the price of a jacket. One participant got on the phone and doubled the fee he had been receiving from a client.

For Americans, at least, negotiating seems to be a dirty word, a taboo—a taboo the homework was assigned to overcome. We learned many thing about negotiating, but the most important were about the emotional barriers we erect for ourselves. To learn about such barriers, let's look at two scenarios of negotiations that went wrong for consultants who were retained to produce a software component for a client.

Here's Scenario Number One:

Bob (the client boss): Fay, what's your estimate of when that component will be ready to ship to testing?

Fay (the consultant): If I get the equipment I've requisitioned, I'm pretty sure I can have it ready in 14 weeks.

Bob: [looking disappointed] Oh.

Fay: Isn't that okay?

Bob: Well,...

Fay: I suppose I can really push and get it in 12 weeks.

Bob: [still looking disappointed] Oh.

Fay: Darn. Well, if everything goes exactly right, I can make it in 10 weeks.

Bob: [brightening a little] Did you say eight?

Fay: Okay, I guess I can push for eight.

Bob: [smiling] That's terrific, Kay. I knew you could do it!

Here's Scenario Number Two:

Darlene (the client boss): Ira, what's your estimate of when that component will be ready to ship to testing?

Ira (the consultant): If I get the equipment I've requisitioned, I'm pretty sure I can have it ready in 14 weeks.

Darlene: [standing up and raising her voice] Ira, that's simply not acceptable. I want it in eight weeks, not a day later!

Ira: [eyes lowered to the his shoelaces] Uh... But there's just too much to ...

Darlene: [turning red, and raising her voice another level] Ira! I hope you're not about to say something negative! You know we're a team here, and we don't have room for nay-sayers!

Ira: [trying to swallow when his throat is dry] Well... I suppose I could...

Darlene: [breaking into a tight smile] ...you could do it! I knew you'd find a way, Ira. [turning towards the door] All right, then. I have your commitment, so don't disappoint me. See you in eight weeks! [out the door].

Q: What's the important difference between these two scenarios?

A: Nothing. Nothing important, that is. Bob used a soft approach; Darlene used a hard approach, but nothing was really different. Successful negotiations usually involve trade-offs among schedule, resources, and technical specifications, but these two contain no trading off at all—just different kinds of manipulations to make one person submit to another person's desires.

Scenario Number Three, which should produce a better result

Annabelle (the client boss): Myron, what's your estimate of when that component will be ready to ship to testing?

Myron (the consultant): If I get the equipment I've requisitioned, I'm pretty sure I can have it ready in 14 weeks.

Annabelle: [looking disappointed] Oh.

Myron: Isn't that okay?

Annabelle: Well, not really.

Myron: If the schedule is that important, we can look at alternatives.

Annabelle: I can't give you any more people. We're shorthanded already.

Myron: Darn. Well, actually, new people right now might be more disruptive than helpful. Well, something has to give—we can't reduce schedule and hold resources and specs constant.

Annabelle: That's certainly true. But I do need something to show to my marketing team in eight weeks. There's that business expo where we have to do a demo, and I can't change that date.

Myron: Okay, I guess we'll have to see what features we leave out of the demo, or perhaps fake a bit.

Annabelle: [smiling] That sounds like what we'll have to do, Myron. Let's take a look at what you can give us that will look good in eight weeks.
—————
And so Annabelle and Myron get down to the business of examining which features will contribute most to a good demo (her problem) while at the same time being within Myron's team's capabilities (his problem). Nobody was forced; nobody was manipulated. The negotiation stayed open and based on facts, not speculation or screaming or placating.

Of course, this kind of negotiation takes trust—trust in the other person, but even more, trust in yourself.

- You must feel that you can be honest without being taken advantage of.

- You must be confident that you understand the trade-offs on your own side of the business.

- You must have enough self-esteem to be able to say what you don't know.

- It also helps to know that agreements forged through manipulation will be weak and unreliable agreements.

In my experience, at least half of the problems consultants have with clients are the result of poor negotiation—usually the result lack of skill and will to deal with various forms of conscious or unconscious manipulation by their negotiating partner.

Do you understand? I have your commitment to learn to do better at dealing with manipulation, so don't disappoint me!

Estimating Projects: A History of Failure

When I lived in Crested Butte, Colorado, I sometimes hiked across the mountains to Aspen. There were five hiking trails that I knew of, all of them former toll roads from the old gold-mining days when the only way to reach Aspen was through Crested Butte. As I struggled to breathe going up these 13,000+ foot passes, I often wondered why there were five toll roads. But the time I'd hiked all five, I knew the answer. There were five toll roads because none of them were very good.

Consultants are frequently given the task of estimating, or helping to estimate, projects. To start with, they're asked to estimate how long it's going to take to solve their client's problem—which is usually undefined. Although there have been billions of words written on dozens of methods of estimating projects, most of them are, in my opinion, useless or nonsensical. Or both. Like toll roads to Aspen, there are so many because none of them are very good.

Why do I say they're not very good? Well, why were the toll roads to Apsen not very good? Mostly, I think, because if you're walking from Crested Butte to Aspen, you have to cross an extremely high barrier. We might want to be able to hike over a 13,000 foot pass without breathing hard, but it's impossible (at least for most of us).

And that's the primary reason that all these estimating methods are not very good is exactly the same: they are trying to do something that's impossible—predict the future. Sure, we'd all like to do this, but we can't.

People have been trying to predict the future as long as people have been around, so I thought it would be useful to read about methods from the past, so perhaps you could relate them to some of the failures of today. The following post is from dgc, a friend who has worked for a long time in the software industry, mostly as a contractor and consultant—long enough not to take himself too seriously, a good lesson for all of us consultants.

Some Estimating Methods

The fabulous Wizard of Oz
Retired from his racket because,
What with up-to-date science,
To most of his clients
He wasn’t the Wizard he was.
- Anonymous

Since estimation seems to have much in common with the mantic arts (i.e., the arts of divination), I turn to the writings of an expert in that field: Dreamas Gentilharte Cheynelokk, a nearly thousand-year-old wizard who writes about the mysteries of CMMI (Comprehensive Magistrate of Magical Integrity) certification.

For those unfamiliar with this form of CMMI, Dreamas briefly describes its five levels of magical competence as follows (the translation of this text is by Dr. Devin G. Kettenschloss in "Paduan Vellums, Volume VI, Item lvii- A Translation" following the seminal work of the late Dr. Blanche V. Foote-Falles):

"(1) Erotic [1]: animalistic, sensual, like kindling consumed in a flame, uncontrollable, never twice the same, exciting

(2) Telestic [2]: ritualistic, repeated, like an unbending oak planted in the earth, formal, delimited and limited capacities, routine

(3) Mantic [3]: prophetic, governable, like a ship sailing home on uncharted seas, divinatory, observed and proven by trial, directed

(4) Poetic: rhapsodic, meted, like a falcon riding steady the rolling air [4], quantifiable, sound and proportioned in structure, balanced

(5) Ecstatic [5]: euphoric, evolving, like the shining cosmic quintessence [6], heavenly transcendence married to earthly immanence, sustained."

Dreamas goes on to describe hundreds of mantic techniques useful across all aspects of software development. But for the topic of estimation, the following description of the art of "Alectryomancy" seems relevant when speaking about making time/schedule estimates for a project, especially since the technique used differs based on the CMMI level of the organization (again quoting from the previously cited translation).

"Alectryomancy [7]: Divination by the Actions of Poultry Pecking at Grain

So much software development goes awry for lack of sufficient numbers of dedicated top-breed poultry!

For those functioning at the CMMI Level 1 (Erotic), any hen or rooster of any kind will do. Simply put out a handful of grain and let the chicken loose for one minute. At the end of one minute, guess how many grains the chicken ate and multiply by 3. This calculation will yield the needed number of hours, days, weeks, months or years it will take to complete the project.

Those groups at CMMI Level 2 (Telestic) laugh at that naiveté. The wizards at this level realize it is not that easy. First, more chickens are needed, at least three but never more than nine. Second, before being let loose on the grain the chickens properly motivated with loud chanting and the waving of gleaming, sharpened axes. Third, the grain for each bird is placed in a line running east to west and the first grain eaten by each bird is the estimate. That is, if the 4th grain from the east is the first eaten by a hen, then the estimate from that hen is 4. Finally, after all chickens are done, the lowest estimate is picked with any multiplicative factor determined by the wizards using Capnomancy (divination by smoke) or Catoptromancy (divination by mirrors placed under water).

But groups at CMMI Level 3 (Mantic) realize estimation is a daring, daunting and dangerous undertaking. So in their practice, they only use roosters. Each rooster is allowed to make its estimate by pecking a grain in its own sealed off arena. A variety of techniques for deriving the numerical estimate can be employed (counting grains, counting volume, which grain is first picked, which is last picked, etc.) with skilled wizards selecting in advance the appropriate technique by means of Gyromancy (by whirling until dizzy). After each rooster has produced his estimate, all the roosters are placed in one arena for a cockfight {SIDE NOTE FROM 'dgc': I realize the cruelty of this technique may offend some people's sensibilities, but that is what the original text says} with the winning cock's estimate being adopted [8] and everyone being held to that estimate under threat of the hatchet.

Groups at CMMI Level 4 (Poetic) with more refined sensibilities bemoan the waste of possibly good estimators by the Mantic level wizards as well as the blatant discrimination against hens. Therefore, they eschew the wastefulness of cockfights and use both hens and roosters; but they also carefully record and plot age, breed, and accuracy of auguries over time. In addition, no matter what anyone says about chickens and lips, they firmly believe in the importance of using Labiomancy (divination by lip reading) as part of their process.

Finally, wizards at CMMI Level 5 (Ecstatic) realize that the work of estimation is never done. So they use the greatest number of poultry and have them estimating and reestimating often using dozens of techniques and inventing new ones whenever needed. At this level, the chicken coop and yard is a constant bustle of activity yielding untold numbers of eggs. After all, in the end, it is all about the real egg production."


Footnotes (From the translation)

[1] From the Greek meaning "sexual love" as associated with Eros, who is not the cute cupid of modern times but is rather the passionate young god, son of Venus, as best described in Apuleius' story of Psyche and Eros in "The Golden Ass" (Chapters 7-9).

[2] Very rare in modern English. Derives from the Greek "telestes," meaning a "hierophant or expounder of sacred mysteries."

[3] The Romans, especially Cicero in his treatise "De Divinatione," clearly preferred the word "divination," which derives from the Latin "divinus" and indicates a deific origin, to Plato's "mantic," which is equivalent to the Latin word "furor" meaning "madness, lunacy, or raving."

[4] Echoing Gerard Manly Hopkins' "The Windhover" (http://www.bartleby.com/122/12.html).

[5] There is a delicious irony in the CMMI master's choice of the word "ecstatic" for their highest and ideal level. From the writings of mystics throughout the ages, ecstasy is often associated with displays of frenzy and agitation bearing strong sexual overtones. See, for example, the writings of the Spanish mystics St. Teresa of Avila ("Interior Castles") or St. John of the Cross ("Dark Night of the Soul"). Given these strong sexual associations, it is possible it might be somewhat difficult to see how the Ecstatic level differs from the lowest level, Erotic.

[6] Here, Dreamas means the ancient and medieval concept of the perfect material of which the stars were made: an exact blend of all other types of matter (fire, earth, water, and air).

[7] An alternate spelling is "Alectromancy."

[8] Note how in many ways this is similar to the Delphi technique of estimation some speak of in software engineering.

Money Questions 1.

Q: What’s the most common question you’re asked since the publication of your two books on consulting?

A: It’s no single question, but a collection of questions around a common theme: money and the consulting contract. In The Secrets of Consulting, I’ve written about how to figure out how much to charge, but not about other issues like the messy business of collecting what you charge, or how to deal with price negotiations. So, for a while, I'll provide “extra chapters” to answer address some of these untidy questions.


Q: A prospective client wants me to lower my rates. He says he can hire other consultants for 30% less than I’ve asked for. What should I do?

A: Don't ever let yourself be a commodity. I learned this lesson early from my grandmother, Ethel, who owned a grocery store. “Don't be a commodity,” she always said. “Everyone can buy the same groceries, and the supermarkets can buy them cheaper than I ever can. So I have to offer something different.”

Ethel did things in the store to differentiate her from other stores in the neighborhood. She was nicer to her customers. She knew everyone one of them by name, and gave each one of them personal attention. She loved to take special orders from them, and went to a great deal of trouble to find exactly what they wanted. In those items, like meat and other perishables, she offered better quality than the supermarkets.

She offered many “extra” services, some of which have finally been taken over by today’s supermarkets. She offered credit, which was rare in grocery stores in those days, and absolutely taboo in supermarkets. She cashed checks, put things away for her customers who called, and provided a delivery service (which was often me, when I was in town).

In general, she was aware of her customers' requirements, and responded with inventory that matched their individual tastes. (examples)

So, offer something extra, but don’t lower your price.

Q: Should I pretend I have more qualifications than I really do, to keep my price up?

A: Don't pretend you're what you aren't just to get a job. If you do, you'll soon be complaining that the job doesn't fit the real you.


Q: My client just won't budge. Aren't there some circumstances in which it's okay to lower my price?

A: If they give you something extra, you can lower your price accordingly. For instance, if they're willing to pay you a non-refundable retainer up front, you can offer a discount. Or perhaps they'll pay certain expenses that you were prepared to pay yourself. Over the years, clients have given my the use of cars and computers as extra compensation—compensation that didn't really cost them anything because the cars and computers were just sitting around not being used.

Perhaps the biggest break I give is when the client does not require I come to their offices to consult or teach. If they come to me, the get a discount. Some young consultants think of the travel itself as a form of compensation, as I did long ago. Now, travel is a definitely negative for me, so I reward those clients who don't require it.

There-then-them vs. Here-now-us

On my writing blog the other day, I posted the following paragraph as part of a writing exercise:

Anger, for a consultant, is a costly luxury, and I am by nature somewhat of a cheapskate. By eliminating there-then-them anger, I cut my angry outbursts in half. By noticing my pattern of anger escalation, I dampen nine-tenths of the remaining half to the point where it doesn't interfere with my consulting practice. That leaves only about 5 per cent of the angry episodes I used to have, just one in twenty. Although this seems a dramatic improvement in frequency, it doesn't result in an equally dramatic improvement in the cost of my angry outbursts.

In response, dgc said.: 'What does "there-then-them" mean in the phrase "there-then-them anger" in the original of the Writing Blog exercise? I can’t quite determine the meaning of that phrase from the context.'

Here's my answer:

There-then-them is in contrast to here-now-us, which are the problem-solving conditions expert consultants try to establish and maintain. When people are responding to something that happened somewhere else (there), or at some other time (then), or with some other people (them), you're not going to have much luck dealing with problems.

In the example above, sometimes I find myself growing angry at my clients, only to realize that I'm responding to something similar the client said or did at another time or place. Or perhaps I'm responding to something similar my mother used to say to me when I was five years old. Clearly, I'm going to have to bring my mind into the present context if I'm to be effective.

And, of course, my clients have the same need for here-now-us, so I often them solve problems by bringing them back to the present context, especially when their emotional reactions seem to be directed at me for no reason I can ascertain. One woman attacked me in a meeting, accusing me of mocking her. I couldn't figure it out until I managed to persuade her to give me details. It turned out that I had used the word "snow," which was the name of her former husband whom she had recently divorced. She thought I knew about the divorce (other people did, but I didn't) and was taunting her by alluding to it. Using here-now-us cleared up an enormous emotional outburst.

So, dcg, does that clear it up?