The Six-Month Sprint

I am sure many of you, like me, have spent at least some time in your professional careers preparing long-range business forecasts of some kind. Whether they were for financial metrics like revenue, margins or cash flow; operational metrics like market share, customer count, or inventory; or even human capital measures like future headcount needs, impacts on profitablilty of future salary adjustments, or long-term benefits cost trends - it is safe to say that at lease some kind of future-focused planning is a long-accepted fact of business.

And while the necessity and value of planning, to be able to effectively assess current baseline data and results, fold in business objectives, sprinkle in competitive challenges, add a dash of environmental and cultural factors, and we typically realize that even our well-reasoned, clearly articulated, and thoroughly documented plans and forecasts often fail to accurately predict and ultimately reflect what actually happens.

It is the old line about military battle plans - 'No battle plan survives its first contact with the enemy'.

And so it is with most business plans and long-range forecasts as well. Your plans don't exist in a vacuum - the competition has its own plans, that big customer that counts for 32% of this year's revenue forecast may go belly up, or at least squeeze you on price, 'star' employees that you think are slated to move into really important roles may leave. As with most planning processes, the second you hit 'print', it is likely something or some assumption that underlies the plans themselves has changed.

The recommendation certainly is to not stop planning, to simply toss up your hands and give up, since the business and economy are moving so fast for anyone to really successfully plan for, but rather to be a little more reasonable about not only your ability to accurately (and reasonably) assess and predict the future. Spending too much time on 5-year plans of dubious merit is not normally a solid use of time.

I recently read an interesting piece on the Co.Design blog called, 'How Can You Strategize For the Future, When You Can't See Beyond 18-Months?',  that suggests for design firms, (and I am sort of extrapolating this to those of us that do Human Capital and workforce planning of any type), that it is really impossible to plan out a design strategy any farther out than 18 months. In fact, the author suggests - 'Beyond 18 Months, the future is anybody's guess'. The world, the markets, technology - these factors and others simply move too quickly today.

Not sure you agree with the '18 Months' figure? Let me ask you then, have you in your organization, or even in your personal and professional life spent time working out your iPad strategy? About how long has the iPad been out? And even just as it was coming out, did anyone, (besides Apple), have a clue about how transformative the device would be?

The last point I wanted to mention from the CoDesign piece was the idea of something called 'The Six-Month Sprint' - a process where development and design processes, (mindful of the long term planning horizon limitation of 18 months), are collapsed into six-month cycles. Sure, for typical firms and products this is a tight window, and mistakes and tradeoffs have to be made, but in the opinion of the author, these shorter planning and development cycles are simply the only sensible and practical reaction to a business climate that increasingly defies prediction.

So my question to you is - How far out into the future do you attempt to plan for things like headcount numbers, labor costs, workforce mix, organizational capability needs, hiring plans, etc.?

And, if your planning horizon is longer than say 18 months, how confident are you in the accuracy of those plans?

Is long-term planning really a thing of the past, a relic of a simpler, and lost forever age?

Making Data Come Alive

Yes, this is yet another 'sports' post. Kind of. Actually it is another in the occasional series of posts centered around innovative presentations of information -examples that highlight ways where a variety of organizations have managed to move beyond the expected and routine - 'Look, sales trends for the last 5 years in a bar chart!', to create interesting, engaging, and increasingly interactive tools that really transform both the data and the user experience. One of the best signs that a data presentation tool is effective is not just the initial reaction from users, but rather that the tool or technology makes users want to learn more, see more, and continue to engage with the solution.Patrick working the analytics

I came across such a solution this past weekend at the Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum in Cooperstown, NY. On Saturday the museum unveiled a brand new exhibit - One for the Books: Baseball Records and the Stories Behind Them. The new exhibit tells the story baseball's most cherished statistics and records through more than 200 artifacts in the most technologically advanced presentation in the Museum's history. 

Any fan, or casual observer of baseball knows that numbers, stats, records, etc. are as much a part of the game's history as the players themselves. Iconic records like Joe Dimaggio's 56 game hitting streak, Cy Young's 511 career pitching victories, and Ted Williams .406 batting average can be cited easily by baseball aficionados. Baseball is truly a numbers game - no other sport, (and few other businesses I bet), measure, track, analyze, and report statistical information about the games at the level of detail that major league baseball does.

But raw statistics, be they describing normal business or workforce data, or even the data produced by such a compelling an activity as baseball, can still fall flat, feel one-dimensional, and fail to completely tell the story buried in the figures if the presentation and interface for interaction with said data is mundane, fully expected, and one-way. Tools that not only present the raw numbers, but allow the user to not only choose the data they want to see, but to also experience the data and really engage with it are the future of information presentation.

Case in point the Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum's new 'Top 10 Tower' interactive information display at the new 'One For the Books' exhibit. The Top 10 Tower, in true iPad-like fashion, is a touch activated series of screens and displays that allow the baseball fan to learn about some of the classic and lesser-known statistical history of the game.  By selecting variables such as Pitching or Batting, choosing specific focus areas to drill into, and using a cool 'timeline' slider to see how the results and records have moved over time, the Top10 Tower created a fully immersive and engaging interactive presentation of what are really 'just' numbers.

Make selections on the lower display of the tower, and the large video screens on the upper section automatically update, showing not only figures and images, but also allowing touch access to additional multi-media content about the record holder, of the timeframe the recored was established. The Top 10 tower also presents data in different dimensions, even ones not expressly requested by user, as the designers of the tool know that context matters in the review and analysis of baseball statistics, as it is likely equally important in the business and workforce metrics we produce and review all the time.

I know what you are saying, the Top 10 tower is really just a fancy way to present some simple lists, and it really is not a big deal, and certainly has no meaning to the business world that has to be concerned with 'real' data, not just batting averages.

Sure, keep telling yourself that. Your data is important, and baseball is just a game. 

Have any idea with the batting average of your hiring managers is? For this season? For all-time?

When work is always within reach

Last week the iPass organization issued their Global Mobile Workforce Report, a review of trends and preferences in technology selection, usage, and attitudes amongst those workers that classify themselves as 'mobile' workers.  These workers, mostly telecommuters, report an increasingly 'connected to work' lifestyle, enabled by the ubiquity of smartphones, and buoyed by the growing influence of tablets, (mainly the iPad).

Some interesting statistics from the report:

• 41 percent of mobile workers have a tablet and an additional 34 percent of mobile workers intend to purchase a tablet in the next six months

• 87 percent of mobile workers that own tablets use their tablets for at least some work

• 43 percent of mobile workers store their smartphone within arm’s reach when they sleep at night. Those that do this are 60 percent more likely than average to wake during the night to check their smartphone

• 29 percent of mobile workers find that their mobile technology usage causes friction in their personal relationships, specifically with their significant other or spouse

And finally a statistic that is not at all surprising given the hyper-connected, check-my-smartphone-for-email-at-3:00AM and the bring-along-the-iPad-while-I-watch-little-Joey's-baseball-game kind of culture we seem to be evolving towards:

• The average mobile worker works 240 hours a year longer than the workforce in general.

Again, interesting findings, if not exactly earth-shattering. Seeing friends, family, or colleagues tethered to their smartphones and tablets in airports, in auto repair shop waiting rooms, at professional events, and even at social gatherings is becoming so commonplace that we often fail to even notice or to regard it as unusual. And as more organizations, enterprise technology providers, media outlets, and other traditional institutions move towards creating new and better mobile (in all it's many forms), solutions and productivity applications, the urge and compulsion to have the smartphone or tablet within reach at all times will only keep growing.

Certainly the incredible advances in mobile solutions from both a device and application standpoint have greatly benefited that component of the workforce that demands increased mobility, for reasons of job design, personal circumstances, or those that simple find they are more effective not being forced or compelled to report to an office or 'official' workplace every day. Smartphones, tablets, and even the simple and old-fashioned laptop, and the development of applications and mobile solutions to enable connected, virtual, and flexible arrangements are almost universally seen as an important and necessary evolution in workplace technology, and that open up opportunities for many workers that for various reasons the 'normal' workplace and the typical schedule just simply do not work.

But with the growth and capability of mobile workplace solutions, the further blurring of the lines between work and well, not working, and with more and more of us sleeping with our smartphones, waking up in the middle of the night to respond to the gentle but persistent 'ping' of our devices, and more solution providers making sure that our iPads will become just as effective as the common laptop or office computer, there is the risk that we will become increasingly unable to truly separate from work as we used to. 

In some ways I guess it is the natural evolution of the work/life balance discussions - we know that even when we go to work, personal issues, concerns, commitments, responsibilities, etc. - never really go away, they accompany us at least in the back of our minds throughout the day. But it used to be we could leave work, and more or less not worry about it much until the next morning. Now, with the smartphone placed on the nightstand, work reminds us that it never really went anywhere once we left for the day.

Long term - will this be a bad thing?  I tend to think the net benefits of increased flexibility and capability that the mobile revolution has enabled do compensate for and actually exceed the negaitive or dark side of the 24/7 connection to work. But time will tell if sneaking off a few emails during the 3rd grade dance recital will ultimately be harmful to workers, relationships, and even society as a whole.

Sorry need to run now...

Ping. Ping. Ping....

Halls of Fame

Today marks the start of the Memorial Day Holiday weekend here in the USA, a holiday observed in remembrance of all the nation's fallen heroes in the various branches of the armed forces. While observed as a solemn holiday, Memorial Day has certainly changed over time to be known as a unofficial start of the Summer season, and parties, parades, barbecues will be in full force over the next few days.

While Memorial Day is about fallen heroes, we know that the idea of just what makes a 'hero' is kind or personal and even fluid. Heroes can and are found in all kinds of places - in homes, schools, community centers, and yes even in profession sports stadiums.

I'll be spending the first part of Memorial Day weekend on a short road trip to visit one of the most iconic and historical, (and uniquely American) places in the country - The Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, NY. The Hall is a kind of gathering place for those of us who (at least at some point), looked at baseball and baseball players as some kind of heroes. Now I know full well that sports figures can't be compared to 'real' heroes in the military, in public service, or those that bravely and anonymously do much more important work. But as a kid, those kinds of heroes, while I certainly was aware of them, were quite a bit more remote and inaccessible compared to the baseball stars I looked up to as heroes. And in some ways, when I go back to the Baseball Hall of Fame and look at the pictures and memorabilia of some of those players, for a moment I can see and feel really clearly back to my 10 year old self, when the results of meaningless mid-July Mets game meant the world to me.

Do sports hold too exalted a position in American society? Probably. Do we compensate too highly people that can hit a ball or throw a pass better than anyone else? Definitely. Do we go a little overboard by erecting museums and mounting plaques and statues in honor of ball players? For sure.

But I think the best part of these Halls of Fame are how they help us remember, even for a short time, the reasons why we played or watched the games in the first place, before we became consumed with 'important' things, and when anything, really anything was still possible. They are a look back, not only into the history of the game, but into our own lives in a way.

The Hall of Fame is a very cool place, and I highly recommend it to any baseball fan, or even any student of American History. The story of baseball is intertwined and essential to the complete understanding of the American experience in the last 150 or so years. And the little village of Cooperstown, NY is one of America's most beautiful places.

I hope you have a great Memorial Day Weekend!

Bench Pressing and Basketball

With the National Basketball Association player draft fast approaching, fans, observers, and pundits alike love to speculate and predict the player draft order, and imagine the glorious future for their favorite team once this years' version of young Timmy 'The Flint Assasin' Sackett, or some other such prospect joins the squad.

Readers of this site, along with my pieces on Fistful of Talent, know that sports, and in particular how the talent evaluation and assessment processes that professional sports teams undertake as they consider which players to draft, recruit as free agents, trade, and compensate; make for some compelling stories and often illuminate applicable lessons for those of us with concerned with more mundane but similar workplace conundrums. None of the 'Sports and HR' parallels are more clearly illustrated than annual player drafts that all the major USA professional sports leagues conduct.

The purpose of these drafts is to help 're-stock' the talent pools in the league with new players, ones that have the capability and potential to raise the overall talent profile of the league and the individual teams. Essentially each season, younger, more talented players (or at least ones judged to have potential to be good players), enter the league while older and/or less skilled/more expensive players exit. It is a kind of a cool, virtuous 'Lion King' style circle of life, but will louder music and more tattoos.

The trick for talent evaluators and people in charge of player personnel decisions in the draft is how to assess the complex combination of a prospect's performance on the court to date (usually in college basketball, but sometimes just high school, or international play), the player's physical attributes, their personality and character, and finally whether or not that elusive 'fit' between style, physical traits, and mental make-up exists between the prospect and the team.

You will often see quotes from NBA or other sports execs talking about players they select as being 'Our kind of player', or 'His style fits how we like to play'. These quotes are as much about cultural and organizational fit as they are about hitting jump shots or ability to rebound the basketball. The rules of the game are the same for every team, but how they go about assembling the team and their philosophies about how to best accomplish the universal goal of winning the championship are all unique.

So in sports, like in most every other line of business, talent assessment and selection is really hard. So NBA teams have come to increase or expand the variables they assess and measure when it comes to the talent evaluation process for potential draftees. One of these variables is the number of times the prospect can successfully bench press 185 lbs, a moderate amount of weight for a well-conditioned athlete, certainly not a power lifter or bodybuilder burden, but also a weight that could present a challenge. The 185 pound bench press is meant to give a generalized assessment of the player's upper body strength, that at least in theory could translate to effectiveness on the court. But bench pressing isn't really basketball, they don't roll out a bench and some barbells in the 4th quarter of a close game. The other advantage to teams in using the bench press test, (and a myriad of other fitness and strength tests they use), is that every prospect takes the same assessments, thereby giving the teams a common data set across the entire talent pool from which to make comparative judgments.

But the data itself offers a team no competitive advantage - every team in the league has access to the same information. The trick is knowing how to interpret the 'measurables' (bench press, vertical jump, etc.), with the 'intangibles', (character, coachability, likeability), and finally a frank assessment of 'Can this guy actually play?'; in order to make the best talent selections. 

But back to the bench press, which is the reason I wrote this piece. Yesterday I noticed a tweet from Chad Ford, one of ESPN's basketball writers and analysts commenting on the bench press test results from a few of this year's current NBA draft prospects.  The tweet is below:

The implication of the tweet is a kind of red flag or warning about those few players unable to successfully bench press 185 pounds. That teams considering drafting these players may pause, and fans of teams that eventually do take these players might need to be concerned that their lack of demonstrable upper body strength (doing something that isn't actually playing basketball), portends poorly for their future performance as NBA players.

It is hard to say for sure if this poor performance on the test will actually hurt these players draft position, it certainly won't help it, but I think the larger point is about data collection in general. Whether it is an NBA team evaluating a power forward, or a software company assessing the background and skills of a candidate for a development job, our abiliity to collect reams of data about background, capability, demonstrable skills, and even mental make up has never been greater. We have access to powerful analytics tools to crunch the data and perhaps eventually to construct detailed and predictive 'success' models.

It could very well be the success on the bench press test does suggest future success on an NBA team. Or failure on the test predicts failure on the court.

But even if we can create those kinds of models, for basketball players or software developers, they will never be fool proof, as people and performance are ultimately likely too unpredictable to ever understand absolutely. We have to be open-minded enough to ignore our own models from time to time.

You may, even if you are not a basketball fan, have heard of a player called Kevin Durant. He is a star player for the Oklahoma City Thunder, has led the league in scoring, led the USA team to the Gold Medal in the World Basketball Championship last summer.

In 2007, when Durant declared himself eligible for the NBA draft, he was unable to bench press 185 a single time. 

And we know how Durant has worked out. 

Sure collect, assess, analyze, correlate, model - it's important. But don't forget, bench pressing is not basketball.