Beach Haven

This post was originally published in July of 2016 on another platform:

For some years I've been a member of the Society of Satellite Professionals International (SSPI). Here in the DC area they are represented by the Mid-Atlantic Chapter. I've been less active with this chapter than I was with the Southeast Chapter in Atlanta. Recently SSPI published an updated report on the workforce in the satellite industry. It's called Launch Failure? The subtitle asks the question, Can we attract and retain the talent that powers innovation? When SSPI thinks of the satellite industry in the article, they are thinking about manufacturers, operators and service providers. From that perspective, we at NPR Distribution are not specifically part of the satellite industry as customers, but perhaps a few of the ideas in the report are applicable.
 
The report laments, as the title suggests, that there is an aging of technical staff in particular. I remember when I worked for NET in Nebraska we saw the same issue in the broadcast world. Traveling around now I see a similar issue among our station customers still, maybe less so at producers. Others might have better insight about our customer base as they interact with them more directly and more often.
 
From the report: "The data suggest that this is an industry that is failing to invest in career paths that retain younger talent. At the same time, it relies heavily on older workers who know how things are done – but may not be as good at devising ways for things to be done differently and better."
 
The data may indeed suggest a difficult time retaining younger workers, but the assumption that it leads to less innovation seems questionable. It's not the first time I've heard that sort of statement, and likely you've heard similar things. We can all agree that there are likely differing opinions on this one. For example, how does one define or measure innovation? Perhaps it is true that some new workforce entrants will bring fresh ideas and some veterans are less open to change, but I doubt that all or even most of the people in those categories fit the generalization. In fact where do we draw the line between new and seasoned? What about folks that consider themselves neither of those things?
 
From the report: "Is it high attrition among younger employees that leads companies to rely on veterans, or does the reliance on veterans close off career paths for the next generation? What seems indisputable is that a healthy, growing technology industry should have a lower attrition rate for newer employees and a flatter age curve overall."
 
Perhaps there is some validity to this assertion, but I worry that it seems more theoretical than practical. In the NPR Distribution division we hire when positions become available. In our environment that doesn't happen often. Low turnover is a good thing. It brings stability. Fortunately, when we have hired recently we have been able to bring in a good mix of people at different stages in their careers.
 
From the report: "Conditions in the talent market dictate that the industry needs to reduce its emphasis on competing for a stagnant and shrinking supply of ready-made talent, and to increase its focus on recruiting and training less-experienced people with the smarts, creativity and enthusiasm to power innovation. That takes patience and conscious effort. Most of all, it requires a change in mind-set from hunting for talent to farming it."
 
I'm not sure how our score card meets up to this idea. From my limited point of view, we seem to do a reasonable job at taking advantage of our experienced workers in training up external hires. I think we also do a reasonable job at listening to ideas of our newer employees to glean insights from the work environments they left to join us. Others probably have a better view point on how true this is. I hope we are all taking advantage of as many training opportunities as possible. If indeed the statements from the SSPI study apply in part to us, then collectively we need to work to manage the balance between fresh ideas and tried-and-true continuity. As the quote above says, "that takes patience and conscious effort."
 
Here's how the numbers looked in their industry as included in the SSPI report. I'm not sure how these compare in ours.

This post was originally published in June of 2016 on another platform:

I've become increasingly interested in how technology and society affect each other. Within the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) there is a defined community focused on this topic called the Society on Social Implications of Technology (IEEE-SSIT). The monthly periodical of the SSIT is called IEEE Technology and Society. In the December 2015 issue I found an interesting article called Information Paradox, Drowning in Information, Starving for Knowledge by Levent V. Orman
 
The ideas are interesting and can be applicable to my industry in particular. The high-level examples given by the author paint the picture:
 
"Those who eat the most food are rarely the healthiest people, and they may actually be severely deficient in some nutrients. Those who have the most Facebook friends are often the loneliest people. Those who are the busiest are not the most productive. Those who read books and watch television the most are sometimes the least knowledgeable."
 
Orman goes on to describe three causes for this paradox.
 
Information Cost
His base argument for this cause is that quality information comes at a higher cost. As a result we tend to provide and consume more information of lower quality. In this way perhaps we do better on trivia games, but are less effective at more important things. The author notes:

"Economists have known for some time that low quality drives out high quality when it is difficult to distinguish between them, called the "lemons problem." When the marketplace cannot distinguish quality easily, consumers tend to buy the cheaper alternative to reduce their risk. Those who produce high-quality expensive products then cannot compete and leave the market."
 
Obsolescence
Information causes change. As we add information it can lead to technology change. As technology and information increase in one area it can make information in another area obsolete. The "old" information is considered less useful and as such is essentially lost over time. Orman argues that as the information and technology change speeds up, changes pace, our ability to assimilate the information decreases. We lose the old information as it is de-emphasized and we don't keep up to the increased amount of new information. The result is we understand less than we did before.
 
Competition
This cause, the author argues, is essentially advocacy. Sources of information mislead or confuse by either sharing false information, or by only sharing a part of the information to gain some sort of advantage. The assumption is that in the market place of ideas all sides can put out their version. As information consumers listen to all sides they will somehow recognize the truth in the middle. The author argues that in reality almost nobody researches all angles to form their own perspective that is closest to true. The result is less complete information.
 
The other point of the author's competition argument is that people tend to seek for more immediate, short-term gains. It is possible to succeed in meeting short-term goals with partial information, but causing more harm or loss in the long run as stated this way:
 
"There is a tremendous impulse to do things cheaply in the short run and derive quick benefits. There is a great deal of simple information about the short run and it is easy to use that information to derive quick benefits, yet long-run planning requires rare high-quality information, insight, and wisdom."
 
Conclusions
 
In the article the author argues against assuming that correlation is the same as causation. I completely agree. The reasoning is that often when two things happen at the same time in some sort of linked way (correlation) proponents of a specific perspective use this as evidence that one event caused the other (causation). That is not necessarily always true. There are examples given to support the argument that correlation does not equal causation. Other explanations are given to show a different causation, but the author in a few cases uses essentially the same tool of correlation to support the alternative cause. In other words the author, in part, uses the same tool to support one perspective that happens to differ from the other perspectives using the same tool to self-justify.
 
I'm not sure what we can take from all of this, but over the past year at my work we have attempted to put tools and processes in place to strike the best balance between the short and long game. Hopefully we are sifting through the large amount of information and finding the diamonds that move our organization forward. In fact hopefully we have done a reasonable job of defining what forward means at the division level. We have attempted to define some metrics to help us understand how we are doing as compared with how we have done in the past, and how we'd like to be in the future. I guess only time will tell how we've done and if our aim is correct.

Each of us should find our own ways to consider what information is truly useful and what information is just so much fluff.
 
Here is the full article if you have a mind:

information_pardox.pdf

This post was originally published in April of 2016 on another platform:

In PMI Today, Kareem Shaker gives his opinion about creativity in an article How to Cultivate Creativity. I'm not sure how true his ideas are, but they seem similar to ideas I've seen in other papers focused on this topic. He lists 5 specific ways to foster a creative environment. They include:

• Describe the path forward
• Invest in innovation
• Unleash potential
• Welcome failure and recognize success
• Create a stimulating workplace

On the surface these phrases may seem like a conglomeration of buzz words (at least they do to me), but the ideas behind each as expressed in the write up are worth considering. In each organization I've worked for it has appeared to me that we have had varying degrees of success with each of these. I'm certain there is more an organization can do. As each of us plan for our future, let's think about ways we can be creative (this is the "merely asking for it" part as noted in the article as not good enough). More importantly we (particularly the "we" in leadership roles) should be thinking of ways we can better foster an environment that would encourage each of us to actually want to be more creative.
 
Here's the full article:

creativity.pdf

This post was originally published in March of 2016 on another platform:

I don't know about you, but words like goal, objective, mission, and purpose can become intermingled in my head sometimes. The meanings can feel synonymous or at least hard to distinguish. Reading definitions from differing sources doesn't really seem to help either. Last year, in a class I attended on Executive Decision Making as part of my post-graduate work at George Washington University our professor, Dr. Ernest H. Forman, shared a concrete example after his verbal attempt to define them was not very successful either. The example helped me think of these ideas clearer. For those old enough to remember the space race (or learned about it in History class) this example will be familiar. Here's the slide from the class:

Interestingly enough, an edition of IEEE Technology and Society that came out about the same time I was in the class had an article about the Apollo missions, and how it was "sold" to the public. This article points to the mission of getting a man on the moon and safely back to earth, but emphasizes outcomes hoped for in the more narrow effort of securing public support. Public support of the program ultimately meant public support of the cost. Here is the article:

apollo.pdf

This post was originally published in February of 2016 on another platform:

In an article in the IEEE Engineering Management Review about dealing with uncertainty the authors noted tension between the positive and negative effects of change. The focus of the article is specific to new product development (NPD), but the principle could apply to most anything. They note that on one hand, "Changes negatively influence internal project success." On the other hand, "Changes positively contribute to project learning."
 
Since change is inevitable with pretty much anything we humans are involved in, we ultimately have to learn how to accept some level of change. The challenge for each of us is to try to manage change in our efforts so as not to be too damaging to our plans, and to be sure to extract whatever lessons learned we can from changes in order to manage future efforts differently.
 
Good luck to us all in performing that balancing act. I would suspect that none of us do it perfectly; at least I'm confident that I don't.

If you're interested, here's the paper.

uncertainty.pdf

This post was originally published in February of 2016 on another platform:

I read the attached article a while ago and it made me chuckle. Of course things are the most funny when they ring true. That's why we laugh, to avoid crying. In this case the author was griping about how overwhelming all the technology can become today. She pines for yester-year when things were simpler.
 
Many of us have been at the center of the high-tech boom. We breathe tech. Given that, I suppose we all might sometimes feel a bit like Dr. Berman. When asked what I like to do when I get a little free time my response often goes a little like this. "My work is inside, high-tech and intellectual, so in the off hours I prefer things that are outside, low-tech and physical."
 
I would argue that too much of any good thing can become a bad thing, but so could a dearth of a good thing as well. Perhaps what Dr. Berman is really seeking isn't killing off technology, but rather some way to better discipline her use of it. Balance is an important part of life.
 
I do find it ironic that after you read her rant about too much email, and then scroll down to the description of the author on the second page, you find the statement, "She can be reached by email at [email protected]."

tech_rip.pdf