I believe I am seeing the end of when a technologist can walk into a company and start having a reasonable conversation about any of the random hardware/software combinations that might be running there.
All the more reason to elevate that discussion above technology and focus on the customer's business problems.
A little background...
I once had a customer who made aftermarket automobile wheels. They described what they thought their customer would want and had an outside designer produce CAD output. This went to a foundry for casting. The castings went directly to a polisher. The polished castings went to a plater. The polished & plated castings went to an assembler who put the wheels together. They were then shipped to a distributor for sale to the general public. All of the transportation was handled by contractors.
Here's the thing then: this company consisted of 3 guys who didn't do any of the manufacturing; in fact, they never even touched their own product. Contractors did everything. The company was a marketing and project management firm. The owner once told me, "I don't know how to cast, plate, or polish wheels. But I do know when someone else does them right or wrong and I hold them to the fire. That's all I have to know to get a quality product to market."
Daniel, technology has reached the point where guys like us have to adopt that mindset. We must be absolutely focused on our customers' needs. Then we need to know what to do, what to use, who to call, and how to evaluate them. That's it. That's always been it. We can't know everything, but we have to know that our customers are being satisfied.
It's OK to depend upon others to know what we don't know as long as we know how to depend upon them.
Right on, Ed. Good consulting firms are "moving to the left", ie, engaging the customer at the beginning of projects, at the business level. The "right end" of projects, coding, testing, shrink wrap, casting, etc, can and should be outsourced [add lots of caveats about startups here]
The problem gets a little more complicated with integrated solutions, like building rockets or embedded hardware, but that observation works in general.
People also need to remember that providing the illusion of handling the entire thing can be an important part of the business relationship. Many times we'll walk into an unknown unknown situation with clients, be honest about it, and start figuring out where the alligators are. I know this "magic man" shtick because I've lived it.
In some very important ways, we technology people and startup people are working on problems way ahead of the rest of the population. That's a pretty cool place to be!
Impressive. I've felt this way for a long time, and the author articulates it well. My attempt at a solution to this problem is to study logic and rationality. The LessWrong wiki and blog is a great place to start doing that. I think that studying reasoning in general can help to spot where and how you're using propositions in your inference. I regularly do sanity-checks where I go through my propositions to check how close they are to my core domain knowledge. It then becomes a balancing act: how suspicious do you want to be of relatedness to your own domain? The more suspicious you are, the more work there is to check.
This process has saved me from making serious errors on several occasions. I think that the "suspiciousness tolerance" needs to be set according to context, but that "good-ish" (ie, acceptable risk of error, acceptable amount of work to check domain status of propositions) values are probably possible in a good number of situations.
Pretty well-written, and I like that he intentionally set up the story as a frame, and didn't forget to come back to it at the end.
But check out the pseudo-sketchy SEO link tactics on the right sidebar. "Paycheck-stub.com has your information. We try to provide anything related to paycheck stubs we can -- who would have thought that Adecco payroll was in demand? Must be a popular product. Looks like we're providing a gateway for folks interested in using/buying it."
Ah, yes. Adecco payroll. That's a product I'd like to use/buy.
Also, please pass the Facebook login. It's delicious this time of year.
5 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 23.2 ms ] threadAll the more reason to elevate that discussion above technology and focus on the customer's business problems.
A little background...
I once had a customer who made aftermarket automobile wheels. They described what they thought their customer would want and had an outside designer produce CAD output. This went to a foundry for casting. The castings went directly to a polisher. The polished castings went to a plater. The polished & plated castings went to an assembler who put the wheels together. They were then shipped to a distributor for sale to the general public. All of the transportation was handled by contractors.
Here's the thing then: this company consisted of 3 guys who didn't do any of the manufacturing; in fact, they never even touched their own product. Contractors did everything. The company was a marketing and project management firm. The owner once told me, "I don't know how to cast, plate, or polish wheels. But I do know when someone else does them right or wrong and I hold them to the fire. That's all I have to know to get a quality product to market."
Daniel, technology has reached the point where guys like us have to adopt that mindset. We must be absolutely focused on our customers' needs. Then we need to know what to do, what to use, who to call, and how to evaluate them. That's it. That's always been it. We can't know everything, but we have to know that our customers are being satisfied.
It's OK to depend upon others to know what we don't know as long as we know how to depend upon them.
The problem gets a little more complicated with integrated solutions, like building rockets or embedded hardware, but that observation works in general.
People also need to remember that providing the illusion of handling the entire thing can be an important part of the business relationship. Many times we'll walk into an unknown unknown situation with clients, be honest about it, and start figuring out where the alligators are. I know this "magic man" shtick because I've lived it.
In some very important ways, we technology people and startup people are working on problems way ahead of the rest of the population. That's a pretty cool place to be!
This process has saved me from making serious errors on several occasions. I think that the "suspiciousness tolerance" needs to be set according to context, but that "good-ish" (ie, acceptable risk of error, acceptable amount of work to check domain status of propositions) values are probably possible in a good number of situations.
But check out the pseudo-sketchy SEO link tactics on the right sidebar. "Paycheck-stub.com has your information. We try to provide anything related to paycheck stubs we can -- who would have thought that Adecco payroll was in demand? Must be a popular product. Looks like we're providing a gateway for folks interested in using/buying it."
Ah, yes. Adecco payroll. That's a product I'd like to use/buy.
Also, please pass the Facebook login. It's delicious this time of year.