Joe Hays said, among other things, "It is more of a challenge to
"experiment" in my direct work with clients, who demand measurable
progress and deliverables on schedule."
Pardon me for snipping one little piece out of a large and interesting
letter, but this is an intriguing issue. My company does not like
experiments that fail, and yet, I am convinced that experimenting is
crucial.
My approach to resolving this is to keep the mix of activities in front of
people so they understand the larger context. It is easy for management
to pick out a failure, and indict it. To prevent that, we keep a mix of
6-8 tasks publicly in front of management pretty much at all times.
Usually a couple of these are guaranteed successes, and we keep them near
completion so we can call in our chips when we need to.
As time goes on, we mix in successes and failures, keeping the whole mix
in front of everyone. This creates an environment in which management can
easily see that the successes more than pay for the failures, and
therefore, they condone ongoing experimentation.
Some people may view this as manipulation. It is not. It is absolutely
essential in a competitive environment that we achieve enough ongoing
success to pay for the failures and still make a little money. The
process described above forces a discipline on the department to meet a
certain positive payback ratio. Generally, the 'failures' provide learning
that eventually is converted into a success further down the road.
Keeping the process visible to all is merely responsible behavior.
-- Rol Fessenden LL Bean, Inc 76234.3636@compuserve.com