April 24, 2012
April 16, 2012
Pressing the tortillas. Masa, water…delicious
Libatique 73 Lens, Alfred Infrared Film, No Flash, Taken with Hipstamatic
April 16, 2012
Blog Post: Customer Service Driving Integration Culture
I had a very interesting meeting last week with the (possibly former) IT Business Cabinet. This group was formed about six years ago to bring some integrated thinking to what was previously a lineup of siloed projects competing for IT resources. We in ITS really did not want to be the sole decision makers about what constituted an important enterprise project, so we formed this group with the intention of relinquishing our vote in the process and instead focusing on a role of facilitating decisions. Several years later, I think the group has become more disciplined about how they develop projects and present them for consideration, but the element of competition among departments is still there. The business side of the organization has always been lean, but in even leaner times we can expect that admin functions will be even more of a target and therefore what was once an ambition to be more integrated is now becoming a necessity.
As a result, we started talking about the projects themselves, but more importantly the strategic context in which these projects exist. One good example was the proliferation of IT projects that are proposed to offer direct IT interfaces with parents and community members: these include our new PowerSchool replacement for eSIS which brings with it a parent portal module for checking marks and attendance; a ‘cashless schools’ project so that parents can pay for hot dogs and field trips online; a messaging system so parents can more easily receive broadcast messages through their preferred channel (voice, email, SMS, twitter etc) about happenings relevant to their schools or children; and a community use of schools system so community members can book school facilities after hours. The problem is that every one of these (which inevitably involves an off the shelf IT system) is being pursued as a separate project and ultimately means that a parent who wants to use all of the above would require five separate logins and passwords. The goal of this group, therefore, is to move from a stance in which we try as individual departments to cross off projects as quickly as possible, to one in which collectively we are trying to put the best overall solution in place to meet the needs of the entire organization.
Maybe it’s just the fact that for the first time we are putting IT out there for the community and parents but all of a sudden I think it became a lot more clear that the impetus for providing a smooth, integrated and hassle free user experience is stronger than ever. Imagine if banks followed this old way of doing things – if the credit card departments had their own online banking system where you could view your balance on your Visa and make payments; if the retail banking side had their own system where you could move money around between accounts; if there was another system (and password) for you to access your mortgage and loans; yet another system for you to subscribe to electronic versions of your gas and electrical bills. Even though we know logically, that each of these represent separate functions within the actual bank organization, to the customer we don’t care about their internal managerial organization, we just know we deal with ‘the bank’ and as such, don’t want to worry about 10 URLs, 10 passwords and having to change our personal information in 10 different places when my phone or address changes. For this level of frustration, I have Bell Canada, thank you.
On a technical note, how would I proceed with herding these many parallel projects and the many that will undoubtedly follow? First, we need to establish the need for presenting a unified and professional face (which by the way, is at the root of customer confidence) and therefore integration of our efforts. Second, we need to bring to bear a means of authoritatively capturing information on parents and other prime custodial relationships with the degree of rigour that we do for staff and students. This is not twitter (I don’t want to have to establish myself as @therealjeremyhobbs) and as a parent, I am not interested in having other people represent themselves as my daughter’s father or avail themselves of information to which they are not entitled and I expect the School Board (and swim club, yacht club and other entities that collect her information) to protect her privacy. So does the Federal and Provincial government, by the way.
It doesn’t really matter what this repository is, but we need to have one repository that starts out populated with the people who we have verified to have custodial rights to specific students. These are the parents or the guardians; the people who have legal right to get the report card, pick the student up from school and make decisions about attendance. And here’s the deal: they cannot self identify. I can’t present a list of all our students and tell the public to create an account and pick the students for whom they want to hear information and if I don’t provide some means of connecting a verified custodial parent to a student, I cannot provide any information of any greater specificity than you might include on a public website.
This authoritative identification of parents is also essential for other systems – for school messaging, if you want to send out messages to parents about attendance, then you need to make that student-to-custodial-parent relationship is in place. If you want parents to be able to pay online for a hot dog for their student, it must be in place. If you want to have an electronic means of allowing parents to send an absence note or get an electronic version of the report card, then this relationship must be in place. Having this relationship established is not necessarily essential for community use bookings, but why would I ask a parent who already has one login with our Board to use another? It’s time we stop trying to cross projects off our list in a way that satisfies ourselves and start asking what will satisfy our customers.
The beauty of this is that once I take care of our responsibility – the authoritative list of custodial parents and their ‘match’ to students, (e.g. Jeremy is Emma’s father). The rest is easy: maintenance of phone numbers and email addresses can be done through self service. I can provide a facility like we do through the my.ucdsb system to link Facebook and Twitter credentials to an Active Directory login so we could instantly explode our followership in those areas.
It is my hope, then, that this group will instead become a Business Cabinet that will focus on tighter and more streamlined integration of services. In this day and age, most performance improvements and integration opportunities will be somehow fuelled by IT, so it’s a bit redundant to call it an IT Business Cabinet, in the same way we don’t talk about ‘electric radios’. Hopefully also, our new organizational focus on customer service will drive us to be more thoughtful, integrated and polished in our service deployments and this will spin off in a cultural shift that will have an impact on our staff and students too.
April 10, 2012
April 6, 2012
Blog Post: Abandoning the Currency of Content
I happened this week to enjoy some time talking technology in a room with a lot of the senior staff of the Toronto District School Board and some Microsoft staff. For most of the day, we were exposed to some interesting conversations about the oft abused term “21st century learning” focusing on the need to turn our attention in the classroom to student thinking. At the end of the day, however, the focus turned to e-Learning, and specifically, LMS platforms and in my mind what was remarkable about this conversation is how easily and swiftly the superficial appeal of technology can drag us back into the old economy of content that has locked us down.
For most of the history of public education, it seems that the classroom has been an economy in which the currency was content: teachers have provided content and students, in response, are asked to produce some content as evidence of their learning. Teachers traditionally have obsessed over this content; as a teacher myself, I remember my colleagues debating over which diagram of a cell to use for our 3A biology classes and refusing to agree on one because we all felt our own diagram was the best for learning. We then presented this content to kids and at our worst, simply asked them to reproduce what we have given them.
I think of this now a little bit like a factory in which raw materials go in at one end and a finished product emerges out the other end. As a factory manager, I spent all my time on the outside of the factory and my quality control process could only consist of checking the quality of the raw materials going in and the characteristics of the output coming out. Simply examining the end product provided very little insight into the process that actually created it.
Any factory manager that is truly serious about producing products with a low level of defects knows that identifying the defect in the end product is only the first step in improving quality. In fact, the real work of quality improvement lies in observing and adjusting the manufacturing processes, not remediating problems in the ultimate product. As a teacher, however, the process that produces these outputs – in other words, the thinking – is rarely observed or reflected in a way that is actionable or adjustable. We instead stand at the exit door to the factory, dutifully noting defects in outputs but failing to recognize that it is only by going into the factory and working on the process that we will ultimately find a way to improve the quality of outputs.
The thing with e-Learning technology – and in fact any technology in an education context- is that it presents a seductive risk of dragging us back into that world. That e-Learning conversation focused entirely on the ease of production and management of content by teachers and the ease with which students can drop their content in the e-Learning environment. However, as distant as teachers seem to remain from student thinking while occupying the same physical classroom space, e-Learning tools as conventionally realized only serve to widen that gulf by removing shared time and space that in many ways represents the only chance we have to observe student thinking.
I think the true challenge for technology will be to consciously break our instinctive tendency to focus on content and instead help us find ways to observe and capture the process that exists in the interstitial space between. The alternative is to risk seduction by moving pictures and shiny screens that simply provide a new layer of gilding on an outdated and increasingly disconnected practice.
April 2, 2012
April 2, 2012
UCDSB eFax Business Case
Just for some who have asked - your eFax Business Case. This is the kind of thinking we are trying to make into a standard operating procedure as we go into a new project . Namely, before you start the project, doing a lot of work to examine alternatives and demand of ourselves the discipline to explicitly quantify the expected outcomes.
For Finance Geeks - NPV is around $260,000 over 5 years with 190% IRR.
Last Updated: July 25, 2011
Executive Summary
The UCDSB is currently spending in excess of $100,000 per year in supporting and maintaining an antiquated, inefficient, paper-based fax process at all of the schools and administrative departments. This is due largely to the high cost of repair/replacement of stand-alone fax machines, cost of paper and toner cartridges, and cost of individual fax lines. New technologies exist today which allow for improved fax functionality using a hosted service, which eliminates almost all of the costs associated with on-premise infrastructure, while representing a significant overall savings on the delivery of fax services.
Issue
All of the UCDSB schools and administrative buildings still use an antiquated method of faxing, using stand-alone fax machines and a paper-based outbound & inbound process. The fax machines are breaking down, the costs for paper and toner cartridges are a financial burden, and the process is not very efficient as it results in a lot of staff hours standing by fax machines waiting for transmissions to complete.
Recommended Solution
Design an electronic fax infrastructure which will allow staff to fax electronic documents directly from their computers, or paper faxes from any of our fleet of Kyocera MFP copier devices. Inbound faxes would be routed to a shared document library and/or an online secure site. Users can then delete the document or leave it in electronic format instead of printing it, saving on paper costs.
This solution is essentially an extension of our email system, as all outbound and inbound faxes will use email as the transport mechanism. This should result in a small learning curve for our stakeholders, and long-term viability of the solution due to the global acceptance of email as a primary means of communication.
Time/Cost Breakdown & Analysis
Faxing services can be broken down by two main factors - time and cost. Time is measured by how long it takes a uses to send or receive an average fax, and cost is measured by how much money it takes to maintain the infrastructure, such as phone lines, toner, paper cost, and fax machine repair. The following tables will demonstrate the differences in both time and cost, between the two fax systems.
Ø Analysis of time required to send and receive a standard 2-page fax, and comparison between Traditional vs. Electronic Fax methods
In this scenario, a user has a single-page document in PDF format stored on their computer that they need to fax to a company. They will be adding a cover page to the fax transmission as well.
Sending a Fax
Time in minutes (traditional)
Time in minutes (electronic)
Open PDF document on computer and print a hardcopy
1 minute
Not Required
Compose a new email message, insert fax number in To: field, add a subject line, attach the PDF document, click “Send”
Not Applicable
3 minutes
Fill out a cover page
1 minute
Not Required
Walk over to a fax machine
1 minute
Not Required
Insert fax and dial number
1 minute
Not Required
Fax transmission time (1 minute for handshake, 1 minute for each page)
3 minutes
Not Required
Retrieve confirmation report
1 minute
1 minute
Return to desk
1 minute
Not Required
Total Time Required
9 minutes
4 minutes
Often, the cost for receiving faxes is overlooked because it’s usually handled by an administrative group who collects and distributes the faxes to employees. In the case of the UCDSB, this is no different. The table below highlights the efficiencies gained when moving to an electronic process.
Receiving a Fax
Time in minutes (traditional)
Time in minutes (electronic)
Go to fax machine, gather faxes
1 minute
Not Required
Check fax “inbox” for new faxes
Not Applicable
1 minute
Distribute faxes to users physical mailboxes
2 minutes
Not Required
Distribute faxes to recipients via email
Not Applicable
1 minute
Return to desk
1 minute
Not Required
(Optional) Notify recipient of new fax
1 minute
Not Required
Total Time Required
5 minutes
2 minutes
*Note: The time spent on traditional faxing can increase on a per job basis, if one or more of the following events occur:
· Mechanical problem with fax machine (ie. Paper jam)
· Busy signals
· Waiting in line at fax machine for other staff to complete a transmission
Ø Analysis of costs required to maintain a traditional fax infrastructure, and comparison with Electronic Fax model
The table below will demonstrate the cost saving opportunities we should experience when moving to an electronic fax-based system. The numbers are based on survey data we collected which indicates that the UCDSB, on average, sends approximately ten thousand faxes per month, and receives approximately twelve thousand faxes per month. The UCDSB currently has approximately 130 fax lines in operation.
Fax Infrastructure Costs (all numbers are approximations)
Annual Cost (traditional)
Annual Cost (electronic)
Fax machine replacement*
$32,000
Not Required
Telephone line contracts**
$68,000
Not Required
Impression costs (inc. paper + toner)***
$8,000
Not Required
Electronic Fax Subscription Service****
Not Applicable
$30,000
Total Cost
$108,000
$30,000
*based on an average purchase price of $1250, with an average life cycle of 5 years
**based on data provided by Lianne Webster (Bell Canada Service Charges - May 2011)
***based on conservative average incoming fax size of 2 pages (12000x2x12) x 0.028 (cost per impression, based on data provided by Ron MacLaren)
****based on recent data collected from evaluation of prominent e-fax services
Anticipated Outcomes
Implementation of a new electronic fax system would result in a minimum 50% decrease in elapsed time for incoming and outgoing faxing (improving staff efficiency), plus it would reduce the amount of spending on fax services that the UCDSB incurs today by 70%.
Justification
This project should be implemented in the 2011/2012 school year, because this is the final year of a 3-year deployment project where the UCDSB has standardized and replaced their entire fleet of photocopiers with new, feature-rich MFP copier units from Kyocera. These devices support the scanning of paper documents to electronic format and the transmission of those documents to an email address. The longer this project gets delayed, the longer the UCDSB will be forced to keep funneling money into supporting a legacy system that’s inefficient and expensive.
Acceptance
The signatures of the people below indicate an understanding in the purpose and content of this document by those signing it. By signing this document you indicate that you approve of the proposed project outlined in this business case and that the next steps may be taken to create a formal project in accordance with the details outlined herein.
March 19, 2012
On the weekend, Carla from Helpzone turned on our new IT Customer Service survey which is integrated into our HEAT Helpdesk software. Essentially, every time a call ticket is closed (15,000 per year, by the way), the system sends out an automated email indicating the service request was closed. Now, at the bottom of every email will be a link to complete a satisfaction survey and on top of that, 10% of call tickets (randomly chosen) will get a separate email asking to participate in the survey.
HelpZone and particularly HEAT provided us with a great way of tracking service requests over 5 years ago which has provided great intelligence about the systemic and isolated issues our users are experiencing but this is going to be a great first step and getting a better-rounded view of our work. It is one thing to close a request, but how did the user see it?
The user is going to be asked three pretty straightforward questions: Did the problem get resolved? Was it resolved in a timely manner? Were all aspects of the resolution handled in a professional manner?
We feel these simple questions are going to be very helpful in getting a better sense of our service delivery and therefore, help us inform improvement efforts.
Waiting to see…
March 16, 2012
Blog Post: Classroom Tech as Thighmaster
It’s not really an iPad or iDevice thing; these devices just represent, in my view, the depressing resurgence of a culture that I hoped had disappeared after the 90s hype over the internet and the PC.
Of course, the rationale now is that we’re entering the “Post-PC Era” but my, how short a distance we’ve travelled. Here’s the thing about the post-PC era. I see it really as a post-desktop era rather than a post PC era. In other words, we are up to our armpits in “personal computers” and to an increasing extent, the emphasis is on personal. The only difference from the “PC” era per se is the proliferation of form factors. The iPad is yet another PC with a much more mobile form factor, touch interface and a lighter weight OS and application ecosystem. An iPhone is as much. My Apple TV (jailbroken of course, with the courchsurfer browser) is as much a PC as anything. Personal computers are in fact proliferating and I agree that the desktop PC is probably on its way to a much less ubiquitous place in the computing spectrum.
This said, my beef: once again we find ourselves in an educational context where we are obsessed with content and content delivery. Witness the breathless hype over Apple’s iBook version of textbooks, TED entering the education space and the Khan Academy. There’s an old saying in IT that says adding technology often simply ‘pours concrete over outdated or ineffective practices’ and my fear is that the same is true in the classroom with the resurgence of this device-and-content-centric view of learning. While it may be great to watch a Khan Academy lesson from anywhere, on any device, I fear this simply entrenches and makes ubiquitous the ‘learner as passive consumer’ stance we are trying to avoid.
In a public education system where we spend billions annually on people to instruct our children, why is it so many of us want to hail devices and content from distant sources as the answer to our challenges? In some ways, I think we could get down to the business of actually getting kids thinking more effectively if we could cut the ties with devices for a while; certainly, I think we’d be better off if we could cut our ties to the yearning for devices. This kind of yearning isn’t at all apparent in my IT department, where one would think the techies are constantly angling for the latest and greatest; rather, the nature of work is such that there isn’t much room for tools that aren’t proven to be helpful in getting the job done.
I can appreciate, of course, the instinctive appeal of tangible solutions to problems that are abstract, amorphous and intangible. While building a school is the satisfyingly tangible epitome of work, as a teacher myself, ‘better learning’ is at the opposite end of the scale (see previous post); doing things like applying more technology, reducing class sizes, and adding more programs are tempting because they are visible.
In the same way that thousands of Thighmasters ™ get sold to people who yearn to ‘get fit’ and, late at night are seeking a silver bullet, all of these tangible inputs are simply short term illusions masking the fact that the secret is not in the device, but in the hard work – sustained over time – of a system of people in service of a goal. I don’t dispute that PCs, iPads, and Thighmasters all have the potential to have an effect, but the secret is in their thoughtful, and disciplined application. This doesn’t mean that PCs in all their forms are not valuable but as true tools, not a vectors for delivering content through video, text, the Web or apps.
Stephen Wolfram (from http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/5_things_i_learned_about_the_future_from_stephen_w.php ) has a good view of how tech should be used in the classroom:
”Education today is based on the industrial age,” he told us at SXSW, “not on our coming computing age.” According to Wolfram, the power afforded to students by computers should take education to a higher level. Instead of rote memorization of facts and abstract rules, teachers can now give students increasingly hard real-world problems to solve. They have powerful tools at their disposal to do the math for them; what they need to learn is how to use them. “You don’t need professors to tell us generic facts,” Wolfram said. “You need humans to apprentice to.”
At heart, this work of architecting the ‘problem space’ for students in my view is the hard work of teaching and we should do it without the assumption that any technology, whether iPad or ruler needs to be involved. In shop class it is obvious that when and if a student needs a saw, they will pick one up and use it. The focus, rather is on having them learn and learn to select tools based upon the authentic problem of building something real.
Further, while we often cite the potential of these devices to “disrupt” the classroom, we forget that disruptive innovations don’t merely insert themselves innocuously into an existing market – they actively and aggressively obsolete the incumbents. I don’t believe the Khan Academy or iTunes U is merely seeking to replace the filmstrip projector in classrooms – I think the ultimate realization of these models is to entirely replace the classroom. While I think the disruption may be useful in the short term, what I see as the tech-driven ‘solution’ to traditional education models is a glossier, multimedia trip back in time to an era in which students were seen as vessels to be filled when we in fact live in a time when the ability to confront complex, real world problems without known solutions is what we need. Simply, we need people with better thinking skills and more of them.
The fact is, unless we can powerfully articulate and demonstrate that the people are the essentially agreement for the development of thinking then we are vulnerable to being replaced.
March 13, 2012
Service, Specs & Autonomy: One Of These Is Not Like The Other
One of the best things for me about having a Customer Service initiative in our enterprise is the opportunity to think about and discuss this concept with our Chief Customer Service Officer, Linda Lumsden. The elevation of Customer Service as a significant issue in our organization has got me thinking about who the customer is, what service is, and what the limitations are within our organization to achieving service.
As you know from my previous posts, I adamantly believe that the customer is a sacred term for those we serve. In other words, employees are not customers of other employees. To put it even more simply, customers are solely consumers of our services; they hold no obligation to produce anything as an integral part of our system. By contrast, employees are both producers and consumers – we work as a part of an interdependent team (well, in theory anyway) and have an obligation to consume certain ‘inputs’ in order to ‘output’ value to the customer – which ultimately happens in the classroom.
In ITS we have been talking about ‘service’ since before the broader organization adopted this initiative and I believe strongly it requires as tight a definition as the term customer. “Service” to me is what we offer: it represents a commitment to deliver some capability with specific attributes or specifications. Over the course of the last seven years in ITS we have been working hard to grow our “Service Catalog” which essentially represents, for each new service with formally roll out, a commitment to all of the specifications associated with a specific offering: what it is, who gets it, how much they get, when and where they can access it, all represent specifications of a service.
Quite simply, without specifications, a product is not a product, nor is a service a service. Specifications represent a commitment and a commitment is required for our ‘downstream’ consumers of our services to accept our service as an input for their own work. Absent a commitment to deliver a service according to specifications, consumers cannot rely on its availability and thus cannot begin to build their own commitments on it. Without specifications, we certainly cannot begin to talk about quality because in my view, the term quality represents a measure of the degree to which a product or service conforms to the promised specifications.
The challenge with ‘customer service’ is that the term ‘service’ in the eyes of some people (like me) refers to the specifications of the intangible capability that we offer consumers whereas for other people, they view service as the experience a customer may have in the consumption of an offering. I use the term ‘customer experience’ to distinguish this characteristic of the overall service delivery and I definitely agree with the importance of experience – particularly for customers because it is possible to deliver a product or service to the promised specification but still disappoint the customer with an unpleasant experience.
My point is, we need to work both sides – service AND experience – because my own history tells me that a positive customer experience starts with agreement on the specifications to be delivered. In my view, many poor customer experiences start out with a misalignment of expectations with respect to what is going to be delivered, what the constraints are and what the process will be. The second major customer experience failing is when what was promised is not delivered. The result of the experience, in my view, is the domain of what often snaps to mind when we talk about ‘customer service’: the smile, the quick follow up and calling people by name. However, as a customer myself, getting a bright smile is no consolation for failing to receive a product or service that conforms to my expectations.
I think there are two areas that we need to address when designing services (and yes, it is a very intensive design process): what are the precise specifications of the product or service we will be deploying and second, what is our approach to handling exceptions to the specified product or service quality. Customer experience, in my view, should be simply treated as a specification that infuses both the delivery and exception handling processes. It is interesting to me that when asked to cite outstanding experiences, many customers invariably gravitate toward explaining situations, not in which services or products were delivered as expected, but rather situations in which exceptions were handled well. The interesting thing to me is that based on my anecdotal evidence, people tend to view outstanding exception handling as somehow the product of isolated heroic performances based on individual initiative. However, I strongly suspect that exception handling – even exceptional exception handling – is as much a product of conscious design as the original product or service specifications. Simply stated, when I order a watch from Amazon.com and it fails to appear, it is not a lone heroic customer service rep that unilaterally makes the bold and heroic decision to send me another one at no charge – this exception handling is built that way by design. We just prefer the myth because it’s more romantic.
In education, for some reason, services defined by detailed specifications are hard to come by. Even when the specifications are at least partially written for us and backed by a legislative obligation to implement as written, as in the Ontario curriculum, there is still a lot of tacit (and in fact, explicit) objection to implement to the specifications. When it comes to writing specifications for a service that doesn’t have explicitly defined parameters, we seem to lack the patience required for the detailed work needed to document the service. I would argue, that without documentation, it is near impossible to achieve systemic agreement of both service provider and customer.
Ultimately, however, I think the biggest killer for the service mentality lies in the culture of autonomy that pervades public education, much as it does public health. Fundamentally, classes exist because there is some benefit to aggregating kids into 750 square foot spaces in groups of 25 with one teacher; schools exist because there is some benefit in aggregating classes together under the leadership of a principal teacher; and district school boards exist because in theory there is some benefit to be had by aggregating multiple schools together.
However, achieving the benefits of aggregation (aka economies of scale or more strategically, operational excellence) derives from the willingness and ability for the component parts to specialize in roles to some extent and function as a team. In other words, it means surrendering individual autonomy to play a team position. I would contend that this is our biggest challenge to providing service specifications more broadly than at the classroom level; in other words, if it is important for customers of a school to have a unified and consistent service experience among classrooms at that school, and if it is important for Board customers to have a unified and consistent experience among schools then every individual participant cannot hang onto a veto when it comes time to setting service specifications. No brand, whether a school, a district school board, or Apple can exist if it cannot set product or service specifications and commitments to customers as they sell.
I think there are a couple of ways to go here in terms of business strategy: we have a choice with respect to our branding approach – is the teacher the brand? Is the school the brand? Or is the Board the brand? While I recognize that no matter what, each will retain its own identity, I think we need to decide what drives service specifications and customer experience. When it comes time to describing the student registration process, should the Board set the steps, the availability of the process, the means by which this can occur and the roles and responsibilities involved or should it be the school? The challenge is that it cannot be sometimes one way and sometimes another and still be called service and the decision to set specifications more broadly invariably means that someone will disagree or dislike the specifications.
As a parent, for example, I want to know how I can expect to interact with my daughter’s teachers. Can I expect an email response from them to a question? Is this true of all teachers? All teachers at a school? All teachers in the Board? How long should I expect to wait for a response whether by phone or email? Unless we take steps to define what parents can expect we really cannot claim to offer a service.
Mature organizations routinely make these decisions and live with them because they fundamentally recognize that service, experience and quality require commitment and commitment as a team requires the surrender of autonomy. Further, most team members whether on a boat, on a field or in an office understand that it is their job to both constructively voice disagreement and implement the chosen specification because at heart, we only stand a chance at winning if we surrender to the team.
RSS feed: http://jeremychobbs.tumblr.com/rss
1 of 13
Next page
