RSS
 

Art versus the Artist: What is more important?

30 Aug

Yesterday, I went to the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art (SFMOMA). I went there with a friend from Armenia who is visiting the US for a month. He is an amateur photographer and in general, has the artistic side of his brain well developed. On the other hand, my artistic faculties are not what you would call “developed”. When it comes to art in the form of paintings, I am really bad. So, my trip to the SFMOMA was pretty interesting to say the least.

When we got into the SFMOMA parking garage at around 4:00 PM yesterday, we had an hour and forty five minutes to spend in the museum. My best case estimation for the time I could spend in a museum was two hours. The worst case was five minutes. So, with an hour and forty five minutes in hand, I thought there was plenty of time to explore this museum. We entered the museum, eighteen dollars per person lighter on the pocket. Once inside, we proceeded to the third floor, which is where the exhibition starts. I saw a bunch of photographs. They looked ordinary to me. I asked my friend as to what he found unique about the photographs. He politely declined to answer my question. I figured that since I was the ignorant one, I should put in the extra effort to make sense of what I see.

As I moved from one exhibition to other, the fledgling art faculties of my brain were put to a stern test. For instance, I could understand how a rectangle or a trapezium could constitute a painting. Here I was staring at a piece of art that was essentially a rectangle, something I used to draw every day to solve the “Mensuration” problems in tenth grade. The only thing artistic about the picture was that the numbers depicting the length of the sides of the rectangle did not make any sense. Then there was a set of rectangles that resembled the color palette selections in a home depot. And then, there was one that my friend pointed out was a portrait of a thinking man. Right next to it was another painting by the same artist that resembled a kicking man. I asked my friend what it was. He politely declined to answer. As I tried hard to appreciate art, I realized I was not the only moron in the room. I heard a mother telling her son, “This is the same thing daddy made for you last Christmas”!!!

I realized that after all these years of training and working in a technical field, my brain has been conditioned to look for logic and order in everything. Therefore, I need a mountain, or a face, or an ocean, or anything familiar to appreciate a painting. My brain does not understand a combination of colors that is not necessarily something. The ability to appreciate something for what it is, and not what it is supposed to be is sadly lacking at the moment. On the other hand, the controversy pertaining to the pictures taken by Ansel Adams has confounded me. A photograph supposed to have been taken by Ansel Adams, is worth millions of dollars. Now, an old lady comes forward and says that the photograph was actually taken by her uncle, and not by Ansel Adams. All of a sudden, there is a debate on the value of the photograph. A few days back, the headline in the daily news was something to the tune of “Million dollars or worthless?” So, a photograph taken by Ansel Adams is worth millions. However, the same photograph taken by a common man is not worth anything. In all this, does anyone care that regardless of the artist, the photograph might be worth a million dollars? Or is the quality of the photograph secondary? Are the paintings on display at the SFMOMA a celebration of the art or the artists that created them?

 
 

Trust and the Technical Manager

09 Aug

Often times, we hear stories about the corporate structure being a tree full of monkeys, where the monkeys at the lowest branch represent the blue collared workers, and the monkey at the highest branch is the CEO. So, when a monkey looks up, it sees an A**H*** (henceforth referred to as AH). One of the reasons for the AH structure is that the guy at the top is not expected to do anything. He can only direct others. Case in point is the former CEO of BP, Tony Hayward. At a congressional hearing pertaining to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, many of his answers were “I do not know as I am not a technical person”. Those may not have been the exact words he used, but he said something to that effect. All it did was to establish him as a narcissistic CEO, disconnected from the people working for him. It came across as if he was trying to save himself at the cost of his employees.

It is not uncommon in technology firms for people from a predominantly technical background to become managers. These are the guys who have endured AHs for many years, and now are entrusted with the responsibility of being one. The technical manager has a difficult job to do. On the one hand, he likes to stay low enough to be not perceived as an AH. On the other hand, he has to move to a higher branch to be able to get other things done: things such as interfacing other teams, project planning, general management etc. So, he has to make this decision on where he wants to be. He also has to be able to respond to any exigencies and move between branches, as per the situation’s demand. A lot of the manager’s position depends upon his team and his trust on his team. Again, for a technical manager, this is a difficult question. Unlike a manager without necessary technical background (and who only relies on trust), he has a choice of doing the work himself. Let us examine the effect of trust on project management.

Suppose a manager trusts his team completely. Obviously, this approach is fraught with risks and nobody does this. Usually, the manager and his team have regular meetings and project status is updated based on the information provided. However, he only gets the reports from his team. He does not go and check the implementation to make sure everything was done correctly. Take a simple example in a software project. The team claims that it has implemented the feature, and the verification team claims that no bugs have been found. Now, what does the manager do? He checks his project notes, checks the implementation box, checks the verification box, and calls the project done. Now, a few days after the product has been released to the market, the engineer reports that there was a bug that was not caught by the verification team. This is a classic SNAFU (Situation Normal, All F***ed Up) moment. The manager got a go ahead from the developer and the verification team. Now, both teams were inefficient, which resulted in a poor quality product. This is a very common occurrence. Even I-Phone4 suffered from the antenna issue when everything was supposed to have been tested.

At the other end of the spectrum is a manager who does not trust his team at all. He insists on doing everything himself. Now, this has the obvious problem of scalability. Why do you need a team if you insist on doing everything yourself? Moreover, this approach severely stunts the growth of the team and consequently, the firm. The lower level engineers never learn anything as the manager is always seen as the messiah who can take care of things.

The other approach is to trust but verify. Here, the manager lets his team do the implementation, but goes in detail to understand how each feature is implemented and verified. The level of verification depends on the nature of the team. An inexperienced team will need a lot of monitoring and verification. An experienced team may not require as much. The problem here is that verification may sometimes be even more difficult the development. When a technically competent manager implements something, he can get it done in a magnitude of time less than his team. The team may end up making all kinds of mistakes, so much so that the manager spends all his time correcting the mistakes. Errors can creep in the implementation that escape the manager’s attention. After all, the manager is only human, with hundred other things to complete.

One of the understated but important functions of a technical manager is training his team. It is here that the manager can earn the respect of his team. If he engages in active training, he gets to understand his team better. This will in turn help him earn the trust of his team. This will also help him determine the level of trust and the level of verification that his team requires. Over time, with training, his trust on his team will improve.

The balancing act for a technical manager is a difficult one. He needs to ensure that he is perceived as someone who maintains control, is helpful, technically competent, has good man management skills, all bundled into one. He has to consciously restrain himself from becoming an implementation person, so that he can contribute to the larger interests of the company. At the same time, he needs to be prepared to dive in when his services are required. Maradonas and Zidanes, who excelled in their skills as well as captained the team, do not come every day. But it is an everyday job for the technical manager.


 

Spam Ethics

08 Aug

I get a lot of comments about the articles I write in my blog. Unfortunately, most of them are spams. A spam, as we know is an unsolicited email or a comment. Spams in blogs are usually used for a purpose called “backlinks”. When you get a comment, the unsuspecting you will click on the sender’s name, which in turn will take you to a website that sells anything from an IPAD to a house. I was not aware of these blog spams when I started my blog. In fact, I accepted the first few comments that came about, only to realize later that they were all spams.

The only good thing about spam is that the comments are usually nice. A typical comment is “Great site. Keep up the good work”. As long as you are blissfully ignorant, this can actually help you maintain your motivation at a high level. In fact, even if you know that it is a spam, it still gives something to smile about.

It is when spams start making critical comments on your website, that it becomes unbearable. One, you are spamming me, and two; you are spamming me with bad comments? That is not on. For example, the other day I got a spam comment that said “your posts are too long. You should shorten them”. My posts do tend to be on the longer side. Fortunately, the comment was already tagged as spam. Otherwise, I would have been really worried about the length of my posts. I would have gone back and tried to trim my posts and eventually compromised on both quality and quantity.

The concept of spam is unethical in itself. But still, we need ethics within the framework of this unethical activity. It is like the mafia boss expecting his men to stay loyal to him. Defecting to a different gang can be construed as unethical!!! Here is my list of things that I expect from an ethical spammer.

1. An ethical spam should be something that has nothing but positive things to say about your post.
2. It should refrain from any critical analysis.
3. It should always start with “Great post”.
4. It should have a line that says “appreciate the hard work”.
5. It should not be condescending. The other day, I got a spam that said “I will honor your blog with my comment”. Wow!!! Honor a blogger with a comment? How about the blogger dishonors you by moving the comment to trash? That is what I did.
6. Limit the number of spams to one per day. Although I can just quarantine them, I like to read these spam comments. Too many spams per day wastes a lot of my time.

Spam, like all things unethical, cannot be avoided. There are many companies that make money out of the spamming business. Someone in marketing was asked to spam as part of her job. When she refused, the boss called her names!!! But then, spammers, please be considerate. Don’t spoil the blogger’s day with stupid comments. Instead, give them something to smile about.

 
 

To be Serious at Work or to do Serious Work

08 Aug

We all work very hard (or hardly?). We take our job seriously. Some of us choose to exhibit this fact pretty explicitly. The demeanor is serious. The lips are shut so tight that a vacuum chamber’s door will pale in comparison. We talk in monosyllables. We let everyone know that it is not OK to disturb. If the work involves cerebral activity, the hands caress the (bald) head ever so often. On the other hand, some of us are able to project a much more likable face even though we might be doing something pretty serious. We are busy but have time to smile at a joke or even crack a joke every once in a while.

I experienced the two faces of seriousness during a recent trip. At the security checkpoint, there were two parallel lines. Their work, although critical, cannot be termed as difficult by any stretch of imagination. Their job was to check the passenger’s papers, make sure that the picture in the picture-ID was that of the person showing it, and let the passenger through. How difficult can it be? Well, not so easy for some. I ended up in a line manned by a serious bloke. As far as this guy was concerned, the world was one mistake away from utter chaos. He would check the name of the passenger by tallying every letter, then stare at the passenger, often making the passenger wonder what he or she did wrong, and then let the passenger through. It took him almost a minute to screen each passenger. The second line was manned by a fellow who smiled by default. He would greet the passengers with a “hello”, smile at them when inspecting their face, and was quicker at tallying the passenger name. He was clearing more than twice the number of passengers on his line compared to the serious guy.

While it is important that we do serious work, working seriously may not be the best idea. What do we gain by working seriously? I guess higher blood pressure and stress. Trying to see the lighter side of things may help us relieve the stress and actually help us get more done in less time. I have been guilty of the “working seriously” syndrome. When I look back, each time I have tried to concentrate so hard that my face turns into a pelican, I have got very little done. One day, I was at work very late in the evening, trying to finish something before I called it a day. I was working and humming a song, and I was in a pretty good mood. I was actually enjoying the work. Someone came by and said, “It is amazing that you are in such a good mood at this time of the day”. I smiled and dismissed the comment at that time. I mean, I felt good about the compliment, but did not think beyond that. Now, after witnessing Mr. Serious at the airport, my thoughts went back to that day. Unlike certain other occasions, I finished my work that day and went home happy.

 

Print Media: Do We Really Need It?

01 Aug

Recently, I have come across many news items on the impending death of the publishing houses. Firms like Concord Free Press are giving books away for no cost. Several newspapers are cutting back on the frequency of their publications. A quick look in Wikipedia suggests that San Francisco Chronicle’s circulation has dropped alarmingly in the last two years. Many analysts are predicting the ultimate demise of the print media. The advent of IPAD and Kindle like devices has not helped the publishing house’s cause. Reading on these devices is almost as good as reading the printed version. These devices can hold multiple documents at the same time, making them ideal travel buddies. On the other hand, seriously, how many books can you carry!!! With a Kindle in hand, you can pretty much pack a suitcase full of books in one kindle that weighs no more than a few pounds.

Many “book” romantics have bemoaned the impending death of the print media. They want to rescue the industry. They claim that the print newspapers are the indicators of “true” journalism. I don’t understand. Paper was invented as a replacement for something that was more difficult to use. People used stones, bark, palm leaves etc, each of which was more difficult to use than paper. The key here is the “more difficult” part. Electronic media is much easier to use. It is easier for me and you who use it, easier for the journalists who post their news articles, and easier for advertisers to do targeted advertisements. After all, the journalist types the report on his laptop, right? What is so romantic about taking that article to a printing machine rather than publish it in HTML? Why should progress be frowned upon?

Paper costs money. Moreover, paper costs trees. Paper is easy to misplace. Paper gets damaged over time. If you mark a paper with a pen, it stays there forever. A digital library is much easier to maintain and search than a shelf full of books. Actually, there is nothing great about paper. The digital revolution has offered us this great opportunity to move away from paper, and save the environment in the process. If I had it my way, printing should cost money. Let us cut taxes, but charge those who print on paper.

Every conceivable field has benefited from technology. This includes journalists and writers. Journalists today are not limited by the lack of information. Once they are on a case, all background information can be obtained in a few clicks. Once the news item is ready, it can be posted on the website in almost real time. When you check google or yahoo news, have you noticed that sometimes there is a small caption saying “updated one hour ago”. How do you think the print media is going to keep pace with that?

Instead of romanticizing the print media, we should be more pragmatic. We should embrace digital technology the way those wise people embraced the paper so many centuries back (I hope). But then, the “good old days” always seem better regardless of whether they actually are better or not. At least until someone asks the question: really?

 
 

Future of the Television

01 Aug

If you look around, you will find that there are innovations happening everywhere. Advances in video technology have resulted in a steady improvement in what a television can do. 3D television has hit the market. Moreover, TVs today come with internet capability, allowing you to download movies from Netflix and watch them online. On the other hand, cell phone has become so multi-functional that “talking” is only one of the many services it provides. We have cars that park themselves, smart homes, IPADs, notebooks and so on. All these gadgets are designed to make life easier for the consumer. At least, that is the intention.

One great thing that has happened in the past few years is ubiquitous internet service. Internet is no longer limited to homes and offices. Many airports have free internet. Of course, there are still those that choose to stay in the last decade. The San Francisco International Airport is a case in point. This airport charges eight dollars a day for internet service. On the other hand, the lesser cousin, San Jose International Airport, provides free internet service. I guess, the San Jose airport is indicative of the technological inclinations of the city in general. By that token, what does SFO represent? Expensive cost of living? Perhaps.

The easy availability of internet has brought along other business opportunities. Online TV has become more than just a fantasy. A few months back, while I was waiting to receive my wife at the airport, I hooked on to the internet (I was in SFO, and ended up paying the eight dollars), and tried to juggle between a Tennis match and a Basketball match at the same time. I could get Tennis on ESPN-3 and Basketball on Veetle. Recently, I watched the Soccer world cup on ESPN-3. This was so helpful. I could watch the games from anywhere. Nobody asked me to lower the volume or to sit someplace else. It is also very useful at home. The TV is no longer a source of endless debate on what program should the family be watching at prime time. Should we watch America’s Got Talent, or should we watch the Baseball game? Or should we change channels altogether and watch the local news? With online TV, the answer is simple. Let each of us watch whatever it is that we want to watch online.

The question is, with so many online programs and channels, what is the future of the TV? The Television companies are hoping to counter online TVs with newer technology, such as 3D. But is it sustainable? Is it possible that families that do not want to invest in super high end TVs will just not buy any TV at all? Why should I buy a TV, when I can get pretty much everything online?

The television market is getting invaded by internet capable devices. Until now, the television market has managed to survive by staying ahead of the rest in terms of the quality of the video that is offered. It has also forayed into the internet market by making televisions with internet connectivity. In the future, I see the two fields merge. Eventually, TV may be replaced by a high definition screen, with all controls transferred to the cell phones and notebooks.

 

Are Acquisitions Stifling Innovations?

30 Jul

The sixties saw the emergence of the processor giant, Intel. The seventies saw the emergence of Apple. The eighties saw the birth of communication giant, Cisco. The nineties were the days of everything “web”- Yahoo, Google, Amazon, and a host of other companies. In the twentieth century, we have seen a tremendous growth in social networking with the emergence of Facebook, LinkedIn and all those websites that promise to get you married in five minutes. However, unlike the companies in the nineties and before them, these are not based on real innovations. They can help psychology professors publish papers on the effect of social networking on mental disintegration. But their technological appeal is well, not so appealing.

Let us evaluate the contributions of some of the innovative companies. Google and Yahoo pushed the envelope on algorithms to the limit. Their search algorithms have motivated universities to offer entire courses on the topic. Many students have picked a drop from the ocean of these algorithms and graduated with PhD. Similarly, Microsoft Windows and UNIX have elicited extensive research in Operating Systems. In fact, Linux, which is a collaborative effort to create a free operating system, is now a commonly adopted and even preferred in many technology houses. Of course, Intel and similar companies have contributed to computer architecture research. It is amazing how computer architecture continues to undergo tremendous innovations, even though it is more than forty years old.

Successful companies have emerged that feed on design complexity. These companies provide tools that help in designing a product. Cadence and Synopsys are relatively big, successful companies that provide tools to make semiconductor chip design easier. Over time, these tools have played a key role in the product development cycle of a semiconductor chip. But for these tools, you and I will still be using collect calls from the airport to check if our ride has arrived. Cell phones would not have come into the picture. We would still live with our analog TVs. The list goes on. It is just that the common man does not realize, nor does he care about the amazing things that happen in the background to create these gadgets.

Over the past ten years, although not many innovative companies have caught the eye, there has been no dearth of innovation. I got a small dose of how far we have come when I needed to search something online. Today, it is not a grammatical hara-kiri to say “I had to google something”. That apart, it took me a few seconds to locate hundreds of free documents online related to my topic of interest, and the rest of the day to read them. Just fifteen years back, I would have spent more time searching than actually reading the document. It would have taken me an hour to locate a library, another hour to locate one book, and I would have had to make multiple trips to the library until I found the book that suited me best. Fast forward to present. The last time I traveled in a bus, I downloaded and read an entire article about options trading on my cell phone.

The truth is that innovation has not gone down in the last ten years. In fact, I am sure it has gone up. However, innovative companies have not been allowed to flourish. As companies grow bigger, they look to consolidate. One way to consolidate is to acquire other companies that work on interesting ideas. Just look at the number of acquisitions in the past few years- Google acquired youtube for more than a billion and a half, acquired Doubleclick, and lo behold, acquired a processor start-up in stealth mode called AgniLux. Now, why should Google acquire a processor company? Well, it could be for a product to compete with IPAD, or it could be for the datacenters. I don’t know. Similarly, other companies have consolidated as well. Recently, Synopsys acquired Virage Logic, which coincided with the acquisition of Denali by Cadence. In fact, in the 2005-06 time-frame, Cadence acquired so many companies that it was not a bad idea for a Cadence employee to leave Cadence, start a company and come back to Cadence through an acquisition. It was a relatively easy way to pocket a few million dollars.

The idea of consolidation has sprung open a new start-up paradigm. Today, when you write a business plan, “Getting acquired” is one of the exit strategies. In the semiconductor world, the cost of developing new chips has gone up tremendously. A new video chip may cost as much as a hundred million dollars. Therefore, innovative ideas are almost always accompanied by money minded venture capitalists. In these start-ups, innovation is often stunted to achieve short term monetary goals. Long term risky ideas are almost always shot down. As the short term idea matures, the hope is that some big player will get interested, and acquire the company. Once acquired, innovation continues, but under the aegis of the company that acquired the startup. The parent company now imposes its ideas on the acquired company. Eventually, innovation is limited to the framework of parent company’s interests. In effect, there seems to be no room for wild, rein free innovations in the expensive acquisition driven technology market. Startups that invest in innovative technology are just not allowed to thrive.

In summary, with increasing number of solutions and solution providers in the technology field, acquisitions have become common place. Overall, the strategy seems to be fruitful for the acquiring company, acquired company, and the consumer. The acquiring company consolidates, the acquired company makes a lot of money, and for the common man, life only seems to be getting better with the IPhone, 3D TV, intelligent cars etc. But then, is it really good for innovation in the long run? Will this acquire-mania drive the world into a group of sharks that tells us what to do? Apple is already doing it to a certain extent. It does not want us to sell applications for the IPhone unless it approves it. Steve Jobs has the gall to blame the way we hold the IPhone for its bad reception, and not accept the obvious design gaffe. Fortunately, the big players seem to be competing among themselves at the moment, which provides the consumer with many choices. But we never know. One fine day, we may suddenly find that we have just one search engine, one phone and one TV to choose from. That will be a classic case of a group of capitalists imposing communism on us.



Watch TV Online

 

The Technical Manager

28 Jul

Popular wisdom is that technical people make lousy managers. There is always this tussle between the MBA and the technical person regarding who is less hopeless. For the technical folks, MBA stands for “Mediocre but Arrogant”. The MBAs would have their own list of TLAs (Three Letter Acronyms) to describe a technocrat. Regardless of the appraisal of each community by the other, it is a fact that technical people eventually become managers at some point or other. It is only the very elite that stay as individual contributors. For the rest, professional life is a team sport, and we are required to do what it takes.

What ails the technocrat? Why can he or she not be a good manager? I am sure that a lot of them are great parents, very sociable, and responsible outside their professional lives. What happens to them when they enter the professional arena? There are many issues. I want to investigate two of them: i) project scoping, and ii) analysis of strengths and weaknesses of his team.

Suppose an engineer is asked to scope a project involving complex computer algorithms. Assume that he has a few junior engineers under him who will do the implementation of the project. This is what he will do: “The project requires me to implement features A, B and C. If I get these three features in, features D, E and F should be easy as they are just extensions of A, B and C. Now that I will have a solid code base with features A through F already implemented, why not add G and H as well? After all these are just re-use and a bit of re-packaging of A through H. This will go on. So, while the requirement is for A, B, and C, he will plan for A through Z. When the junior engineers see this, they will be understandably outraged. When the top management sees this, it will be understandably elated at the prospect of over-achievement. At the end of the day, the junior engineers will get completely overwhelmed, and the manager will deliver less than the A-Z set that he had promised. Now, since he did not deliver on his promise, he will get the boot even though he might have delivered far more than the A-C that was initially requested.

What will a manager without technical expertise do in this scenario? Given the task of delivering A-C, he will go and negotiate for A-B. He will up-front claim that the schedule is too tight for A-C. He will promise A-B, take the task to his team and get its feedback. The team probably will get it done with time in hand. The manager will take the team out for a lunch of appreciation. In return, his team will volunteer to complete C as well. Now, he will show that he has exceeded expectations and earn a pat in the back.

The lesson here is simple. The goal is to exceed expectations. But the key is that expectations are what you define them to be. If you set lofty expectations, and do not get there, you are back to square one. Alternatively, you could set lower expectations and exceed them consistently. The smart manager knows this. The poor technocrat learns this over time.

The other problem the technocrat faces is that he scopes the project based on his abilities, and not his team’s abilities. In the example above, our technocrat will go like this: “Feature-A is a variation of Dijkstra’s algorithm, so should be done in half a day. Feature-B is an extension of A. So, it will not take more than one hour. Feature-C is just a knapsack problem. We can implement the existing greedy algorithm. This will take one day. We are implementing well known algorithms, so testing and verification should be minimal. The project should not take more than a week”

The first reaction of the junior engineer will be “What is this Dijkstra’s algorithm? By the way, how is it pronounced??” Our tech manager will just lose it at this point. “Did you know that when I was in your position, I proposed a probabilistic algorithm that was better than Dijkstra? The dolts at the reviewing committee rejected my paper”. The junior engineer will go “Ok. That is very impressive. But what the heck is this Dijkstra stuff? My ignorance of the algorithm can only be rivaled by my inability to pronounce this name.” Now, depending on the temperament of the techno-manager, he might choose to teach the whole thing to the engineer, or point the engineer to a book, or in the worst case, recommend to the top management that this guy is useless. Whatever he does, the result will be the same. The project will not meet the schedule.

The manager without technical expertise will have no clue about Dijkstra’s algorithm or anything remotely similar. His scoping will first involve his engineers. The manager will use their feedback to create a schedule, which probably will run into months. Eventually, he will beat the schedule and take a handy bonus home. Here is a case where the technical manager’s technical prowess works against him. On the other hand, the manager without the technical expertise uses his lack of technical knowledge to his advantage.

In summary, the most important thing for a manager is to meet the schedule. He either has to level-up his and his team’s productivity, or level-down the expectations to achieve this goal. Technical managers probably do not get this trick. They are driven only by the level-up strategy and fall short every time. Secondly, the technical manager needs to understand that his team may not be as good as he is. This can often be a difficult situation. This requires the manager to know that he is way better than others. Many a time, if you are good, you do not realize that you are good. Things just seem so obvious to you. When the other person does not get it, you brand him as incompetent. The manager needs to have a measure of how good is “good enough” for his team members. He also needs to understand that some of his team members will become better over time. Those who do not get better are the real incompetent ones.

Technical managers can easily turn it around so that everything works in their favor. They have a huge advantage with their technical knowledge. On a black swan day, it is the technocrat who will be able to bail the company out. Managers without the technical expertise rely heavily on their team’s competence and trust to get the job done. If either of the two (competence or trust) takes a hit, they will not have an exit strategy. Further, technical knowledge can be used to channel the thought process so that there is a balance between innovation and pragmatism.

Primarily, a technical manager needs to make an effort to connect with his team and understand its strengths and weaknesses. Maybe he should spend some time managing a team that is not in his technical domain. This will force him to rely on his managerial skills to get the job done. He may pick up the nuances of management, especially the ones related to understanding his team’s strengths and weaknesses. When he comes back, he may not be the monster to his team that he previously was.

 

Save the Bum, Kill the Hype (err… Skype)

24 Jul

Don’t get me wrong. Skype is great. I can talk to my family through video calls. It is the de-facto application I use to chat with my co-workers half a world away. Skype is popular for a reason. It has made collaborative work much easier than what it used to be. You do not need to walk to the other person’s cubicle to discuss a work related issue. Just “ping” him/her on Skype. I will not be surprised if this comes to be known as “skyping” someone. So, while we “google” something on Bing, and cry out a loud “Yahoo” when we actually find it, we could “skype” on gmail chat and again, cry out a loud “Yahoo” when we achieve a breakthrough in our conversation.

As years pass by, the average number of hours I sit on my bum has progressively increased. See, when I was growing up in the 80s in India, we had an idiot box. The only programs available were on the Govt. of India run TV network called “Doordarshan” (literally meaning “watch from far”). In reality, it was “far from watchable”. It had all but two channels. Our TV would not pick one of the two. So, my TV time was restricted to a twenty minute news program that was punctuated with awkward pauses whenever the teleprompter went kaput, a half hour show on weekdays and a stupid movie on weekends. Oh yes, we used get some TV time on Sunday morning as well. What I want to emphasize is that I spent only about six to seven hours a week watching TV. I played or did something else other than sitting rest of the time. Things were pretty much the same until I finished college. But since then, my bums have been overworked. I sit on them all day during my work hours, come back home and sit on them and multi-task between TV and other things interesting on the internet; sit while I have my food… If my bum got overtime allowance, I would be a millionaire!!!

At work, respite for my bum comes from the occasional trips to the bathroom, to the break-room for a cuppa, and mostly from visits to the cubicles of my co-workers to discuss work related issues. When I walk to the person’s cubicle, I get whatever little exercise I can and I am on my legs for a few minutes. If I did this twenty times a day, that would be a decent walk and enough rest for those guys in the back. Recently, someone suggested that we exchange skype IDs. This would enable us to chat and may improve our productivity. Sure enough, chatting improves productivity. It provides a nice balance between one way communication of email and an annoying co-worker shouting on top of his voice a mere two centimeters from your ear. Also, the only way someone can get mad at you is by typing in all upper case. (Ok. Maybe, he can get a little further by typing in upper case and making it boldface). Moreover, chatting helps in multi-tasking. You could chat with multiple co-workers and get many things done at the same time. Try talking to two people at once. It will not be easy!!!

However, with this chat fever inflicting everyone, I hardly move from my seat. So much so that I now chat with my wife in the other room!!! Where will this lead us? Are we heading down a path where actually knowing a person in flesh and blood will become redundant? It already has to an extent. In one of my previous posts I had mentioned that I worked with a team for two years before I met them. But the bum-factor has to be dealt with. We need to impose a restriction that two persons who wish to chat are separated by at least 200 meters. If the other person is closer, just walk down there and endure the noise pollution. It is a small price to pay when you consider that it is your bum you are saving.


 
 

Wimbledon 2009

24 Jul

As a kid, Andy was a star. He was stronger and taller than his peers. When playing tennis, he always seemed to have that extra second more to intercept a passing shot, or return a smash. When playing soccer, his great anticipation made him a wall of a defender, and his strength and skills made him a power forward. He breezed through high school, and went to college on a nice scholarship that would cover his living expenses and tuition.

Once in college, Andy decided to turn professional. He would take up tennis and become a star. After all Andy was extremely good at Tennis. So Andy turned professional. He started playing the ATP tournaments and won most of them without hiccups. There was an odd defeat here and there, but they were more aberrations than serious issues. Thus Andy continued his professional journey, winning tournaments, creating new fans everywhere he went, growing in reputation as a world class tennis player.

In a couple of years, Andy had become a seriously good player. Sports analysts itched to compare him against the best ever that there has been. He was a star in the making, someone to carry American Tennis to the next generation. In the eighties, McEnroe and Connors had successfully established America at the forefront of world tennis. In the nineties, Sampras and Agassi took America’s reputation a notch further. But in the 21st century, things had changed a bit. Tennis was getting popular all over the world, especially among the eastern European countries. Players were emerging from everywhere: Serbia, Russia, France, Switzerland, Spain, and even smaller nations like Chile and Cypress. However, American Tennis had ebbed away since the retirement of Sampras and Agassi. There were players of promise that were seen every now and then, but nobody made a lasting impression. The media contributed to the loss in interest as well. Tennis was no longer covered in prime time. It was hardly ever telecast on TV. Sports news was limited to American Football, Baseball, and Basketball in that order. In these days of gloom for American Tennis, Andy was a ray of hope. If he ruled world tennis for the next five to six years, tennis in America would undergo a sea change. It would spur other youngsters to take up tennis seriously.

Andy had accumulated enough points to make him eligible to compete in Wimbledon. He entered Wimbledon as America’s lone hope. In the initial four rounds, he brushed his opponents aside, losing only five games in four rounds. Come Quarterfinal, the competition was getting tougher. Andy’s booming serves were being returned more often than he would have liked. He had to stay in the point longer than he was willing. There was always that one extra rally that he had to endure. Still, Andy won. He was stretched, but he won. Now, it was time for the semi-final. Andy was slated to meet Rafael, a clay court specialist with a reputation for immense stamina. First set: Andy served, and served well. But Rafael returned and returned better. Andy had never seen such power and angles in the returns. And he was not used to running around the court to chase down the ball. Hey, he was Andy, the guy with the biggest serve in the game. But this was the first time he faced someone who brought an entirely new set of skills to the table. Rafael did not boast of a huge serve, but could find impossible angles on the court. He could hit drop shots, perfect lobs, down the line, cross court, you name it. Rafael had perfected all other aspects of his game, as he knew he could never be a great server. On the other hand, Andy never thought he needed to work hard on aspects other than his serve. His serve always made him a very difficult opponent. Alas, Andy did not realize that his serve only made him a difficult opponent. It did not make him the best there is. Andy fought hard, but eventually lost.

By now Andy was a full blown professional. He was playing tennis tournaments all year long. He was winning most of them as long as he did not have to play Rafael or Roger, two blokes who were far more skilled than Andy. However, this meant that Andy could not pocket any of the slam tournaments: Australian, French, Wimbledon or US open. In each of the four, he would run into Rafael or Roger at some stage, and lose. Andy was getting increasingly frustrated at the ease with which Rafael and Roger were beating him. Andy’s game was falling apart. His sole purpose in life was to beat Roger and Rafael. Victories against other opponents did not give him any joy. He would take those games easy, and started losing to other opponents as well. If only Andy could wind the clock back a few years. He would go back to his coaching clinic and iron out his flaws. He would no longer rely on his serve. But clock was ticking one way, and Andy was getting older.

Six years had passed. Andy’s game had gone from bad to worse. He was struggling to find a place in Wimbledon, his favorite tournament. But Andy was a good kid. He was always willing to try. He would practice with doubles players to improve his skills at the net. He hired a coach to help him iron out the errors that had crept into his game. The coach put Andy on a training and diet program, and Andy followed it religiously. In six weeks, Andy was fifteen pounds lighter and visibly faster on the court. Within ten weeks, he had improved his net play considerably and could hit powerful strokes from the baseline. His serve improved as well. He was getting more than eighty percent of his first serves in, and winning more than ninety percent of the points on his serve. Andy could now take on the best. He was the lean mean machine ready for the battle.

Along came Wimbledon. Andy was ruthless. He was playing at a different level compared to his opponents. He reached the final without breaking a sweat. In the final, he would meet Roger, someone who had his number. Roger had not lost a set to Andy in eighteen matches. Roger was the overwhelming favorite. But this was a different Andy. Roger had not met this Andy before.

The final started on a sunny Sunday afternoon.

First set: Andy’s serve was booming. But more importantly his returns were strong as well. The set stayed on serve until five all, at which point, Andy broke Roger and pocketed the set.

Second set: Andy’s serve held him in good stead. The set went to tie-breaker. Andy was placed comfortably at 6-5 in the tie-breaker, with an advantage of a break. Andy served. It was a strong serve. Roger barely returned it. Andy had all the time in the world to put away the return. A sudden pang of nerves got to him. Andy panicked and hit the backhand long. Andy went on to lose the set. It was heartbreaking, both for Andy and his supporters. An ordinary guy would have given up and lost the match within the next hour. But Andy was a competitor. He had undergone hours of mental and physical conditioning with the sole aim of beating Roger and Rafael. He could not give all that up now.

Third set: Again, each player held his serve and the set went to a tie-breaker. But this time, Roger won the tie-breaker easily. It was 2-1 Roger. Andy saw the match slipping away. Roger does not usually give up a lead. He is known to pounce on the opponent at the slightest sign of weakness. But then, Andy was different. He would not give up. He could not give up.

Fourth set: Andy found enough physical and mental strength to break Roger and take the fourth set. Now, it was 2-2.

Fifth set: Neither player was prepared to give an inch. Neither player showed any sign of being tired. The match progressed to four hours. Both players held serve and searched for that opportunity to break the opponent once. Breaking once is all that one would need. But none was forthcoming. The fifth set went on for an hour and a half. The score was 15-14 Roger. Andy served the next game and it looked as if it we were moving toward 15-15. But in two minutes, Andy lost it. He hit three wild shots, maybe because he could not spot the ball due to the shadows. And Andy lost. Andy was devastated. This was supposed to be his moment. He deserved to win. If only he had not botched the backhand return in the second set. If only he had seized the two break points that came his way in the final set. There were so many ifs, but the truth was that the cup had slipped through his fingers. Andy hugged Roger and congratulated him.

Later, during the ceremony, Andy had trouble holding his tears back. But he let the winner enjoy the limelight, and smiled in the background. That evening, although Andy lost, he proved that he was a great player, and an even better human being.