What has changed?

Most of us would simply say that the economy is bad. It's not our fault that the jobs are not out there.  Right? Well actually, changes were occurring long before the economy fell into its current challenges.

In 1996, the Hay Group listed six changes affecting every organization in their book entitled People, Performance and Pay: (p. 8)

• Rapidly expanding technologies
• Growing global competition
• Increased demand for individual and organizational competencies and capabilities
• Higher customer expectations
• Ever-decreasing cycle times
• Changing personnel requirements

The Internet has changed the way that we work in many ways.  Today's technology environment requires a lot more communication and complexity than most of us could have ever imagined during the period when "client-server" still seemed a novelty. We are all being asked to do more with less. How can we do this successfully and is it fair?

From an organizational perspective.

Sometimes, it can help to look at change from an organizational perspective. If you were an executive in a large firm, that was undergoing significant change, how would you manage the challenge of creating a successful organization?

The Hay Group describes a five-step process to a successful future (People, Performance and Pay, p. 62):

• Assess the organization

• Design Improvements to work processes and environments

• Develop details of new work and roles and an implementation plan

• Implement the new process

• Evaluate and improve the processes

These five steps are actually geared towards the change management professional. Nevertheless, there is a lot for the individual to learn as well.  For example, the employee needs to understand an organization's work culture, vision of the future (or the lack thereof) and the ability to achieve key goals such as improving customer service, reducing costs or improving the quality of job satisfaction. How many of us successfully think about improving work processes and environments?

Failed CM Processes!

I have often found build environments that could only be supported by one or two key technology professionals. Many CM tools are implemented in such a way that the tool requires a significant amount of work to support on a day-to-day basis. With a little creativity, the same systems could be setup with a lot more automation. For example, in my environment you will get an email from me if you do not check in your code within a specific period. My boss says that I make CM "compelling".  We regularly run jobs to check the integrity of the code repositories (e.g. Clearcase vobs).  This proactive approach means that we know right away if there is a problem, making the support effort much simpler.  I have seen many environments that were setup so that problems were discovered first by the user and then the support person had to ascertain what had really occurred. Our backup utilities automatically send me an email confirming that the backup was successful and documents the commands necessary to restore the backup if necessary. If a backup fails, I need only go to an email folder to check its status. Do you think about improving your own processes? How does this help my career? After all my company could go a long time without me before they decide that I should not have been one of the people to be laid off during a major downsizing!

The answer is that I have been able to expand my job to include new responsibilities that are both fun and exciting.  How did I drop my day job while taking on new responsibilities?

Because our processes are automated, I was able to take on a test manager's assignment - while my assistant was on vacation for two weeks! 

Who will be successful?

"The successful organizational employee-the one who will not only survive but move ahead in this brave new workplace, will be the one who can learn and expand his or her knowledge, skills and competencies. It will be the individual who will be able to perform a variety of functions and frequently work as a member of a larger team." (People, Performance and Pay, p. 7).

Notice the flexibility to perform a variety of functions and the willingness to work as a member of a larger team. Complex systems require that employees focusing on getting the job done instead of "turf wars" and complaining that a particular task is "not my job".

Putting into practice...

Most CM professionals need to focus on being a "build manager" or change control professional. Helping others to be successful can show that you have skills in working at a larger organizational level. In my company, I spend 80% of my time helping others and I always stay hands-on for one or two projects. I volunteer a lot. I also work hard. Getting to learn some new skills may mean some late nights and Sundays for me. I also communicate what I can do and what I will have to postpone. My boss is aware if some things will have to slip in order for me to take on an additional assignment.

I have a friend who was bemoaning the fact that he hasn't had a raise in years. This colleague also readily admits that he hasn't made any effort to learn a new technology. There really is no magic bullet to earning a higher salary.  Just as organizations have to understand the environment and position themselves to add value in order to be successful, so do we as technology professionals.

The technology professional who works to create repeatable processes shows a high level of confidence and professionalism. This truly adds value and one way or another makes that professional positioned to earn a higher salary in even a challenging economy. As the Hay Group points out, we also need to be flexible (and look for opportunities) in order to add to our own knowledge, skills and competencies.  Most of all we need to work as team and remember that professionals do good work, because that is the only way that we can operate. If you push for quality, the salary that you can command will increase because you add value, and not simply because the economy is up or down.

References:

People, Performance and Pay, 1996 by the Hay Group (Thomas P. Flannery, David A. Hofrichter and Paul E. Platten).

Trackback(0)

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Write comment