Dragon Claws and Tiger Paws: The Hackers of Globalization

What’s all the fuss about globalization being either good or bad, manageable or inevitable? Globalization is but a fuzzy measure of how globally connected, integrated, and dependent you are on others in terms of economic, technological, political, cultural, social, and not the least ecological interchange. Last time you ever poked fun at that goofy Icelander for believing in his wights, elves, and huldufólk (“hidden people”), for he’ll come right back at ya, by closing his country’s banks – turning a whole bunch of UK depositors into such huldufólk – and shutting down your airspace for weeks on end (and all you can do is sue Thor for spewing volcanic ash and other forms of Icelandic ectoplasm, including Björk, over your Fatherland). (Though on that note, the brave pilots of Deutsche Lufthansa must be congratulated for being the first to face the pulverized magma, proudly living their corporate motto that the “Hansa is flying even when the birds are walking.”)

No, globalization would be a simple and straightforward matter if we just called it global trade (and indeed, if it was just that: worldwide import/export), and if it wasn’t for such complicating factors as the vast inequalities accentuated but perhaps not caused by putting us all on an economic Mercator projection, an equal free-trade footing. In the good old days, it used to be fair and equitable: you’d send a nutter like Marco Polo off on his Silk Road to scam the Kublai Khan with some cheap Venetian costume jewelry, and the fool would come home with spaghetti – home being Italy, mind you! Let’s call this one “Bucket A”: arguments for or against the notion that the world’s haves and have-nots will benefit very differently from the effects of globalization. If the upper left-hand corner of your paycheck says “The World Bank Group,” you’ll likely be a naysayer, arguing that global inequality has risen as a function of increased globalization for a number of factual reasons that are measured in something called the “Gini coefficient,” and the explication thereof would stretch the scope of this blog as much an A-Rod-professed monogamy. Know that your blogger – like most civilized people – categorically condemns the exploitation of impoverished workers and joins with militant fervor in the persecution of all exploiters of child labor (if you can, check out our friend David Arkless’s and his company Manpower’s support of http://www.notforsalecampaign.org/ – a rather worthwhile cause!).

Some of the other, softer, and more academic arguments brought forth by the anti-Davos crowd (rash boarders, by and large, who eschew après-ski and raclette with Angelina Jolie) have to do mainly with agriculture subsidies in rich countries (thereby lowering the market price for poor farmers’ crops), the non-existence or at best weakened state of labor unions in destitute regions, and – oh behold, the Bugaboo! – the rapid growth of offshore outsourcing. In “Bucket B” we shall lump all arguments either in favor of or opposed to the notion that globalization will revert all “things” back to their normal mean. And all these things are purportedly economic, technological, political, cultural, social, and perhaps even ecological in nature (you can appreciate how complicated a well-rounded treatment of globalization can get – and most of them alas are as cohesive as Destiny’s Child). Think of it as the global equilibrium point, where say a big media company in the States is outsourcing all of its IT development to India, where the Indian IT developers – because of these two interlocking economic trends called global wage arbitrage and purchase price parity – are making a respectable middle-class living, allowing them in turn to tune into, as it so happens, their client’s satellite TV channel to watch the admittedly timeless episodes of Rachel and Friends, thus sending about $1.50 in revenues back to Burbank, California for each $1.00 spent on outsourcing. The labor savings and the incremental foreign revenues are strengthening the firm in the U.S. such that it can afford to hire more domestic workers. A spiraling win-win scenario, or so it would appear, were it not for the pesky competition all now filing into Bangalore, tilting the local supply-and-demand ratio towards ever inflating wages. Over time, as you would expect, the Bengaḷūrus will be able to command the same level of pay as the good folks back home in Burbank. That’s what “mean reversion” means in this case: everyone’s making the same rupees and watching the same TV shows (where the largest common denominator will, thank heavens, also be the lowest one – watch out Slumdog, here come Jessica Simpson’s hair extensions).

Aforementioned Buckets A and B deal with resource re-distribution and societal re-shaping, respectively. It is perhaps intuitive that according to the KOF (ETH Zürich) Index of Globalization, Belgium, Austria, and Sweden rank first among the world’s most globalized nations (and that despite ABBA!), while Iran, Burundi, and North Korea are plotting away in impressive isolation. Cynics will contend that although the driving forces behind globalization are well understood, corporations (mostly again in rich countries) are in the driver’s seat, and thus it is hardly surprising that globalization will follow a corporate, and almost by definition, opaque agenda. Others point to the “avengers” of globalization, those that are part of a nation’s diaspora, the reverse exodus of Western-trained workers back to their country of origin (such as the legions of highly educated and very successful Indians in Silicon Valley, for example, returning home to start new businesses in India). And of course, there are those who watch Roy Rogers movies on TCM and eat lots of apple pie and claim that the United States will never fall behind, because we – and nobody else! – have the monopoly on innovation. (I’ve got something innovative for you, and it’s not the Xbox 360: here in the States we’ve got more massage therapists entering the workforce every year than computer scientists; and we’re now graduating more social workers from our colleges than engineers – of course, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with massage therapy or social work, quite the contrary, but you shouldn’t then wonder why someone moved your cheese all the way from Chennai, or why there are as many Indians on the list of the top-ten richest people in the world as there are Americans.)

I’ll close with a contention that may well be controversial: our conception of globalization is about as relevant today as Paul Bremer’s last lecture in the Sunni auditorium at Baghdad University on why “Democracy is not a spectator sport.” Globalization has been a decidedly Western concept ever since the Greco-Roman world established trade links with the Parthians and the Han. It’s pretty evident that the Chinese and the Indians – the only two countries with more than a billion people each which together make up nearly 40% of the world’s population – find our notions of global connectivity, integration, and interdependence about as quaint as a Quaker’s chuckle. Bucket A, Bucket B, pro or con, it really doesn’t matter. You might as well try to explain to an Indian “classical” musician the difference between Mozart and Miles Davis or insist to a Chinese that opera is all about stout white men crooning Verdi. Give it another 30 years, and China will produce 40% of the world GDP, with the U.S. (15%) and the EU (5%) lagging emphatically behind. With Chinese economic hegemony and supremacy in hardware, and India’s leadership in software and an unrelenting focus on scientific and technical education, and a potential coming together of two powerful allies at the purposeful exclusion of the United States, the economic, political, and social constructs of the West have lost their relevance as far as the Dragon and the Tiger are concerned (notwithstanding the tragic reality that both countries will still have to lift hundreds of millions out of abject poverty.)

Please feel free to contact me (christophe.kolb@talenttrust.com) should you or your company be thinking about establishing an offshore presence in either India or China. Our company Talent Trust (http://www.talenttrust.com/) has a ten-year history and successful track record of doing business in both countries and helping our clients successfully navigate some of the challenges of globalization.

Advertisements

How to Survive a Viking Attack, Make a Citizen’s Arrest, and Other Useful Process Flows

Play with me here. In the year of Our Lord 793 you find yourself, regrettably so, on Lindisfarne off the north-east coast of England. The village and monastery on this tidal island are about to be ransacked by the original inventors of the hit-and-run maneuver, and the priory is in line for a much-needed makeover, courtesy of that justly feared Hammer of the North. The sound of those Viking horns makes you freeze like a scratched DVD, and the sight – and not to mention the smell! – of these seaborne savages in their famed longships … you’d much rather have Mickey Rourke in his birthday suit jumping out of your birthday cake any day of the week. Their firey dragons make for terrible portents over Northumbria, and along with the other affrightened inhabitants you get your first peek and whiff of the harrying of the heathen: fierce Norsemen looking like Nick Nolte on the lam – in all exceptional navigators with a patent disregard for personal hygiene – committing rapine and slaughter with such “frenzied efficacy” that The Times would later report: “And they came to the church of Lindisfarne, laid everything waste with grievous plundering, trampled the holy places with polluted feet, dug up the altars and seized all the treasures of the holy church. They killed some of the brothers; some they took away with them in fetters; many they drove out, naked and loaded with insults; and some they drowned in the sea.”

Despite such notable policy failures, as not even trying to win the hearts and minds of the few people left breathing after each raid (and in sharp contrast to say 21st century U.S. military strategy), there was most definitely some method to the madness. Viking attacks were as agile as any Ken Schwaber (“father of”) Scrum. Runic inscriptions on the Kjula runestone and the Inchmarnock “hostage stone” as well as excavated evidence near Roskilde Fjord show that the Vikings had a Dark Ages version of a project methodology. From stating long-term objectives (demographic, geopolitical, securing food supplies), spelling out short-term deliverables (repeatable and best-practice pillaging across the Baltic coastline), to specifying means and tools (a chain-mail hauberk or equivalent armor made of metal platelets, conical helmet featuring a protective nasal bar – sorry no horns on the sides, circular shield of stout limewood, swords, spears, and the dangerously “bearded axe”, and finally, one heck of a bad attitude).

The contemporary writings of Alcuin of York, also known as Alcuinus or Ealhwine, would portray the Norse raiders as self-organizing teams that were adapt at responding to change, as opposed to following a plan; amenable to collaboration but disdainful of contracts; they were leaning more towards being individualistic rather than being process-oriented; and had there been software in their days, they’d definitely prefer it to be a “working prototype” over comprehensive documentation. The Vikings as ideological brethren of today’s Agile software development teams? How preposterous! What would that say about the interplay of process and discipline (or the respective lack thereof) which is so crucial to Agile? And is there perhaps an element of “chaos” that might serve a certain purpose, after all?

In Agile software development, discipline without process is blind, while process without discipline is empty (to borrow from Kant’s famous dictum). Discipline and process are indeed intertwined in Scrum which is an iterative framework for Agile software development and project management. Work is structured in cycles of work called sprints, iterations of work that are typically two to four weeks in duration. During each sprint, teams pull from a prioritized list of customer requirements, called user stories, so that the features that are developed first are of the highest value to the customer. At the end of each sprint, a potentially shippable product is delivered.

When Jeff Sutherland created the Scrum process in 1993, he borrowed the term “scrum” from an analogy put forth in a 1986 study by Takeuchi and Nonaka, published in the Harvard Business Review. In that study, Takeuchi and Nonaka compare high-performing, cross-functional teams to the scrum formation used by Rugby teams. Ken Schwaber formalized the process for the worldwide software industry in the first published paper on Scrum at OOPSLA 1995. Since then, Scrum has become one of the leading Agile development methodologies, used by Fortune 500 companies around the world. In short, Scrum is made up of three roles, three ceremonies, and three artifacts. The three roles are: the Product Owner, who is responsible for the business value of the project; the ScrumMaster, who ensures that the team is functional and productive; and the self-organized team. The three ceremonies are: the sprint planning meeting, daily scrum meetings, and sprint review meetings. Lastly, the three artifacts for prioritizing and tracking tasks are: the product backlog, the sprint backlog, and the “burndown” chart.

There is no (more) denying that Agile software development is more successful than traditional project management for software delivery (e.g., a sequential software development process like the waterfall model). Just like it’s a historical fact that Viking attack were messy but effective. In the past, the Agile community used to defend its own “messiness” (we’re not code-slinging cowboys, but a little creative chaos is a good thing) and try to prove its effectiveness. Nowadays, Agile has become so mainstream that its leading practitioners are at pains to explain how it is still different – especially when deployed at large project scales – from previous process improvement methodologies. After all, once the hullabaloo and proto-Norse shouting had subsided, was a Viking formation really that different from say a Roman legion? Having run a number of larger Agile projects myself for our clients at Talent Trust (http://www.talenttrust.com/), I can offer up three observations for why Agile is indeed different and better:

  1. Just by virtue of being an “improvement process” alone, it forces you to define the things that you wish to and need to observe, measure, and effect. Even if you didn’t follow through on the rest of the methodology, you’d already have gained an advantage by creating a “map of key observables” in the software development lifecycle.
  2. Agile really won’t work unless you’re very disciplined – no mystery there, as you’d have to be more disciplined to compensate for less process rigor. But furthermore, it is discipline that matters: a regimented approach to team training (otherwise nothing will work); closely controlled and strictly enforced adherence to scope; a rigorous way to do effort estimation; and an open and honest peer-based culture of information sharing. Yes, all of this takes tremendous discipline on a daily basis that will naturally accrue to the benefit of your project and IT organization.
  3. An explicit acknowledgement that software development is both an inherently creative and collaborative process. Just putting the words “software,” “creative,” “collaborative” and “process” in one sentence will give you a clue that there’s a creative spark at work here that’s a) difficult to manage and b) the cause of consternation for “traditional types,” as predictable schedules have indeed become a thing of the past.

As an aside, the odds of surviving a Viking attack, especially if you were a book of hours-illuminating or medicinal Rosemary-plucking monk ca. 793 – 1066 A.D., were about as low as a George Carlin joke. However, here’s what you can do to increase your chances of living to fight another day: a buddy system is always recommended, though an early-warning system (sentries stationed in equal spacings along the seashore) is deemed to be even more effective. Brush up, if you can, on your dönsk tunga (the “Danish Tongue”), norrœnt mál (Norse language), or Old Gutnish, a peculiar Gotland dialect, for these brutes didn’t speak English at the time, and translators were typically the last in line to meet Odin, Thor and gang. If you can muster the courage, it will be to your advantage to use long-range weaponry such as the English longbow or a crossbow, as your Viking opponent will prefer to slay you in hand-to-hand combat, which he believes to be infinitely more honorable than distance-killing (take that for a fact, Mr. Rumsfeld). And whatever you do, don’t feed their cute little birds of prey – they’re raptor gryphons trained to eat your eyes out.

And to follow through on the other title teaser: you must adhere to a very specific process when apprehending your felonious fellow man, if you’re not acting as a sworn law-enforcement official. Notify authorities if you can; evaluate the situation clearly; say “Stop;” inform the suspect that he’s under citizen’s arrest; try to convince him not to leave until a police officer comes; be firm and matter-of-fact; in the U.S., a Miranda Warning is only required if you are both detaining and questioning the suspect at the same time; for clarification, you do not need to read the suspect his rights if you first question and then detain him; call the local authorities and identify yourself to the police when they arrive; try to stay calm at all times. This is, of course, an example of a process flow that is bound to get you in trouble – and probably end up looking like Rihanna if you try to do this at home and home happens to be Queens – if you’re not agile and you don’t have the discipline (or in fact the guts) for follow-through.

Leverage or Perish!

The scenario is an all-too familiar one: meet the Head of Application Development for a multi-billion-dollar revenue firm with global operations. For this account, we shall call him “Mr. Stockbridge” for his territoire includes all software old and new, building, maintaining, upgrading, and further integrating the application portfolio – sometimes referred to as “the app zoo” – as well as R&D, and which is delineated in jovial collegial “Upstairs, Downstairs” manner, literally by a flight of stairs and if by Higher mandate from the realm of his peer, the CTO and “the guys down below” who worry about such seemingly trivial ‘plumbing matters’ as infrastructure, hosting, datacenters, data privacy, overall systems performance and security, etc.

Mr. Stockbridge – a lot less standoffish and snobbish a man than his celluloid namesake, the Marquis acted out to perfection, of course, by the loveable Anthony Andrews opposite the venerable Gordon Jackson – has a problem, a big one, and a hard one as such, but he’s not alone with it (oh, what I meant: unfortunately, he is all alone with his own problem, but other Heads of Application Development at other firms have it, too).

You see, his boss, the company CFO nonetheless (incidentally, in many a corporate hierarchy nowadays a most logical configuration, for whose avuncular fingers are better equipped to clip the wings of Icarus, to curb IT’s flight too close to the sun of techiedom, and to keep in check that otherwise rampant overreaching, overspending, and overpromising that’s supposedly just what ‘we IT guys’ do), has returned from his prolonged budget meeting on Mount Olympus to make the following pronouncement which surprises no one but likewise scares everyone: the current headcount will stay flat until year-end, though an imperceptibly small budget increase for new “specialty” hires has been approved for those projects dear to the CFO’s heart. IT is expected to not only maintain but to increase productivity and project output by an estimated 30% (take that to your next Committee hearing on the “jobless recovery,” Mr. Bernanke). To make matters worse, the technology mix has shifted considerably over the last 12 months thus challenging the ‘skills readiness’ of a good portion of the staff to be able to outperform (if even just to perform) in their present jobs. Plus there are some further hard architectural choices to make (for that global webification push!) that demand more than just the proverbial blood, sweat, and tears – they require the brains of people not distracted by playing perpetual catch-up with that ever-growing backlog of ‘IT business requirements’ dispatched, unfortunately, by those who pay the bills, the business owners. And lest I forget, Mr. Stockbridge, the charismatic new head of Sales & Marketing with that operatic temper (charming only to the colleagues in Italy and Spain) is loudly asking about the new CRM rollout that was promised this quarter (there we go again). The United States Marine Corps has a saying to sum up such rank sentiment: “the beatings will continue until morale improves.”

In fact, I’ve just returned from a visit to Stockbridge’s office-cum-requisite-war-room, a cerebral but no less acute situation desk to make General Petraeus proud – with, surprisingly, no blood on the floor but rather a set of well-thought-out, high-level objectives on the white board:

  • Make do with what we have;
  • Make small changes (that’s all we can afford) that make a big difference;
  • Leverage the existing team (never forget: team motivation is key!);
  • Create an elastic and offshore-leveraged workforce (review local consultant spend vs. a “global flexforce”?);
  • Assess offshore readiness (who on the team can manage in a distributed project environment?);
  • Assess skills gaps in the organization (and how do we bridge them?);
  • Up-skilling / right-sizing / bringing in external help (caution: difficult conversations ahead!);
  • Shorten the path-to-beneficial-use for upgrading internal or importing external “new” skills (if third-parties, whom to trust?; and sorry, no, we cannot afford IBM or Accenture);
  • Centralize solutions portfolio / central hosting / local configuration / create global best practices for deployment (divide and conquer: local vs. global teams);
  • A focused, effective, and realistic approach to upgrading our project management skills to improve outcomes (but please no Greek letters!);
  • Go make it happen!

It won’t come as a mortal shock to my regular readers that the aforementioned white board scenario represents a near-perfect use case for why IT leaders should consider remote staff augmentation. Together with the right remote staffing partner, you will selectively and quickly deploy IT professionals located offshore and manage them as a virtual extension, so to speak, to your own team. Your staff will not panic or lose morale, as you’re not really offshoring entire projects or outsourcing entire functions (and remember the old adage that you should never outsource your problems). These remote IT professionals can either be tasked to maintain legacy code, while your local team can be charged to tackle the new and technically more cutting-edge projects, or vice versa (if perhaps you’re lacking those ‘hot skills,’ such as Ruby on Rails, internally). Furthermore, by having your line managers manage these resources as part of a distributed work team, you will quickly realize improvements – by “gentle necessity,” that is – in project management skills and outcomes, as your people will bring just a little more forethought, discipline, and governance to bear on these distributed projects. No McKinsey, no Six Simga needed.

Good luck, Mr. Stockbridge, who incidentally just called back after somebody had ‘misplaced’ a flipchart of additional “what remote staff augmentation can do for you” notes in his office:

  • Typical savings range from 30-50% compared to the cost of local consultants;
  • Stretch the budget to really do more with less (e.g., eliminate project backlog, improve IT’s responsiveness to business requests);
  • Acquire IT skills that don’t exist in-house or are scarce in the local market;
  • Rapidly deploy IT professionals (individuals or teams) as contractors without additional staff overhead;
  • Handle fluctuations in project demand through “talent on tap” (smoothing out the troughs and valleys in workload while maintaining fixed staff level);
  • Enjoy the direct benefits of going offshore without the hidden costs / risks (no set-up cost, no minimum project size); and
  • It’s a solution that works for companies of all sizes and is viable at any project scale.