jump to navigation

CT Small Business Climate April 16, 2010

Posted by Gary in : Uncategorized , add a comment

I recently attended the 2010 Connecticut Gubernatorial Forum on Jobs, Innovation & Technology sponsored by the CT Technology Council. The event was held at GE’s edgelab (edgelab.ge.com) at the UCONN campus in Stamford. Both Democratic and Republican candidates (11 in all) participated. The format was a question and answer panel discussion. It was not a debate.

The audience was composed of representatives from the technology and business community. The intent of the forum was to hear each candidate’s position on the issues facing CT technology business. Specifically job growth, transportation, energy costs and in general, simply improving the business climate in CT via innovation and technology.

First a few stark quotes about the current state of CT business from various candidates:
1. CT is last (50 out of 50 states) in job retention
2. CT is 46 out of 50 states in small business growth
3. CT has the most expensive energy costs (76% above the National average)
4. CT is losing more young people than any other state
5. Only CT and Michigan have had 20 years of negative growth

The picture painted was bleak, especially considering that CT has a $3-$4 billion deficit looming in the coming years. All candidates were in agreement that the same-old way of doing business has failed and MUST change. They recognize that small companies are the engine of job growth in CT and that CT MUST get better at attracting and keeping business. It must create an environment where small business and innovation can flourish.

How can CT redefine itself? Few specifics offered, but some general themes emerged.

Create an atmosphere of consistency. Frequent legislation and tax code changes in CT has created an atmosphere of uncertainty. Candidates stated that CT companies do not feel they can not place any credibility in a 5 or 10 year-plan. One example was the favorable tax climate to attract and grow media and movie business in CT. Unfortunately this was followed in just a few years by a turn-around in policy.

Many candidates stressed the need for the Governor to be more open and proactive in attracting business. Become an effective partner with the business company. One way of accomplishing this is to combine the more than 220 State Agencies and then streamline their operations. This was considered essential however due to its disruptive nature in displacing workers very difficult to achieve.

Leverage the many Universities in the state to create a culture of innovation. The success of the Yale and biopharma industry or the GE edgelab and UCONN relationship were cited as success stories. All except one candidate wanted to expand the funding of the very successful Connecticut Innovations quasi-state agency to start-up new tech businesses.

So whoever is elected as the next Governor of CT will face a huge set of challenges but could really make a difference.

Selecting a Channel Partner December 31, 2008

Posted by Gary in : Uncategorized , add a comment

One of the challenges I face this year is selecting and managing channel partners. Although this is not entirely a new experience it is the first time that I have determined to actively manage the relationships. In the past, partnership arrangements have been created solely by expertise in a certain technology.  For example we became experienced with a specific microprocessor family and toolset and developed a solution partner relationship with the vendor.  The relationship was casual with few interactions. And as one might expect we had had mixed results; some referrals, some proposals, and minimal actual work.

I began to think whether having channel partner relationships are really helpful towards meeting our business development goals. I believe they can be. But I need to figure out how to make the partnership work.

So I began asking questions.

I have many more questions with few answers so far. But it is a beginning. I will have more to say about channel partnerships as the year progresses.

Business Planning, where is the real value? February 8, 2008

Posted by Gary in : Uncategorized , add a comment

As we finish up this year’s business planning process for Advanced Decisions I look back at all the discussion and ideas debated. As with any practical plan, not everything desired could be included. There remain some pretty good thoughts sitting on the sidelines waiting for their moment.

We see many threats that can and will impact our business. Not the least of which are the current global economic turbulence and continuing tight labor market in certain areas.  However, having a plan that includes realistic threats and risk mitigation strategies allow us to approach the new fiscal year with a sense of optimism and confidence.

The value of our Business Plan is that we can visualize how to achieve our goals.

Happy New Year January 9, 2008

Posted by Gary in : Uncategorized , add a comment

After a prolonged absence, I am back.  Writing, for me, is difficult. I find myself doing almost anything to avoid it. This is not a good formula to become an active blogger. Something needs to change … me.

Effective communications is essential to most every job. And it is especially so for a consultant. Gathering and writing requirements for the next project is at least as important as the system architecture, design and code. I believe that regular writing in any venue will improve writing in all areas.

The blogosphere is full of serious writers, reporters, journalists and just plain ordinary folk who have something to say … hopefully something interesting. I plan to fit in the latter category.

I look forward to hearing from you. Please comment, criticize, question; let’s create a dialogue.

Part 2 — What can you do when a project goes terribly wrong? June 4, 2007

Posted by Gary in : Uncategorized , add a comment

In my previous blog I recommended steps to follow and pitfalls to avoid once a project is in trouble. Now that we have a strategy for change and have management buy-in, it is time to take action.

It is best to start by assembling the entire project team and communicating the change strategy. In order to turn-around a failing project effectively you need buy-in from all the team members — even those not directly involved in implementing the change.

The project plan and schedule needs to be revised and shared with all team members. This is a good time to ask a few questions. Do we have enough or the right resources to move forward? Do we have the right tools? One common outcome I have noticed with projects that get into trouble, is that the original project team did not have the appropriate level of expertise in a new technology. To turn the project around you may need to add a temporary resource with special skills. Find this resource(s) - fast! Get the right tools. Then update the schedule.

Once the Team is assembled, start at the beginning. Review Requirements, Architecture, Design and Test Procedures, in that order. Make necessary modifications before starting development.

As you can see there is a lot of legwork before you can effectively change the course of a project, but you must do it for the project to be successful.

What can you do when the project goes terribly wrong? April 23, 2007

Posted by Gary in : Uncategorized , add a comment

The key is to recognize the warning signs to prevent a disaster. It is really not too hard to do but does require discipline. Maintaining an open communication pathway between consultant and client is the cornerstone of any successful strategy.

Let’s start with identification of the problem(s). Usually multiple problems becomes intertwined. Through the use of good debugging skills one can get at the underlying causes. A clear statement of the problem is necessary before a solution can be undertaken. This is a good time to alert the client. Even though a clear-cut solution is not ready, it is a good thing to let the client know early that there is a problem and your current understanding.

Tackle the cause of the problem. Most often the initial statement of the problem is merely a symptom. It is important to step back and seek underlying causes and question assumptions. I usually go back to the architecture and design documents to see why certain decisions were made that could influence the stated problem.  The most dangerous thing to do at this stage is rush to judgment. Immediate action does not necessarily mean effective change. It may look good to be taking action but until you are confident that you have identified the root of the problem you could be making the situation worse. Once again keep the client informed but do not yet suggest a solution.

Develop a strategy for change. There will probably be multiple potential solutions to consider. Take the time to consider the effect of the change within the context of the requirements, design and current project plan. The optimal solution will address all of the above with appropriate trade-offs and compromises. Now is the time to really involve the client. Explain the pros and cons of each solution and your reason for choosing a selected pathway. Buy-in here is important because it will usually require change to project schedule and / or budget.

Ok we are halfway there, next blog is what comes next (hint it is not coding!)

Project Turn-around – Crisis Intervention December 14, 2006

Posted by Gary in : Uncategorized , add a comment
Several years ago a client of ours was on a collision course with a brick wall while developing a new product. As usual the project was 6 months behind schedule, the client’s customer was extremely unhappy with no delivery and no one had had confidence that the project would be complete at all.

That is when I was hired. Fortunately I had worked with this client before so I knew who really knew what was going on. I was able to obtain copies of the specifications and project schedules. As expected both were incomplete. The project schedule was based upon delivery dates not the actual level of effort to perform the individual tasks. I asked management what leeway I had to effect changes. Quite a bit, actually, as long as the project was completed “successfully”.

I gathered the development team around and asked why is the project where it is. There were so many reasons but the main thread was that no one knew exactly what was expected of each and none believed or bought into the published schedules. Of course the requirements specification was weak, aren’t they always, but surprisingly the team seemed to have a pretty good idea of what the product was supposed to do. They also wanted to succeed.

Following a review of the documentation, code base and the issues stated by the development team, I was able to formulate an approach not yet a project plan. I recommended to management that all software development stop immediately. That we needed to complete the requirements definition ASAP, get management buy-in and then focus on the architecture. Fortunately the underlying technology was not an issue. Once those two items were taken care of we could produce a new schedule with buy-in from each developer. I was also able to determine if we had the right mix of skill levels. I noticed we needed a senior DB designer and a Software Quality Assurance person to be embedded in the team. Management was agreeable.

Finally the personnel were in place and a new project plan was published. Not exactly the dates management wanted but they were prepared to give us a chance to prove the turnaround. A key component of the new schedule was demonstrable milestones that could be shown to management and to their customer to gauge progress. I believe that was essential in management’s decision to approve the schedule. So how did we do? Well, there were many bumps in the road but the process was transparent so we could address issues early. The product was ready for delivery very close to the schedule’s published delivery date and the end-user was NOT ready. Finally the product was installed and turned over to the end-user.

Then I took a vacation!