Stores worry that the unscrupulous might steal” the PIN a customer’s debit card by watching that customer enter it on the keypad.
That’s not totally bogus.
Here’s the solution one national chain and their payment vendor came up with.
See the rubber thingy surrounding the keypad? Supposedly, it makes it harder for an observer to see what you’re typing.
Only one problem. It makes it darn near impossible to actually type your PIN, your phone number, or anything else that uses keys other than 5, 8, 0, or backspace. The guard overhangs the keys and prevents you from pressing them naturally.
For the past month, every time I’ve shopped at this chain, I’ve wanted to rip the cover away.
Well, it looks like at least one branch of the chain heard me – and hundreds of others like me, according the the employee I spoke with (off the record, of course). It’s the same new machine, with the slot for chip-based cards, but they tore off the rubber covers at each of their registers.
That’s understanding the client’s real needs.
It’s hard, because I’m sure there are a number of loss-prevention folks telling them they need the covers to stay secure – though I bet they actually need the covers to appear secure, so they can use them as a defense should they be accused of making it too easy on thieves and fraudsters. Nonetheless, these employees, presumably with the support of the store manager, recognized that they’d lose more business alienating customers, and responded to their customers’ needs.
What are you doing in the name of “we have to do it this way” that alienates your clients? Do you really have to do it that way, or are there alternatives you could employ?
There are almost always alternatives. Each comes with some level of risk and some level of reward, including the “safe” alternative (which is never totally safe, with zero risk). Use your project management skills to spot these alternatives, to evaluate them on a broad scale, and then to recommend and take the action that benefits you most in the long term.
(Now if this chain could fix the by-design error in their programming that prevents me from entering my sometimes-get-a-discount customer number before the clerk has rung up the first item, which slows the express lines down significantly when everyone has only one or two items. They don’t want someone leaving a number in a transaction they abandon, say, because the clerk isn’t actually at the register, but how hard would it be to make the machines accept input anytime the register is signed in/active and the previous transaction has concluded?)
By the way, when you shop, just block the keypad with your body. Add your non-typing hand as a shield, if you want a bit more privacy.
Over at Above the Law, Keith Lee has an interesting and iconoclastic article titled “Manage Expectations Before They Bite You In The Ass.” After an entertaining shaggy-dog story, he gets to the real point – lawyers need to manage client expectations.
Project management is all about expectations.
What verb would you put ahead of “expectations”? Keith uses “manage,” as do most project managers.
Let me suggest a better alternative.
Set expectations. Set them for your clients, your partners, your team.
Managing is damage control. You’re tying to course-correct something that’s already happened.
Sometimes, of course, that’s necessary. But you’ll have far fewer corrections to embark upon if you set expectations up front.
Few litigators let the other side have a free run at their jury. They know the importance of setting jury expectations early (with occasional tactical exceptions). Same goes for your clients and team.
Set those expectations. That’s your first line of defense. Manage them afterwards as necessary, but get out in front when you can. Set expectations.
Ever wonder why it rains so often in Seattle, or if we exaggerate it in an effort to keep the Californians at bay?
Here’s a satellite photo (visible spectrum) from this afternoon, with the outline of the West Coast superimposed in blue. That river of rain is aimed squarely at the Pacific Northwest, in particular Seattle and Vancouver (BC).
I don’t think we’re going to see ol’ Mr. Sun for a few days….
“Marissa is the type of boss that makes you feel like you’re disappointing her at all times, so I always feel like I’m on the verge of being fired,” said [Senior VP Jeff] Bonforte…. “It’s never, ‘Way to go, Jeff!'”
If that situation sounds like something your team might say, it’s time to make a resolution to change. Now. Because you’re not getting their best work. Fear motivates people not to fail, until it doesn’t, because it’s unsustainable. Praise motivates people not just to succeed, but to blow past expectations. And it is sustainable.
Too often, for various reasons, we manage by fear. It someones sort-of works, but not nearly as well as creating a supportive environment. To be a better manager, be a leader.
On another note, I’m saddened by the passing of David Bowie overnight. I’d been listening to and enjoying his music since 1967, when I first heard his eponymous and totally forgotten/unheard first album (before Changes, Hunky Dory, etc.). So the soundtrack for this morning is a song from that first album, and one from his last.
(Disclaimer: I know Paul, and we’ve worked together on a couple of things.)
He speculates on the probabilities of various ways this mess might have gone down. The probabilities are not real data, of course, but Paul evidences an understanding of how things work in high-tech that so many commentators have missed.
VW might not be “high-tech” in the sense of Microsoft or Google, but software engineering is a major part of modern vehicles, and it’s likely VW’s software engineering is closer to high-tech that to, say, aircraft design.1
What he gets absolutely right is the high probability that this mess involved only a handful of engineers. If it involved Legal at all, it’s likely the attorney in the loop – in house or outside – lacked a full understanding of what was being discussed. The attorney may have suppressed qualms because of a lack of understanding. I’d add the possibilities that a junior attorney a) didn’t feel qualified to object and felt dumb about not understanding or b) offered guidance but didn’t follow up to see whether it was followed.
We obviously don’t know what happened. I don’t think that’s the point of Paul’s article, and it certainly isn’t the point of mine. Instead, I want to point out the lack of communication and trust between engineering and legal in many organizations, especially in the high-tech world. Each speaks a specialized jargon, and often each is convinced that their worldview is the only one that matters. Obviously this isn’t true for all engineers or attorneys or organizational cultures, but I’ve seen it played out enough to know that it is not at all uncommon.
“This Meddlesome Priest”
Finally, let me add one more scenario I haven’t heard anyone discuss here.
You might recognize the quotation in the heading above. It’s the traditional musing attributed to King Henry II about Thomas Becket, perhaps best known from the wonderful film Becket.2 Is he asking someone to do the deed, or is he simply whining? Either way, four of his knights took it as an order.
It’s not impossible that a senior manager at VW asked, “Can’t someone figure out how we can pass these emissions tests?” Perhaps an engineer took it as an instruction to cheat. Or perhaps someone took it literally, and figured out how to make the cars pass emissions tests.
Using Paul’s scales, I’d give this a 5% or even 10% likelihood, based on my background in engineering, management, and legal departments.
Shouldn’t Someone Have Known?
One opinion I’ve heard, when I’ve talked with colleagues about these possibilities, is that management should have known something was amiss.
Maybe. In fact, probably, but not at all certainly.
Other cars were passing the tests. VW believed in its engineers and expected them to solve previously unconquerable problems. Somehow, they solved this one, too – one which likely got little attention in the thousand things it takes to get a car to market. “Hey, Joe, are we passing those US emissions tests?” “Yeah, looks like it.” “Cool.”
How Do Companies Prevent These Things From Happening?
Ah. There’s the problem, and it’s a hard one.3 There are cultural issues, and communications issues, and too-many-managers-focused-on-their-own-limited-objectives issues. These are very hard problems.
A good, open, thorough, and non-predisposed investigation into how this happened at VW would be a good start – not to apportion blame, but to help understand the genesis and development of the chosen solution to the emissions issue – and how no one caught it.
Meanwhile, kudos to Paul for being a rare writer who has an understanding of how both the legal worlds and engineering worlds work – and how they work (and don’t work) together.
I read an interesting quote this morning from investment guru Dave Blood:
There were companies that had the same toxic short-term culture in those days—Drexel, Salomon, Bear Stearns, Kidder, Lehman…. They’re all gone. If you look at what happened to them, it was all failures of culture: governance, leadership, incentive structures, values. That’s why they failed…. Long-term business success requires a holistic view, involving teamwork, integrity, values.
He goes on to describe why these factors are connected in a causal relationship.
How does this apply to law firms going forward?
Leadership and teamwork4 – two key principles of Legal Project Management. Two areas where Legal Project Management training can help to change the way lawyers not just work with clients but build a firm’s future.
Legal Project Management is more than a series of tips and techniques. It’s a mindset. And it matters for the future.
How are you ensuring your practice’s future via your next generation of lawyers?
Buses in Seattle used to say “Out of Service” when they were being repositioned – moved, say, to the start of the route they will serve next. Now they say “To Terminal.”
What gives? And who cares?
Imagine: It’s rush hour. You’re waiting for a bus. And you see three buses in a row marked “Out of Service.” How does that make you feel about the efficiency and effectiveness of the transit system? Do we keep buying buses that break down? Or is the scheduling so bad that they’re taking buses off the road at the very moment I’m waiting for one the city needs them most?
The new wording makes the situation clearer.5 They’re not out of service, broken, or dumb-scheduled. Rather, they’re going to where they’re needed, and soon, maybe, one of them will pick me up. (Seattle’s King County Metro also uses a cool app called OneBusAway that tells users exactly where their bus is right now, which my son relies on for getting to school by leaving the house at the last possible minute.)
Are You “Out of Service” When You Communicate?
When you communicate with the client, or with your team, what messages are you delivering? “Out of Service” – or simply “Out” on the small sign on the back of the bus – is not inaccurate, but the message received isn’t necessarily the message intended.
And in communication, reception and perception are reality. The receiver doesn’t care what you meant.
Lawyers live and die, in effect, via communication. Yet so often they do not communicate effectively.
“Effectively” is the key word.
Consider the average contract, where lawyers spend days trying to get the wording absolutely clear.6 That’s fine – probably – for most contracts, but that’s not communication, at least not in a form useful for communicating directly with the client or the team. “Unambiguous” and “effective” are not the same thing.
I’m not suggesting that ambiguity is necessarily a good thing, but rather that communicating the key message clearly trumps the need for no-contingency-uncovered legalspeak. Two sentences that seem similar to you might not be at all the same to the client.
Think not just about the message you want to deliver, but how it will be received. And focus on the reception of it, not the delivery.
After all, you don’t want your client to think you should be “Out of Service.”
Liza: He treats a flower girl as if she was a duchess. Higgins: And I treat a duchess as if she was a flower girl. – George Bernard Shaw, Pygmalion (it’s in My Fair Lady, too)
Even if you’re not a fan of these kinds of movies (see below), I recommend you see this one with a project manager’s eye.
Here’s a spoiler-free list of lessons you might want to note.
Keep pushing forward in the face of failure. Stuff happens. You can either give up, or look for workarounds. Obviously, for astronaut Mark Watney, giving up means dying. But we generally don’t want to give up on our projects, either, even if it’s not life-or-death.
Look at goals, not methods. When things go wrong, Watney remains focused on the ultimate goal. (Or goals, since the key goal – the means of survival – changes partway through the movie.)
Assume others are doing their job. You cannot be a one-person show. You see this not only in Watney, who assumes people on Earth might be wondering what happened, but in the folks doing things at NASA.
It takes a variety of people, with different skill sets, to pull off complex projects. (This goes for the movie itself too, with terrific, understated performances in smaller roles by Jeff Daniels and Jessica Chastain.)
“Do the math.” This phrase comes up a number of times, along with “I’m going to science the *@&^ out of it.” Use facts where you have them, educated guesses where you don’t. But learn as much as you can – and then act, knowing full well that there remains much you don’t know and cannot determine.
Just because it smells bad doesn’t mean it isn’t useful. (Anything more would be a spoiler here. Sorry.)
Keep your sense of humor in the midst of a failing project. It will keep you sane, and it may keep you alive.
I used to semi-joke about three categories of software issues with my colleagues: 1. Can anyone die? 2. Does it touch our fiscal systems? 3. Everything else. VW’s software issues are category 3.
What? You don’t know it? Go rent it this weekend. Seriously.
No, the answer isn’t Legal Project Management. :-)
And values, indirectly.
Is “To Terminal” the best wording? I don’t know, but “To Terminal” remains a vast improvement.
Except for sections they leave intentionally ambiguous.
Skip the 3D version, which is dim and feels both distant and confining. Get caught up in the big-screen 2D version. I saw the 3D version, then dropped into the auditorium next door in the multiplex to see twenty minutes of the 2D version. Trust me. Go 2D.