--Better Estimating through Time Studies--

I'm haggling with a co-worker about how long it will take to do something (a repetitive procedure that is worked on weekly, throughout the course of the week). We are not getting anywhere with our haggling (of course we both think we are correct )...

So, I'm going to keep track of how long I spend on what this week (exciting, eh?) by recording the times in a spreadsheet. We'll take a look next week and see who was correct -- I mean which estimate was correct.

Sometimes keeping a quick journal (paper, Excel, whatever) of what time is spent on what is enough to get you a bit more perspective on how long (or little) you spend working on what. The recorded times usually surprises people.

Remember that the basis of estimates is previous experience. *Recorded* experience can help guide future estimates.

--When do you pull the plug?--

One of my co-workers was trying to get back from Charlotte (to O'Hare) this evening. The weather was predicted to be horrible at O'Hare including tornado warnings, severe thunderstorm warnings, and hail (I know that is a bit redundant, but the hail is what supposedly canceled all the flights). At 2pm Charlotte-time all flights up to 8pm were canceled and the 8pm one was the only one left. I suggested he just cut his losses and go get a hotel room, have a nice dinner, and get a good night's rest because there was a good chance his flight would be canceled.

It was. But not until 9:30pm his time. (So he waited at the airport from 2pm until 9:30pm to find out what we both suspected -- they would cancel his flight...)

So at what point do you cut your losses and just give up on something?

I think it is human nature to hold on to hope that a situation will turn itself around, but how to balance that with common sense? I suppose part of it is based on experience. I have been doing business travel for 22+ years. I know the signs... And there is the desire to "get home" that might cloud judgment.

I guess the only advice I can give about this is if you have a gut-hunch that the airline is going to cancel your flight, AND you have "status" with the airline, cut your losses and ask to be re-booked on the next day's flight. I'm told you want to be on the earlier flights if possible, but from my perspective, if that means getting up at 5am, the heck with that...

I guess this has a broader business application: be self-aware of your situation to know when to cut your losses and change your approach. The weather -- and many other things -- are totally out of your control.

--Is a small effort a project?--

One of my students recently asked if creating something for her office, by herself (a one-person team), was a project. Of course I said yes.

How can a one-person effort be a project? Well a project is any effort that has a defined start, a defined end (or deadline), a defined goal, and has resources involved. Remember that resources are anything that help you finish a task: people, machines, money, permits, etc.

Even when working on something yourself, you usually have to give some type of status or report how close to finished you are. You can't really tell how close to finish you are without some type of plan. In order to do a plan, you have to clearly define the goal.

So I would argue that any effort where you:

1. Clearly define the goal (and perhaps what the goal *is not*)
2. Plan your work (to-do list, steps, major deliverables)
3. Manage that work to meet expectations (budget, deadline, quality standards)

...is a project!

--Politics and Religion--

There is a saying that one should not talk about politics or religion at social events. I think the saying has been corrupted over the years from "you should not talk politics because politics are religion."

With yet another US election coming up, and strong feelings (either way) about the current leadership, now would be the time to have open discussions about politics and points of view. However that doesn't seem to be possible any more. "Discussion" consists of people with inflexible points of view, arrived at by some inferential jump that they cannot explain, attempting to convince the other point of view that they are wrong. And stupid. I'm not sure how that started, but lately it seems that many people have the attitude that others should blindly agree with them, otherwise the dissenters are stupid. Years ago I was taught in public speaking that when a party resorts to personal attacks, it is because they realize they have lost the logical argument. Something to consider with the current individual and party mud-slinging.

Political discussion should be a discussion, not an argument, where both sides explain their position, and attempt to understand the other person's point of view. A good discussion should be one where both parties walk away pondering the ideas of the other. Ideally, that would lead to more discussion.

I just tried to find a favorite Thomas Jefferson quote about this, but of course cannot at this time. The gist of it is: "Disagreement leads to discussion, and discussion leads to truth."

At a time when there are such strong emotional and irrational attitudes being taken, we need more discussions about political beliefs and how they were formed or decided. But just as you cannot "argue" that Buddhists are "better" than Methodists, the discussions should strive for understanding more than one's own perspective.

--Pregnant Pauses and E-mail--

E-mail gives the illusion of immediacy. If the person receiving the message happens to be at the keyboard and happens to read your message and happens to be moved to immediately reply to said message, well, e-mail can appear to be pretty immediate. Sometimes this is not good.

An immediate reply might mean the other person might be clearing out their inbox. Or perhaps they were waiting for your message. Or perhaps they are bored out of their mind and this distraction is just what they needed. Maybe the other person is working on a different assignment or task and this brief e-mail check was a quick mental break before diving back into the work at hand.

So what does a long pause before replying to an e-mail mean? Nothing! There are an unlimited number of reasons someone might not "immediately" reply to an e-mail. Perhaps their Internet provider is having technical difficulties. Perhaps they are busy on a telephone call and (appropriately and politely) are giving that call all of their attention. Perhaps (*gasp*) they walked away from the computer to do something else. There might also be a chance that they are thinking about their reply, so that they communicate correctly and make sure the so-called "tone" (e-mail does not have tone!!!) of the message is as intended.

More than 80% of communication is non-verbal. That means (at best) e-mail communicates 20% of the real message. Because of this, people try to read too much into the choice of words in the e-mail, the "timeliness" of the e-mail reply, and sometimes even the font choice, font color, and font size. Good grief!

Also consider that (especially in business) perhaps the other person is talking or e-mailing with several other people to get their opinions, perspectives, and advice about the current situation. As more people are consulted, the delay before a reply is increased. Usually.

So what is wrong with immediate replies? Immediate replies re-enforce the impression that e-mail is immediate (or "always" immediate). Immediate replies might also give the impression that not a lot of care or thought went into the reply. Immediate replies also can confuse the other person when all of a sudden there is a long delay or pregnant pause before receiving another reply (which - remember - might not mean anything). I'd suggest you consider the implication of an immediate reply before firing it off. There is nothing wrong with focusing on the task at hand, and check e-mail perhaps slightly more frequently than you check your postal mail. (Some senior executives advocate two to three times a day as the maximum number of times they and their reports check e-mail!)