« September 2008 | Main | April 2009 »
January 7, 2009
You say you want a resolution ...
Typically, I do not make New Year's resolutions, but having resolved to blog more (see item 5 below) it felt appropriate to start with some goals for 2009. Let's see...
1. I will radically prune slideware.
One of my great pleasures in 2008 has been the result of wiring my Zune so I can listen in the kitchen while cooking, and subscribing to numerous podcasts from BBC Radio 4 and Radio Scotland. It is almost like being back home. Just over the last week or so, I listened to lucid explanations of the complex internal politics of the Abbasid Caliphate; the impact of our economic decline on East European migrant workers in the UK, with consequent effects on the growth of cut flowers as a secondary crop for organic farmers; and the details of the UK government's misuse of knife crime statistics: all this by the spoken word alone, without a bullet list, highlighted term or process diagram in sight. How different from the typical conference presentation, my own too often included, where every point is illustrated, bulleted or highlighted in the supposed interests of clarity.
All through 2008, I have been progressively simplifying and clarifying my presentations. At the Microsoft BI conference in October, my most effective presentation, as scored by the audience, included only graphical slides (here) and my second best had no slides at all, just talking and demos. This year, when I have material that I would like people to take away, I will make it available as a separate handout, written in prose, which they can pick up, or download later. I am gradually seeing others take a similar stand against bland slideware. Mark Madsen, of Third Nature and TDWI, has some excellent presentations at www.slideshare.com/mrm0 - even if he does use the occasional bullet list. (Hey, I am not a puritan in these things. To the puritan, all things are impure.)
I have simply grown very tired of the public presentation that is a document in disguise. We have all had to sit through these, especially from software vendors: the endless builds of detailed marketecture; the logos; the highlighted mission statements; the bullet lists; the boxes and arrows. O Lord, the boxes and arrows! If I use such presentation graphics in 2009, shoot me with the arrow and put me in one of the boxes.
Of course, I know where all this comes from. It is well intentioned enough, and Microsoft is far from the worst offender. Here's how it happens in a slide review meeting.
OK guys, slide 5. We want to talk about the new capabilities. The first bullet nails it clearly - scalable - right?
But if we say this new system is scalable, are we implying that the old version did not scale?
I see. Perhaps this version is more scalable?
No, that may have a similar implication. Let's say it has improved scalability.
But that suggests only incremental changes to the code. My team did serious redesign work under the hood, so let's say it has enhanced scalability.
How about enhanced scalability architecture? That would convey that you guys did a lot of work on this - which also helps to explain why we cut some of the usability work if anyone asks.
Good - all agreed - let's capture that in a bullet. Now, is it really integrated with this other system or just compatible?
Let's change the solid arrow between the boxes to a dotted arrow so we don't make too strong a claim.
Excellent. Better label the arrow with the name of the API just to be clear.
OK, but there are several APIs with different capabilities.
No problem. Another couple of boxes, with a callout line from the arrow, can list the APIs and services.
Yes, but let's not overlook SaaS.
OK, make one of the boxes a clipart cloud.
Now we're getting there ...
I have been involved in so many of these meetings: actually, I am rather good in them, and I guess that for the major conference keynotes they may even be politically unavoidable. To be fair, especially with release dates, we are carefully hedging commitments that may come back to haunt us. Our audience understands that when we say first half of 2020, we are carefully not putting in writing any commitment that could be used against us, so long as we ship by 5.30pm on the afternoon of June 30th. However, far too often we take this caution into every aspect of the presentation with the results that our slides groan with detail and suffer badly from the fallacy of false precision.
For my own presentations, I can only resolve to try to do much better, while working to improve the situation elsewhere, too. In 2008, I had a lot of fun building the Business Intelligence fairytale with Stacey, my Vice President's communications manager - and the VP was game enough to present it too. It was hugely successful. You can see Ted Kummert presenting it here - scroll to 1 hour and 16 minutes into the video if you like. I am hoping we can do more to keep our audiences interested in 2009.
2. Stop boring analysts!
Yes, that is an ambiguous statement. I will leave it so.
I am increasingly aware that analysts really do have a tough job, not helped by the presentations I have just described. I have always considered the worst mistakes we can make with analysts, are to be misleading or patronizing. I now realize that to be boring is a very close third.
3. I am going to stop talking about metadata.
Those who know me well, also know this is about as likely as forswearing the eating of fish or the drinking of claret, but let me explain. I will still be happy to talk about business metadata, or technical metadata, or lineage or impact analysis; but I am not going to talk about undifferentiated metadata in the abstract. The all-encompassing term just is not helpful, and leads to the hopelessly mistaken expectation that there might be a metadata solution. Asking a vendor for their metadata solution is like asking an architect for their door solution. You mean front door, elevator door, office door, cupboard door, or fire door? Rotating, sliding, or swinging?
4. I will try to stop using analogies.
Yes, I know. It is far too easy to reach for an inexact analogy when making a point rather than taking the time and care to construct a better account of the actual issue at the hand. Analogies can be useful in their place, no doubt, but I will use them reluctantly for I notice that I, and many others, fall back on this rhetorical device too readily. I have become convinced that they confuse and mislead as often as they illuminate. After all, Jesus did not use parables to make his message easier to understand: quite the opposite. See Matthew 13.
Perhaps I will use metaphor instead. Metaphor sounds deeper. Your metadata is an office door, opening onto the corridor of the enterprise. By the end of the year, I will publish The Little Book of B.I. Calm.
Finally ...
5. I will blog more.
Carried over from 2008.
Posted by Donald Farmer at 10:45 AM | Comments (4)
