I have been unfortunate enough to see Everton play twice in the last two weeks. I thought last week was bad enough but this week has convinced me that something must be done. And for me, that something is to stop watching Premiership football.
But why, I hear you cry? (Oh, suit yourselves). Well, I'll tell you: Last week Everton played against Man City plus the estimable Howard Webb. Webb seemed to think that the mere fact of an Everton player successfully challenging for the ball was evidence of a foul on his part. Man City are obviously so superior in every way that it is inconceivable to Mr Webb that any player from the lower ranks can dispossess one of the Etihad anointed without stepping over the line between fair play and foul. This week was the icing on the cake, with the cherry on top. Jack Rodwell sees the ball, Rodwell gets the ball, Suarez falls over Rodwell and referee Martin Atkinson sends Rodwell off! Apparently in today's Premier league it is a red card offence to get the ball if your opponent wants it at the same time (if your opponent plays for one of the top 5 clubs, that is). I presume that players from the other 15 clubs are now supposed to stand around like particularly expensive bollards, while the Galacticos amaze us with their artistry. It makes football about as meaningful as a competition as a Nike ad.
This might all seem like sour grapes but it's more than that. I freely admit that both Man City and Liverpool were better than Everton (although not that much better - it may be a partisan view but of the expensively assembled talent available to Liverpool only Suarez and Kuyt would walk into the Everton side, at least on Saturday's showing. I didn't even know Downing was on the pitch until he got substituted). It would be a funny old world if they weren't - Liverpool have spent over £100m since Dalglish returned while Moyes has spent a big fat zero. No, my central point is that if you interpret the rules of the game in a way that only the most prodigiously gifted are allowed to succeed then you snuff out any possibility of an upset, of the underdog succeeding through hard work, or better organisation, tactics or teamwork. You might as well play top trumps before the start of the match: Liverpool - £114m, Everton nowt. Liverpool win!
Although Webb and Atkinson were culpable in these two cases, they're not the ones to blame. The real culprits are the Premiership and most particularly Sky. They've turned the game I and millions of others love into a product. And d'you know? It's a product I'm no longer prepared to buy.
So farewell beloved Everton, I wish you all the best. There will always be a part of my heart that belongs to you and I'm sure I'll sneak a look at the results every now and then. From now on though, the only team I'll be watching is the mighty Carlisle United of Division One. Come on you Foxes!
Saturday, 1 October 2011
Thursday, 23 June 2011
Lessons learned from making Buses with Bowties
Buses with Bowties was the first proper go I had at making a film using my new sound recording equipment. I learned a few lessons along the way that I want to share here:
- Make a list of your kit. Print out the list, laminated and put it in the kit bag on the top. Before you go out on location, check the kit against the list. That way you avoid forgetting something really important (like your sound recorder!)
- The lavalliere microphone doesn't work very well plugged straight in to the camera. I think this is because of the lack of ambient noise from the mic. The camera turns its auto-gain right up and the speech is distorted because it can't react fast enough when you start talking.
- Get enough wild-track at each location to cover the entire shooting duration. Otherwise you will spend ages piecing together bits of sound to try and make a decent wildtrack in the edit
- Record all the bits that are supposed to sound the same with the same mic. So if you are doing something to camera with a lavalliere in one shot, use the lavalliere for all pieces to camera (unless you have an obvious mic in shot, as I did for one piece.
- The auto-focus in live view mode is rubbish for close-ups. It's better to switch to a picture mode, focus and then switch back
- Have a big pause at the start of each scene (at least 2 seconds) and hold for a similar time at the end of the scene. Makes editing a lot easier.
- Consider getting a clapper board and saying "Scene 3, Take 4" at the start of each scene. This will make matching the audio and video a lot easier. If the clapper board is in view at the start of the shot, it will show up in the preview mode when you edit
- Before each shot check the microphone is on, then the sound recorder, then hit record on the camera.
- At the end of each shot turn off the microphone! Sounds like a pain but otherwise you will forget to do it and will run the battery down on the mic (as I am typing this at work I am wondering whether I turned my lavalliere off!)
Buses with Bowties from Steve Green on Vimeo.
Sunday, 20 March 2011
Everton 2 Fulham 1
I made my way up to the pub more in hope than expectation for yesterday afternoon's fixture. Everton have consistently failed to beat clubs that are lower in the league than them and the two teams have drawn 27 times between them this season. This one had nil-nil written all over it.
From a tactical point of view I was interested to see how Moyes would react to the latest injury crisis, that is, the loss of Arteta. In the past few games he has employed Mikel wide on the left in order to counter their increasingly predictable (and therefore easy to counter) reliance on Leighton Baines galloping up the left. The answer this time was to play Leon Osman inside him in a similar role to that played by Steven Pienaar before his departure to Spurs in the January transfer window.
The rest of the team lined up like this: A back four of Hibbert (a welcome return in my view as he is a good honest defender of the kind you don't see that much nowadays), Jagielka, Distin and Baines. In midfield, Neville sat in front of the defence, Coleman had an attacking role down the right, Rodwell played through the centre (generally tending to drift left), Osman played down the left as I mentioned above, and Cahill, returning from injury, played in the hole behind Saha, the lone striker up front.
When in possession Everton played their usual mix of slow out of defence and long balls to the front men. Fulham when defending, used the tactic which has been so successful against Everton this season, namely pressing when the ball is in the Everton half, then quickly dropping back to 2 banks of 5 when the ball crosses the half-way line..
The long ball tactic worked better than usual for Everton, not because they got decent possession straight from it, but because the Fulham defenders tended to hack the ball into touch.
What Fulham seemed to be trying to do was hit Everton on the break, but this tactic wasn't very successful, mainly because Hibbert did a fine job of shepherding Andy Johnson out wide and into the left corner. I don't think Johnson got a single cross in all match and he certainly didn't have a shot at goal.
The interesting tactical battle was the way that Fulham tried to deal with Everton's wide men, Baines and Osman on the left and Coleman and Hibbert on the right. What they did was, whenever Everton got into the danger zone, around the edge of the penalty area, two defenders and two midfielders would form a very tight box to try to deny the attackers space and options. In the end, this proved to be Fulham's undoing as Baines very cleverly feinted to cross but cut the ball back to Osman, who was stood on the corner of the penalty area. He then beat one man and gained enough space to float the ball over to Coleman. Coleman was un-marked since the whole Fulham defence had been pulled over to the left to deal with the threat from Osman.
The second goal was much simpler tactically. A driving run from Rodwell saw him fouled on the edge of the penalty area and the resulting free kick saw Saha combine power and accuracy to thread the ball through a gap in the wall and into the back of the net.
The consolation goal for Fulham came from that usual source, an attack down the right into the space left by Baines. To be fair, it was a very well worked move that required a pin-point finish from Fulham's American striker. However, once again, Everton were undone by a fast break and what seems to be an over-reliance on Distin to cover too much of the left-hand side.
From a tactical point of view I was interested to see how Moyes would react to the latest injury crisis, that is, the loss of Arteta. In the past few games he has employed Mikel wide on the left in order to counter their increasingly predictable (and therefore easy to counter) reliance on Leighton Baines galloping up the left. The answer this time was to play Leon Osman inside him in a similar role to that played by Steven Pienaar before his departure to Spurs in the January transfer window.
The rest of the team lined up like this: A back four of Hibbert (a welcome return in my view as he is a good honest defender of the kind you don't see that much nowadays), Jagielka, Distin and Baines. In midfield, Neville sat in front of the defence, Coleman had an attacking role down the right, Rodwell played through the centre (generally tending to drift left), Osman played down the left as I mentioned above, and Cahill, returning from injury, played in the hole behind Saha, the lone striker up front.
When in possession Everton played their usual mix of slow out of defence and long balls to the front men. Fulham when defending, used the tactic which has been so successful against Everton this season, namely pressing when the ball is in the Everton half, then quickly dropping back to 2 banks of 5 when the ball crosses the half-way line..
The long ball tactic worked better than usual for Everton, not because they got decent possession straight from it, but because the Fulham defenders tended to hack the ball into touch.
What Fulham seemed to be trying to do was hit Everton on the break, but this tactic wasn't very successful, mainly because Hibbert did a fine job of shepherding Andy Johnson out wide and into the left corner. I don't think Johnson got a single cross in all match and he certainly didn't have a shot at goal.
The interesting tactical battle was the way that Fulham tried to deal with Everton's wide men, Baines and Osman on the left and Coleman and Hibbert on the right. What they did was, whenever Everton got into the danger zone, around the edge of the penalty area, two defenders and two midfielders would form a very tight box to try to deny the attackers space and options. In the end, this proved to be Fulham's undoing as Baines very cleverly feinted to cross but cut the ball back to Osman, who was stood on the corner of the penalty area. He then beat one man and gained enough space to float the ball over to Coleman. Coleman was un-marked since the whole Fulham defence had been pulled over to the left to deal with the threat from Osman.
The second goal was much simpler tactically. A driving run from Rodwell saw him fouled on the edge of the penalty area and the resulting free kick saw Saha combine power and accuracy to thread the ball through a gap in the wall and into the back of the net.
The consolation goal for Fulham came from that usual source, an attack down the right into the space left by Baines. To be fair, it was a very well worked move that required a pin-point finish from Fulham's American striker. However, once again, Everton were undone by a fast break and what seems to be an over-reliance on Distin to cover too much of the left-hand side.
Wednesday, 16 March 2011
Management Patterns: High cohesion - low coupling
In their seminal book, Structured Design Larry Constantine said that high cohesion (the degree to which the internal contents of a module are related) and loose coupling (the degree to which a module depends upon other modules) were desirable aspects of a well designed programme. I think that these tenets can be taken and applied to the design of organisations and teams.
In an organisation, the equivalent of a module (for my purposes at least) is a team. A team exhibits high cohesion when all of its members are focused on the same business goal, when the communication between team members is fast, accurate and relevant to achieving the goal and when all the resources it needs are either under control of the team or can easily be acquired and accessed by the team.
In an organisational context, coupling is a measure of how teams interact. Team are loosely coupled if the responsibilities of teams are clearly defined and when, on the occasion that a team needs something from another team to achieve its ends, the mechanisms for doing this are clear and well known.
In order for teams to be highly cohesive and loosely coupled they have to be exist in order to achieve a business goal. They have to be made up of people with different skills that when they come together they can achieve something that they could not possibly do separately. A great example of this is a film crew. This consists of a lot of people with specific skills (including technical and organisational skills) that are brought together for a specific task.
The alternative to this is teams that are based on functions rather than business goals. This is the great anti-pattern of matrix management, to which I will return in a future blog.
In an organisation, the equivalent of a module (for my purposes at least) is a team. A team exhibits high cohesion when all of its members are focused on the same business goal, when the communication between team members is fast, accurate and relevant to achieving the goal and when all the resources it needs are either under control of the team or can easily be acquired and accessed by the team.
In an organisational context, coupling is a measure of how teams interact. Team are loosely coupled if the responsibilities of teams are clearly defined and when, on the occasion that a team needs something from another team to achieve its ends, the mechanisms for doing this are clear and well known.
In order for teams to be highly cohesive and loosely coupled they have to be exist in order to achieve a business goal. They have to be made up of people with different skills that when they come together they can achieve something that they could not possibly do separately. A great example of this is a film crew. This consists of a lot of people with specific skills (including technical and organisational skills) that are brought together for a specific task.
The alternative to this is teams that are based on functions rather than business goals. This is the great anti-pattern of matrix management, to which I will return in a future blog.
Monday, 28 February 2011
Defence outsourcing
After hearing about the problems the MOD has with controlling defence spending I was musing on the problems that Government has with high-profile procurement projects that go wrong.
In terms of IT, the Government's record on this is no better or worse than private industry. About 30% of IT software projects fail completely (i.e. get canned). This is true for private and public IT projects. People think that the private sector is more efficient - that's not strictly true.
What happens in the private sector is that the inefficiency is spread across the entire industry. Let's take Search as an example. In order to have Google we also had to have Yahoo, Altavista, Lycos and any number of other false starts that I haven't heard of. As consumers we don't have to pay for the failures (at least not directly). In constrast, if you undertake a big public project that has a large element of R&D then all the chance of failure falls on that one project. Taking the example above, the chance of a publicly-funded internet search solution being successful was at best 25% and probably a lot lower than that.
The solution? Dont't outsource the hard stuff. Outsourcing is fine for things that are commodities or where all the R&D has already been done - no-one, apart from a printer manufacturer would develop their own printer, whether in-house or outsourced, for example. For the more complicated stuff (e.g. fighter planes) we have to ask whether we should bother getting cutting edge stuff developed. I'm sure the Generals, Air Vice Marshalls and Admirals will say that we need cutting edge equipment but there's not much point if it doesn't work
Imagine how well resourced the armed forces would be if everything was bought off the shelf...
In terms of IT, the Government's record on this is no better or worse than private industry. About 30% of IT software projects fail completely (i.e. get canned). This is true for private and public IT projects. People think that the private sector is more efficient - that's not strictly true.
What happens in the private sector is that the inefficiency is spread across the entire industry. Let's take Search as an example. In order to have Google we also had to have Yahoo, Altavista, Lycos and any number of other false starts that I haven't heard of. As consumers we don't have to pay for the failures (at least not directly). In constrast, if you undertake a big public project that has a large element of R&D then all the chance of failure falls on that one project. Taking the example above, the chance of a publicly-funded internet search solution being successful was at best 25% and probably a lot lower than that.
The solution? Dont't outsource the hard stuff. Outsourcing is fine for things that are commodities or where all the R&D has already been done - no-one, apart from a printer manufacturer would develop their own printer, whether in-house or outsourced, for example. For the more complicated stuff (e.g. fighter planes) we have to ask whether we should bother getting cutting edge stuff developed. I'm sure the Generals, Air Vice Marshalls and Admirals will say that we need cutting edge equipment but there's not much point if it doesn't work
Imagine how well resourced the armed forces would be if everything was bought off the shelf...
Monday, 21 February 2011
Getting business from public sector procurements
All public sector organisations in the UK (apart from the NHS - though this may change under the Government's proposals) have to use an EU-compliant procurement process if they want to do any business over a certain threshold. This can be seen by both the customer and supplier as an imposition and a bureacratic overhead but the process can be turned to your advantage. This blog is for potential suppliers of public sector organisations and gives a number of hints and tips to help you get the business.
Firstly, most public sector organisations have an institutional bias towards being seen to be fair and all are terrified of challenge. Think of it this way - if you are bidding for a private sector contract you may never get to know what are the selection criteria, or even if they have any. The contract may go to the company owned by the golf partner of the MD and you would never know or be able to cry foul. In contrast a public sector organisation will have written decision making criteria and a scoring system. Many of them will publish it with the ITT, but if they don't you can ask for it. You should.
Next, put yourself in the shoes of the poor civil servant who will be assessing your bid, along with all the other responses. They will have a day job, which probably takes up more than 100% of their time. Their priorities are:
You can make it easy for them. Copy their scoring criteria and paste it into your tender response. Put it as close to the front as possible. Put in a paragraph about what a fantastic company you are if you must (everyone expects it, to an extent) but remember that everyone else will do the same, probably in more detail and the assessor will skip past this to the meat of the bid.
Just as an aside, whenever I see a statement about a company or person I ask myself, if you make the inverse staement, does it make any sense. For example, a company says, "Our offering provides a best-in-class solution tailored to fit your needs", do you think anyone would claim the contrary, that, "Our offering is a mediocre solution with limited scope for customisation", even though it might be true?
Now fill in each of the boxes with your response. You can even leave the box for the score in as this will allow the assessor to print the response off and fill it in at night over a glass of whisky (not that this ever happens).
Put all of the other crap about the details of your solution, quality processes etc in Appendices at the end. It will add credibility to your bid but don't expect anyone to sift through it trying to figure out whether your score for "Capability to build relationships with third age organisations" should be a 6 or a 7 cos they won't
Happy bidding
Firstly, most public sector organisations have an institutional bias towards being seen to be fair and all are terrified of challenge. Think of it this way - if you are bidding for a private sector contract you may never get to know what are the selection criteria, or even if they have any. The contract may go to the company owned by the golf partner of the MD and you would never know or be able to cry foul. In contrast a public sector organisation will have written decision making criteria and a scoring system. Many of them will publish it with the ITT, but if they don't you can ask for it. You should.
Next, put yourself in the shoes of the poor civil servant who will be assessing your bid, along with all the other responses. They will have a day job, which probably takes up more than 100% of their time. Their priorities are:
- Get the evaluation over with as quickly as possible so that they can get back to their real work
- Reach a decision that can't be successfully challenged by the losers
- Pick the best bid
You can make it easy for them. Copy their scoring criteria and paste it into your tender response. Put it as close to the front as possible. Put in a paragraph about what a fantastic company you are if you must (everyone expects it, to an extent) but remember that everyone else will do the same, probably in more detail and the assessor will skip past this to the meat of the bid.
Just as an aside, whenever I see a statement about a company or person I ask myself, if you make the inverse staement, does it make any sense. For example, a company says, "Our offering provides a best-in-class solution tailored to fit your needs", do you think anyone would claim the contrary, that, "Our offering is a mediocre solution with limited scope for customisation", even though it might be true?
Now fill in each of the boxes with your response. You can even leave the box for the score in as this will allow the assessor to print the response off and fill it in at night over a glass of whisky (not that this ever happens).
Put all of the other crap about the details of your solution, quality processes etc in Appendices at the end. It will add credibility to your bid but don't expect anyone to sift through it trying to figure out whether your score for "Capability to build relationships with third age organisations" should be a 6 or a 7 cos they won't
Happy bidding
Tuesday, 15 February 2011
What's wrong with Everton?
As a life-long Everton fan, I've been concerned by the apparent decline in the performances of the team over recent weeks. Most commentators, including the manager and the team captain, characterised Sunday's game, away to Bolton, as a very poor performance. I don't quite see it that way. Bolton only created three clear-cut chances all afternoon. The problem is, they scored from two of them.
I think that there are a number of reasons to be optimistic and I believe that it is a change in tactics that is needed, rather than for the team to simply 'play better'.
Firstly, I believe that technically, this is the best Everton side I've ever seen. They tend to dominate possesion, with a very neat passing game, almost like a mini Spain. Even on Sunday, apart from the first 10 minutes, they looked much better when they had the ball than did Bolton.
Secondly, the emphasis in the commentariat has been their lack of goals, particularly from the strikers. I think that a much more serious problem is they concede too many goals. Much has been made of Leighton Baines' ability on the wing but I think that their over-reliance on him (and to an exent Seamus Coleman on the right) to supply balls into the box has left the excellent Sylain Distin with too much to do. We have conceded far too many goals through the channel between a retreating Baines and Distin trying to cover both the attacking winger and the striker. Indeed, this was exactly how the second Bolton goal was conceded on Sunday, with Sturridge exploiting acres of space between Distin and Baines. I think that the solution to this is to change formation to three central defenders, with Baines and Coleman operating as wing-backs and Distin, Jagielka and Neville patrolling the centre. This system was used very effectively by Liverpool in their defeat of Chelsea earlier this month (shows that King Kenny hasn't wasted his ten years out of management). In front of them I'd play a mid-field diamond with Heitinga or Fellaini in the holding role, Arteta, Fellaini or Bilyaletdinov in the centre and Cahill behind the striker. Up front Saha is obviously first choice when fit, with Anichebe filling in otherwise. This setup has the great advantage of providing a lot of cover in defence, whilst playing to the strengths of the team. Even with injuries there are a lot of options, as Heitinga can play in central defence, Fellaini or Neville can play the holding role and Fellaini or Rodwell can play at the head of the diamond.
The next thing that needs to be sorted out is what the team does when they regain possession. Currently they have two modes of attack: The first is to pump the ball up to the striker (route one), and the second is to play the ball out of defence. Now, I can't remember the last time Everton scored from a route one attack and Saha is no-one's idea of a target man so in terms of scoring goals it's not a very effective tactic. However, it does force the defenders to track back to cover the striker so as a tactic to stretch the defending side we need to keep it in our armoury.
The second mode of attack, playing the ball out of defence looks very effective and leads to long periods of possession. The problem is that, by the time we get into the opponents half, they have dropped deep and the team ends up having to play through all eleven men to get a sight of goal. With the departure of Peinaar, there's only really Coleman who can run past players and he's not yet the finished article in terms of delivery so this is not a strategy that is going to produce many goals.
The other thing I've noticed is that they tend to be very predictable in how they use the two tactics. Rather than mixing them up, they tend to use one strategy for 10 minutes then switch to the other. This makes them easy to defend against as the opposition knows that, when they're in long ball mode, they can stay up and let the central defenders deal with the lone striker, and when they're in passing mode they just drop deep and take up their defensive positions.
What needs to be added is a third mode of attack, the quick breakaway. In order to do this, they need to drop deeper when the opposition has the ball, with the furthest man forward (typically Saha) no more than mid way between the top of the penalty area and the half way line. This would give Everton's quick men (Saha and Coleman, plus Anichebe when on) a lot more space to run into and would make it a lot harder for the opposition to score. If I were Moyes, I would be spending all my time drilling the team in this mode of defence and attack, firstly making everyone run back into their defensive positions as soon as we lose possession and then as soon as we regain it, getting Saha and Coleman into the channels and getting the ball to them. They also need to work on mixing up their attack, to keep the opposition guessing so that they have to cover the whole field, rather than just a few predictable areas. If the team could add this mode to their offensive capabilities they would be a team to be feared and would climb up the table.
Nil desperandum Moysey.
I think that there are a number of reasons to be optimistic and I believe that it is a change in tactics that is needed, rather than for the team to simply 'play better'.
Firstly, I believe that technically, this is the best Everton side I've ever seen. They tend to dominate possesion, with a very neat passing game, almost like a mini Spain. Even on Sunday, apart from the first 10 minutes, they looked much better when they had the ball than did Bolton.
Secondly, the emphasis in the commentariat has been their lack of goals, particularly from the strikers. I think that a much more serious problem is they concede too many goals. Much has been made of Leighton Baines' ability on the wing but I think that their over-reliance on him (and to an exent Seamus Coleman on the right) to supply balls into the box has left the excellent Sylain Distin with too much to do. We have conceded far too many goals through the channel between a retreating Baines and Distin trying to cover both the attacking winger and the striker. Indeed, this was exactly how the second Bolton goal was conceded on Sunday, with Sturridge exploiting acres of space between Distin and Baines. I think that the solution to this is to change formation to three central defenders, with Baines and Coleman operating as wing-backs and Distin, Jagielka and Neville patrolling the centre. This system was used very effectively by Liverpool in their defeat of Chelsea earlier this month (shows that King Kenny hasn't wasted his ten years out of management). In front of them I'd play a mid-field diamond with Heitinga or Fellaini in the holding role, Arteta, Fellaini or Bilyaletdinov in the centre and Cahill behind the striker. Up front Saha is obviously first choice when fit, with Anichebe filling in otherwise. This setup has the great advantage of providing a lot of cover in defence, whilst playing to the strengths of the team. Even with injuries there are a lot of options, as Heitinga can play in central defence, Fellaini or Neville can play the holding role and Fellaini or Rodwell can play at the head of the diamond.
The next thing that needs to be sorted out is what the team does when they regain possession. Currently they have two modes of attack: The first is to pump the ball up to the striker (route one), and the second is to play the ball out of defence. Now, I can't remember the last time Everton scored from a route one attack and Saha is no-one's idea of a target man so in terms of scoring goals it's not a very effective tactic. However, it does force the defenders to track back to cover the striker so as a tactic to stretch the defending side we need to keep it in our armoury.
The second mode of attack, playing the ball out of defence looks very effective and leads to long periods of possession. The problem is that, by the time we get into the opponents half, they have dropped deep and the team ends up having to play through all eleven men to get a sight of goal. With the departure of Peinaar, there's only really Coleman who can run past players and he's not yet the finished article in terms of delivery so this is not a strategy that is going to produce many goals.
The other thing I've noticed is that they tend to be very predictable in how they use the two tactics. Rather than mixing them up, they tend to use one strategy for 10 minutes then switch to the other. This makes them easy to defend against as the opposition knows that, when they're in long ball mode, they can stay up and let the central defenders deal with the lone striker, and when they're in passing mode they just drop deep and take up their defensive positions.
What needs to be added is a third mode of attack, the quick breakaway. In order to do this, they need to drop deeper when the opposition has the ball, with the furthest man forward (typically Saha) no more than mid way between the top of the penalty area and the half way line. This would give Everton's quick men (Saha and Coleman, plus Anichebe when on) a lot more space to run into and would make it a lot harder for the opposition to score. If I were Moyes, I would be spending all my time drilling the team in this mode of defence and attack, firstly making everyone run back into their defensive positions as soon as we lose possession and then as soon as we regain it, getting Saha and Coleman into the channels and getting the ball to them. They also need to work on mixing up their attack, to keep the opposition guessing so that they have to cover the whole field, rather than just a few predictable areas. If the team could add this mode to their offensive capabilities they would be a team to be feared and would climb up the table.
Nil desperandum Moysey.
You can outsource responsibility but you can't outsource accountability
A couple of times in the last decade, the (medium-sized) organisations I worked for have outsourced IT software development projects to large consultancies. In both cases the results have been disappointing, to say the least, and I would like to use this post to explain why.
The problem with a small organisation (in this context, anything under £100m turnover is small) outsourcing to a large consultancy is the asymmetry of risk. Put simply, the consequences of failure for the customer are much greater than the consequences of failure for the supplier. The last company I worked for outsourced a development project with a contract value of £2.3m. This represented approximately 25% of the total IT budget to us but was no more than a rounding error for the supplier which typically dealt in contracts worth several hundred million. The project was absolutely critical for the customer, whereas the supplier literally didn't care whether it succeeded or not.
To understand why this is the case, we need to understand how large consultancies work: In any large consultancy, at any one time there will be a number of people who are not employed on any paying project. These people are 'on the bench' in consultancy parlance. Indeed, one of the selling points of big consultancies is their supposed ability to scale up quickly. Human nature being what it is, the majority of the people who are on bench will not be the best staff in the business, as these will get snapped up to work on the important (i.e. high-value) projects.
So if you have, say £5m to spend, you will end up with a team that is mostly inexperienced with below average skills, leavened with a few good people who were unlucky enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Of course, you will still be paying £800-£1200 per day (£1500 if they see you coming) for staff who are little better than graduates, and untalented ones at that. Worse still you may be actually paying them to learn skills (programming in new languages, project management) that they should already have.
The end result is a late delivery of a sub-standard product with all the tricky stuff left out. The in-house team will have to work like trojans to turn it into something that the business can actually use, all the while seething at the proliferation of Audis and BMWs that turn up in the car-park, driven by the consultants.
The solution?
There are two parts to this: 1: Outsource to a company that has as much to lose as you do. So, if you have £3m to spend, try to spend it with a company that has a turnover in the region £30-100m. That way, if they fail it will hurt, but it won't kill them. 2: Make sure that the person who is responsible on your side really understands how to manage outsourced contracts.
If you can't honsetly say you can do both of these (this is known as capability to perform in process improvement circles), then don't outsource; build up your skills in-house, or buy off the shelf and make it work for you.
The problem with a small organisation (in this context, anything under £100m turnover is small) outsourcing to a large consultancy is the asymmetry of risk. Put simply, the consequences of failure for the customer are much greater than the consequences of failure for the supplier. The last company I worked for outsourced a development project with a contract value of £2.3m. This represented approximately 25% of the total IT budget to us but was no more than a rounding error for the supplier which typically dealt in contracts worth several hundred million. The project was absolutely critical for the customer, whereas the supplier literally didn't care whether it succeeded or not.
To understand why this is the case, we need to understand how large consultancies work: In any large consultancy, at any one time there will be a number of people who are not employed on any paying project. These people are 'on the bench' in consultancy parlance. Indeed, one of the selling points of big consultancies is their supposed ability to scale up quickly. Human nature being what it is, the majority of the people who are on bench will not be the best staff in the business, as these will get snapped up to work on the important (i.e. high-value) projects.
So if you have, say £5m to spend, you will end up with a team that is mostly inexperienced with below average skills, leavened with a few good people who were unlucky enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Of course, you will still be paying £800-£1200 per day (£1500 if they see you coming) for staff who are little better than graduates, and untalented ones at that. Worse still you may be actually paying them to learn skills (programming in new languages, project management) that they should already have.
The end result is a late delivery of a sub-standard product with all the tricky stuff left out. The in-house team will have to work like trojans to turn it into something that the business can actually use, all the while seething at the proliferation of Audis and BMWs that turn up in the car-park, driven by the consultants.
The solution?
There are two parts to this: 1: Outsource to a company that has as much to lose as you do. So, if you have £3m to spend, try to spend it with a company that has a turnover in the region £30-100m. That way, if they fail it will hurt, but it won't kill them. 2: Make sure that the person who is responsible on your side really understands how to manage outsourced contracts.
If you can't honsetly say you can do both of these (this is known as capability to perform in process improvement circles), then don't outsource; build up your skills in-house, or buy off the shelf and make it work for you.
The Beauty of RAW mode
I've got into using RAW mode on my new Canon 550D and it's fantastic! The thing I particularly like about it is that reduces the number of settings you have to worry about. The way RAW works is it stores the actual values that are read off the sensor in the file. Things that change the appearance of the picture (White balance, Exposure compensation, Colour profile) are stored as settings which can be modified later in the comfort of your own home. This means that you only have to worry about the settings that actually change the light that falls on the sensor - Focus, Aperture, ISO, Shutter speed, and most importantly, where you point your camera.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)