May 11, 2008
As the diversity of software organizational structures I’ve worked with grows, I become more convinced of the futility of limited, localized implementations of typically effective processes, e.g., Scrum, Crystal, XP.
Each organization has a different root cause for this constriction of throughput, but the situation can be generalized: dysfunction of a larger organization is generally stable enough to seek and successfully to return to its original—via compensation elsewhere or direct counteraction—any time a team increases it locally.
There are benefits to applying good process to individual teams, or even one team, but the benefits neither extend to organizations’ profit or customers’ return on investment; they’re limited to the well-being of the teams.
There isn’t a good solution to this—good in the sense of being usable by the same people who’d start to implement high-throughput processes on the line—rather, recognize that localized success in mediocre company cannot, sustainably, reach the customer and if we want to, we have to find a way to go beyond the line to increase companies’ tolerance for throughput.
December 17, 2007
Software development is making tools to help users’ achieve their goals. We are paid to make tools when most valuable and keep them working till not.
Our companies are composed of people, processes, and resources we can focus or defocus on that goal—perfect value and timing.
Everything we do that limits precision of focus is waste. Some waste is necessary, most not.
Simple.
Rare.
We design companies to have an optimal structure, theoretically meshed cogs—very different than designing total focus on delivering value. And, most of us have an interest in and enjoyment of defined processes as solutions—failure demands a new process.
To avoid the first, we need leaders and managers with a better than incidental understanding of problems of execution, organisation, and discipline; those believing their lot is to lead and focus the organisation on value, not raise their previous function to the fore of priorities or to build an enduring structure.
To correct the second, we need to understand that processes are merely tools—even our newest gadget Agile. When we use processes without continuous examination of applicability, see them as ends, or become inflexible in perspective, we waste even as we fly the colours of the customer—falsely.
We choose where to focus, usually with good intention and poor result. But, where there’s good intention there’s hope. If you have the courage to ruthlessly examine your rationale.
April 12, 2007
An unusual tool for learning about the
Darfur conflict is
Google Earth. A variety of
organizations and people gathered data for the software—photographs, testimony, statistics, and markers—to create a virtual overview.
See for yourself
Google Earth is a
free download, and the
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum provides a
layers file containing the project data.
- Download and open
Google Earth
- Download and open the
layers file
You should now see Darfur, with flame icons representing destroyed villages.
Click, drag, and zoom to investigate.
- In the list of layers, under Primary Database – Global Awareness, will be USHMM: Crisis in Darfur containing several layers you can turn on and off.
- To zoom and center on Darfur, double-click the USHMM: Crisis in Darfur layer in the list.
- When clicking on an icon overlapping others, they will spread apart and you will need to click the target again.
Elsewhere
There’s been
so much coverage of this project I hesitated to post—until I noticed most of the coverage didn’t have good links for people wanting to see for themselves.
The
Ogle Earth blog has a
comprehensive post with information and links for traditional media coverage.
April 7, 2007
Supporting
microfinance institutions or
lending directly can lead to information overload. It’s easier to give to network support organizations, like
ACCION, that research and give microfinance institutions startup help, technical services, loan guarantees, and more.
I found choosing among these organizations still challenging; hopefully, I can save you some of that effort. Here’s information I gathered on one while researching the field.
Overview
In 2006, CEO
María Otero spoke at
Google.org, about ACCION’s history and approach.
-
01:38 – Background
-
08:10 – ACCION’s approach and anecdotal history
-
14:23 – Linking microfinance to traditional banks
-
24:47 – Technical assistance
-
26:50 – Equity funds
-
28:40 – Summary
-
37:54 – What differentiates microfinance organizations?
-
42:20 – Does ACCION market entrepreneurship?
-
46:05 – Are women better borrowers?
-
51:13 – What’s the next breakthrough?
Some Numbers
ACCION started microlending in
1973, now it:
Choices
There are many network support organizations; in 2004 the
Consultative Group to Assist the Poor compared thirty-three in
What is a Network? Diversity of Networks in Microfinance Today:
This graph from the report shows ACCION, and most, serve borrowers in multiple
levels of poverty.
Elsewhere
The Economist covered ACCION in
From charity to business,
MIXMarket has a brief profile, and
GuideStar has the 990s. ACCION is on
ChangingThePresent and
mapped on Xigi.
April 4, 2007
Sheryl Sandberg, VP at Google and board member of
Google.org, wrote
The Charity Gap for today’s Wall Street Journal. She cites several studies on charitable giving in the US, the first commissioned by Google.org and done by the
Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University:
[…] 8% of donations provide food, shelter or other basic necessities. At most, an additional 23% is directed to the poor […]
The rest went to education, health-care, arts, religion, etc. She also cites a Bank of America study:
[…] people who earn more than [US] $1 million per year give only 4% of their donations for basic needs and an additional 19% to other programs geared toward the poor.
I don’t know of either study, if you do, please comment with a link or reference.
Bank of America’s Study
I did find a 2006 study, by the Center on Philanthropy and the Bank of America,
Study of High Net-Worth Philanthropy, that covered households with incomes over USD 200,000 or assets over 1,000,000. They reported 5.2% (6.5 billion) donated to basic needs.
These donors gave 27.8 billion to religion, i.e. 22%; the rest of the population gave 60% to religious organizations. But, they reverse roles on basic needs, the wealthy gave 5.2% v. 11% for everyone else.
Elsewhere
Todd Cohen covers this in
Google finds disturbing charity gap on Inside Philanthropy, with interesting data on overall personal and foundation giving in the US.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
