I’m constantly amazed and amused at this kind of “but *I* deserve to be invited too” thinking:
All too often folks don’t want to bring everyone in on Day 1.
And that’s the real problem.
They don’t want to relinquish the (illusion of) control. They want the freedom to make many of the decisions without participating in this crucial collaborative work. Well, guess what? That’s a very costly move: The later everyone is brought in the greater the overall project risk.
In my career, I’ve heard this from the Operations folks, the Support team, the Security high priests, and most recently from the UX zealots.
This usually takes the form of “but if only they’d included us too in the conversation at the beginning, we wouldn’t be in this mess” fantasy. The longer I watch these folks argue from the sidelines [and one of the things I used to do], the less sympathy I feel.
Telling us on the development & delivery side of the organization that we need to include you too feels a little like telling a kid they have to watch all the good movies with their parents in the room. I’m sorry, what exactly about that sounds like an incentive?
“Oh, well if you found that security flaw in architecture instead of during test, it would’ve been orders of magnitude cheaper.” As if it’s a pure win-win scenario – and not, as reality suggests from talking to the folks actually doing the real work, that rather than *prevent* every statistical possibility, often times we’d rather get the product out in front of people and find out which things *actually* bit them/us on the butt, and only spend time fixing *those* things. Get product out there capturing revenue months earlier, plus reduce your investment on the long tail of an infinite number of possible issues that would cost schedule and profits to fix up front (and turn out to be non-issues)? Yeah, you don’t need an MBA to make that kind of call.
[Not to mention, “fixing something in architecture is cheaper” assumes (1) that the architecture is communicated, interpreted and implemented carefully and successfully, (2) that new bugs aren’t introduced at every translation layer because the architects abandon their responsibility to follow-through, and (3) that they anticipated and addressed every implementation issue.]
“But if you just invited the UX designers/researchers before starting to talk about product features and ideas, you’ll have a much wider palette of well-designed ideas to work from.” Yes, that’s potentially true – if your designers have a clear idea what the target users need – or if the researchers can turn around actionable findings in a short timeframe – or your UX bigots don’t throw cold water on every speculative idea and colour the conversation with “how crappy everyone but me is”. That dude is real fun at parties.
Are you one of these people I’m picking on? Are you sufficiently pissed off yet? OK, good – then we’re getting close to a defensive wound we’re all still harbouring. Which is the right time to clarify: I absolutely appreciate working with folks who are aligned to our business priorities, and work to get us actionable results in a timely manner that are relevant to the business problem we’re facing. I’ve spent decades now working with security and usability geeks, and some I’ve found to be extremely helpful. Some I’ve found less so. Guess which ones I’ve heard complain like this?
Here’s the pitch from a Product Manager to everyone who’s vying to get a seat at the table: I don’t have enough room at the table to entertain everyone’s ego. You ever try to drive an effective decision-making body when the room (or conference bridge) is stuffed so bad, it looks like a clown car?
Those who I invite to the table are effective collaborators. If you have a concern, make sure it’s the most important thing on your plate, make sure it’s something I can understand, and make damn sure it’s something that’s going to have an impact on our business results. Every time you spend your precious ante on “but what if…” and not “here’s a problem and here are all the possible/feasible/useful solutions, depending on your priorities”, your invitation to the next conversation fades like Marty McFly’s family in that photo.
Best conferences I go to have no prepared agenda, no “luminaries” aggrandizing themselves, lots of fascinating up to the minute topics and copious discussion in session. “Papers” written in advance is the best way to stifle all that rich interaction, because it’s a sieve to filter out all those who haven’t yet attained expert status – and I rarely learn as much from experts, since they are usually quoting from their own tired catchphrases rather than original thought in response to others’ earnest inquiry.
Give me the interaction – that’s where I learn best – over the lecture. If I can throw in an inspired idea (or sometimes, a bit of snark) and hear a legitimate response to that, it far exceeds my trying to silently (or long after the monologue has completed, from an over-lit and terribly conspicuous microphone) parse out a heavily compacted or cryptic thought pattern.
Give me intimacy, not hollow echoey halls filled with row upon row of anonymizing and silencing seats.
Give me half-baked theories or simply questions to get the ball rolling, rather than twee or horribly over-thought concepts that are important only to the speaker (because they actualize the speaker’s self-centredism rather than actually enlighten the audience (and maybe even the facilitator).
Give me an unconference, not a conference. Scale is nearly impossible in the former, and often seems the point of the latter. Bragging rights is not how many attendees, but how many smiles and new connections.