Stumbling around in E-Commerce solution space

Let's stop here for a moment to look at some reality. How are people approaching e-commerce solution without this concept of a Hilbert solution space? Two emails, written at the time I was writing this chapter throw a spotlight on a range of different ways people are interacting with the real world of e-commerce. The first comes from a lady working for a multimedia company in Australia. In a discussion at one of the tables in the virtual cafe she wrote:

I've just finished reading Chapter 8 and all the emails I've received over the weekend with their talk of people as objects (as opposed to components in the system, which I think is a more accurate description. I for one refuse to be talked about as an "object", I don't care what current business practices say... and for the most part, current business, or should I say "typical corporate business", practices suck anyway.)

The one thing that kept coming to my mind during Chapter 8 had nothing to do with green frogs and Hilbert space or marbles...all of which make perfect sense to me. No, the thing I kept thinking was how do you communicate this style of working with your team members? How do you get people to throw marbles around without it ending up with them throwing the marbles at you?

Your ending paragraph in chapter 8 gave me some hope, Peter, that if I hold on till the next chapter I'll start to see some help in "green frog communication." But I suspect you're going to talk of the virtual cafe more than this inter-communication between the observer/designer and the marble-throwers. I know I don't know a whole lot about e-commerce. I don't know a lot about business either as I tend to "do my own thing" and let others go their own way. I detest office politics; I despise mean-spirited gossip; and I'm far more interested in outstanding results than in process and procedure.

All of this seems to preclude my success in the standard corporate world. But my experience over the past year, limited though it is, has provided some really pointed lessons in what might prove successful in the long run. And it all has to do with communication, choosing the right people to work with, and then really working WITH them to evolve the "green frog" into something that astonishes everyone. This is why your chapter 7 was really validating for me.

It has been my experience that your average programmer (or "marble thrower") likes to have things neatly laid out in great detail. At least the guys I work with do. For the past 2 years, I've been "designing" and helping to program computer-based training and multimedia marketing promos. I've had to develop storyboards, in cooperation with the client or end-user, that I thought were incredibly detailed.

I then worked with the guys in a series of 1)action (someone created a graphic or coded a piece); 2) observe (I looked at it at their request); 3) communicate (I provided feedback...yes, that's it; or I wonder if you could try this). I thought we were really going to go somewhere, create really cool stuff, become the best of the best.

Then it happened with one particularly visible project that my rosy picture exploded in my face. Literally. I provided feedback. The programmer went ballistic. He sent an email, copying it to my supervisor, that in effect accused me of not giving him the details he needed to do his job (this despite that fact that I had sat with him for 2-3 hours going over the damn storyboard to make sure he "clicked into" the vision and showed him samples on the web of effects I wanted to simulate).

He then outlined a list of 14 items he needed precise detail on which included rgb values and pixel counts and exact step-by-step descriptions of every animated effect, etc., etc... I emailed back that I could do that, but I'd have to create the effect myself in order to give him that much detail, which was true. He threw something at my desk; I yelled at him for that; he "quit" (and then sheepishly begged for his job back the next day.)

Our manager sent the whole team to a teambuilding seminar that focused on communication....how different personality types need to be communicated with in order for communication to really occur. In these sessions, we all learned a lot of really interesting things. But one of the things that came out was that of the 5 people, I was the only who was markedly "different" in terms of my core personality. Everyone else was high in steadiness....meaning that they like process, step-by-step procedures, proven methods, the status quo.

When you communicate with someone like this you have to have all your ducks in a row. You have to be calm, procedural, give them detail and facts, and give them time to absorb the facts and determine a plan of action before you start looking for results. (It was also interesting to note that 40% of the population is high in steadiness.) I was the only one low in steadiness and high in dominance...meaning that I challenge the status quo, drive for results, am innovative and creative etc., etc.

I also need people to get to the point. Say what you have to say. Don't detail and outline it, I can fill in the blanks. Give me what you're looking for and then let me find a way to get you the result you need. Above all, don't tell me HOW to get the result. Trust me to get the result you want when you want it, and I'll succeed every time or be able to tell you why I didn't. (Another note of interest is that only 18% of the population is like this. I'm also the only female, except for my manager. I'm not sure what that has to do with everything, except I do feel the guys never really listen to "cute little old me." But, as I learned, my natural communication style is markedly different from theirs and, in order to be really "heard," I need to do some serious adapting.)

All this learning on communication promised to help us achieve some radically better results. Until I started to really listen to the unspoken currents running through the team. I realized that, given the personalities I was working with, the only one who would ever really change would be me. I didn't see how these procedurally minded fellows would truly be able to adapt except over a rather long time. And I didn't see how, given their need for detail and plans, we as a team would ever be able to achieve anything spectacular. Sadly, after having helped build up the team from nothing, I had to admit defeat and our end as a growing entity with a hopeful future. Personally, I think the team will be dissolved within a year.

But then something else happened at the same time...

I had been left, after our teambuilding exercises, feeling very much the odd man out and the cause of everyone's woe. On one hand, I was told I didn't give enough detail. In the same breath I was told I was too controlling. But while my work with the "team" dwindled, I got more work from the marketing department. And it came out recently that the key marketing individual I work with, (another woman, incidentally, with whom I had worked in the design of the visible project I got beat up on) had the same problems working with the guys on my team as I had. And that she was coming back to our group not to work with the "team" but to work with me...because I listened to her; I worked WITH her; we created things on the fly together, sitting in the same cube.

Everyone else says she's riding on my coattails. That I do all the work and she just sits there. But what I see is very different...sure, I'm helping her look good. But I get to work on cool stuff. And she has really good ideas. And it's a pleasure working WITH people instead of fighting, and coming out with stuff that has potential! And my manager is happy because I'm "bringing" high-profile work to the team, helping her look good and keeping the team in existence.

The guys on the team just had a way of taking the storyboard and shutting out the designer and the designer's feedback. They threw marbles...but then never wanted to hear whether the marbles were near the hole or not. They didn't want to be told that. They thought they were smarter, more knowledgeable about programming, that they should be the ones telling which marbles were good or not, and we should just shut up and mind our places.

After reading your book, I want to try doing stuff without a storyboard...just a goal and a vision which, according to the guys, is all I ever gave them anyway. But can you imagine what havoc that would wreak? Everyone would be down my throat. But I could do it...if I worked on my own and got to pick out my own team. And I know the product would blow everyone away.

So the programmer threw marbles regardless of our feedback. He put in extra amounts of extraneous movement because he thought it was cool, and only when the customer saw it and complained about all the extraneous movement did he take it out....And when he complained about the extra work and how dare the customer be allowed to have that much say so late in the day, I pointed out that, however, the result ended up nearly identical to our original design. So why hadn't he listened to our feedback...we were his line to the customer? Because we were younger, newer to multimedia and programming, because he was the "expert".

Unfortunately, I don't think all the communication skills in the world can counteract that core prejudice of "experts" against "upstarts", especially in a corporation where you're lower on the totem pole. The only way "experts" will bother listening is if you're the big boss. Because then they'd know if they didn't listen, you'd fire them.

Jacie

Without an abstract model to measure this scenario against it seems just another typical story of internal personal friction within a company. Not knowing the people involved it's hard to take sides. However, when viewed within the context of a Hilbert solution space the situation becomes very clear. Jacie has a brief from her client. It's put into the form of a visionary goal. It needs a solution.

Jacie isn't free to get that solution anywhere in a solution space, she is forced to go to a point in space where the dimensions are people that cannot provide the right solution. The solution she is looking for is somewhere else where the people dimensions are different.

Because the strategy of her company is to have an in-house design team she is stuck with those people dimensions together with their limited range of knowledge, ability and attitude; these don't extend into the ideal position she'd like to be in her solution space.

Seeing this scenario within the abstract environment of a Hilbert solution space it becomes perfectly obvious that for Jacie an in-house design team is a severe handicap. But, it is probably also a handicap for the members of the design team themselves because they are being forced to work outside of their range of speciality to become "Jack of all trades and master of none". In this way Jacie, reflecting the demands of her clients, is not a suitable dimension for the ideal solution in their solution space.

Far better if the design team were freelance and could offer their services to more suitable clients. Far better for Jacie if she could search around in her solution space for some outside contractors who could more suitably provide the solutions she was looking for.

A different perspective was provided in a post to an Internet e-commerce talk list in a thread entitled "An insight into e-commerce". This had developed into a discussion about the role of management in e-commerce. I'd posted the following:

I don't see management and managers (in the normally accepted sense being applicable to e-commerce solutions. Also, teams and team leaderships are likely to take on different forms.

The reason I have for saying this is because it isn't economical or efficient for e-commerce solution providers to pay technologists to learn on the job. With digital technology, software packages and e-commerce strategies changing so rapidly, the necessity for so much on the job learning cancels out the advantages of maintaining a permanent team that can be managed.

With communication on the Internet so efficient, it is much easier and cheaper to find and hire several specialists who will be expert in various parts of an e-commerce solution that has to be put together. This suggests that there will be teams held together by association rather than employment. As such, leadership will need to be inspirational rather than managerial.

Choosing one or two specialists carefully, they will come with sufficient expertise to provide ideas and suggestions as to what other areas of expertise they should be joined up with. In this way, an e-commerce solution should be virtually self constructing, much the same way as genes come together in the genome of a cell. This will not need any management and, surprisingly enough, little or no planning.

This is based upon using an object oriented approach to e-commerce solutions. This approach works perfectly well for constructing complex software systems and I see no reason why it shouldn't be applicable to e-commerce solutions.

BTW In this radical view of management and planning, I'm excluding any activity on the bricks and mortar side of a product or service being provided. For example, if you are marketing health products you'll need traditional managers, teams and leaders to make, pack and despatch the product. The e-commerce side is concerned with product design and marketing. It is in these areas where I think we'll find many dramatic changes in strategies and techniques.

Peter

There were a few posts for and against this proposition; one suggesting that Web sites should be designed much the same as movies are made. Randy, an experienced e-commerce consultant, wrote in response:

I see companies needing to get to the web quickly, so they hire an organization to get them there, giving their own people a bit of maintenance work to do. They end up with a site that fits the expertise of their contractors, and meets a short-sighted snapshot of their needs. It's a decent answer to some of their needs, but it's only a small piece of a solution.

Granted, with short time requirements, you can't do much better. But you can do better. You can have people that understand the company and can think further than the "requirements" work to design not just a set of requirements, but a long-range plan of services and maintenance. You can involve your own people in learning the new technologies and the site design, and give them some of the longer-range pieces. They can take over the development not just of the site, but of developing the site's potential- collecting customer feedback as well as feedback and ideas from the rest of your organization.

I see lots of sites serving the marketing and e-commerce needs of companies, but they serve customer needs poorly - they seem to have had their requirements built by bureaucrats and business people who are under pressure. This is a start for building a web presence, but is small-minded. Consultants will go on to their next project. The people responsible for your site should care about and be immersed in your customers' and your business' needs.

A movie is a great example of a static, very expensive, and narrowly-useful product. Lots of effort goes into its production and marketing and launch, and then it's over. After that, it follows a pretty well-understood life cycle. That's not what you want for a web site and a business. The problem with high-cost-production items is that it's all glitter, anticipating a certain audience. There's no flexibility engineered in. It's built on one artist's (or committee's) idea, not made to change to adopt to evolving business conditions.

A website should be a very, very flexible thing. There are many different products and approaches one can take. The tools are very young. The art of building sites is very young. Pretty much anything you build will need ongoing work and analysis to be worth anything and you should count on it being obsolete soon. You have to build in-house expertise, learning not just about your site for maintenance and changes, but also keeping up with evolving technologies.

-ras

Randy's post describes what is happening far too often to companies who are keen to get into e-business or e-commerce. They have little or no knowledge themselves and they put it into the hands of a consultant to get them their first footing. In principle, this is not a bad idea because they are entering the game. They are like the poker player who sits down to play and puts money in the kitty to get a first deal of the cards.

Unfortunately, many expect the consultant to set them up to be expert players from the word go. This is impossible. The consultant would have to know not only all there is to know about e-commerce but also everything there is to know about the client and the client's customers. In any case, the consultant is producing an optimum solution for him or herself: from his or her own Solution Space and not from the Solution Space of the client.

Realistically, the consultant can only set a company up to play the game and explain the rudiments of how to play. It is unlikely that the consultant could represent all the people and knowledge that would need to be present at the company's ideal solution point in their solution space.

Randy suggests that a company should build their own in-house expertise: " learning not just about your site for maintenance and changes, but also keeping up with evolving technologies". This is not however a realistic proposition if it is taken as meaning the in-house staff should literally get to know all there is to know about the changes that are taking place. More practically, it means establishing a place in the solution space where they are in contact with the right combination of sources that will keep them informed and provide them with appropriate expertise on demand. Chief among this organised feedback will be the view points and expectations of the companies clients or customers.