Dana Bell

I read a blog entry today on ITToolbox about the relationship, or lack thereof, between IT and management. It was interesting, although something in the comments came up that I thought was even more so.

Geo Bondar wrote,

What if the problem is that the business managers refuse to accept how hard software development is? Perhaps they keep demanding that it be easier, quicker and cheaper than is possible? Perhaps they do not want to understand IT?

Those hypothetical questions summarize one of the big problems with management, at all levels, at all types of companies. But, there are some more questions. What if management doesn't know how easy it really is? What if they are paying a million dollars on a universal system that is severely deficient?

Management looks at all the Powerpoint displays and judges based solely on that. Major turnkey software vendors have perfected the presentation sales pitch and only have to sell part of an elaborate system with the ability to expand it with additional modules. In the end, management may not understand the shortcomings of such a system, and the outrageous costs to get it right.

On the other hand they may forego a particular module in the system insisting that clerical staff can handle all of that with spreadsheets, and we already have the software for that.

Management often doesn't have the background to judge the value of software, or if custom designed, the costs involved. They can just as easily expect too much as they can pay too much. Prudent administrators have to trust IT, provided they were wise enough to hire a trustworthy CIO to begin with. It is my belief that a viable IT department (not a software sales rep) should be able to provide accurate cost savings for changes in the information infrastructure, or the costs of not making necessary changes.

But then, it is also my belief that managers need to be good managers in all areas (IT included) of their business in order to succeed, in order for their business to succeed.

I'm not sure how to begin this, or how to summarize it, but I think it says something about the confidence we have in what we say.

My wife took her car in for an inspection today, and came back with a failure. When she came home she told me the mechanic said her right turn signal was broke. Well, I checked all the lights and all were operational. As we investigated further, I found out that they were talking about the side marker signal. The car was wrecked about three years ago, and that piece was broken, so I took it off. Every year since then it has passed inspection. It seemed odd that this year it failed, but I did what I thought would be reasonable. I found the broken lens, purchased and installed a bulb and went back down for a re-inspection.

The mechanic looked at it again and said it still didn't pass. While the actual light and cover was intact, the reflector that was attached to it was broken. The mechanic said it needed to be like the one on the other side. I talked to someone else there (he acted like a manager) why it passed inspection in past years. He told me that it wouldn't have passed there.

I told him she had it inspected there last year. He insisted that it wasn't inspected there. He said that there was a $500 fine for passing something like that. I was confident that it was inspected there so did some research. I noted the date of the inspection, looked through our canceled checks and found a check made to Detail Masters for $12.50 on the same day it was inspected.

Either he is more demanding in his inspections now because of the slow economy and lack of business, or he was a bit more confident than accurate about the facts. Since the problem has more to do with details than it has to do with safety (i.e. safety inspection), I'm leaning toward the first conclusion. I have, however, been just as confident and wrong about something before. Not very often, but it could happen.

I suppose with a name like Detail Masters, they need to be concerned about the details. But then, he forgot the detail that she's been getting her car inspected there for years. I'm tempted to take the current inspection sticker and the copy of the check and present it to him, but that sounds like a lot of trouble. This entry may be all I need.

An update on the logo design for DBS.
This one changes the color a bit and adds a pie chart in the back. A pie demonstrates how business and DBS is involved in multiple areas, while at the same time, using a presentation graphic, suggests the professional nature of the services to be offered.

I'm still considering other graphics that might better illustrate the segmented nature of business management, something like a segmented orange. Still they do not present the significance that what happens in one area affects other areas. I do like orange juice, but that would really be too oblique.

As Eastman put it, "The project continues!!!"

I started working on developing Diversified Business Services again over the weekend. I registered the domain dbstyler.com and designed a new logo for it. I've actually been playing with this for decades, so the new logo is not the first design, or even the best design. It is just another effort to create a distinctive logo that is representative of the organization.

Diversified Business Services, or DBS Tyler is the name of a business consulting and services company that I've used over the years. On the one hand, it is a simple operation while on the other there are multiple areas of specialty, that actually deserve to have their own identity. Thus, the problem with designing a logo for the company is analagous to painting a picture of a family with everyone in it bearing the family resemblance, while making sure that individual members are also distinguishable.

To do that, I decided to focus on the abbreviations DBS and add "tyler", or the name of the specialty at the end. In sketching the logo, I almost always run the two together, or overlap them. I designed a DBS graphics logo for a teeshirt advertisement a few years ago, using that concept. It is simply the text, fancied up. But the style doesn't ID the company as a business consulting company.

I've tried adding an icon to the logo, but always ended up dropping it because it made it too busy. The current plan is to develop a base logo for DBS, and append either the city or specialty in a style that identifies that area. The most recent development uses that idea.

I'm still not impressed, so the work continues. So it is with this kind of art. There always seems to be room for improvement. There always seems to be something missing. And so it is with life, too. Without the fellowship of Jesus and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, there always seems to be something missing.

I talked about Tyler Transit on an earlier entry. Since then, I have learned more about Tyler Transit from some of the other riders. While I was waiting at the transfer, some of the long-time riders were expressing their concerns (i.e. complaining) about the transit system. The first thing was how the drivers were always on break, referring to the wait at the transfer point. That was not without some truth and clarifications. The Red South bus makes it to the transfer point about 10 minutes before the departure time. The connecting Red North bus is almost always just on time or late. With the 10 minute wait, another 5-10 minute wait at the bus stop, and maybe a 10 minute walk to or from a bus stop, you've waited half an hour not counting the ride itself.

I also got a history lesson. One observation was how when they had 4 buses, they ran every hour, but with 5 buses, then run every hour and a half. Technically, it's every 1 hour and twenty minutes for some routes, and every 40 minutes for some. I suspect that there were some problems with the initial plan and some changes were made as well as an assumption that the problem was fixed.

In a wealthy city such as Tyler, it's understandable that there wouldn't be as many riders as in other cities. Everyone is retired and using their own vehicles. However, I've ridden on a few buses that were filled to capacity, so there are enough riders to keep it going. In contrast, since Tyler is such a wealthy city, it seems ironic that they don't spend more money developing the transit system. The supposed traffic congestion problems could be impacted if Tyler had a transit system that better served the city.

I'm not talking about a bus every 4-6 minutes. Routes that run every 30 minutes would be adequate for most riders. I'm not going to guess at the cost of each additional route without some study, but you can compare the cost of adding another bus and annual cost for a driver with the millions of dollars we are spending on creating and maintaining our city streets and highways. For the environmentally conscious, the fuel savings gained and green-house gases inhibited by having a respectable transit system would also be a welcome sight.

Also discussed by some of the riders was the transit system in Longview. If you take the bus there, you might as well get relaxed because you're in for a ride. Tyler may have Longview beat in that area, but I think the transit system is far from being the best that it can be.

A few weeks ago at church, I was listening to a sermon that suggests that because love is a fruit of the Spirit, that only Christians can have that kind of love. I've also heard that because some men wear red socks, all who wear red socks are men. Many of our misconceptions are rooted in this kind of distorted logic, and much of politics and public relations is based on it.

The scripture does not say only Christians can love, or that all Christians love. I see people all of the time that love others unconditionally and unselfishly. The same can be said of the other fruit of the Spirit.

So, what is the Bible teaching when it refers to the fruit of the Spirit in Galatians?

If you read the passage in its context, you can see that the fruit of the Spirit is in contrast to the works of the flesh. Because the fruit is characteristic of the Holy Spirit, those who are led by the Spirit should obviously exhibit that fruit.

I've been a member of the class of unemployed for a month now. During that time I've reminded myself of some of the myths behind job searching and resumes. This is not a comprehensive list; just a few things I've discovered, and yes, some things I've theorized.

A couple of weeks ago I was doing some volunteer work and my job search came to the attention of someone there. I was still officially employed to which that person replied that it's easier to find a job while you are still working because it looks better to the prospective employer. I don't think so, at least not in my case. In the last 16 years that I've been job searching, it was only when I was unemployed that I actually found a job, twice. It appears that some employers are less willing to take someone away from their current employment than they are in providing a job to someone that isn't working.
The "currently working" status really doesn't say that much about an employee's quality or reliability. There's enough information on a person's application to determine that.

A second thing that I would consider a myth is that a one-page resume is essential. To some employers and job searchers that may be true. For many, that may not be the case. If a resume is properly organized, with appropriate spacing and subheads, a multi-page resume allows a prospective employer find the information he is interested in. I customize every resume I send out, but in general, it includes an education/certification page, a history page, a qualifications page, and in most cases, a projects page. My on-line resume, although not fully updated, follows the same theme. Prospective employers can quickly browse to find the information they are interested in. That version also includes personal activities like Scrabble, photography and disc golf, if they are interested. They can turn the page if not.

While it may be true that a one-page resume may help me find a job, any job, faster, it won't insure that I find a job I want, or mean that the employer finds an employee he needs and can utilize to the fullest. I don't want to find an employer that has a limited interest in my qualifications, or who's primary concern is how well I can sell myself in an interview.

A third thing comes from one of the sites I visited.
On http://www.gresumes.com/myth.htm this myth is presented.

Myth #5 -- If your résumé is good enough, it should produce a job offer.

Reality -- The aim of your résumé is not to get you a job directly, although that has happened with some of my clients. The aim of your résumé is to make the phone ring (or your e-mail box fill up) and land you a job interview. It's YOUR job to prepare for that interview and get the job offer.

That is partly true. The resume is there to present your qualifications for a job. That's it. If successful, a resume will also prevent you from getting a job you don't want. It's a lot like matchmaking. Both parties need to be compatible with each other to make for a lasting, meaningful relationship.

Finally, a bit of advice. If possible, be prepared for being unemployed. Manage your finances in such a way that when you do become unemployed, you won't have to take the first job that comes along. If you're prepared, you might find that your next bout of unemployment could lead you to becoming self-employed.