I think it’s critical to involve stakeholders in decisions. I get perturbed when leaders shun input, squelch ideas and horde control of decisions.
I was proud of my colleague Randy last week when he sought feedback from stakeholders about what new soda pop should be added to the IT pop machine. Randy created an online survey (or a ballot . . . the distinction is important) to find out what people wanted. After a few days, the survey (or ballot) closed and Randy emailed the outcome to all concerned.
Like Tom Brokaw declaring Al Gore the winner in Florida in 2000, Randy announced Diet Dr. Pepper to be the winner. The Rootbeerlicans went nuts, quickly declaring the election (or survey) results invalid.
Diet Dr. Pepper, one of 10 choices on the survey-slash-ballot had received six votes. Root beer—a write-in candidate—garnered four votes (there is some evidence of tampering and coercion in the root beer write-in campaign). The Rootbeerlicans argued that had their candidate been provided equal consideration on the ballot, it would have easily won a spot in the pop machine.
Techie geeks of all caffeinated and carbonated political leanings clamored for influence on the soda pop supreme court, where the final decision appeared to be headed.
Turns out the IT pop machine is ruled by a despot. In a tersely worded edict, Randy declared, “it was a survey, not an election! Diet Dr. Pepper is the winner. Happy Holidays, damn it.” (or something like that).
Your challenge
We make decisions every day that affect our stakeholders. We know we should ask for input, but so often the results are just like the pop machine story. Our decisions polarize and alientate. Create factions. Rile people up. When the next decision needs to be made, we’re wary. It’s human nature to protect ourselves from an onslaught of criticism and vitriol. We start to make the decision in secret. Or we identify potential troublemakers and exclude them from the process.
How would you improve the pop machine decision-making process? How can we ensure that all stakeholders have a voice and still make rational decisions that everyone can accept?
Think about it, then click on the “Add comment” link and share your ideas.
I must admit that this is probably one of the best ways to start the ball rolling, to get some Bloggers to read this and contribute. I agree that often decisions are made with the fear that there will be backlash that would subvert the whole process. The result then is that the decision is made and action taken before everyone involved has had time to digest the decision and/or its implications on day to day operations.
Back in October there was a lively discussion on letting a select few graduate students have privs in a system previously reserved for staff only. It was a breath of fresh air. This is the place for that type of discourse.
As for the pop machine fiasco: the actual result as I saw it was that root beer actually got 5 votes, not 4.
Root beer, root beer, we all root for root beer. Overthrow the despotic tyranny!
Excellent recap of yesterday’s events, Gordy. And — smart move to put this up on the blog! While I was quite amused with the whole debate, I’m sure there were a few people on the IT distribution list that were saying to themselves “NOT ANOTHER EMAIL ABOUT THE #$%@ POP MACHINE ARARRRARRGGGHHHH!!!!!”
We were thinking yesterday about organizing a sit-in in front of the pop machine, but we realized we’d have to move tables and chairs and that would be too much work.
Anyway, I can’t think of a better way to get input from everybody about an issue than the voting setup. Hopefully we didn’t scare any potential future pollsters away with our bickering over the results.
There was once a time in American history that every soda was given a fair chance to succeed. There was no corporate interferences, no biased ballots; just soda the way it was supposed to be. Carbonated and Caffeinated. I am personally disappointed and ashamed of the way we have treated certain not to be named sodas rootbeer. I personally believe that my ballot was not fairly counted due to a mishap with the puncher and a problematic chad…
This is why I am proposing the no-soda-left-behind act of 2007. I will make it my personal goal to make sure that every soda is given a fair chance to succeed in this perverse system. No longer will sodas be allowed to enter the establishment that does not deserve to be there. This will be done by making periodic random checks of the soda machine to make sure that no foul play is at hand. Every month I will expect to receive a detailed analysis of all soda sales, we can use this information to make informed decisions such as which soda to eliminate and which to implement. If a soda does not meet certain criteria after the allotted time in the machine, we will be forced to cut funding to the machine. This will surely make sales higher. How could it not? After all, the best way to fix a problem is to cut its funding right? No doubt that the Neo-Peppers will challenge this, and we are ready to take this head on! Viva La Root Beer!
Blog—Exciting! Can’t wait to see how this unfolds.
The ultimate decision is in the hands of people.
In this case they may now make their voices heard 50 cents at a time as they purchase their favorite beverage from the pop machine.
If the Rootbeerlicans truly love root beer they will show their loyalty to all Rootbeerlicans by selling out the current stock in a record setting pace. If this is not the case, and the pop machine becomes a warehouse of root beer, then the Rootbeerlicans will be shamed with the proof of being “all talk, and no drink”.
Not only must we seek input from our stakeholders, but we must follow through the complete process and provide the results of their actions. All too often we make a change and never take the time to evaluate if it was the right change to make, and if the change has made the situation better. In this instance the change will be easy to tally. This is not always the case, especially in the IT arena. What works for one group, may be a hindrance to others.
I believe not only initial input is necessary, but a continual dialogue is key to accomplishing our goals.
OMG THERE’S ROOTBEER IN THE MACHINE!!! Quickly, my fellow rootbeerlicans — TO THE BISTRO!!!
Congrats to RootBeerlicans!!
Since Wednesday morning (Dec. 12th) there has been 18 cans of root beer purchased!! Even I have enjoyed the tasty beverage!!
Kudos to Everyone!!
I would hope that this is an experimental post and not what we have to look forward to from future posts. I do not want to have to sort through posts about IT soda machines in order to discover policies or relevant information.
Earlier you said, “This “work in progress” attempts to aggregate IT policies and policies with IT implications in one place. It includes Board of Regents policies, official UM policies, and a few departmental operating procedures that have broad impact.”
I fail to see how this post and the resultant comments which are typical for a blog, but not appropriate for an official source of UM information, meet any of those standards. I do not believe that learning about Rootbeerlicans is better than viewing someone’s pet rock collection. It’s fun, it’s cutesy, and it belongs on someones my space page not in an area which may become the only source for UM IT policy.
Root beerlicans can and will support their product! However, it is the humble opinion of this blogger that the debate about root beer served to get people interested in and contributing to the fledgling IT Blog. It wasn’t about IT policy. It was a way for Gordy to launch a discussion that would get people interested in the actual blog itself. As such, it has grabbed the attention of several who are now subscribing to the RSS feeds to see what’s next, including IT policies, BOR policies etc. So while it does not meet the standards, it sure woke us up to the fact of what a blog is and how to use it. (I had heard of blogs but never actually dug in and realized their impact). So I say, good for you Gordy! It worked. We got responses, kudos and complaints, just as a blog is supposed to work. Now let’s move on to real issues.