Hi Brad, and also anyone on the forum please feel free to comment,
Anyways, I just wanted to say I discovered Stardock when you guys were still working on the original Galactic Civillizations - and I must say I fell in love with the company.
However, I do have some concerns going forward. I think it might be easy to manage a small firm and ensure good quality products. However, with the release of Elemental it seems Stardock is beginning to transition from a small firm, that can be easily managed from the top-down by a single individual, to a much larger bureaucracy. At this stage in the business, I think corporate management might need to take a transition from one where management is centralized to one that is very decentralized. I imagine you have already decentralized much of management throughout the company, or else you would have surely had a stroke by now.
The key question though, is how do decentralize management while still ensuring the company is known for quality and can still attract the love and adoration of its customers that it was able to as a small enterprise. The answer, I believe, is you need to seek a corporate system, a culture, which ensures the system can manage itself towards maximum quality. This goes beyond just quality of the end-product, but also ensures maximum quality in inter-department communication, maximum quality in employees (both performance and job satisfaction), and maximum quality in management.
As your firm progresses forward to a larger enterprise I would absolutely hate to see it go the way of most large firms, where all aspects of quality fade and the company loses its "soul" and becomes just another bloated inefficient firm.
To this end, I can't recommend enough (if you haven't already) that you read W. Edward Deming's "Out of the Crisis," which lays the framework for Total Quality Management.
It was written in 1986 and I think the vast majority of large firms still suffer from most of the problems Deming outlined.
Here's an excellent review on Amazon that highlight Deming's 14 principles and what he describes as the 7 deadly diseases:
W.Edwards Deming is one of the leading thinkers of modern management as a key originator of total quality management. D.Wren and R.Greenwood write, in their 'Management Innovators,' "Deming was critical of U.S. management, perhaps because he had been ignored far so long, but more probably because U.S. firms were losing market share to more quality-oriented competitors. He blamed U.S. management because the wealth of a nation did not depend on its natural resources but on its people, management, and goverment: 'The probem is where to find good management. It would be a mistake to export American management to a friendly country.' " In this context, in Chapter 2, in order to transform American industry, Deming presents the 14 points that constitute his theory of management: 1. Create constancy of purpose toward improvement of product and service, with aim to become competitive and to stay in business, and to provide jobs. 2. Adopt new philosophy. We are in a new economic age. Western management must awaken to the challenge, must learn their responsibilities, and take on leadership for change. 3. Cease dependence on inspection to achieve quality. Eliminate the need for inspection on a mass basis by building quality into the product in the first place. 4. End the practice of awarding business on the basis of price tag. Instead, minimize total cost. Move toward a single supplier for any one item, on a long-term relationship of loyalty and trust. 5. Improve constantly and forever the system of production and service, to improve quality and productivity, and thus constantly decrease costs. 6. Institute training on the job. 7. Institute leadership. The aim of supervision should be to help people and machines and gadgets to do a better job. Supervision of management is in need of overhaul, as well as supervision of production workers. 8. Drive out fear, so that everyone may work effectively for the company. 9. Break down barriers between departments. People in research, design, sales, and production must work as a team, to foresee problems of production and in use that may be encountered with the product or service. 10. Eliminate slogans, exhortations, and targets for the work force asking for zero defects and new levels of productivity. Such exhortations only create adversarial relationships, as the bulk of the causes of low quality and low productivity belong to the system and thus lie beyond the power of the work force. 11. Eliminate work standards (quotas) on the factory floor. Eliminate management by objective. Eliminate management by numbers, numerical goals. Substitute leadership. 12. Remove barriers that rob the hourly worker of his right to pride of workmanship. The responsibility of supervisors must be changed from sheer numbers to quality. Remove barriers that rob people in management and in engineering of their right to pride of workmanship. This means, inter alia, abolishment of the annual or merit rating and of management by objective. 13. Institute a vigorous program of education and self-improvement. 14. Put everybody in the company to work to accomplish the transformation. The transformation is everybody's job. According to Deming application of these points will transform style of management. Unfortunately, some deadly diseases stand in the way of transformation. Thus, in Chapter 3, he identifies seven deadly diseases that cause the decline of American industry: 1. Lack of constancy of purpose to plan product and service that will have a market and keep the company in business, and provide jobs. 2. Emphasis on short-term profits. 3. Evaluation of performance, merit rating, or annual review. 4. Mobility of management, job hopping. 5. Management by use only of visible figures, with little or no consideration of figures that are unknown or unknowable. 6. Excessive medical costs. 7. Excessive costs of liability, swelled by lawyers that work on contigency fees. I highly recommend this business classic for all managers.
In this context, in Chapter 2, in order to transform American industry, Deming presents the 14 points that constitute his theory of management:
1. Create constancy of purpose toward improvement of product and service, with aim to become competitive and to stay in business, and to provide jobs.
2. Adopt new philosophy. We are in a new economic age. Western management must awaken to the challenge, must learn their responsibilities, and take on leadership for change.
3. Cease dependence on inspection to achieve quality. Eliminate the need for inspection on a mass basis by building quality into the product in the first place.
4. End the practice of awarding business on the basis of price tag. Instead, minimize total cost. Move toward a single supplier for any one item, on a long-term relationship of loyalty and trust.
5. Improve constantly and forever the system of production and service, to improve quality and productivity, and thus constantly decrease costs.
6. Institute training on the job.
7. Institute leadership. The aim of supervision should be to help people and machines and gadgets to do a better job. Supervision of management is in need of overhaul, as well as supervision of production workers.
8. Drive out fear, so that everyone may work effectively for the company.
9. Break down barriers between departments. People in research, design, sales, and production must work as a team, to foresee problems of production and in use that may be encountered with the product or service.
10. Eliminate slogans, exhortations, and targets for the work force asking for zero defects and new levels of productivity. Such exhortations only create adversarial relationships, as the bulk of the causes of low quality and low productivity belong to the system and thus lie beyond the power of the work force.
11. Eliminate work standards (quotas) on the factory floor. Eliminate management by objective. Eliminate management by numbers, numerical goals. Substitute leadership.
12. Remove barriers that rob the hourly worker of his right to pride of workmanship. The responsibility of supervisors must be changed from sheer numbers to quality. Remove barriers that rob people in management and in engineering of their right to pride of workmanship. This means, inter alia, abolishment of the annual or merit rating and of management by objective.
13. Institute a vigorous program of education and self-improvement.
14. Put everybody in the company to work to accomplish the transformation. The transformation is everybody's job.
According to Deming application of these points will transform style of management. Unfortunately, some deadly diseases stand in the way of transformation. Thus, in Chapter 3, he identifies seven deadly diseases that cause the decline of American industry:
1. Lack of constancy of purpose to plan product and service that will have a market and keep the company in business, and provide jobs.
2. Emphasis on short-term profits.
3. Evaluation of performance, merit rating, or annual review.
4. Mobility of management, job hopping.
5. Management by use only of visible figures, with little or no consideration of figures that are unknown or unknowable.
6. Excessive medical costs.
7. Excessive costs of liability, swelled by lawyers that work on contigency fees.
I highly recommend this business classic for all managers.
As it is right now I love your work, your company, the products and services you and your employees are able to produce and I eagerly await the next thing you guys come up with. In the mean time I'll remain hopeful that as your firm becomes larger and expands that you don't go the way of <insert 99% of all American firms here>.
Best Regards,
-Justin.
Edit: Changed the forum location, thought this was a better location for this post.
Irrelevant for a software company.
Most relevant.
"Eliminate the QA team by not coding bugs into the software in the first place." Um...yeah.... How's that working out?
Well, normally it's "reduce the role of the QA team", and the tools to do that are Unit Test Suites, Continuous Integration or at least Nightly Builds, and often further automated tests.
Look e.g. at Mozilla's Tinderboxen for an example of working this way, and at Minefield (download: Firefox nightly build) as the output of this process.
Let's see: unit test, integration, nightly builds. Who do you think does all those things? I swear, QA gets no respect. Zip. Nada. And people wonder why software quality sucks.
Yes, all of these things are parts of QA, but mostly not the job of the QA team.
If it's not the developers creating and running the unit tests, those aren't unit tests.
The main use of a good unit test suite is to give each developer a chance to catch unintended side effects of the changes he has just made.
Builds are also the developers' responsibility - to create, to keep current and to keep the output usable.
The further tests can be automated tests created by the QA team, but even there will be a part that is the responsibility of the developers, e.g. component-level tests that are too cumbersome to run among the unit tests.
Pssst! Brad!RUN!!!!!! HIDE!!!!!!Just some free advise from a software engineer trapped somewhere in the mid-west, buried in a quagmire of TQM processes, forms, meetings, process improvement reviews. Who watches helplessly as innovative ideas of fellow engineers die a tedious and slow death because they don't fit within the TQM framework imposed upon them (i.e. you have to rewrite too many TQM documents to implement them).Ack! the TQM auditor's caught me posting this!Noooooo!
heh... side note - pretty sure Brad will read any post with his name in it (at least skim it - wouldn't you?). No reply means... something.
Oh, you are a sly one. But I think Brad's too smart to raise to your bait!
heh - nah - not baiting - just matter-of-facting... or something like that.
You actually bring up some very good points. I think there is a risk that firms can implement TQM poorly. If the principles of TQM aren't implemented properly then they can definitely strangle innovation, and even make the firm less efficient.
For me, I think the greatest benefit of TQM comes from emphasis that is placed on the individual employee. One important principle that TQM emphasizes is that it is the individual employee that knows the most about his job and role, rather than the manager above him. How many times have we all been in a work environment where we are micromanaged by our managers, yet they clearly know less about our particular job than we do. So, what I like about TQM is it seems to be a complete revolt against Taylorist management philosophy, which states that there is a single exact process that every employee should follow to the letter, and management should make sure everyone follows that process. TQM on the other hand says the individual employee at the lowest level knows more about his particular work environment then any layer of management above him. Under TQM it is not the role of management to dictate a process for the employee to follow, nor to micromanage the employee, but to work collaboratively with the employee where both are seen as equal partners.
Here is an excellent article, which I think illustrates your point though: http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1321
One point, though, that I think many firms miss when attempting to implement TQM is that they make the mistake of only looking at Quality of the end product. However, it is not Quality that is most important, it is Total Quality - and this encompasses everything from the overall efficiency of the firm, quality of the end product, quality in improving and refining existing technologies and processes, AND quality in innovating new processes and technologies. I think the one thing that is missing from many firms when they attempt to implement TQM is that they don't include innovation as a component of Total Quality.
Lets take Six Sigma for example, and I'll use a quote from the article I referenced above.
Six Sigma started at Motorola and gained popularity in the mid-1990s largely because of GE's visible efforts. The goal is to improve a company's quality to only three defects per million through systematic incremental change in processes and careful statistical measurement of outcomes.
This is one reason why I'm not a particular fan of Six Sigma, because it only allows a firm to improve and refine an already existing process, technology, or product. However, I find it difficult to see how any kind of disruptive technology would come out of Six Sigma practices. Under Six Sigma you may develop PCs that become faster and more reliable, but you would probably never innovate and create a Tablet. In this way Six Sigma tends to straight jacket itself.
Here's another issue I have with Six Sigma
Six Sigma is similar to TQM in its focus on techniques for solving problems and using statistical methods to improve processes. But whereas TQM emphasizes employee involvement organization-wide, the Six Sigma approach is to train experts (known as green belts and black belts) who work on solving important problems while they teach others in the company.
Six Sigma takes creative control away from the individual employee, and once again places it in the hands of a few, ignoring once again that it is the individual employee that knows the most about their individual area.
Another issue I have with Six-Sigma is that a Six-Sigma type of system can emerge naturally out of TQM as a base. However, while Six Sigma may have its utility in one area of a firm, I think it would only strangle the firm if implement across the company as a whole.
Of course you were talking directly about TQM, not Six Sigma. One of the major goals of TQM is to allow every individual employee's feedback to play a role in shaping the entire firm. In that regard it seems like the company you work for has botched the implementation of TQM. The fact that you said you have to watch as innovative ideas die because they don't fit the TQM framework suggests that your company has failed in implementing TQM properly. Under TQM there would be feedback between the employees and managers. Employees would say, "Hey look, our current processes are stifling innovation." If there is consensus in your department on that proposition then your manager would send the feedback up to the next level of management and ultimately the system would be refined to not stifle innovation. Again, though, innovation must be defined as a component of Total Quality.
Also, I think another issue is that, while SPC (Statistical Process Controls) are an important tool in TQM, they are just a tool and not the overall framework, they are just a piece.
So, I will end with a few quotes from Deming:
"Innovation comes from the producer - not from the customer."
"If you do not know how to ask the right question, you discover nothing."
“A system is a network of interdependent components that work together to try to accomplish the aim of the system. A system must have an aim. Without the aim, there is no system.”
With those quotes I would ask is your company asking the right questions? Is innovation a component of the aim of your system (the company you work for)?
EDIT: I just wanted to add that the PDSA cycle is an excellent tool that can be used to test an innovative idea from an employee. Its PDSA (Plan - Do - Study - Act) can also be looked at as:
Hypothesis: new innovative idea
Test: put the new idea into action
Study: analyze the results - is it a better technology? Is it a better process?
Implement: Put the new idea to large scale use.
On a completely unrelated note, here is one of the reasons I still love Stardock: https://www.stardock.com/press/CustomerReports/Stardock2010.pdf
It is the only company I can think of that recognizes its customers as stakeholders.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account