Life
Genetics, Genomics, Nanotechnology, and more
Science has interested me for most of my life, but it wasn’t until my first child was born that I shifted from “interested” to “involved.” My eldest daughter was diagnosed with Systemic Onset Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis (SoJIA – originally called Juvenile Rheumatoid Arthritis, or JRA) when she was 15 months old, which also happened to be about six months into the start of my Consulting company, all while we were in the middle of a very critical Y2K ERP system upgrade and rehosting project. It was definitely a challenging time in my life.
At the time, there was very little research on JRA because it was estimated that only 30,000 children were affected by the disease, and the implication was that funding research would not have a positive ROI. The economics of medical research were eye-opening to me. This was also a few years before breakthroughs like Enbrel for children.
One of the things that I learned was that this disease could be horribly debilitating. Children often had physical deformities as a result of this disease. Even worse, the systemic type that my daughter has could result in premature death. As a first-time parent, imagining that type of life for your child was extremely difficult.
Luckily, the company I had just started was taking off, so I decided to find ways to make a tangible difference for all children with this disease. We decided to donate 50% of our net profits to fund medical research. We aimed to fund $1 million in research and find a cure for Juvenile Arthritis within the next 5-7 years.
As someone new to “major gifts” and philanthropy, I quickly learned that some gifting vehicles were more beneficial than others. While most organizations wanted you to start a fund (which we did), the impact from that tended to be more long-term and less immediate. I met someone passionate, knowledgeable, and successful in her field who showed me a different, better approach (here’s a post that describes it in more detail).
I no longer wanted to blindly give money and hope it was used quickly and properly. Rather, I wanted to treat these donations like investments in a near-term cure. To be successful, I needed to understand research from both medical and scientific perspectives in these areas. That began a new phase in medical research and an independent learning journey in areas where I had limited understanding and expertise.
A lot was happening in Genetics and Genomics at the time (here’s a good explanation of the difference between the two). My interest and efforts in this area led to a position on the Medical and Scientific Advisory Committee with the Arthritis Foundation. Except for me, the other members were talented, successful physicians who were also involved in medical research. We met quarterly, and I asked questions and made suggestions that made a difference. But, unlike everyone else on the committee, I needed to study and prepare for 40+ hours for each call to ensure that I had enough understanding to add value and not be a distraction. Every quarter, I earned my seat at that table.
A few years later, we did work for a Nanotechnology company (more info here for those interested). The Chief Scientist wasn’t interested in explaining what they did until I described some of our research projects on gene expression. He then went into great detail about what they were doing and how he believed it would change what we do in the future. I saw that and agreed. I also started thinking about the potential of leveraging nanotechnology in medicine.
While driving today, I was listening to the “TED Radio Hour” and heard a segment about entrepreneur Richard Resnick. It was exciting because it got me thinking about this again – a topic I haven’t thought about for the past few years (the last time, I was contemplating how new analytics products could be useful in this space).
There are efforts today with custom, personalized medicines that target only specific genes for a specific outcome. The genetic modifications being performed on plants today will likely be performed on humans in the near future (I would guess within 10-15 years), and potentially misused as bioweapons. The body is an incredibly adaptive organism, so it will be very challenging to implement anything that is consistently safe and effective long-term. But that day will come.
It’s not a huge leap from genetically modified “treatment cells” to true nanotechnology (not just extremely small particles). Just think, machines that can be designed to work independently within us to do what they are programmed to do and, more importantly, identify and understand adaptations (i.e., artificial intelligence) as they occur and alter their approach and treatment plan accordingly based on changes and findings. This is extremely exciting. It’s not that I want to live to be 100+ years old – because I don’t. But being able to do things that positively impact the quality of life for children and their families is a worthy goal from my perspective.
My advice is to keep learning, stay open-minded, and do what you can to make a difference. You will never know what is possible unless you try.
It’s not Rocket Science – What you Measure Defines how People Behave
I previously wrote a post titled “To Measure is to Know.”
The other side of the coin is that what you measure defines how people behave. This is an often forgotten aspect of Business Intelligence, Compensation Plans, Performance reviews, and other key areas in business. While many people view this topic as “common sense,” based on the numerous incentive plans you run across as a consultant and compensation plans you submit as a Manager, that is not the case.
Is it wrong to have people respond by focusing on specific aspects of their job that they are being measured on? That is a tricky question. This simple answer is “sometimes.” This is ultimately the desired outcome of implementing specific KPIs (key performance indicators), OKRs (objectives and key results), MBOs (Management by Objectives), and CSAT (Customer Satisfaction), but it doesn’t always work. Let’s dig into this a bit deeper.
One prime example is something seemingly easy, yet often anything but: compensation plans. When properly implemented, these plans drive organic business growth through increased sales, revenue, and profits (three related items that should be measured). This can also drive steady cash flow by closing deals faster and within specific periods (usually months or quarters) and focusing on models that create the desired revenue stream (e.g., perpetual license sales versus subscription license sales versus SaaS subscription sales). What could be better than that?
Successful salespeople focus on the areas of their comp plan where they have the greatest opportunity to make money. Presumably, they are selling the products or services that you want them to based on that plan. MBO and OKR goals can be incorporated into plans to drive positive outcomes that matter to the business, such as bringing on new reference accounts. Those are forward-looking goals that increase future (as opposed to immediate) revenue. In a perfect world, with perfect comp plans, these business goals are codified and supported by motivational financial incentives.
Some of the most successful salespeople are the ones who primarily care only about themselves (although not at the expense of their company or customers). They are in the game for one reason—to make money. Give them a well-constructed plan that lets them win, and they will do so predictably. Paying large commission checks should be a goal for every business because properly constructed compensation plans mean their own business is prospering. It needs to be a win-win design.
However, suppose a salesperson has a poorly constructed plan. In that case, they will likely find ways to personally win with deals that don’t align with company growth goals (e.g., paying a commission based on deal size but not factoring in profitability and discounts). Even worse, give them a plan that doesn’t provide a chance to win, and the results will be uncertain at best.
Just as most tasks tend to expand to use all the time available, salespeople tend to book most of their deals at the end of whatever period is used. With quarterly payment cycles, most of the business tends to book in the final week or two of the quarter, which is not ideal for cash flow. Using shorter monthly periods may increase business overhead. Still, the potential to level out the flow of booked deals (and associated cash flow) from salespeople working harder for that immediate benefit will likely be a worthwhile tradeoff. I pushed for this change while running a business unit, and we began seeing positive results within the first two months.
What about motivating Services teams? What I did with my company was to provide quarterly bonuses based on overall company profitability and each individual’s contribution to our success that quarter. Most of our projects used task-oriented billing, where we billed 50% up-front and 50% at the time of the final deliverables. You needed to both start and complete a task within a quarter to maximize your personal financial contribution, so there was plenty of incentive to deliver and quickly move to the next task. As long as quality remains high, this is a good thing.
We also factored in salary costs (i.e., if you make more than you should, you’re bringing more value to the company), the cost of rework, and non-financial items that benefited the company. For example, writing a white paper, giving a presentation, helping others, or even providing formal documentation on lessons learned added business value and would be rewarded. Everyone was motivated to deliver quality work products on time, help each other, and do things that promoted the company’s growth. My company prospered, and my team made good money to make that happen. Another win-win scenario.
This approach worked very well for me and was continually validated over several years. It also fostered innovation because the team was always looking for ways to increase their value and earn more money. Many tools, processes, and procedures emerged from what would otherwise be routine engagements. Those tools and procedures increased efficiency, consistency, and quality. They also made it easier to onboard new employees and incorporate an outsourced team for larger projects.
Mistakes with comp plans can be costly – due to excessive payouts and/or because they are not generating the expected results. Backtesting is one form of validation as you build a plan. Short-term incentive programs are another. Remember, without some risk, there is usually little reward, so accept that some risk must be taken to find the point where optimal behavior is fostered, and then adjust the plan accordingly.
It can be challenging and time-consuming to identify the right things to measure, the right number of things (measuring too many or too few will likely fall short of goals), and the incentives that motivate people to do what you want and need. Anything worth doing is worth doing well. Hopefully this post provided ideas on how to make that happen.
Are you Visionary or Insightful?
Having great ideas that go misunderstood or unvalidated is pointless, just as being great at “filling in the gaps” does little if what you are building achieves little toward your needs and goals. This post is about Dreaming Big and turning those dreams into actionable plans.
Let me preface this post by stating that both are important and complementary roles. But if you don’t recognize the difference between the two, it becomes much more challenging to execute and realize value/gain a competitive advantage.
The Visionary has great ideas but doesn’t always create plans or follow through on developing the idea. There are many reasons why this happens (distractions, new interests, frustration, lack of time), so it is good to be aware of that, as this type of person can benefit by being paired with people willing and able to understand a new idea or approach, and then take the next steps to flesh out a high-level plan to present that idea and potential benefits to key stakeholders. People may view them as aloof or unfocused.
The Insightful sees the potential in an idea, helps others understand the benefits and gain their support, and often creates and executes a plan to prototype and validate the idea – killing it off early if the anticipated goals are unachievable. They document these experiences, learn from them, and become increasingly proficient at validating the idea or approach and quantifying the potential benefits. They are usually very pragmatic.
Neither of these types of people is affected by loss aversion bias.
I find it amazing how often you hear someone referred to as a visionary, only to see that person could eliminate some of the noise and “see further down the road” than most people. While this skill is valuable, it is more akin to analytics and science than art. Insight usually comes from focus, understanding, intelligence, and being open-minded. Those qualities matter in both business and personal settings.
On the other hand, someone truly visionary looks beyond what is already illuminated and can, therefore, be detected or analyzed. It’s like a game of chess, where the visionary person thinks six or seven moves ahead. They connect the dots across various future possibilities while their competitor is still thinking about their next move.
Interestingly, this can be frustrating for everyone.
- The Visionary with an excellent idea may become frustrated because they feel an unmet need for understanding.
- The people around that visionary person become frustrated, wondering why that person can’t focus on what is important or why they fail to see/understand the big picture.
- Others view the visionary ideas and suggestions as tangential or irrelevant. It is only over time that the others understand what the visionary was trying to show them – often after a competitor has already begun implementing a similar idea.
- The Insightful, wanting to make a difference, can feel constrained in static environments, which offer little opportunity for change and improvement.
Both Insightful and Visionary people view themselves as strategic. Both believe they are doing the right thing. Both have similar goals. What’s truly ironic is that they may view each other as competitors rather than seeing the potential for collaboration.
A strong management team can boost creativity by fostering a culture of innovation and bringing these people together to work toward a common goal. Providing little time and resources to explore an idea can lead to remarkable outcomes. When I had my consulting company, I sometimes joked, “What would Google do?” to describe how amazing things were possible and waiting to be done.
The insightful person may see a payoff from their ideas sooner than the visionary person, because they focus on what is already in front of them. It may be a year or more before what the visionary person has described shifts to the mainstream and into the realm of insight – hopefully before it reaches the realm of common sense (or worse yet, is entirely passed by).
I recommend that people create a system to gather ideas, along with a description of the purpose, goals, and advantages of those ideas. Foster creativity and innovation by rewarding people for participation, regardless of what becomes of the idea. Review those ideas regularly and document your commentary. You will find good ideas with luck – some insightful and possibly even visionary.
Look for commonalities and trends to identify the people who can cut through the noise or see beyond the periphery and the areas having the greatest innovation potential. This approach will help drive your business to the next level.
You never know where the next good idea will come from. Efforts like these provide growth opportunities for people, products, and profits.
Investing in Others – Becoming a Mentor
I have been very fortunate throughout my career. There have been incredible opportunities, risks with big rewards, and lessons learned from mistakes and failures (e.g., one of the biggest early lessons is that most mistakes will not kill you, so you can find a way to recover from them). In hindsight, the people who saw something in me and invested in my career – my mentors – have been most valuable in shaping my career.
None of these people had to help me. It’s possible that they did so for their own benefit (i.e., the better I do my job, the easier it is for them), but I believe they were passing along a valuable gift. I was lucky to have received these gifts early in my career, as they have been invaluable both personally and professionally.
As a mentee, you may not recognize either the value of what you are receiving or the effort that has gone into providing that gift to you. You fully appreciate what others have done for you only years later.
In my first programming job, my manager (Jim) assigned me to work with various key people and would follow up to ask what I had learned. One day, he gave me my first project – something that was far above what a new programmer was tasked with. I was excited but anxious because I did not want to let my mentor down.
I only had six months of experience, and this was a big project for an important automotive customer (Subaru), the first fully customized customer loyalty coupon system for a major auto manufacturer in the late 1980s. It was a stretch for me, and the system had to be production-ready in six months.
Jim let me build it, checked daily at first to see if I had questions, and provided feedback and direction if I asked. Aside from that, he pretty much left me alone. He seemed more confident in my ability to succeed than I was at the time.
After two months, I thought I was finished. We reviewed everything, and Jim constructively picked apart my system, pointing out various flaws and discussing the logic and reasoning behind my decisions. We spent half a day on this exercise, and only years later did I realize he was helping me learn more than just validating the system design.
After another two months, we reviewed this system’s second iteration. He told me that while this version would work and would be acceptable from anyone else, I still had time remaining, and he was confident that I could do even better next time. He provided a couple of tips about high-level areas he focused on while designing and developing systems and left it at that.
When I returned with the third iteration of the system, he reviewed it, smiled, and said he could not have done it better himself. At first, I was proud to have completed my first independent project, but later I realized how much I had learned over those six months. This experience provided me with a lifelong benefit and the motivation to help others in a similar manner. My mentor was (and still is) a great leader!
As a manager, he had so many reasons not to give me the project, to just tell me what to do, and to not let me redo it (twice). From a short-term management perspective, what he did was wasteful. But, from a big-picture perspective, he was doing things that helped me create more value for the company for the 3-4 years I continued working there. The benefits outweighed the cost; Jim was wise enough to see that.
Several years ago, a young woman in Australia contacted me via LinkedIn, asking for suggestions on improving her skills to advance her career. I gave her many assignments over the course of a year, and she did amazing work. She advanced in her company, later relocated to another country, and then switched industries. She currently holds a high-level position and has been very successful. It made me feel good knowing that my efforts played a small part in her advancement.
From my perspective, it all comes down to how you view people and relationships. Are they like commodities that are used and replaced as needed, or are they assets that can grow in value? I like to think that I have helped several people’s “career portfolios,” which helps ensure that business is not a zero-sum game. Hopefully, those people will do the same, increasing leverage on the investments that started with Jim.
So, what do you think?
Where Ideas, Experiences, and Lessons Learned Intersect 