How to Get Real in Corporate Development, Part VI

This is the sixth part of a series of essays on how to leverage the concepts of Agile software product development from Getting Real from 37signals in a corporate development organization. Part I introduces the concepts of Getting Real, part II looks at the idea of building less, part III is on focusing on one idea, part IV is on getting something functional out quickly and part V talks about focusing on how your users will use the application.

Now it's time to look at:

Focus on fulfilling business stories, not big specification documents.

In my 20+ years of technology experience, I have seen this as being the biggest and most pervasive problem. And I understand that it comes from a very valid perspective from the engineering community.

Engineers can not easily manage huge amounts of change to requirements. Imagine building a bridge if the length of the span changes weekly, the material under the footings shift regularly and the sponsor wants the bridge in steel; no, titanium; no, wood; no, aluminum; no, steel -- you get the point. Therefore, engineers seek to define the requirements and get agreement and sign-off on those documents so they can build something once. Plus, we all know that change gets more expensive as a project progresses, especially if you have a waterfall or spiral approach. All that inflexible foundation work is very expensive to change. (Another reason to stay light and agile!)

Because of the cost of constant change, engineers push to define requirements up front so that they know what to build and where to start. They require definitions, use cases, scenarios, storyboards, and so forth. From this collected material, they define the grand scheme, break it down into delivery phases and get agreement and sign-off. Again, they want to build something once.

The flaw with this approach is that the requirements cannot be entirely known in advance. Therefore, just as soon as the project starts, the huge requirements specification is out of date. I once worked on a project with over one thousand distinct requirements. Because we were inventing new science and technology while producing a commercial product, the requirements churn was huge. We touched every single requirement dozens of times; the requirements churn topped 1000%!! That's like writing over 10,000 requirements! It was nuts!

Here is the fix: Focus on business stories. Start with the most important story. It works like this.

The business problem is, "We have to generate an inventory spreadsheet daily by running a report in our inventory management software (IMS), copying the date and transforming it into Excel, then cleaning up the data by re-arranging the columns and saving it as a semi-colon delimited file so it can be emailed to the web services group so they can update the inventory counts on the website. Errors and delays in the process can mean displaying products as in-stock when they are currently back-ordered, which annoys customers."

The business story becomes, "We want to automate the daily inventory reporting from our IMS to our web server to increase accuracy, decrease information turn around time, and free business resources for other work."

I can immediately see a number of ways to do this, from using whatever automation exists within the IMS to generate and send that report, or accessing the IMS database directly with a custom report, or using the IMS database programmatic API to write an automated application to pull the data and update the web database, or to make the web database read its data from the IMS database live, or on a daily batch bases, or exposing a web service so the data can be pushed into the web database. I bet you have a few more options.

The take away is that solving the technical problem isn't usually the problem. The problem is solving the correct business problem. Getting bogged down with a huge requirements document doesn't make solving today's problem go any faster and doesn't produce a solution to today's problem any faster.

So, how would I apply this advice to that huge 1000% churn project? Well, the biggest constraint was that we had to produce a commercially shippable product. A goal was to create a single architecture that could be leveraged along the future product line. However, since we were creating new technology and a new command and control system, we set the bar too high.

The immediate business story was to operate the machine and provide a sufficiently flexible control system that would allow for the scientific invention to continue without requiring huge software re-writes. Today, I would drop the goal that we create an architecture that could handle future demands. The project was already very challenging without that goal and we ended up pulling out all the infrastructure that was built to handle that goal anyway, just to get the first product to ship.

We made the classic mistake of solving tomorrow's problem before solving today's problem. You can avoid that mistake by focusing on the business stories that you have today and not creating that huge, over-arching requirements document that will doubtlessly saddle you to a very sizable ball and chain.

Weebly does web sites wite! Uh, Right!

I came across Weebly while reading some blog posting and recalled a conversation that I had recently with Jennifer Lee, the owner of A Doggone Good Life. Jen was a great program manager with a client of mine years back and is now a very happy entrepreneur pursuing her dream.

Jen and I were talking about some web-business ideas things, so when I read about Weebly and the professed ease with which one is able to create new websites, I had to give it a shot. After all, I've used web-site builders over the years. My general take-away is that they all sucked, sucked, sucked.

I tried Word to HTML generation (puke). I tried PDF to web-site generators (retch). I tried WYSIWYG generators (pain). I tried 1and1.com website builder (oh, boring ick). I tried NetObjects (workable, but still a PITA) and ColdFusion (there's a tool, but you need to be a serious web-head to make something worth while). The best was still coding a site by hand (slow and painful to revise) until one added some code generation (PHP, which apparently means "Powerful; Help Please") and Ruby on Rails (rocks).

The technically-light web entreprenuer does not want to learn coding paradigms, so out go PHP, ROR, ColdFusion, etc. What's left is for them to hire a company ($$) and pay them to maintain the site ($$$) or hire some full time staff ($$$$).

Nope, no more. Weebly makes very attractive and highly functional websites. SEO goodness, tags, sub-pages, custom HTML (for your easy shopping-cart functionality with PayPal). Also available are two-column layouts, YouTube, Flickr, Google Maps, forums, audio, a scheduler for your service-based organization, Google Adsense and Analytics, and an API to build custom widgets which your users can use on their Weebly sites.

There's enough serious good stuff that doesn't require a deep engineering background to grock to make me say, "Weebly is a great start".

Plus, Weebly will give you a FREE subdomain, or let you purchase a domain from them, or even let you use your existing domain (They even have instructions to point your domain from GoDaddy or 1and1 to their servers).

Oh, and let's mention that you can get started with a real website, e-commerce capable, with a blog and everything for FREE. Yes. Free. As in "you do not have to pay anything ever". They make their money on the premium services. And, the upgrade to Pro wasn't expensive. Something like $5 per month. Seriously, that's way cheep.

Check it out. I fast forwarded myself many years into the future and built a fantasy website called "Doggie Heaven" that I may actually do some day in the far, far future. I added some e-commerce functionality (don't actually buy anything, OK?) and a blog in only a few minutes.

There are a bunch of very servicable templates and I love the way elements are dragged and dropped onto the page for layout.

Very impressive, congratulations Weebly.

How to Get Real in Corporate Development, Part V

This is the fifth part of a series of essays on how to leverage the concepts of Agile software product development from Getting Real from 37signals in a corporate development organization. Part I introduces the concepts of Getting Real, part II looks at the idea of building less, part III was on focusing on one idea and part IV was on getting something functional out quickly.

In this essay we look at:

Start with the UI design and focus on how your users will use your application.

Lots of experienced engineers like to start with the UI. A new project brings a geyser of ideas and concepts that make the fingers itch to start writing code. So, mockups, prototypes and proofs of concepts are often the first things to come out.

Good! Almost.

Don't let your engineers close themselves in a room for the four weeks that they have and create something they love. The rest of the sentence is the key -- "focus on ... your users ..."

In "Getting Real", the folks at 37signals assume they are writing an appliation for the outside to use. They don't have an opportunity to sit with their most important users when creating something new. But you do! This is where the corporate environment make Getting Real better than the original. You're making software for your business, you and your users are the domain experts. You don't need to go outside. Lucky you!

Get your engineering team (2 really good engineers and a kick-ass business analyst) in the same room as the key stakeholders -- the folks who will use this new system. Understand the business problem (Focus on One Idea) by talking to the users and examining the problem they need solved.

Have the team work through what they need to do. What tasks are grouped to gether logically? What actions are done most of the time? What actions are done only a small fraction of the time? Make the application fix the problem elegantly. That way, the team has to Build Less and will be able to Get Something Functional Deployed Quickly.

Start light. Whiteboard and sketches. Wireframes and light-HTML. Test the process. Can the users do their important tasks quickly and easily? Can they see how they get to the additional features that they don't use every day?

Put the most important information right in the middle. Make sure that new state, the populated state and the error state are considered. Ensure the engineers make the application behave appropriately when it encounters something unexpected. Leave out what doesn't belong to do the task (who cares if it's a "standard" menu item?). Put in everything important. Leave out everything else.

Match and support what the users need to do, then go and make it happen. Start with the UI. Not the UI and the database, just the UI. Not the UI and the object model, just the UI.

The engineers will have a clearer idea of what's important. They will have proven the work flow that they are about to implement. The users will have increased confidence that what will be produced will really help them.

Can you just imagine the response when the first version comes out a few weeks later? Hey, please write and let me know! I don't want to do this in a vacuum!

Thanks again for reading! In the next essay, we'll talk about how to use business stories.

How to Get Real in Corporate Development, Part IV

This is the fourth part of a series of essays on how to leverage the concepts of Agile software product development from Getting Real from 37signals in a corporate development organization. Part I introduces the concepts of Getting Real, part II looks at the idea of building less and part III was on focusing on one idea.

Next, we talk about structuring the project to quickly produce working code. So here it is:

Get something functional and usable deployed quickly. Plan on your next release right away. Make a choice and go with it.

Constraints are what drive a project. If you had unlimited time and money, you would probably never produce anything, as ironic as that may sound. You need limits to focus you on getting something done. My triathlon training buddy and I like to say that we "train to race and race to train" because without the race date, it's too easy to sleep in instead of hitting the pool at 5:00 AM. Constraints drive us.

So, pick one of your projects and give it to a small group of good engineers. Tell them they have four weeks to produce the first version that the business can use, but then they'll have four more weeks to produce the next release. And close the door.

They will focus on building less and implementing one idea. It's all that they'll have time for. Meanwhile, let the business know that the first iteration will be ready for use in four weeks and that the engineers will need their feedback to produce the second iteration.

Your job is to get out of the way and make sure the engineers have the tools, access and permissions they need to do their work. Herein lies additional opportunity.

Perhaps there are procedure and process documents in your organization. Perhaps there is a PMO and a review committee. Perhaps you have strict regression testing requirements for deployments. Perhaps, under normal circumstances it would take your small, Agile group of engineers four weeks just to get permission to connect to the database they need to fulfill this project.

Your opportunity is to fix this. Yes, security and access control is critically important. But, we're in the 21st Century, aren't we? Network directories with access control list are mature technologies and are probably in your organization. Are your Oracle databases set up to take advantage of your LDAP infrastructure? They should be. And no one better exists than you to make it happen.

Your organization should have four environments:

• Development -- open and flexible for the developers to do anything. Developers should work in both Debug and Non-Debug environments. Don't accept "Well, it worked on my machine."
• Test -- mirrors production, but allows developers to see everything in the system.
• Staging -- mirrors production as closely as possible
• Production -- full security and access controls.

Using virtualization, farms, and similar techniques can keep this from being a horrible amount of overhead. The key is that you need to unlock your most productive engineers. Now is a good time to note that not all of your engineers are your most productive ones. Make sure your less productive engineers are fully supporting your most productive ones. There are opportunities for training and mentoring, which build employee satisfaction and loyalty, but let's get back to getting functional software out.

How many times have you already read that a skilled and senior engineer is many times -- 10 times, 15 times, 20 times -- more productive than a junior engineer? So, we don't need to say it again. Nope. Not going to say it. Na-uh.

So then, just how will this work? Well, let's start off by looking at the typical process. The business has an urgent need. Something like, "they spend a huge amount of time running end of month reports and small errors in the data cause regular heroics."

In the typical process they fill out an Application Enhancement Request or New Application Request or some such like that. This gets reviewed at the next Application Review Committee meeting and goes back to the requester for more details. Two weeks go by for the out and back trip and the ARC approves the request. The next week a project manager and business analyst are assigned to it. They take two weeks to gather requirements, another week to create a Statement of Work and one more to have that approved by the stakeholders. The following week, a project team is assembled while the analyst writes the Functional Specification. The stakeholders don't even bother reading that.

We're up to, um, nine weeks. The team takes two months to write the application, three weeks to test it, one week to slot it into deployment and, lo and behold! More than five (5!!) months later, the application is first released. The users try it and file a new Application Enhancement Request to get it to do all the things that they need and eliminate the stupid things that crept into the application. Time to happy users: 9 months.

Here's how we want it to run:

First, you've addressed the infrastructure, you have the governance in place to enable rapid development and you've now paired your best engineers with the business users we just talked about. They meet for one day and use up another afternoon or two. In four weeks the first release is out and in use. In four more weeks the next version comes out and fixes the big problems with the first release and adds a few more features. One more four week period and the business has something that really works for them. Time to happy users: 3 months.

Even if you give this team another three iterations -- that would be a total of six (6!) releases, it would still be 66% of the duration of the Same Old Way, which would have produced 2 releases. Which application do you think would be better? The one that had six tight, focused releases, or the other one? There is no doubt in my mind.

You need to have really great developers to do this. But then again, nothing outstanding was built by mediocre engineers. You need an infrastructure that enables these really great engineers. You still need to have proper governance, SOPs, checks and balances to put software into production, but you can get the work done much, much faster by Getting Real. And this will generate real value for your company.

Thanks again for reading! In the next essay, we'll look at starting with the UI.

How to Get Real in Corporate Development, Part III

This is the third part of an essay on how the concepts of Getting Real from 37signals can benefit development groups in corporate environments. Part I introduces the concepts of Getting Real and part II looks at the idea of building less. To build less, you need to select one problem to solve and focus just on that. Part I introduced this, so let's continue to look at that aspect.

Focus on one idea. Start with the big problem, build the large scale functionality and don’t sweat the details.

One challenge every development effort has is where to stop. That is, where to define the edge of the application. Otherwise stated as, "how far out from the core idea is it reasonable to extend?" For example, should the document handling system not only import PDF's, but generate PDF's and fax them?

One helpful concept is the constraint of time and budget. However, it is not uncommon in corporate development shops to have projects loose the continuity of effort that makes a strict delivery time or budget tracking approach overly challenging. Here is where having one focus pays of immensely.

The thinking is: We are going to solve only the problem at hand (Today's Problem). Building less gets us a solution more quickly. Focusing on the problem helps us meet the goal of solving only the problem at hand.

Engineers with are much easier to keep focused and on-task when they have a delivery due in only a few weeks. Assigning a single, short-term purpose accomplishes this. Part of the standard challenge in corporate development shops is that the an engineer wears many hats as she maintains existing applications, develops one or more concurrent projects, and concurrently designs and plans future applications.

Switching between different types of tasks is a known productivity killer. The well-known blog by Joel on Software lays out the trouble with human task switching. You know it yourself, having your concentrated thought process interrupted is, literally, disruptive. For your team, this means that they need quite, private work spaces, few meetings during sprints, and very long periods of uninterrupted time. It also means you need to keep their plates clear of other tasks.

When you do this, your engineers will be able to stay focused on delivering that one idea.

"Hmmm, good," you say, "but what is the correct one idea?" Good question. After all, "solve global poverty" is one idea, but it's obviously not at the right level.

You're looking for an idea that represents a specific business pain point with a solution that can be produced by a small team in a few quick iterations. Since your team of three engineers can't bang out a solution to global poverty in a few three-week sprints, it's not at the right level. (But you already knew that -- this was an illustration :-)

Let's try some on for size. "Create a portal that allows secure transmission of documents from customers to service representatives." Or how about, "Replace a key paper form with an internal website." Here's what each of these have going for them:

• Each of these have a good change of being produced rapidly in only a few iterations.
• They both address only one problem.
• They require one small application to successfully meet the business need
• They both are probably very well understood by stakeholders and engineers.

Given all this, there is very likely little risk of implementing the wrong software. Even if the end product doesn't work out completely, you have only invested a small amount of time and effort and you're team has more clearly illustrated the business need.

Are you thinking that you don't have any small, simple problems to solve? Are you thinking that you need complex applications to solve complex business problems? Are you thinking that there isn't any opportunity to do something small and elegant like this in your shop?

If you have any of these thoughts, or thoughts similar to them, please try an experiment. Find a key stakeholder at the line level. Perhaps a manager of customer service, or a project manager who executes key services repeatedly. Take them to lunch and ask them about the most challenging aspects of their work and the work their team or group does.

You will probably learn some things you didn't know. And some of what you learn could very well fall right into this camp of creating high-value for the business with a light, flexible, low-risk and low-cost development approach.

The next part is to work with wide brushes and big strokes. You're not looking for a whiz-bang gizmo that does everything. Get the big pieces right first. Now that you know about some business pain points (if you already knew some or knew the ones you talked about over that lunch, then kudos for you!), you're looking to address just that need. Nothing else right now, just that one need.

Yes, the fund accounting deals with mutual funds, 401(k)'s of mutual funds, annuities, closed-end funds, etc. But the bulk of the work is mutual funds. Or the bulk of the time is 401(k)'s. Or the bulk of the revenue is generated by something else. It's up to you to figure out, with your key stakeholders, what the most valuable problem to solve will be, then it's up to you to focus on that one factor.

The mandate you give your team is to fix just that one piece, make it better for the business and don't worry about the details. You will re-work and re-engineer as you dig down into the next set of priorities on upcoming iterations. But you will be providing a high-value solution in very short order, and that is worth more to the business in the long run.

Thanks for staying with me as we continue exploring the approach of Getting Real in your corporate development shop.

How to Get Real in Corporate Development, Part II

This is the second part of an essay on how the concepts of Getting Real from 37signals can benefit development groups in corporate environments. Exploring this mash-up is worthwhile because at first glance, there seems to be very little in common between the web-application, small-team, product bootstrap philosophy in Getting Real and the realities of corporate development teams. These realities include governance, oversight, processes, controlled systems and similar best practices. But pull the covers back a bit and enough similarities appear to make for a compelling argument. Let's dive right in and take a closer look at the key concepts from the first essay.

Build less. Build smaller applications with only the most important features and delivery it quickly.

This is sage advice because the corporate development life cycle is typically beset with serious birthing pains. Life cycles are heavy with process, stages, gate reviews and sign-offs. The corporate process inevitably includes requirements gathering and documentation, which involve meetings, drawings, documents and reviews. The requirements themselves transform from stakeholder statements to business requirements to technical requirements to design documents. After all that, there is finally the build, test, deploy, train, support and maintain functions. All to get one release to the business users.

Some problems with this model is that it takes too darn long and is too darn expensive. Half a year can pass filled with stakeholder interviews, document drafts, reviews, modifications and so forth that will ultimately produce a few dozen pages of specifications and diagrams. One team of stakeholders, business analysis and engineers can easily spend multiple person months or even a person year (or years) producing 60 pages. If you have a blended team salary rate of $90K, then each page costs $1,500. And you haven't built anything yet!

"No" you might be answering resolutely right now, "but we know know what to build! And we have a plan to build it."

True. I've worked this way too and I know that it helps to reduce the risk of development in the long run. You can plan for a three-phase development effort, get the budget lined up and all that. However, please consider an alternative.

Your team knew -- on day one -- what was the most important functionality needed. You, and they, don't need 6o expensive pages for that. Here's how it would work for you when you Get Real.

Two good engineers and a business analyst -- your development team -- meet with the key stakeholders. The stakeholders are asked to identify their top problems within the problem space. Then they have to choose only one. The top problem. Your development team ask enough questions to fully understand that problem and how it relates to the other top problems.

Then, they go away and produce something small to fix that top problem and only that top problem. This takes three weeks. After all, they are focused on only one key important problem.

Next, the key stakeholders begin to use the new application. After one week, the team reconvenes and the development team learns what works, what doesn't and what the next most important problem to solve is.

At this point, you've spent a tiny fraction of the expense and effort of that functional specification we taked about earlier and you have an application that, hopefully, solves an immediate business problem. If it doesn't, it has shone a big, bright light on that problem. How much longer do you think it will really take your development team to get it right? One more iteration? Two? Fine; because at that point three months will have gone by and you will have a demonstrable ROI. Compare that to a functional spec that takes six to nine months to write. You are seriously ahead of the curve.

OK, another valid concern is that when your development team learns about the next problem they will have to throw away a lot of what they've done. And they might. This is why we focus on solving one problem within the context of the larger scope. However, it is critical to solve only one problem at a time. Fix the problem you have today, not the problem you anticipate having tomorrow.

The way to do this is to build only what you need to fix that problem. Build less. What is the smallest, most elegant solution to the business problem?

Keep in mind that the business problem might not be the problem the users report. They may be unhappy with emailing spreadsheets around and want the population, generation and transmission automated. However, what they really need is a way to exchange and store information centrally instead of relying on spreadsheets.

Thanks for reading. We will continue to peel back this onion in the next essay on Getting Real in your corporate development shop.

Using Getting Real Concepts in the Corporate Office

The talented and intelligent folks at 37signals have created some great applications. As major contributors to Ruby on Rails, they also have been fundamental in building and leading a revolution in rapidly developed, high quality web applications. 37signals is successful because they think creatively about the problem that they are trying to solve. Fortunately for all of us, part of that thinking is that they should be open and transparent with many aspects of their process and business. Therefore, they often preach about the practices that have helped them attain success.

Anyone can read their preachings online. For free! It's a great concept, and one that is often encouraged by industry leaders -- think Seth Godin for one.

You can also purchase a high-quality bound copy of their book “Getting Real” from Lulu.com. I have because I like being able to read when not in front of the computer. It’s all laid out in their book (the exact same copy in the web pages, downloadable PDF or book) – their philosophical approach to clients, development, hiring, customer service, and so on.

When I became aware of 37signals , I was developing Ruby on Rails web applications. Because I was creating web apps, which is clearly the focus of the book and philosophy, I found myself agreeing with just about everything they were saying. And hey, I’m a software development veteran.

I’ve done this for years and years and have focused extensively on managing complex projects to successful deliveries. I’ve been through waterfall, spiral, iterative, agile, ad hoc, chaotic, random and panic-driven development models. I agreed with what they were saying because it makes sense and I was able to make it work successfully on my projects without any pain or difficult transitions. There aren’t many “new” development philosophies about which that can be said! For light, flexibile web apps, “Getting Real” made total sense and, more importantly, it worked.

But what about corporate environments with ongoing development efforts? These shops have a different set of starting points and different base assumptions. What if you aren’t developing a web app? What if you aren’t focused on revenue generation with your app? What if your users are waiting for their application and have expectations about how it will help them?

Can your corporate development efforts also Get Real? Yes, I believe that they can. let's look at the components of Getting Real that will help your corporate development teams use the principles from Getting Real to improve productivity and stakeholder satisfaction levels.

Let’s start with some of the key concepts of Getting Real that are directly beneficial for all development efforts. (Links are to the essays on those concepts)

1. Build less. Build smaller applications with only the most important features and deliver it quickly.
2. Focus on one idea. Start with the big problem, build the large scale functionality and don’t sweat the details.
3. Get something functional and useable deployed quickly. Plan on your next release right away. Make a choice and go with it.
4. Start with the UI design and focus on how your users will use your application.
5. Focus on fulfilling business stories, not big specification documents.
6. Keep your developers on the front line of support
7. Be willing to radically change the application to make it better. Resist the urge to make one monolithic tool to solve everyone’s problems at once.

Notice that these nuggets are completely environment, tool, and technology agnostic. There are some radical ideas that will doubtlessly shake up the “way things are done”, but these are the right ideas to grab onto and the right changes to make.

Fortunately, there are some components of Getting Real that an internal corporate development group can safely ignore right off the bat. For example, you’re probably not looking to generate revenue with something like an internal workflow enhancement tool. Not that you can ignore development costs or the value proposition of the development effort, but at least your users won’t be facing the prospect of paying a monthly fee. (Although, there may be something here….)

You can safely ignore the need to market and promote your application extensively. Please note the qualifier. The new whiz-bang tool you’ve developed for Operations is straight sunk costs if end users aren’t using it. Therefore, they do need to know about it and they should be excited about its arrival and feature set. But that should come from good communications and interactive product development and not from promotional marketing campaigns. Trumpeting successes is always allowed, however, so some allowance is made, but we’re not talking at all about the same degree of importance of marketing discussed in the book.

Most importantly, as you – the development lead, manager, director, VP, CTO, Whatever – read Getting Real, you can insert your favorite technology du jour whenever the book talks about web applications. The thrust of web apps in Getting Real is their rapid deployment and instant accessibility to customers. No CD burning, no distribution efforts, no retail operations, etc.

But let’s face it, how long does it really take to deploy a new version of an internally developed application in your shop whether it was written in C++, Java, Lotus Domino, C#, .NET or Ruby on Rails? If you’re thinking “weeks”, then you’ve got another problem, don’t you? You can quickly push out new applications through automated corporate update mechanisms, internal web sites and internal installers with the exact same degree of responsiveness that is the base assumption in the book So don’t sweat it that you’re not making a web app. The underlying philosophies in “Getting Real” remain pertinent, applicable and valid to you and can revolutionize your development centers.

The next essay will look at those seven take-away concepts in greater detail and will focus on how you can leverage these concepts to make high quality software faster.

SEO & SEM For C-Level Executives

I have encountered a number of C-Level executives (CEOs, CIOs, and CTOs in particular) who are looking for guidance on a number of aspects around effective web presences. At the heart of this issue is the need for a high-level understanding of SEO and SEM. So, for their benefit, as well as for the general benefit of the Netverse, I thought I would provide an overview to these topics.

We'll start by defining our terms. SEO is Search Engine Optimization, which generally refers to optimizing ones website and pages to enhance ones placement in search engine result pages (SERPs). This placement is often referred to as "organic" because it comes from work you do on your site. My feeling is that SEO is a bit of a misnomer. After all, webmasters are not optimizing any search engines, but rather optimizing their website. Digital Asset Optimization is a better term in my opinion, plus I like the way that DAO reflects Tao (The Way). But SEO is well understood, so let's stick with that.

SEM is the other hand to SEO, the Yang to the SEO Yin. SEM is Search Engine Marketing, which generally consists of purchasing keywords and marketing links to drive traffic to your site. The fine folks at icrossing have a white paper from March 2007 called "Search Synergy Report" which concludes that a combination of SEO and SEM is more effective than either approach singly. Here, over two years later, this is not a revolutionary thought, but rather part of the standard practices for many successful sites.

I would also like to mention that there is a vast sea of acronyms surrounding this dense area of Internet technology. Don't be put off by it. This is not rocket science, but rather an ongoing dance of search companies trying to determine the highest quality content while websites try to figure out what the search companies are looking for so they can appear to have the highest quality content. Dynamicism and change are the constants in this equation.

SEO & SEM In Brief

Enhancing a website for organic search optimization is still very straight forward and can be summed up as follows:

• Have a domain name that matches your industry and purpose.
• Have a clear focus for your site. Make that focus permeate through your site.
• Ensure that your pages (or posts) have the name of your site in a text form that can be read by spiders.
• Ensure that your keywords and meta description match your message.
• Ensure that your pages have great titles. A great title is clear and describes the content well.
• Obtain links by creating unique, distinct and high-value content. Then, participate as a good citizen by reading and commenting on blogs, posting articles that can define you as an industry and thought leader. Your bios on other sites should link back to your site.
• Each page or post should have a clear and consistent focus. Along with your descriptive title and heading, you should use consistent language in your pages and posts.
• Be conservative with your links out and cross links within your site.
• Use available tools to analyze and improve your site. DAO is an ongoing process, not a one time event.

Your SEO efforts will be supported by a thoughtful and consistent SEM practice. This practice should include:

• Active Pay Per Click (PPC) campaigns across major search engines
• Active ad campaigns across major search engines
• Active monitoring of campaign returns, landing page conversions, and website utilization and traffic patterns

In spite of the vendors who promise top rankings in a day or less, the industry consensus is that quality sites are built over time. Consistency and focus are the most important elements. Supporting the delivery of your message with well-selected paid search marketing will increase the visibility over your site, but only quality and an unique value proposition will create sticky visits to your site.

My advice is to be a good netizen and create something of unique and real value to improve enhance the SERP position of your site. Pay attention to the mechanics of your site by focusing your message so that search engine crawlers can understand your message and weigh it appropriately. In summary, honest, hard work and attention to detail are at the heart of mastering SEO or DAO and SEM.

Desperation in the business world

I see things that strike me as acts of desperation.  Yes, the economy is bad, bad, bad.  For an indication of just how bad, you should really spend some time viewing The Crash Course at ChrisMartenson.com.  

However, I've noticed some things that are real strong indicators that marketing and product folks are getting desperate.  Here are two of them:

Trader Joe's.  I love Trader Joe's.  I get really good quality food at great prices.  For example, we try hard to eat organic when it comes to raw foods; milk, eggs, veggies, fruits, etc.  As an example of the great deals, TJ's sells a gallon of organic whole milk for around $5.98.  Shaws and Stop and Shop also sell gallons of organic whole milk, but for around $8 a gallon.   

TJ's used to sell a pound of organic romain lettuce in a bag of three heads.  It was a great deal and in the Summer, my wife and I would go through two of those bags a week.  However, a while ago -- could be a year, could be longer -- I noticed that the bags were lighter and were now being sold in 12 ounce packages.  Same price, but we were now getting 25% less.  That's a big increase. Last fall I noticed that some of the bags felt noticably lighter yet again.  That's because they now sell "Three heads of organic romain lettuce"  No weight indicated.  I promise you, some of these bags have three scrawny heads of lettuce in there that barely top 8 ounces.

Same bag, same big title, a tiny fraction of the value.  

Here's the second thing.  One of my credit card companies called me and I finally answered -- I hate being interrupted during family time.  Ms. Dublin politely identified herself and thanked me for being a long-standing member.  Then she asked my permission to read a paragraph and record the remainder of the conversation.  I initially assumed that she had to notify me of some change in the terms, but was puzzled why it had to be over the phone.  Since she was simply reading a paragraph, it didn't seem like she was trying to sell me something.  But there was that recording part.  Hmmm.

In the paragraph she said that they would be enrolling me in a program that would monitor my credit reports and notify me of any changes or threats and that after some introductory period, they would bill my account $9.99 a month.  It seemed that the company was trying to say that by listening to the paragraph I implicitly accepted the terms of this service that they were foisting on me.

I said that I wanted it clearly understood that I do not want any such service and that I am not agreeing to accepting any such program.  Ms. Dublin replied that I have the choice of opting in, but by accepting enrollment, she would simply send me the materials.

Really, what kind of malarky is this?  You want me to look at the materials?  Fine.  Send them to me.  However, you don't need me to agree, on tape, to have you send me the materials.  

So, I felt it necessary to state again that I was not accepting any enrollment in any such program and do not want any charges to be applied to my account for any such purpose.  Furthermore, it seemed that by accepting enrollment in order to get the materials, the company was equating that enrollment with accepting the automated billing of this service and I wanted it clearly understood that I was not accepting any such service levied to my account.  

I'm glad they were recording that.  :-)  Ms. Dublin thanked me and hug up.

The lesson here is that both of these programs are tricky and underhanded.  I love Trader Joe's a good deal less now and I do not trust this credit card company at all.  

Is that really the way we want our customers to think of us, our products and services and companies?  Nope.  It's baaad policy.  Baaad products and baaad practices.  

Don't surprise the customer!

I recently purchased a replacement toner cartridge for my laser printer.  I really, really wanted an OEM cartridge.  My experience with compatible ink jet cartridges were unsatisfactory and even though OEM was significantly more expensive, I believe that's the way to go for the best quality results.  Since I use my laser printer for business correspondence, it is important to have crisp, clear copies.  

Furthermore, as a toner cartridge for a SOHO printer ages, the light sensitive imaging tube becomes less sensitive and the copies start to come out grey.  So, simply refilling the toner powder won't do either.

However, I was horrified to see the prices for the OEM cartridge.  Nothing less than $75, some over $85, and then there's shipping! Yowza!  $120 for a cartridge -- I could practically purchase a new printer for that!  I seriously thought about it, but knowing that my wife would kill me for such blantant consumerism, I went back to looking for a replacement cartridge.

I Googled, and Googled.  Seriously searched for an OEM cartridge that would be less.  I would have been happy with $60 shipped.  I was delighted to find a site that was selling a cartridge for $32 shipped.  That's was the same price as the compatible and refurbished cartridges.  I check and double checked to make sure that this was an OEM cartridge.

The product ID was the same as the OEM ID -- "ML 1210D3".  Check

The product description was the same as the OEM -- "Samsung ML-1210 D3".  Check

The description did not say "compatible", "refurbished", "refilled" or any such thing.  No where did it use those words on the product page.  I even searched for them. Big Check.

I placed my order satisified that I had finally done it!  I found a site that was selling OEM cartridges for deep discounts.  I was ready to trumpet the value of this place.

However, when the product came, it was clearly a knock off.  I called and emailed the company.  I pulled my receipt.   Yep, "Samsung ML-1210 D3"  I was not expecting a knock off.

I got a response in less than 24 hours.  Here is the first line:  "If you would have read our paragraph about what we do on our homepage you would have read we provide toner replacements for expensive name brands(OEM)"

I never saw the home page.  I came to the product page from a Google product search.  I never saw -- and I looked for -- something that said I was purchasing a knock off brand.  In my mind, this is a complete failure on behalf of the company.  It's folly to assume that your customers are (1) going to enter your site on the home page and (2) read it if they do.  

This isn't right.  I will not ever do business with this company again for any reason whatsoever. There isn't any need to.  They have so much competition and their products and their service is an absolute commodity.  Plus, they surprised me and then blamed me for it.  By the way, I did look at the home page.  It does say that.  Right in the middle of a paragraph of text that I never would ever have ever read ever.

Here's the take away lesson:  Don't do this!  Do not suprise your customers unless it makes them very, very happy!

If you are in the product industry, you must make sure that your customer knows what they are getting and are satisified with the value of the product.  If you are in the service industry, you must ensure that your customer knows what they are getting and are satisfied with the value of the service.  Unpleasantly surprising the customer is the very best way to kill your up sale potential.  

But, Peter, you say, I can't spend all day hand-holding every customer.  Sure, OK, I'm good with that.  However, you can -- and you must -- ensure that your customer knows what they are getting.  Period.  Your promotional material, your descriptions, your literature needs to be complete and honest.  Because you can't afford to acquire a new customer for every single sale.

You might be interested in which company it was.  I was initially going to reveal that, but I decided not to make this a "bash the company" posting because I really want the lesson of good customer relationships to come out.  So, I'm not going to say.