edi is so scary!!! BOO!

It was a dark and stormy night…  The wind howled through the skeletal branches of the trees…  ghosts, goblins and other monsters scampered along the street…  the full moon shone brightly, yet all the streets seemed dim and darkened and you were wary about what might bump into you in the night…

Yeah, yeah, yeah.  OK, so it’s warm, a bit breezy and mostly sunny.  At least it is in most of Southern California.  But it seemed just wrong to start off a blog on Halloween with something so … so … cheerful.

I was thinking, on this warm and sunny October day – that Halloween is the PERFECT version of the supply chain.  Honestly, think about it…  And think about how many different supply chains may be involved…!

But the basic one – “TRICK OR TREAT” – the art of hitting up the neighborhood – is a perfect example of a simple – yet WILDLY effective – supply chain.

The breakdown:

*             you put on some clothes (a costume),

*             you walk down the street,

*             you ring a doorbell and yell “TRICK OR TREAT!” ,

*             and the person gives you some candy (or other great treat)…!

How much simpler and easier is that supply chain?!?  Nothing to do but get dressed up on some costume – whether a simple sheet with some eye-holes – boo!  I’m a ghost! – or something more … frightening – like a vampire, or a witch – or even more elaborate – donning a fully body suit of hair and becoming a werewolf.  Simple.  Easy.  Effective.

Then, of course, there are a number of other supply chains involved, as well.  There’s the candy that you get from each house – somebody had to buy that at some store…  And that store had to buy it from some candy maker.  And they had to buy the ingredients to make the wonderful confection from someplace.  There’s the costume you wear – that store had to buy it…  and the rest is just like the above.

But Halloween is a perfect example of what a supply chain SHOULD be – simple – easy – effective.  Not a lot of fuss and bother to contend with.  Sure, you can get elaborately fancy and create a foam-rubber body suit that turns you into Godzilla (or some other monster) or you can do the easy simple “sheet-over-the-head” trick and be a ghost.  You can make your own “home grown” solution – pulling parts and bits from the closets and drawers – or you can buy the cheap, moderate or expensive solution from the dealer down the road.

So, thinking about it that way – do you see the similarities between Halloween Trick-or-treating and your supply chain…?  Which did you choose – simple or … elaborate?

But, unlike Halloween, the supply chain needs to be in place and working every single day.  Halloween just comes once a year.  But, Halloween can also have some … difficulties … in that supply chain.  There’s the house without candy… or where they just ran out…  Or there’s the “healthy house” that hands out toothbrushes or boxes of raisins (oh, yeah, THEY’RE really popular!)…  There’s your problems with the supply chain – out of stock of what you’re ordering – or not giving you the product you really want and order. 

Then there are the … wardrobe malfunctions (thank you Janet and Justin!) … that puts an end to your night’s joys of candy and treats.  And those can also manifest themselves in your supply chain – maybe your communications fail… or your translation adds odd-ball characters… or the data is … corrupted…  There are a number of ways where your supply chain can malfunction and all … hell … breaks loose.

So, simple or complex; smooth and easy or fraught with horror, peril and malfunctions; Halloween may just be the best example of the supply chain outside of the supply chain.

So, to all you goblins, ghouls, bats and witches, I wish you a safe – insane – Halloween.

Oh, yeah.  “Unpleasant dreams!” (many thanks to Elvira, Mistress of the Dark for that!)

Author: Craig Dunham – EDI Coordinator
Read more about Craig here:

Unemployed? Don’t move here…

I just read this article – well – a pair of articles – over on MSN – about the 25 WORST cities for finding a job and the 25 BEST cities for finding a job.  Truly interesting stuff; however the methods used to create the article are – at best – flawed.  The flaw is that they only use the unemployment rates, as compiled and published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics – a federal agency that is responsible for researching and compiling labor economics and statistics…

The list of the bad cities includes quite a few cities located in California.  But if you were to look at the list – and if you’re not from California – you’ve probably NEVER heard of many (if ANY) of those cities.  Here’s the list:

1.    El Centro, Calif.       
2.    Yuma, Ariz.               
3.    Flint, Mich.               
4.    Merced, Calif.
5.    Yuba City, Calif.      
6.    Modesto, Calif.      
7.    Visalia, Calif.            
8.    Monroe, Mich.
9.    Palm Coast, Fla.      
10.  Stockton, Calif.         
11.  Fresno, Calif.             
12.  Bakersfield, Calif.
13.  Hanford, Calif.          
14.  Redding, Calif.          
15.  Muskegon, Mich.    
16.  Jackson, Mich.
17.  Rocky Mount, N.C.
18.  Saginaw, Mich.         
19.  Madera, Calif.           
20.  Detroit
21.  Elkhart, Ind.               
22.  Sebastian, Fla.          
23.  Kokomo, Ind.            
24.  Rockford, Ill.
25.  Niles, Mich.

11 of them are from California.  But, of those 11 – only one is NOT located in the Central Valley area of California.  And the biggest (and almost only!) jobs in most of those cities are related to farming and agriculture.  And some of them are downright tiny cities.  And they’re surrounded by miles and miles and miles of … well … nothing. 

Most of the cities listed that are in the mid-western areas of the US – like Indiana, Michigan, Illinois – are areas that have industries tied deeply to automotive industries and – an even more beleaguered segment – RV manufacturing.

Let’s face it – political statements aside – the economy sucks all over…!

Now the 25 “good cities” many tend to be … well, mid-west centered, too.

1.   Sioux Falls, S.D.           
2.   Idaho Falls, Idaho       
3.   Rapid City, S.D.            
4.   Bismarck, N.D.
5.   Houma, La.                    
6.   Morgantown, W.Va. 
7.   Logan, Utah                  
8.   Fargo, N.D.
9.   Casper, Wyo.               
10. Billings, Mont.           
11. Lafayette, La.             
12. Ames, Iowa
13. Midland, Texas 
14. Iowa City, Iowa         
15. Lincoln, Neb.              
16. Great Falls, Mont.
17. Charlestown, W.Va.
18. Des Moines, Iowa   
19. Portsmouth, N.H.    
20. Missoula, Mont.
21. Salt Lake City              
22. Provo, Utah                
23. Sioux City, Iowa        
24. Odessa, Texas
25. Pocatello, Idaho

Sure, there are a few standouts in the North East and the South, but many of them are solidly Mid-West cities.  Of course, they’re also cities that, if you research them more, you’ll find they’re pretty stable cities with no great industrial claims.

Truly, outside of a religion, what does Salt Lake City hold a claim to – industry wise …?  And Casper, Wyoming and Billings, Montana – what’s going on there?  Besides being near major National Recreation areas, what industry calls those cities home?  And, as for Texas, Midland and Odessa are right next to each other (geographically speaking) and so the “gains” in one will be similar to the gains in the other.  But again, what’s their industrial base…?  Where are those job gains…?

But even then, the growth isn’t anything … huge.  Not anything like the high unemployment numbers for the California and Michigan cities.

But, again, the basic study – the reasons behind the articles – is flawed.  It gives a decidedly myopic view of things… And an exceptionally dire one, at that!

Why?  Well, it’s because they’re only looking at one single point of data – the unemployment rate.  That’s it.  Nothing about the industry that supports the area, the number of residents that do not work anyway (i.e. retirees, stay at home parents, whatever).  They don’t look at the kinds of jobs in the area – from flipping burgers at Burger King, Carl’s Jr. or McDonalds to legal secretaries, doctors, nurses and other types of “skilled labor”…

Take a look at St. Louis, for example.  They’ve got a lot of industries there – from auto manufacturing to hospitals to finance…  They’re all over.  But what does Ames, Iowa offer in the way of industry…?  What kind of jobs are even available in Ames…?  Do you think that there is a lot of call in Ames for an EDI manager…?  Or some other kind of IT position…?

That same flaw – the single source of data and the single point of data being used – can also be a major flaw in our EDI system and what we do with those documents.   What good is an EDI system that only processes a single document for a single department for a single trading partner…?  How does that improve your supply chain or your business…?

Opening up your focus – whether by the data you want to trade or by the “who” you want to trade with – can make your EDI world that much better.  That much more … well … impactful and worthwhile… leaving your EDI program just focused on one thing does not make it very useful information.

It’s like the articles I reference above – how valid is that information to you if you want to move to Sioux Falls, South Dakota and – while there is low unemployment and some growth in their job market – there is not a job for you to take…?  If you’ve achieved your MSCSE certificate, but there are no jobs for people with your abilities and qualifications, of what value is the fact that Sioux City has low unemployment..?

Or – on the flip side – you’re moving to Bakersfield or Fresno to take care of an ailing family member – but you’ve already got a job lined up – in your field of expertise – so the high rate of unemployment doesn’t matter to you.

Job futures – and EDI – need to be … far ranging and “big picture” – taking into account a lot of smaller details.  It can’t just be focused on one little fact or figure.

There’s that big retailer – WhoM shall remain nameless  – that is always the Target of the wrath and ire of many an EDI “guy”.  Those that deal with that big retailer (or the other one) know that they seem to be “our way or the highway” kind of mentality.  Do it our way or we’re not doing business with you.  It’s a very limited eye view of EDI.  It doesn’t allow for any deviation or options.  It’s this or nothing.  It’s one sides and just one point of reference.  It’s very limiting.

Now, in some ways, that limited versatility may be good – in that there’s not a lot of “extra stuff” to worry about.  Just like the one point of reference in the jobless rates in those cities – not a lot to worry about.  There aren’t many (any?) jobs, so don’t go there.

But isn’t it better when you have more to work on than just one number; or one point of view or one way of thinking…?  Where’s the value then?

Author: Craig Dunham – EDI Coordinator

Read more about Craig here: http://editalk.com/contributors/

got plan?

The above is with all due respect to the Milk Advisory Board and their advertising campaigns.  But, the other day, I came across this wonderful bit of news online… And I thought – wow…  Take a read…

 Bank Robber Hires Decoys on Craigslist, Fools Cops

By Caroline McCarthy, CNET News

In an elaborate robbery scheme that’s one part The Thomas Crown Affair and one part Pineapple Express, a crook robbed an armored truck outside a Bank of America branch in Monroe, Wash., by hiring decoys through Craigslist to deter authorities.

It gets better: He then escaped in a creek headed for the Skykomish River in an inner tube, and the cops are still looking for him. “A great amount of money” was taken, Monroe police said, but did not provide a dollar value.

It appears to have unfolded this way, according to a Seattle-based NBC affiliate: Around 11:00 a.m. PDT Sept. 30, the robber, wearing a yellow vest, safety goggles, a blue shirt, and a respirator mask went over to a guard who was overseeing the unloading of cash to the bank from the truck. He sprayed the guard with pepper spray, grabbed his bag of money, and fled the scene.

But here’s the hilarious twist. The robber had previously put out a Craigslist ad for road maintenance workers, promising wages of $28.50 per hour. Recruits were asked to wait near the Bank of America right around the time of the robbery–wearing yellow vests, safety goggles, a respirator mask, and preferably a blue shirt. At least a dozen of them showed up after responding to the Craigslist ad.

“I came across the ad that was for a prevailing wage job for $28.50 an hour,” one of the unwitting decoys, named Mike, said to the NBC station. As it turns out, they were simply placed there to confuse cops who were looking for a guy wearing a virtually identical outfit.

Authorities eventually found the getaway inner tube (a getaway inner tube!) and suspect that accomplices may have picked up the robber in a boat. According to the NBC affiliate, police hope to track him down by figuring out who posted the Craigslist ad in the first place.

Craigslist founder Craig Newmark was not immediately available for comment.

Now, My thinking of “WOW!” was because of how – well – how much thought and effort this guy did in setting up this crime….  I mean, he planned his escape route, put out an ad to “hire decoys” so that he’d blend into the crowd and not be caught…  Kind of like “The Thomas Crown Affair” – the remake – in which he blends in with the crowd and nobody suspects that he’s got a multi-million dollar piece of artwork rolled up in his briefcase.  Instead, he looks like any regular art patron, stopping by on a break or between meetings…

And it’s that kind of planning – and forward thinking – that can mean the success of any project we’re considering or working on – whether of criminal intent or just something simple and easy as EDI.

“Simple and easy as EDI…?  Did he really just say that…?”

Yes.  Yes I did.

But on the planning front, how good or bad our projects turn out can easily be related to how well planned and thought out our project is.  Do we have plans for possible flaws in our plans?  Do we have back-up contingencies?  Have we thought of any possible negative impacts or issues that may occur?

Or are we just going up to the armored car and saying “stick ‘em up!” without any kind of plan or escape route….?

EDI is not something we can just do “off the cuff” without thinking and planning and follow-through.  We can’t be the Elle Woods that Professor Callahan thinks said “I think I’ll go to law school today!” (from the movie “Legally Blonde”).  We have to be the Elle Woods that actually THINKS about what we’re doing and PLANS for what we want to accomplish.  We have to but some work into it and think it through.

True, in “Legally Blonde”, Elle does change her plans – from merely trying to recapture her boyfriend – to truly learning something and becoming more than what she seems on the surface.  And while EDI may never be THAT exciting, well…  It did show, however, how Ms. Woods was able to change her plans and her goals and still have a successful outcome – even if her original plan was no longer a viable option for her.

Think about the first time your company decided to “go EDI”…  They had these grand notions of … well, doing whatever it is that they had those notions to do.  But, along the way, there have been changes and additions; problems and hurdles; solutions and outcomes; and your EDI program is where it is today.  We learned some lessons, sure.  But we had some basic and solid plans to begin with.

And it’s that planning that probably had a lot with how successful the EDI program we’re working has been.

For example, when I started with EDI with My current job, it was a small program.  We traded only 1 document (the 850 PO) and had about … 30 trading partners.  Not a huge program… Especially for a fairly large retailer.  At the time, we had more than 300 stores in 10 states… True, we’re not Wal*Mart or Target or Costco – but we’re not Mom & Pop Store, with only 1 or 2 locations in one town, either…  “OH, Spud!  I’m a chain!” (from “Steel Magnolias”)…

But now, we’ve got well over 800 trading partners; we’re processing the 850, 856 and the 810; and about 85% of all the POs we write are sent via EDI.  We send and receive a few thousand documents per month.  And we’re pretty successful at it, too.

And we got there by planning…  But also a bit by … well, having good trading partners.  Just like our bank robber (above) probably had some good accomplices that he’s splitting that bag of loot with.  People that met him at the river and took him to their hide-out…  And even the “un-witting” accomplices that answered the ad on Craigslist and showed up in the requested outfit.

Planning and forethought can really make – or break – anything we do.  And it’s also true that all of the planning in the world may not always work out as we … well … planned … but it sure doesn’t hurt.

Hmm… “I think I’ll go to law school today!”  Or, rather, “I think I’ll tackle some EDI today!”  Yeah, that’s better!

Got plan?

Author: Craig Dunham – EDI Coordinator
Read more about Craig here: http://editalk.com/contributors/




I’ll buy that for a dollar!

If you’re old enough (or have an extensive enough Sci-Fi DVD/movie collection), you may remember the film RoboCop from 1987.  It was directed by Paul Verhoeven, who later became famous for that fantastic piece of cinematic achievement – Showgirls!  But he also gave us the Arnold “The Governator” Schwarzenegger classic “TOTAL RECALL”, and another classic of camp cinematic achievement “Basic Instinct”.

RoboCop was a futuristic view of life in the US – specifically in Detroit, MI – where violent crime is the norm – much like today?  Throughout the movie, there are glimpsed scenes of a sitcom TV show (later identified as “It’s Not My Problem”) where a major character uses the catch phrase “I’ll buy that for a dollar!

This wonderful ditty of a catch-phrase came to Me over the past few days when I was reading a post on the EDI-L Yahoo! group about “What is a decent price/cost per EDI message?” and everybody started weighing in with replies – some giving us examples of how much it costs per message at their company (about 50 cents per message) and others going down the “I pay 20 cents per KC” and others talking about the varied costs of the VANs per KC charges.  The poster suggested something about “32 cents per message” – a flat fee.

But here’s where the logic of the question – and the answers – falls apart.

Think about the documents – the messages – which you work with everyday in your EDI system…  Some are POs, some are ASNs, and some are Invoices.  You may be also sending or receiving catalog data, revised POs, acknowledgements, and more.  And now think about the SIZE of those messages.  The 997 Functional Acknowledgement (FA) can be a very short document or message – maybe just a hundred characters long.  It takes 10 of those to make a single KC…  Well, it takes 10 and nearly a quarter to make that KC – there are 1024 characters in a KC.

And then look at a BIG record – the 832 Price/Sales Catalog – and how many KCs are included.  It’s probably a few hundred KCs long – at least.

Or just think about a simple set of transactions:

     ·         A PO for a single line item
The FA
Another FA (for the ASN)
An Invoice
     ·         Another FA

So we’ve got 6 documents.  But now let’s say that the PO is for 15,000 units of the single item.  It, too, will be a small document – we’ll say its 1 KC of data.  Above, I show an FA at about 1/10th of a KC.  The Invoice will also probably be a short document – as it’s for just the single item – so another single KC of data flow.  In just 5 documents, we’ve got less than 3 KCs of data.

But that ASN; now there’s a big document to trade…  Let’s say that the vendor packages those items being ordered – My famous WIDGETS! – at 10 units per carton.  With 15,000 units, that’s 1500 Cartons!  And if your ASN is a carton level detail, that’s 1500 line items – actually 3000 lines (2 for each carton) – plus the data for the Shipment level and the Order level loops.  Now we’re talking SIZE.  Of course, we may still only be talking about – maybe – 10,000 characters – 10 KC.

But the concept of paying per message – now that’s not really quite fair is it…?  You’re paying 32 cents for that ASN, but you’re also paying 32 cents for the FA.  Big price difference…! 

For that 10 KC document, you’re spending 3.2 cents per KC.  But for that FA at 100 CHARACTERS, you’re spending – what – $3.20 per KC…?  Or is it $32.00….?  And if it’s just that 1 KC PO or Invoice, it’s .32 cents per KC.

Let’s take that comparison out of the EDI world for a second; let’s think about houses.  Assume that a new program comes down the pike where EVERY house will cost the same.  Size, location, amenities, all the rest – doesn’t matter.  It’s all about a unit – the house.  And each house will sell for $250,000.  The problem is that you can have small shacks of 500 square feet selling for the same price as one of the big, 5000 square foot mansions in Beverly Hills or a Malibu Beach house.  A 400 square foot studio “condo” in “the ghetto” selling for the same price as a huge 8000 sf penthouse apartment on Fifth Avenue in New York.

Can you see the problem with this logic?  Using the same concepts I used above on the KC scale, let’s go to the unit of measurement for buildings – the square foot.  In that 500 sf shack, you’re spending $500 per square foot!  But that mansion?  You’re only spending about 50 bucks a square foot.  It’s 10 times the cost for the smaller space, once broken down to the square foot level.  The studio is $625 per foot and the penthouse is just $31.25 per square foot.

Which place would YOU rather have…?  Where’s the bargain…?  Would you buy that concept for a dollar?

It’s the same problem in “per message” pricing vs. “per KC” pricing.  You’ve got these tiny little messages costing as much as the huge monster messages.  And your figures are skewed.  Now, since it costs as much to send the FA as it does to send the Catalog, you might get trading partners that balk at sending the FA for the traded documents.  Then you’ll get trading partners using charge-backs to enforce that FA compliance.

Suddenly, the “low cost per message” now starts to have a lot of other costs involved.  Charge-backs and the human hours required to track down messages – if they’ve been received by your trading partner – and more.  All to save – what, a few cents?

And that’s really one of the problems I’ve often talked about – especially on those groups – in that you can’t just look at the basic cost – the per KC charge – and base your decision off of that fee.  If you do, you’ll likely end up costing yourself a LOT more money in the long run.  Suddenly, that cheap 2 cents per KC rate you worked so hard to get is really costing you an extra 5 cents per KC in other features and benefits that maybe were included in the 6 cent per KC quote you got from that other VAN or SaaS provider you also heard from.  That cut rate deal maybe isn’t such a deal anymore.

There is another catch-phrase that comes to mind – Caveat Emptor; Latin for “BUYER BEWARE”.  It basically means you should look into what you’re buying – and all the aspects of it – and not just buy something without thinking.  Another “Look before you leap” comes to mind.

I’ve said it before – maybe in a blog, maybe in our forums, maybe on EDI-L or some other EDI related group.  But I’ve mentioned how – every once in a while – I’ll get a call or an e-mail or … something … from a VAN or network provider promising Me that they can save Me “50% of your VAN costs!” – expecting that I’m just going to JUMP right onto their wagon and sign up to save a few pennies.  But then again, what about the possible down time?  Or the archival storage?  Or any of the other features I get from My current VAN provider that aren’t included in that “50% off” cost…?

You get what you pay for – there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch – and everything has strings attached and other aspects of the deal to consider.

Yep, I’ll buy that for a dollar, indeed!

Author: Craig Dunham – EDI Coordinator
Read more about Craig here: http://editalk.com/contributors/

“bring a teddy bear to work” day

I’d heard that today was “BRING YOUR TEDDY BEAR TO WORK” day and wish I’d known in advance.  I’m a collector of Teddy Bears – even having one of the first ones that I had as a kid.  He’s now in his 30s and still sits on My bed at home.  Teddy Bears have also influenced another hobby of Mine – My PT Cruiser and car shows.  If you’ve seen a lot of the custom PT Cruisers on the roads out there, you’ll notice that a lot of them – maybe as many as half? – are customized and personalized – with flames, as woodies, as old surfer wagons, with 50s or 40s or even 30s motifs and all sorts of other styles.

Of course, there are just as many that are simple, plain and unadorned.  Simple economy cars – even if they’re not too good with the MPG.

But I would have loved to have brought one of My Teddies to work today… Maybe the 5 foot tall polar bear.  Or the one My mom got Me for My 40th birthday from Vermont Teddy Bear Company – with custom clothing and My name embroidered on his back.  Or maybe the one from My youth…?  Could even go with current events and bring in the Banker Bear a pal gave Me for Christmas a few years ago.

I use My  teddies in the “theme” of My PT Cruiser – and take quite a selection of them with Me to the shows I attend and use them as … well … props.  PT Bearnum (My PT Cruiser) is festooned with bears of all shapes and sizes.  And then there are all of the bear paw prints on the car; a very cohesive look.  I’ve won a few awards and was a runner up in “Crowd Favorite” at a show a few years back.

But it’s this customization – this personalization of the Cruisers that comes to mind with My comments today.

Over on the EDI-L yahoo group, somebody had posted about how a semi-non-technical person was hired to fill a supervisory position (a contractor, really) over and above the regular employees that had been working for the company for a while and have major amounts of experience in IT and with EDI.

Somewhere in the thread, one poster commented on how upper management (the ones making the hiring decisions) seem to feel that “non-tech” people make for better employees than “tech” people – at least when it comes to management – or business skills.  And I had to disagree.  Where I work – our 1st level support positions generally tend to come to us from the stores.  They understand how we do things, why we do things and the way things work at the store level – they’ve BEEN THERE.

In the original post, it could be that our poster got his feelings a bit hurt because he’d wanted the job and they hired this outside source.  But maybe the upper management wanted some new ideas – some new ways to take what they’ve got – a functioning EDI program – and make it better.  Make it different.  Customize it, personalize it and make it a much slicker program – something more in-tune with a changing philosophy, a changing business landscape, a changing world.

If you’ve ever been to a custom car show – whether a PT Cruiser show or the Japanese Imports (Rice Rockets) or hot rods from the fifties and sixties – you’ll notice that there are many cars that are similar to others, and yet are completely their own creation and often very unique and different from the others.  Even if they’re the same make and model of car – the Chrysler PT Cruiser, for example – you can have so many different ideas and concepts and projects and looks and feels and … you get the idea, right?

Same can be said of our MIS/IT departments and our EDI programs.  We all don’t use the same documents, we all don’t require the same data segments and elements.  We all use the documents and the data that will best suit our own needs.  And our own business practices.  It’s what fits US.

Just like My PT Cruiser – PT Bearnum – fits ME.  It’s something from My world and My desires and My tastes – My Bears – and it’s put onto a similar “medium” as the guy that’s into Winnie the Pooh characters…  Or a fan of RC model planes… or hot air balloons, Betty Boop, Charlie Brown and his pals, Disney villains, Little Red Riding Hood, or even Dean Martin and Sammy Davis Jr. and Frank Sinatra and the “Rat Pack”…  not all themes work together and all are unique and different approaches to the same vehicle.  And then there are the PT Cruisers with the “factory” flames or the “factory” woody look or whichever.  There are the unique – and not-so-unique – flaming paint jobs.

And these are just like some of our EDI programs.  Some of use the EDI application we do right out of the box; with no changes, alterations or customizations needed.  Some of us use EDI applications that are custom made for us – based on a box stock application – but fully customized and personalized to suit out own business needs.

Same can be said of the hiring practices above.  The company may have found that it would better suit their needs to hire an outside source – with a different background and experience than our poster – and bring him on to manage the group and maybe – just maybe – point them in a new direction or down a different road.  Maybe take their fine running system and finely tune that engine to really make it roar and get and give more bang-for-the-buck – balancing and blue-printing the engine, super-charging it, adding performance enhancers and features – all to really make it GO!

And maybe – just maybe – it was easier to hire somebody with that “new way of thinking” as a leader, rather than promoting the “same old thinking” to leader and bringing in the “new way” as an underling and causing strife and discord from the start.

Often times, it seems that a trained monkey could do many of the IT jobs out there.  You just train them to push button A when light B goes off or throw lever C at 12:15 PM.  It’s not rocket science.  But then again, even rocket scientists had to be trained SOMEPLACE.  Maybe they were the monkey earlier on.

So maybe hiring the outside guy rocked the boat and made some people … less than pleased.  Maybe they wanted a really special look and feel to their program that they weren’t getting from the guys that just wanted that PT Cruiser with the factory flame package…  They wanted some OOMPH and something stupendous and unique – they wanted flames – and fireworks – and maybe even some bears…  maybe even “Da Bears!”…

Author: Craig Dunham – EDI Coordinator
Read more about Craig here: