Search results matching tags 'Developer Community' and 'Software Business'

SQL in the City Event Dates Announced!

andyleonard — Sat, 18 May 2013 06:00:00 GMT

If you didn’t know that already, you know it now. The latest evidence to support this claim is the publication of the schedule for US SQL in the City events. They are:

9 Oct – Pasadena
11 Oct – Atlanta
14 Oct – Charlotte

Registration for these events opens 24 May.

:{>

Creating is Hard

andyleonard — Fri, 12 Aug 2011 11:00:00 GMT

Introduction

This post is the forty-seventh part of a ramble-rant about the software business. The current posts in this series can be found on the series landing page.

This post is about creation.

Creating is Hard Work

Building something from nothing is difficult, to say the least. But often it’s even more difficult to conceive an idea worth building in the first place. I have to admit, my best ideas have come to me in dreams. I’m blessed to have a business partner – Brian Moran (@briancmoran) – who comes up with great ideas every day. I like implementing ideas, so we make a good team.

The main reason creating and conceiving ideas is difficult is…

Thinking is Work

I don’t know how you think. I know how I think, though. Maybe you think similarly; maybe you don’t. I actually set aside time each week to ponder. It’s a cool time most weeks. How do I think?

One Note!

I heart One Note. I write stream-of-consciousness style. And sketch with the touchpad. And drag documents onto the surface. And then I just close it and it’s saved automatically. One Note rocks.

At the suggestion of a friend, I recently started tinkering with Evernote. So far I like it - a lot. It's like OneNote in the cloud. I can jot down notes from my DroidX or laptop. Neato mosquito. I'm still learning to use Evernote. Perhaps when I get better at it, I'll post more.

"If Thinking is so Difficult, Why Do it?"

I’m so glad you asked! Sometimes I come up with a killer idea (like SQLPeople! Which started as a dream…). Thinking and creating is so worth it when you get to share that idea. It doesn’t matter if you get to share it with someone in a one-on-one mentoring session or in front of a user group or presenting at a SQL Saturday, Code Camp, or the PASS Summit – it is awesome to share!

And this is why I <3 community.

It's more than "giving back". "Giving back" sounds like you're paying off some old debt and that's not how contributing to community feels at all. "Giving back" is a transaction that flows from one person to another or many. That's not community! Sharing is community. Community is engaging. Community is participating. My friend and fellow community mentor Alan Stevens (Blog | @alanstevens) is a champion of Open Spaces (check out this video of Alan sharing about Open Spaces from CodeStock 2009). Open Spaces is one way technology communities organize. It was the first unconference format I ever heard about. You owe it to yourself to read the Origin and Ownership section at Wikipedia. Alan was the first person I heard present the Open Spaces Guiding Principle and One Law and he did it with panache, conviction, and passion.

Earlier this week, I hosted a Google+ Hangout. It embodied many of the same principles found in Open Spaces. You don't vote with your feet, but you do enter and leave at will. Whoever shows up are the right people. Whenever it starts is the right time. Wherever it happens is the right place. Whatever happens is the only thing that could have happened. When it's over, it's over. To me, Open Spaces feels like Agile + Community. Everyone contributes and we all learn. I will be hosting more G+ Hangouts.

Conclusion

One of the reasons I started this series is to encourage people to create, and to discourage those who would block creativity and innovation. Creating is hard work, but it is so worth it.

:{>

Engines of Loss and Gain

andyleonard — Tue, 21 Jun 2011 11:00:00 GMT

Introduction

This post is the fortieth part of a ramble-rant about the software business. The current posts in this series can be found on the series landing page.

This post is about winning (no really).

NASCAR

I like watching NASCAR races. On the surface, a race looks like a bunch of folks driving fast on a circuitous course. But there’s much more to it than that. There’s engineering and strategy and frankly, a little luck. A NASCAR race is a lot like life when you look beneath the surface.

Forty-three cars start the race, one wins. If you do the math, you’ll realize that 42 cars do not win. The ratio of winners:losers is 1:42. A NASCAR race is an engine of loss. Why? It generates way more losers than winners. Does that make it any less thrilling to watch? Not at all. Take a look at this years’ schedule – there are 34 races slated over a 9-month season. One of the things that offsets the ratio is frequency.

Frequency helps because even though there are more losers than winners each week, there are a lot of weeks. Constraints come into play as well; as NASCAR has strict rules about the cars. Constraints and frequency mitigate the winners:losers ratio.

The inverse also holds: Events with more losers than winners that occur infrequently with indefinite or shifting constraints fare worst of all. They also limit the growth of any community with which they’re associated. I prefer the adjective “organic” for community, but buzzing communities often experience different growth characteristics. Some have more in common with a nuclear reaction than my garden. Loser-laden events in these communities are like dropping the control rods into a reactor, or blocking the rain and light from reaching my garden.

Solution (and Anti-Solution)

"So Andy, what’s the answer?" I hear you asking. I’m glad you asked! Create events with more winners than losers. Optimally, create events in which no one loses and everyone wins.

"How?" Another excellent question! First, we have to redefine winning. Winning has long been associated with not-losing. Some have confused the two. In fact, it's a remarkably subtle shift to measure oneself by counting those behind you. This leads to an incredibly negative spiral in which some believe they are winning - indeed, can only win - if others are losing. Rather than build up, they tear down. If the goal is to win, after all, someone else must lose. Right?

NO!

Community is not a zero-sum game. Neither is business. It's possible to create - period. Create what? Whuffie, reputation, value - you name it. You do not have to achieve whuffie, reputation, or value by taking it from someone else - it can be generated. Here's a simple test to determine the direction of your spiral: Which way are you looking? If you're measuring yourself by all the people behind you, you've fallen into this subtle trap. If you're measuring yourself by being better, helping others, learning more, sucking less every day; you're facing the right direction.

Back to your question of how: one example is...

Games

Online gaming, in its current form, is wildly popular. There are contests with others, to be sure; but success in these contests is driven by – and drives – an internal competition for higher levels. Competing brings higher levels. Achieving higher levels means the player is better equipped to compete. It’s a positive spiral built on self-improvement. Some games even award points towards levels when you help someone else improve their points or level. Contrast this with a 1/43 chance of winning, and you start to get the picture.

Increase the Odds

The incorrect response is the old response: “Sorry. Try again next year!” It’s the community equivalent of a No Vacancy sign outside the Old Boys Club. It’s harder to think up ways for more folks to win, but I believe that’s only because we’re in the habit of creating events and opportunities where a few win. I believe this kind of thinking is so 1998. There are ways to increase the odds of participation and winning, though. One good example is SQL Saturday.

In the SQL Server Community, SQL Saturday has provided opportunities for those interested to present their ideas in front of an audience eager to learn more. SQL Saturday increases the odds of winning by providing more opportunities to present. It’s such an awesome idea that you likely would be shocked to learn who initially opposed it and why. It’s not important who tried to kill the idea, but it is important – and an example – of the effects of 1998-era thinking in the current era.

Conclusion

Creating business opportunities where everyone wins is not only possible, I believe it’s a great idea. My business partner Brian Moran (@briancmoran) and I are working diligently to implement them into our latest venture. We're going to be writing more about applying Community ideas to business soon.

:{>

Techganic

andyleonard — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 11:00:00 GMT

Introduction

This post is the thirty-sixth part of a ramble-rant about the software business. The current posts in this series can be found on the series landing page.

This post is about how organizations and people plant ideas.

“Techganic”

I made up another word. I believe this word describes the different ways in which companies grow and mature ideas in financial and capability terms.

I base the categories that follow on a parable recorded in Luke 8:4-15. If that offends you you’re reading the wrong stuff – a lot of what I’ve posted in this series is related to my beliefs. I condemn no one for differing beliefs; I merely recognize them as different (please see the conclusion of Right, Wrong, and Style).

In the parable a sower is sowing seed. The results? In some measure, the seeds are:

Trampled and consumed
Grow fast and wither
Choked
Successful

I choose to apply this parable to ideas for the sake of this post; and this is all my opinion, for better or worse. I compare the seeds to ideas and the soil to execution of these ideas.

Trampled and Consumed

These ideas fell beside the road. They never reached the target – rich soil in which they could thrive. People trampled the ideas and nature consumed them. Dead ideas are a waste.

Some of these ideas were dead or fruitless; this much is true. There is a certain percentage of ideas that fall into the category of Useless. But many of them were great ideas and would’ve produced a rich return if only they’d hit pay dirt. They were ignored to death, or taken by others. Stolen ideas fall into this category, as do ideas never fully developed by the original sower. Others take them and use them for their purposes – perhaps others improve the ideas, perhaps they merely implement them successfully.

I wish to point out that these ideas often succeed eventually. Without being graphically unpleasant, I ask: Have you ever observed a fence line out in the country? You have to read Luke 8:5 to get this…

Fast Growth

These ideas landed on rocky soil with just enough dirt to get them started, but withered as soon as the moisture was drawn from that soil. In other words, they were unsustainable. Were they good ideas? Maybe – probably so. But they weren’t planted in a good spot. They were not executed properly. They sprung up and looked good, but the heat of the day took them out.

Note that heat comes from the sun and sunlight is required to grow seeds into healthy plants. These ideas died of natural causes.

Choked

Other ideas land in a space filled with existing ideas. The older ideas have already been executed and are ahead of the new ideas in maturity. The existing ideas are consuming the vital resources needed for idea execution, and they choke out the new idea; thwarting its growth initially, and eventually killing it.

I’ve heard this story repeatedly: A company starts up a new division by hiring a team and tasking them with breaking into a new market. The individuals on the team have experience in the market so this makes perfect sense – bring in people with experience to get things started relatively quickly. The team identifies and prioritizes a list of things the company needs to do to break into the new market. At the top of the list is a better pricing strategy – read: “we’re charging too much; we need to charge less.” The company rejects this advice and loses an early bid. Because the early bid is lost, the company questions the effectiveness of the team and begins reconsidering breaking into the market.

This is a choked idea.

Successful

Some ideas are executed successfully. In fact, they are wildly successful and yield 100x the original investment of time and resources. I understand this is how venture capitalists think. They invest knowing some percentage of the companies will fail. But the companies that succeed more than make up for the failures.

Successfully executed ideas require two general things: the ideas have to be good and they have to be executed successfully. There’s a lot more to it than that, but that’s the framework for shipping.

Conclusion

Technical ideas grow techganically. There’s a cycle that includes planting, nurturing, and harvest. Every good idea requires good planting (execution) to be successful.

:{>