At 05:17 PM 29/07/02 +1000, Ann Moffatt wrote: >as a 'girl' it was always very easy to be ever so humble & apologetic for >using simple terms to explain techo stuff. (sorry other 'girl linkers', i >know that's not fashionable or PC now but in my day it was useful.) the >result was watching execs becoming empowered to ask sensible, relevant >questions & knowing it was useful to them because they used me as a source >again & again!!
Ann et al, I don't think it's really 'girl' explanations, I think it's just explaining things in the language that everyday people understand - simple, clear, non-technical - focussing on the outcomes, not all the stuff in between. If the 'in between' saves time and money, that's what decision makers need to understand, not the processing. They probably want to know what the input side of the process requires, e.g. staff and equipment [= training and change and money] and what the output side provides, e.g. information, results, efficiencies, answers to their superiors that are requested. If change is going to be major, e.g. Why are we going to undo M$, then the advisor needs to be able to clearly address that question - what is the benefit and can you prove it to a reasonable certitude? The decision maker is being asked to take a risk and they need to feel confident to take on that risk. Why is this change strategically important to consider? If it's too hard, they probably won't jump to the new way. Proposals for low cost pilot projects are good. Getting to know who the early adopters are in a school or department helps, and then getting them on side. Jan [that will be $150 please, tax invoice in the post :-) ] JLWhitaker Associates Melbourne, Victoria, Australia [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.primenet.com/~jwhit/whitentr.htm -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/ More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug
