jan said "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. "
of course you are right jan but in my experience most of the techo men are out to impress rather than making the effort to find out what is really needed in an explanation. i've often been criticized-once by my boss-for demystifying the ict process for business people. the comment made then was "if you make it sound that simple they'll think they can do it themselves and we'll be out of a job!!". jan said "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." i think, to gain cred with non techo, execs, its equally important to show some 'failures' and what has been learned from those failures. techos often only 'push' success stories & that often leads non believers to suspect they are not being told the whole truth. execs know from experience that there are usually 'failures' with all new things, its part of the learning experience. ************************************ Ann Moffatt EXoCaT Pty Ltd 49 Raintree Avenue BURRUM HEADS QLD 4659 tel +61 (0) 7 4129 5796 fax +61 (0) 7 4129 5916 *********************************** ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jan Whitaker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Ann Moffatt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Jeff Waugh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Mail List - LINK" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Mail List - SLUG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 7:58 AM Subject: Re: [LINK] Re: [SLUG] NSW DET to be urged to use OSS > 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, 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
