SQLServerCentral / Editorials / SQLServerCentral.com / Smart Companies / Latest Posts

RE: Smart Companies

Karma-343206 — Mon, 30 Apr 2007 05:57:00 GMT

No need to add anything

RE: Smart Companies

Matt51F1 — Sun, 29 Apr 2007 21:50:00 GMT

I think that rating companies as smart because they have a values statement and a mission statement and the usual goals-orientated performance guide, does not indicate anything other than them jumping on the marketing badwagon.

I was in government for 12 years (a railway department in Australia) who had all the pretty values statements and things like that to make employees *think* that the company had direction and a respect for employees but in reality they did not.

Essentially, the catchphrases (or "wank phrases") used by marketing equate to:

"World's Best Practice" - "Do it my way".

"Values Statement" - How we want employees to act while middle and upper management can still play their pathetic and childish games of office politics and enforce workplace behavioural policies against the workers only while our managerial buddies can do what they like.

"Vision Statement" - What the company would like to be thought of by other organisations but have the same chance of achieving that as the Cheshire Cat does of becoming the CEO.

"Lead by Example" - Only when it suits our purposes.

In short, government departments are full of morons who prefer to ignore their actual jobs so they can run around looking for dirt on anyone and everyone so that they can carry tales back to management to make themselves look good. When the other members of the team don't carry their "share" of the load (that is: filling the hole caused by the non-performing politico), those employees are considered to be bad performers.

The other reality of government departments is that they are generally full of people who are either totally disinterested in doing anything constructive and just want to coast along -or- people who are truly good at what they do but have had their self-confidence destroyed to the point that they don't think that they have marketable skills for anywhere else.

Government offices are NOT and NEVER WILL BE "smart" companies. Case in point - look at the ultimate bosses: Ministers! If a company is only as good as it's boss then it's plain to see why every single government department runs so inefficiently and makes decisions that could only ever come from a dedicated moron.

I'm now in private enterprise and the change in environment is wonderful. If you're in government & IT and you think that you're being held back - MAKE THE MOVE - you won't regret it.

RE: Smart Companies

Loner — Mon, 23 Apr 2007 08:13:00 GMT

To rate the smart companies based on the finanical performance, I am sorry I totally disagreed with that.

RE: Smart Companies

Mark Green — Mon, 23 Apr 2007 07:56:00 GMT

Mike,

Sometimes it is too late to be reactive (9/11). However, proactive government has not been mastered in the West yet (Iraq).

RE: Smart Companies

Mike C — Mon, 23 Apr 2007 07:50:00 GMT

I noticed the same differences since I'm a "weekend warrior" with the government and work in the private sector during the week. The best theory I can come up with is that to succeed in the private sector a business has to be proactive -- anticipating and dealing with issues before they become big issues. Government is mostly reactive -- for the most part they have to react to existing conditions after they're already big issues.

Of course that's a good thing, since most people wouldn't want the police kicking in their door for some crime they anticipate you'll commit at some point ("Minority Report" anyone?)

BTW - I noticed in the rankings that they assign a "knowledge value per employee", but it doesn't appear to single out groups of employees (i.e., IT, marketing, etc.) According to this ranking, the guy who says "Would you like fries with that?" contributes as much to Burger King's "smartness" as the guy who administers their distributed database servers, who contributes as much as the VP of Sales, etc.

This ranking doesn't seem to really measure IT-related activities and employees specifically. It's hard to directly measure the value of good IT people in most companies, since we don't usually do sales, marketing, etc. Basically we don't usually contribute directly to the bottom line (of course there are always exceptions, and really big ones at that). We do, however, always support the decision makers and the people who do contribute to the bottom line. It would be far more interesting to me to see a methodology for measuring the impact that IT departments have on businesses.

RE: Smart Companies

Michael Lysons — Mon, 23 Apr 2007 07:29:00 GMT

The fact that you say that shows you have no idea about the NHS. The words 'fixed' and 'quickly' are not often put together in a sentence concerning the NHS!

RE: Smart Companies

Kathi Kellenberger — Sat, 21 Apr 2007 09:48:00 GMT

I work for a smart company, Bryan Cave LLP. I think Bryan Cave is smart because of the culture and how it welcomes diversity. People are respected for their work and dedication. It doesn't matter about your race, gender, political beliefs, religion or sexual orientation, if you are talented you can succeed at Bryan Cave. They also invest in the professional development of their employees. Each year I have gone to the PASS conference and attended other local classes and events. They expect a lot, but they have helped me grow a lot, too.

RE: Smart Companies

Paul Nevlud — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 15:25:00 GMT

I've been working for about 5 years now and have been in three companies. The first company (about 100 people) that hired me out of university was a VERY SMART company. There was "Vision" and "Mission" and a "Quality Statement" that most of us knew (and even believed). There were quarterly business reviews where we saw what was going on in all parts of the company. At one point, early on, the SW group realized that it's people weren't super happy, so they started to actively work on that problem. The results... they built a very open culture. Individuals were encouraged to take (calculated) risks and learn from mistakes. We adopted agile development when I was there. And a bunch of other cool stuff.Company 2 NOT SMART. The ruthless pursuit of the quarterly numbers lead to cutting corners and looking the other way. I only stuck that place out 8 months.Company 3 is actually satellite SW development group within Company 1. Unfortunately, the culture building & strong leadership from Company 1 didn't translate to company 3. I'd have to say Company 3 is NOT SMART, but has potential. So my point is that a company overall can be a smart company. But within its own walls there can be some smart and not-so-smart groups.

RE: Smart Companies

Mike B in AK — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 13:30:00 GMT

One of the more interesting rationalizations I hear in the government office in which I work is that just because what works in the private sector (planning, project management, communication and a few other nifty concepts) doesn't mean it will work in government agencies. No review of best practices, no initiative to change the way government business is done.

RE: Smart Companies

Bert Carles — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 10:41:00 GMT

If you want to judge smartness by line of business, then the floor covering industry is BY FAR the dumbest on the planet. I worked for two of the largest manufacturers and let me tell you; the cumulative intelligence of the industry wouldn't add up to that of a bag of door knobs!

RE: Smart Companies

Dave Schutz — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 10:21:00 GMT

I've worked for a not for profit for 9 years and don't think financial performance is our key measure of performance. Ours is a balance of mission and business. Our mission is number one, but we can't fulfill our mission without business (money). We've been in business since 1970 so I guess we're doing okay.

Before that I spent 20 years in the U.S. military; 200+ years of tradition unencumbered by progress or change. Many smart people dragged down by government red tape.

RE: Smart Companies

JacekO — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 09:21:00 GMT

Judging the smartness of the company by its financial performance is a weak indicator in my opinion. It might be smart to invest money in a company which is doing well financially but it might not be smart to work for one.

I would define smartness by the way the company treats it’s employees and customers and on the level of greed of the Chief Officers. Look at Enron – at one point they could have been judged smart based on their financial performance…

I think (based on the news only - because I did not work for them) Google might be one of the smartest companies out there.

From what I have seen the more money the company has the more stupid it is. Also the stupidity comes with the territory (type of business - I think banks and insurance companies are among the most stupid) and very often size (the bigger you get the more politics go on and how brilliant the politicians are … we all know…)

I worked for a company at one point in my life where most of the time was spent on kissing up and dividing influences instead of getting the job done that I think if that company fired 50% of it’s IT staff the rest of the company would not notice the difference in IT performance.

RE: Smart Companies

Craig-315134 — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 09:16:00 GMT

It's interesting to note something of a division between private industry and government within these posts. It's not so much a direct comparison of smarts vs stupidity, but of cupidity vs stupidity. Whilst both sectors can and do exhibit "stupid" behaviour, only private industry has the motivation -- cupidity -- to act "smart"; the marketplace eventually rewards smarts and punishes stupidity. Government, on the other hand, exercises a monopoly, or near-monopoly, over the services it renders to its "customers", and extacts its dues, regardless of its performance.

Perhaps it's odd for me to admit all this, as I am both a government employee, and politically rather liberal. But after years in both the private and public sectors, the differences can only be described as undeniable and profound.

Cheers.

RE: Smart Companies

bnordberg — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 08:50:00 GMT

I work for a hospital - definitly not smart - but caring. Actually I think all the crap we have to do to process a bill to someones insurance is pretty amazing (amazingly stupid).

RE: Smart Companies

Frank Buchan — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 08:23:00 GMT

Since I own a large hunk of the company, I would be inclined to claim brilliance, but realistically I think my company is wavering between smart and idiotic. Then again, it may be because part of what we do is provide some close client support, and, frankly, a lot of the companies we work with are not on verge of winning any rewards. So, internally smart; but our world interface is suffering some.

I do believe recognising the weaknesses is a step toward being smarter.

In a less humourous vein, given the constant financial restatements of some of the companies I used to consider smart, perhaps finances is a weak way of measuring strength.

RE: Smart Companies

Sean Law-383356 — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 08:16:00 GMT

I work for a company that is in a shift to being smarter. I have only been here 6 months but we have really started the process of thinking long term and we are building the resources to be smarter and make more informed decisions.

I used to work for a Large Auto Retailer and have to say they were actually going in the opposite direction from an IT perspective. They were smarter and they have put themselves on a slope of getting dumber from my vantage point. The decisions are very short sighted and they are losing their best resource (people) because they don't value you them as they should. I believe some of it has to do with getting complacent which is never good.

My sister once told me about the theory that the true enemy of "Great" isn't "Bad"; it is "Good Enough" because people accept "Good Enough" versus fighting for change when things are "Bad". I think this can be applied in many areas but I feel like my old employer accepts Good Enough where my new employer was in the Bad Category and we are trying to move the needle in a different direction.

RE: Smart Companies

Luke L — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 07:23:00 GMT

Let's see... smart... hmm... Well I work for a State government... you do the math.

RE: Smart Companies

Bert Carles — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 06:37:00 GMT

I learned long ago that what's smart to one is pure stupidity to others. As a DBA, I'm not privy to everything going on in my company (though some would argue a DBA should be). My company doesn't always make decisions I agree with or necessarily consider smart. But they are on solid financial ground and growing, so I have to figure they know more about what they're doing than I.

RE: Smart Companies

Marilu Gordon — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 04:57:00 GMT

I work for a smart comapny. Another measurement would be "Vision" or "Gaols"....does the company plan for the future and set realistic, attainable goals. The same can also be said for an individual. Those sports stars may not have done well in school but I am sure they set goals to improve their performance and worked hard to achieve them. I am glad that I work for a smart company.

RE: Smart Companies

Andy Leonard — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 04:51:00 GMT

Well, I'm self-employed so I'm biased no matter what I say!

I subcontract almost exclusively for Solid Quality Learning and they're a smart company.

:{> Andy

RE: Smart Companies

Mark Green — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 03:25:00 GMT

Michael,

The fact that you can say that without fear or intimidation suggests that NHS England is smart because views are freely expressed and problems must surely then be open for all to see and fixed more quickly.

RE: Smart Companies

Michael Lysons — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 01:55:00 GMT

I work for the NHS in England. There are a few smart people at my hospital - obviously I am one of them! - but the 'company' is not smart at all. In fact, I think the smart people lose some of their smarts every day they work here.

Smart Companies

Steve Jones - SSC Editor — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 16:47:00 GMT

What makes a person smart? I think it's kind of like being a leader, you can't necessarily give a good description, but you know it when you see it. And just as with leaders, there are different types of "smart".

I caught this article on Baseline about the 100 Smartest Companies of 2007. They had a spreadsheet with a formula to define a smart company and they're really looking quite a bit at the financial performance of the company. There's an argument that smart people do well financially, but look at all of the athletes, actors, and tradesman making lots of money that didn't do well in school.

Or maybe we're measuring a different kind of "smart" here. In any case, while I may or may not agree that the measure of a company's "smart" ness is in their financial performance, or even financial performance v employee count, I thought I'd ask...

Do you work for a smart company?

I'll let you define it and explain it however you wish to interpret it. Just think about what you'd say if a friend from high school asked you if your company was smart.

For me I'll say yes, whether you count Red Gate or End To End Training. Both are what I'd consider smart companies. Both make sound financial decisions, take care of employees, and are in business for the long term, not the next quarter.

Of my past companies, I'd say that JD Edwards was smart, Peoplesoft wasn't. My thoughts on IQDestination are that it was a great team in IT, but not a smart company. The financial services firm I worked for a long time ago in Denver was downright stupid (and maybe I was, sticking around for 18 months). The Penrod Company, whom I worked for in Virginia was pretty smart. I'm not sure about Dominion Resources. I saw pockets of smartness and places I thought they were making mistakes, but overall I think it was smart.

So what do you think, on this Friday in April after your taxes are paid. Is your company smart?

Steve Jones