Catch me if you can. Director's version

"Catch Me If You Can." That's the name of the film by Steven Spielberg. I watched it, it’s interesting. But it’s not true, even if it’s based on real events.

In reality, "catch me if you can" is a game. I see this game every day, and even participate in it. And I feel pretty much like the protagonist of Spielberg's film – the one played by Tom Hanks. I feel like an idiot. A helpless idiot who gets fooled right in the eye every day. I have power, but all I can do with it is fire someone. Although, that doesn't help either – a new employee comes, and the game starts all over again.

You've probably heard the beautiful saying: if you hire a qualified specialist, you should do what they say, rather than tell them what to do. Have you tried doing what these qualified specialists say? I have. And I’ll be honest: it's complete nonsense.

The other day, I fired yet another IT director. Following him, for some unknown reason, my only programmer snapped and went to Moscow, although I had just raised his salary. Well, to hell with the programmer. He used to be good, valuable, useful, interesting, inspired – that qualified employee you wanted to listen to and follow their advice. And then, like everyone else, he started playing the game "catch me if you can."

What kind of game is this? You call it "work," "fulfilling your duties," "maintaining IT infrastructure," "automating the enterprise," "developing a web application," etc. Your sole objective in this game is not to get caught.

Depending on your position in the hierarchy, you must be caught either by your boss, or the director, or colleagues, or internal clients, or external customers, or God knows who else. In a decent factory, there's always someone to run from.

Sometimes you join teams, and you run together, including – the boss with subordinates can run, for example, from the director. In books, this is called "grassroots solidarity" and is considered one of the important features of Russian people in the context of managing them. If managers join the team, it’s more like ‘mutual guarantee.’ The essence is the same.

So, here comes the IT director to me – the one I recently fired. The resume is impressive. The experience is incredible. His understanding of the business is no worse than mine. Translating the business development strategy into an IT strategy is as easy as pie for him. So what’s next?

Next, I, like a decent idiot, follow the advice of smart people who say that I should listen to a qualified specialist. And I listened. It was just like that – he arrived at work, I called him over, he came, sat down and… was silent. One minute, two, five, ten. And I’m sitting there, listening. During the interview, he mentioned a trait of his called "proactivity."

Okay, maybe I misunderstood what proactivity meant when I read about it in books. I couldn’t hold back, I said – come on, dude! Finally, we have a person in our company who can solve business tasks with the help of IT (when I said this, for some reason he huddled a bit). And again, silence. And I’m just sitting there, listening. To the silence.

And then the game began. What do you think was the first phrase? Of course, it was, "I first need to understand the situation, delve into the problems." A brilliant move, it always starts like this. No, don’t get me wrong, I’m not some idiot who thinks he could offer suggestions on the first day. I just know exactly what will happen next.

Next, he went to dive deep. A day, a week, a month. I think – well, he’s got it now. I call again. I sit quietly. And he’s silent. I can't take it anymore – I ask again: what can be improved? What business tasks can be solved with IT? Come on, I'm ready, I want to support you!

Do you know what he answered? He said we need to implement a task management system. No, maybe I just don’t understand, but why does every new IT director start with implementing some new task, project, incident management system, or something like that?

I am an old, sick man living in a small town, working as a hired director of a factory. I am very far from IT. However, over the years, I have memorized a few words that are strange to me. Here, listen: Waterfall, Spiral, Kanban, Scrum, Jira, Trello, 1C: Document Flow, ITIL and Itilium (brothers?), Microsoft Project, Tasks in Outlook, Directum, Bitrix24, Corporate Portal, Yandex Tracker, metrics, SLA, time to market. I didn’t just memorize these words—I used these systems and delved into these methodologies as best I could. All this nonsense was brought to me by IT directors.

Do you remember the movie 'Office Romance'? Every new boss starts with renovating their own office. And every new IT director begins by implementing a new task, project, and interaction management system. I suspect they don’t know how to do anything else. Oh, yes, they do know how—most of them are former system administrators who can buy new servers (getting kickbacks from vendors), update the network map, and shake the cartridge when stripes appear.

I was lucky—I don’t have to implement a corporate information system; my programmer has been on top of it for a long time. Otherwise, every new IT director would suggest automation, call in an integrator, they would spoil everything at my expense, and in the end, I would still have to hire a programmer, and fire the IT director to find another sucker, pay him a salary, and get kickbacks from integrators and suppliers. servers and everything else.

Alright, I got sidetracked. I now definitely know that implementing any task management system does not help the business at all. The one I manage hasn’t benefited from it. Tasks that need to be done periodically migrate from one system to another. When a task is transferred, it receives an indulgence—overdue tasks magically cease to be overdue. As I was explained, you cannot add a task with a deadline that has already passed.

Along with the tasks, the IT director gets a pass. Firstly, during the implementation of a new system, he can't be disturbed – after all, he's busy. Secondly, he has old tasks but with new deadlines. Thirdly, "they all need to be updated." And we start with an express survey, interviewing business users, prioritizing projects, searching for resources, agreeing on budgets, etc. All the things we've been through many times before.

This way, the IT director can stretch for a whole year. And you can't catch him, he's busy. He has his task.

Then, the operation begins. And everything goes back to the way it was. Some projects are executed. Some tasks are solved. Some functionalities appear. But from a business perspective, nothing changes. No, I take that back – IT costs are rising.

The overdue tasks remain as they were. More unnecessary automation that doesn't automate anything is on the rise. Then it also needs to be updated, and some refactoring needs to be done, sometimes – reengineering. Well, that's what they say when I lose my cool and ask when business tasks will be addressed.

Maybe you can explain to me, the fool, why automate the accountant's work? Here are five accountants. They've been here for a long time. They managed just fine with their custom system. They completed all necessary operations, closed accounts, submitted reports, and helped optimize taxation. They worked from 8 to 5.

And yet we automated their work. We bought a modern information system, moved to it, trained the accountants, and started working. They still manage their work. They complete all necessary operations, close accounts, submit reports, and help optimize taxation. They work from 8 to 5.

Suddenly, out of nowhere, tasks for automating accounting arise. They need to finish something here, fill out some paperwork there, something is left incomplete somewhere else. Alright, IT handles it – whether themselves or by calling in external integrators. What’s the outcome? You can guess. The accountants still manage their work. They complete all necessary operations, close accounts, submit reports, and help optimize taxation. They work from 8 to 5. Yes, and there are still five accountants.

So what's the point then? Can you explain? From a business perspective, the only thing that happened is that I spent money on automation. That's it, nothing more. The number of people didn't decrease, which means costs didn’t go down. They didn't take on any additional work. The speed of input and processing operations didn't change. Nothing changed, only the visual display on the screen. And money, as they say, was paid.

When the last IT director suggested implementing a new task management system, I sighed heavily and politely explained my views on such projects. But he managed to surprise me – he said all the previous IT directors had deceived me. He didn’t just surprise me with that – every one of them before him bashed their predecessors, ceremoniously throwing out their systems and implementing their own.

This one suggested we create the system ourselves. He said the main problem with purchased systems and services is poor customizability (there’s another word in my vocabulary). These systems require adjustments, process changes, sacrifices, and acceptance of shortcomings. But we will create the system ourselves, according to our requirements, and everything will take off. I thought about it and agreed.

So what’s the outcome? I suspect he didn’t actually develop the system but probably copied it from somewhere – it appeared way too quickly. He presented it to me and showed the key advantage – he said we would rank tasks by their usefulness to the business. I was ecstatic! Finally, someone understands what I need!

But the joy was short-lived – about five minutes. Until we sat down to determine that very usefulness. You know how it looks? To be honest, I thought there would be some kind of point-factor assessment, we would introduce a bunch of parameters, including implementation costs, and the system would calculate something for us. I heard about that at one of the conferences. And what do we have?

What we have is, damn it, a field in each task called 'Usefulness to the Business.' And you can choose a value from a list: 'very useful', 'useful', 'not at all', 'harmful', 'very harmful'. That's it! That’s the 'ranking of tasks in terms of usefulness for the business'! You just select usefulness from five options, and that’s all, Karl!

I certainly held back from laughing. So, I said, who determines the usefulness of a task for the business? You do, he says! The director will decide! Oh, for Pete’s sake… You remember, right? To do what qualified specialists say.

Alright, I’ll give it a try. Let’s look at the first task – to automate the QC work, a list of requirements is attached. Hmm… How do I evaluate the usefulness of this task for the business? I asked myself this question. I thought for a moment – I don’t know.

I asked the IT director – maybe you know how solving this task will impact the business? But he plays the game well, you can’t catch him. He starts to avoid the question, talking about speeding up operations, transparency in accounting, traceability of batches… Stop, I said. What does speeding up operations do for the business? Can we switch QC to a shortened workday? Fire someone from them? Add extra responsibilities?

No, I didn’t catch him. He says let’s call a business user. The head of QC, Kolya. I wonder if he knows what a business user is? I became interested, although the IT director probably thought I would back down, postpone, and forget. No, I called Kolya, and he came running.

I asked Kolya – is this your task? He looks, scratches his head, and says – probably not. He didn’t write it himself; someone from his team did. I asked, respected business user, how will solving this task affect the business? Kolya has been in the game a long time; you can’t fool him easily. I don’t know, he says, these are your IT and business issues, my job is a small one.

I don’t let up – see, I say, we need to assign usefulness to the task. Kolya doesn’t lose his cool – cancel it altogether, he says, we’ll manage as it is. Kolya is like this – wherever you sit, there you’ll get off. And he adds that he has urgent matters to attend to, he needs to run. I don’t let him go – I’m curious.

Since the task was canceled, it means automation isn’t needed. Fine, who’s against it? But I ask, Kolya, how can you help our business? Kolya is sharp – am I working poorly or something? Why the complaints against me?

God forbid, Kolya, what complaints! But we have a business here, and it has a task – to increase profits. There’s always such a task. Sometimes, I won’t hide it, profit needs to be increased to zero. I see Kolya getting nervous. Alright, I decided to ease the situation.

I turned to both of them – guys, I said, you are representatives of different worlds, qualified specialists in your fields. One checks the hardware, the other conquers virtual realms. Both are managers. So, they are not naive graduates, you understand. The business needs to increase its profit. That’s the task. Only employees like you can solve it.

So here is your business task – increase the profit. Well, let’s hear your suggestions!
The guys frowned, pondered for a moment, but soon blurted out almost simultaneously – we need to make the salespeople sell more! Then the profit will rise! Well done…

No, I said, anyone could say that. Come up with a way to increase profit using the capabilities of your departments, your knowledge and skills, your experience. What can be done in quality control to boost profits? And, accordingly, in IT.

They fell silent. Kolya frowned even more. Unable to hold back, he said – set me a task, I will complete it. Well, something so I can understand what needs to be done. Otherwise, it turns out like in a fairy tale – go there, I don’t know where…

And then it hit me! I understood the essence of this game! That's why I can never catch anyone! I was so pleased that I let the managers go – I told them I would think about their tasks.
Task! Task! Task! The most important thing in this game is the task! It’s the totem, the immunity, the protection from any disorder! The main thing is to have a task!

As long as you have a task, nothing can be done to you. When you don’t have a task, you are almost on the chopping block – after all, you are getting paid for nothing. Nothing pressures the psyche as much as the absence of a task at work. Especially if the absence of a task is obvious.

If there’s no task, it needs to be obtained at any cost. Find one among colleagues, in other departments, or come up with one yourself, after all. IT folks especially tend to do this.

And there’s no difference whether the task is useful for the business or not. And if someone wants to make a fuss about it (like I do, for instance) – we’ll add a field 'Usefulness for Business' for them to rank it. A person doesn’t care which task to complete first, and which second. The main thing is that there are tasks, and there are plenty of them.

Sometimes I feel out of place in the company because of tasks. Literally, like a visitor, some schoolboy on a field trip. You walk into any office, especially in the workspace, ask anyone – are you busy? Oh yes! – they will say. Incredibly busy!

And busy with what? Then they start listing things, and you stand there feeling your ears droop. They’ll tell you all sorts of nonsense! Providing information, coordinating the provided information, checking the coordination of the provided information, analyzing the provided information, coordinating the analysis of the provided information, checking the coordination of the analysis of the provided information.

Sometimes it feels like you've opened your intestines, sorry, and are horrified. You thought everything was working like clockwork, but there are worms wriggling inside. You ask them – hey, guys, what are you doing here? They'll tell you roughly the same thing.

The company seems to live its own life, and it's unclear where all these connections, processes, and tasks come from. In most cases, it’s impossible to even find out who came up with these tasks, why they need to be done, and why exactly in that way.

And the worst part is you can't catch anyone. Well, I find some stupid task. I tell someone not to deal with this nonsense anymore. What do you think will happen? Nothing. Cancel the task? I'll just create ANOTHER ONE!

Very few people have the patience to dig through this mess of tasks for long. Employees know this. The director comes in, the director digs around, and the director leaves. But the tasks remain, and they'll always be there. Stupid, pointless, useless tasks. And a game.

Honestly, I don’t know what to do. Any idiot, just like Kolya with the IT director, will say – to increase profits, we need to boost sales and reduce costs. Someone might throw in an increase in production volume. And that’s it. Those are all the levers we have.

Attempts to decompose these levers lead nowhere. Sure, someone will suggest again to save on costs by printing on draft paper. And turning off monitors at night to save electricity. That’s it. They’ll scrape up a hundred thousand ideas a month for saving and rush to implement them – after all, they have tasks.

And everyone is indifferent; everyone has tasks. Increasing profit is the director’s job. But the director doesn’t understand IT. The director is not very knowledgeable about finances. They don't grasp the nuances of accounting. Production understands less than the workshop manager. Yet the director has to assign tasks to each of them.

In the director's wording ('increase profit'), the task is not suitable. Everyone needs an explanation—how exactly they can increase profits. Well, at least no one except IT is asking for a technical task.

So what should I do? How can I formulate tasks in terms I don't understand? Try explaining to a surgeon where to make an incision, what scalpel to use, what to do if blood gushes out, and what threads to use for stitching. It's about that difficult for me to set a task in IT.

I can't work like that. I keep assigning tasks the way I understand them. And I cannot catch anyone. Everyone has their own tasks. Mine isn't suitable. The assignment is poor, there's no time for it, and anyway—it's not a task. I should be smarter about it, at least.

I have to fire people. That's all I can do. And no analytics will help—I've tried. They are just as useless, dreaming of A TASK. They come, laying out their products like gypsies. This is TOC, this is ISO, this is Lean, and this is who knows what else. Choose, pay, and we will implement it. What you choose will be the TASK.

Once they implement it, they'll get their payment and leave. They solved their task. What they aimed for. But no one will solve mine. I have to somehow wing it, as always.

Alright, enough crying. I know you don’t care. And you don’t agree with me. I don't need your agreement either—you’re in the game too, you have tasks. I’m even afraid to ask what they are, from whom, and for what reason.

We need to move on. I fired the IT director. I thought I could do without a single programmer—why have a layer like an IT director? But the guy disappeared to Moscow. I’ll have to find another one.

I can't get that other weirdo out of my head, what was his name… Oh, King. Strange nickname. Tomorrow is the meeting, and I have no idea who he is or what he needs. He says it’s in my interest. I’ll go, what else can I do.

Maybe he'll assign me a task. I’ll play along too.

Source: habr.com