March 5, 2019 at 19:41Footcloths
Programmers love to draw footwear reports. If you need a sales report, you will dump the entire sales table, with counterparties, nomenclature, organizations, contracts, amounts and quantities.
Everything would be fine, only using such a report is difficult to manage. Analyze - possible if there is a lot of free time. And who has a lot of free time? The analyst has, for example. Okay, if he's an analyst. After all, there are analytics by the calling of the soul. He has a position, for example, as a sales manager, but he does not want to sell or does not know how, but picking numbers in numbers is a sweet deal.
The head of the time for picking in the report, alas, does not. At least as part of regular management. He needs short, comprehensive information that answers a simple question: how are things going? Or in another way: are we all right?
How to answer such a question with a footcloth? No way. The footcloth, as it were, says to the head: did you want information? Well here she is. ALL! Come on, sort it out, and look for the answer to your question.
If the head gets to the programmer with his task, he tries to "help". For example, a sales plan / fact report is made. Beautiful, comfortable, customizable. There you can not only compare the plan with the fact, but also the fact with the fact for different periods, and in general - any number of tables. What is the result? Another footcloth, only more complicated.
If you get to the bottom of the programmer again, he will say: damn it, take a mood and report to yourself, and save the setting. Filter the data, select a period so that only the data you need is displayed. Well, as an option, it will do. But only if the head knows how to customize. And if you can’t?
Ok, the programmer, reluctantly, and creaking bones, will set up the report himself. And he will say: all, on, choke. Of course, he won’t say it out loud, but he will think it over. Everything, happiness has come?
Not. Firstly, the first time he doesn’t set up, he will have to run away several times. Or write a good, high-quality technical task. And this, almost always, is impossible, because the leader on the shore does not know in what form he needs a report.
While the leader has a footcloth, it seems to him that it is enough to set up the groups, and he will be able to manage using the report. Having received the groupings, he will want a filter. Having received the filter, he will understand that sorting is necessary. Etc.
Secondly, one report is not enough. After all, a leader is not only interested in sales? Also, the movement of money is needed. And the work of employees. And overdue orders - both for buyers and suppliers. This will produce several reports, and for each one or more settings.
Thirdly, in most cases the information system is a desktop one. To find out how you are doing, you need to turn on the computer. You still need to get to it. If the leader is such that he sits at computers all day, then there is no problem. Are there many such leaders?
The manager will want to watch reports remotely via the Internet. Desirable - from a smartphone. It’s so convenient - even at lunch, at least in traffic, at least at a boring meeting. The programmer will again have to worry.
Fourthly, there were several reports. Everyone answers their own question. Each must be opened and viewed separately. One opened, the second closes. Maximum - made a split-screen and saw two at once.
In desktop systems, you can’t even look through them, as on a smartphone - well, so that all reports fall out in one long footcloth, and you can scroll your fingers from top to bottom.
The manager will want to see all the reports on one screen. This is a normal human desire. But for the programmer, this is hell.
The usual large report, even configured and filtered, looks good only in full screen. If you narrow it by half, the scroll bars immediately appear that spoil the whole impression - even if there is nothing behind the visible area of the screen, the hand itself reaches out to scroll down or to the side to see this.
And if there are three reports? Or four? It turns out ass-s. The manager has no choice but to view reports traditionally - one by one, in full screen.
Even the presentation of information in the form of a diagram does not save if it is displayed, as in 1C, in a table document. The same scrollbars appear, it’s impossible to intelligently control the scale of the chart, emotions are heating up.
What's the problem? And is she there?
There is, and very simple: the programmer loves footcloths too much. He was taught that way, they asked such a system of values: they dumped out everything that is and more. And provide a chic tuning mechanism.
This approach is good for developers of boxed solutions, because they have no choice. They do not know what information and in what form a particular leader wants to see, so they themselves make footcloths + tuning.
But programmers in the field, i.e. for some customers, for some reason, blindly follow this paradigm. They act as if they themselves are developers of boxed solutions. And they make all new footcloths.
Friends are programmers. I am also a programmer. I also love to make footcloths. It is simple, interesting, even beautiful in its own way. But footcloths are not suitable for management.
I am not saying that something is wrong with you, or with us. I just propose to solve a new, interesting, engineering problem: draw a small report.
Not a large footcloth in a thousand lines, but a small plate with two columns and three lines. Not a hefty diagram that does not fit on the screen, but a tiny one with three columns that clearly answer a specific question. Not to dump a bunch of numbers, so that a person based on them answers a question, but to give an answer to a question right away - short, concise, understandable.
This is incredibly interesting. And all this is easy to algorithmize. The principle is very simple - the “what if?” Funnel.
Here we have a plan and a fact of sales - separate tables with data. We draw two reports - the plan and the fact of sales.
But what if you combine them and draw both the plan and the fact in one report? Well, not bad already.
But what if we collapse to nomenclature groups? Then the report will be small, at least in height.
Ok, we do.
But what if you draw the same report in the form of a diagram? The usual histogram of two columns. The first will be the plan, the second fact. You look, and you immediately understand where the plan is being implemented, and where the failure is.
But what if you recount the plan for the current day? After all, we dumped the entire monthly plan in the first column, and the fact will catch up with it only by the end of the month. Throughout the month, looking at the chart, the manager will think that everything is bad. Or he will have to figure out in his mind what part of the month has already passed. No, let's get out not the entire monthly plan, but part of it. On the tenth day - one third, the fifteenth - half, etc. Then the diagram will become clearer and more interesting.
But what if we color the columns depending on whether everything is good or not? After all, we know whether the plan is well implemented or not - you only need to compare two numbers. Make the column red if everything is bad. Yellow - if dangerous. Green - if good.
But what if you do not display columns for which everything is fine? For example, if we have a chart broken down by item group. We will output only those that are yellow or red. Well, let's say to the head that if there is no column, then everything is fine. Does he understand? He needs information in order to react and make decisions? To set tasks, emphasis, on a carpet to cause someone. So let the system only talk about what you need to respond to.
But what if you remove the chart altogether? We have already hidden almost all the columns, what is the point of the diagram, as a way of presenting information then? We will display a short plate in which there will be only problematic groups of items - yellow and red. Well, the numbers, the percentage of the plan.
But what if you don’t show the manager a report at all? Why make him stare somewhere every day? Let's do this: if there is a problem, we will give him a signal. Not us, but the system that we are developing. A yellow or red color has appeared - we are writing a letter, either in vibe or SMS, it does not matter. The manager will know: if there are no signals, everything is fine. You can not waste time analyzing, it’s better just to work, to do something useful. Of course, the first time he will still come in and watch - he does not trust programmers. You never know, suddenly sending letters stake got up. Well, let it stumble and get used to it.
But what if he does not need information on some nomenclature groups? Well, he knows that they are not for sale, and will always be either red or yellow. Why should a person be pulled in vain with unnecessary signals? We clean.
But what if we report not a list of bad groups, but one line - is everything good or is everything bad? Knowing the importance of specific nomenclature groups and the general sales plan, we introduce weights and a simple function that will calculate the answer to the question: are we all right? We will give a coefficient of 0.1 to uninteresting groups, 0.5 or 0.7 to interesting groups, and that’s all, we get one big, beautiful figure. If the main group sells well, then everything is fine with us.
But what if you give the leader two different numbers? After all, it is clear that tasks in different groups can be fundamentally different. For example, the main group is a stupid shaft of sales. But a group with a new nomenclature, for example - new equipment - does not give a shaft and cannot give by definition. There, one or two sales per month are considered good. Do you understand? Not even the amount is important, but the quantity. They sold a unit of new equipment - it's a holiday! If you work only with amounts, then this unit of new equipment will always be hidden among the main nomenclature. Why do we need this? Let there be two numbers: how are things going on in the main line, and how are things on new equipment. Different evaluation criteria, different scale.
But what if we put these two numbers into one? We rewrite our function with weights, replacing the absolute numbers with relative ones. Let the main nomenclature be considered by the sum, and the new one by the quantity. And all this is converted into percentages. Then the weights can be corrected - increased with the new nomenclature, since it is important for us.
But what if we consider two factors: the plan / fact at a particular point, and the dynamics over the past days? It does happen. On the first of the month they made a big shipment - immediately 20% of the monthly plan. And all our charts for six days will show that everything is fine. But in fact, our sales got a stake - not a single shipment for almost a week. From a formal point of view, everything is not bad, but are we not here for formalities? The head should know that managers are kicking the bulldozer without keeping the dynamics of sales. There is nothing complicated for us - we just add another variable to the function, the dynamics of sales, with our own weight coefficient. And that’s all, beauty.
But what if in our function we take into account not only the plan / fact of sales, but also the plan / fact of the movement of money? We will print out an infinitely fine figure to the head, or a human-readable line - “everything is good”, “sales are good, money is so-so”, “sales are 120%, money is 90%”, etc.
But what if ...
So you can go on ad infinitum. The main thing is to stop in time and let the manager use the tool, get used to it, formulate feedback. I, as a programmer, understand that when solving funnel problems “what if?” There is an irresistible desire to make it simpler, better, more informative, more useful. You must be able to stop yourself.
The main thing is to perceive this task as engineering. Because it is such and is. This is not prettiness or bows, this is the construction of a management system.
The leader himself will not cope with this task, alas. He does not know all the possibilities, all the data, all the relationships. But the programmer knows. But is silent.
Come on, get out of your dark corner. You programmers can bring incredible benefits to running a company. You are engineers. Management system, management automation is engineering work. And the head will be its user. It will manage using your system.
Everything would be fine, only using such a report is difficult to manage. Analyze - possible if there is a lot of free time. And who has a lot of free time? The analyst has, for example. Okay, if he's an analyst. After all, there are analytics by the calling of the soul. He has a position, for example, as a sales manager, but he does not want to sell or does not know how, but picking numbers in numbers is a sweet deal.
The head of the time for picking in the report, alas, does not. At least as part of regular management. He needs short, comprehensive information that answers a simple question: how are things going? Or in another way: are we all right?
How to answer such a question with a footcloth? No way. The footcloth, as it were, says to the head: did you want information? Well here she is. ALL! Come on, sort it out, and look for the answer to your question.
If the head gets to the programmer with his task, he tries to "help". For example, a sales plan / fact report is made. Beautiful, comfortable, customizable. There you can not only compare the plan with the fact, but also the fact with the fact for different periods, and in general - any number of tables. What is the result? Another footcloth, only more complicated.
If you get to the bottom of the programmer again, he will say: damn it, take a mood and report to yourself, and save the setting. Filter the data, select a period so that only the data you need is displayed. Well, as an option, it will do. But only if the head knows how to customize. And if you can’t?
Ok, the programmer, reluctantly, and creaking bones, will set up the report himself. And he will say: all, on, choke. Of course, he won’t say it out loud, but he will think it over. Everything, happiness has come?
Not. Firstly, the first time he doesn’t set up, he will have to run away several times. Or write a good, high-quality technical task. And this, almost always, is impossible, because the leader on the shore does not know in what form he needs a report.
While the leader has a footcloth, it seems to him that it is enough to set up the groups, and he will be able to manage using the report. Having received the groupings, he will want a filter. Having received the filter, he will understand that sorting is necessary. Etc.
Secondly, one report is not enough. After all, a leader is not only interested in sales? Also, the movement of money is needed. And the work of employees. And overdue orders - both for buyers and suppliers. This will produce several reports, and for each one or more settings.
Thirdly, in most cases the information system is a desktop one. To find out how you are doing, you need to turn on the computer. You still need to get to it. If the leader is such that he sits at computers all day, then there is no problem. Are there many such leaders?
The manager will want to watch reports remotely via the Internet. Desirable - from a smartphone. It’s so convenient - even at lunch, at least in traffic, at least at a boring meeting. The programmer will again have to worry.
Fourthly, there were several reports. Everyone answers their own question. Each must be opened and viewed separately. One opened, the second closes. Maximum - made a split-screen and saw two at once.
In desktop systems, you can’t even look through them, as on a smartphone - well, so that all reports fall out in one long footcloth, and you can scroll your fingers from top to bottom.
The manager will want to see all the reports on one screen. This is a normal human desire. But for the programmer, this is hell.
The usual large report, even configured and filtered, looks good only in full screen. If you narrow it by half, the scroll bars immediately appear that spoil the whole impression - even if there is nothing behind the visible area of the screen, the hand itself reaches out to scroll down or to the side to see this.
And if there are three reports? Or four? It turns out ass-s. The manager has no choice but to view reports traditionally - one by one, in full screen.
Even the presentation of information in the form of a diagram does not save if it is displayed, as in 1C, in a table document. The same scrollbars appear, it’s impossible to intelligently control the scale of the chart, emotions are heating up.
What's the problem? And is she there?
There is, and very simple: the programmer loves footcloths too much. He was taught that way, they asked such a system of values: they dumped out everything that is and more. And provide a chic tuning mechanism.
This approach is good for developers of boxed solutions, because they have no choice. They do not know what information and in what form a particular leader wants to see, so they themselves make footcloths + tuning.
But programmers in the field, i.e. for some customers, for some reason, blindly follow this paradigm. They act as if they themselves are developers of boxed solutions. And they make all new footcloths.
Friends are programmers. I am also a programmer. I also love to make footcloths. It is simple, interesting, even beautiful in its own way. But footcloths are not suitable for management.
I am not saying that something is wrong with you, or with us. I just propose to solve a new, interesting, engineering problem: draw a small report.
Not a large footcloth in a thousand lines, but a small plate with two columns and three lines. Not a hefty diagram that does not fit on the screen, but a tiny one with three columns that clearly answer a specific question. Not to dump a bunch of numbers, so that a person based on them answers a question, but to give an answer to a question right away - short, concise, understandable.
This is incredibly interesting. And all this is easy to algorithmize. The principle is very simple - the “what if?” Funnel.
Here we have a plan and a fact of sales - separate tables with data. We draw two reports - the plan and the fact of sales.
But what if you combine them and draw both the plan and the fact in one report? Well, not bad already.
But what if we collapse to nomenclature groups? Then the report will be small, at least in height.
Ok, we do.
But what if you draw the same report in the form of a diagram? The usual histogram of two columns. The first will be the plan, the second fact. You look, and you immediately understand where the plan is being implemented, and where the failure is.
But what if you recount the plan for the current day? After all, we dumped the entire monthly plan in the first column, and the fact will catch up with it only by the end of the month. Throughout the month, looking at the chart, the manager will think that everything is bad. Or he will have to figure out in his mind what part of the month has already passed. No, let's get out not the entire monthly plan, but part of it. On the tenth day - one third, the fifteenth - half, etc. Then the diagram will become clearer and more interesting.
But what if we color the columns depending on whether everything is good or not? After all, we know whether the plan is well implemented or not - you only need to compare two numbers. Make the column red if everything is bad. Yellow - if dangerous. Green - if good.
But what if you do not display columns for which everything is fine? For example, if we have a chart broken down by item group. We will output only those that are yellow or red. Well, let's say to the head that if there is no column, then everything is fine. Does he understand? He needs information in order to react and make decisions? To set tasks, emphasis, on a carpet to cause someone. So let the system only talk about what you need to respond to.
But what if you remove the chart altogether? We have already hidden almost all the columns, what is the point of the diagram, as a way of presenting information then? We will display a short plate in which there will be only problematic groups of items - yellow and red. Well, the numbers, the percentage of the plan.
But what if you don’t show the manager a report at all? Why make him stare somewhere every day? Let's do this: if there is a problem, we will give him a signal. Not us, but the system that we are developing. A yellow or red color has appeared - we are writing a letter, either in vibe or SMS, it does not matter. The manager will know: if there are no signals, everything is fine. You can not waste time analyzing, it’s better just to work, to do something useful. Of course, the first time he will still come in and watch - he does not trust programmers. You never know, suddenly sending letters stake got up. Well, let it stumble and get used to it.
But what if he does not need information on some nomenclature groups? Well, he knows that they are not for sale, and will always be either red or yellow. Why should a person be pulled in vain with unnecessary signals? We clean.
But what if we report not a list of bad groups, but one line - is everything good or is everything bad? Knowing the importance of specific nomenclature groups and the general sales plan, we introduce weights and a simple function that will calculate the answer to the question: are we all right? We will give a coefficient of 0.1 to uninteresting groups, 0.5 or 0.7 to interesting groups, and that’s all, we get one big, beautiful figure. If the main group sells well, then everything is fine with us.
But what if you give the leader two different numbers? After all, it is clear that tasks in different groups can be fundamentally different. For example, the main group is a stupid shaft of sales. But a group with a new nomenclature, for example - new equipment - does not give a shaft and cannot give by definition. There, one or two sales per month are considered good. Do you understand? Not even the amount is important, but the quantity. They sold a unit of new equipment - it's a holiday! If you work only with amounts, then this unit of new equipment will always be hidden among the main nomenclature. Why do we need this? Let there be two numbers: how are things going on in the main line, and how are things on new equipment. Different evaluation criteria, different scale.
But what if we put these two numbers into one? We rewrite our function with weights, replacing the absolute numbers with relative ones. Let the main nomenclature be considered by the sum, and the new one by the quantity. And all this is converted into percentages. Then the weights can be corrected - increased with the new nomenclature, since it is important for us.
But what if we consider two factors: the plan / fact at a particular point, and the dynamics over the past days? It does happen. On the first of the month they made a big shipment - immediately 20% of the monthly plan. And all our charts for six days will show that everything is fine. But in fact, our sales got a stake - not a single shipment for almost a week. From a formal point of view, everything is not bad, but are we not here for formalities? The head should know that managers are kicking the bulldozer without keeping the dynamics of sales. There is nothing complicated for us - we just add another variable to the function, the dynamics of sales, with our own weight coefficient. And that’s all, beauty.
But what if in our function we take into account not only the plan / fact of sales, but also the plan / fact of the movement of money? We will print out an infinitely fine figure to the head, or a human-readable line - “everything is good”, “sales are good, money is so-so”, “sales are 120%, money is 90%”, etc.
But what if ...
So you can go on ad infinitum. The main thing is to stop in time and let the manager use the tool, get used to it, formulate feedback. I, as a programmer, understand that when solving funnel problems “what if?” There is an irresistible desire to make it simpler, better, more informative, more useful. You must be able to stop yourself.
The main thing is to perceive this task as engineering. Because it is such and is. This is not prettiness or bows, this is the construction of a management system.
The leader himself will not cope with this task, alas. He does not know all the possibilities, all the data, all the relationships. But the programmer knows. But is silent.
Come on, get out of your dark corner. You programmers can bring incredible benefits to running a company. You are engineers. Management system, management automation is engineering work. And the head will be its user. It will manage using your system.