Well after talking about armies on the march, and positioning, something I
touched upon in the last Chapter was about how to place armies, in Chapter X.
Terrain there is more that Sun Tzu says about it. When I mentioned positioning
I also referred to how ancient armies would move about on land in order to have
the best placement possible, armies would occasionally move around for hours or
days until they reached the best place possible to wait. The enemy may come and
see the placements and think "heck if I am going up against that!" and just go
home, why go against someone who is strongly situatuated when it can only lead
to ruin or a waste of resources? That has led to such terms as the "Forlorn
Hope" where armies would crash against a strongly situated enemy, in the hope
that a crack in the defense might be made, battlefield commissions where made
upon these. There is a set of books by Bernard Cornwell set in the Napoleonic
Wars where the main character Richard Sharpe becomes an officer through his
participation in a Forlon Hope, if you like historical fiction I highly
recommend the series.
Ground which can be freely traversed by both sides is called ACCESSIBLE.
Basically what is being referred to here is communication, this was an important trait of pre-modern armies, in addition consider communication to be a supply train; as I said previously if you have no supplies you can often lost the battle before its begun. But consider a project where people communicate, everyone knows what is going on and what people are looking for. A very nice project, no? I would think so. When groups work well there is no blockage of communication and everything is known, processes like Agile work by opening the communication between Development, QA and the Customer (I add QA here, but mostly because I can never really find it mentioned individually in many Agile documents though I think that will change). If people and information is accessible, then things proceed smoothly.
Ground which can be abandoned but is hard to re-occupy is called ENTANGLING.
In groups where communication often breaks down in certain situations and is difficult to return to being Accessible will be arduous to fix. As Sun Tzu mentions upon ground like this;
if the enemy is unprepared, you may sally forth and defeat him. But if the enemy is prepared for your coming, and you fail to defeat him, then, return being impossible, disaster will ensue.
So if you have communication break-downs and they keep reoccurring then this will always happen unless the problem of entanglement can be fixed. You can keep going back and fixing it, but if it will not stay Accessible there are other issues going on that need to be fixed and they will continually thwart you until such a time as a disaster or unfixable issue arises. Avoid the Entanglement, although its not the worst of the lot.
When the position is such that neither side will gain by making the first move, it is called TEMPORIZING ground.
When there is an issue that blocks communication, but the issue itself cannot be moved nor can it be fixed, you have a stalemate. Just as two armies will be at a deadlock in such a situation and a deadlock will occur, there will be no moving the issue out of the way of your communication lines. Its one to avoid, and hard to get around, though its possible to, everything has a solution if you look hard enough and such blocking issues can be fixed or at least brought up as a, you guessed it, Blocking Issue. In the projects I work on these receive high visibility and they become warning signs that things are not moving on the way they should, and deadlines are in peril. So we move to fix them when we can.
With regard to NARROW PASSES, if you can occupy them first, let them be strongly garrisoned and await the advent of the enemy.
If you've ever walked through a narrow canyon, or pass in the mountains, just think what it must look like to an advancing army, a confined space to be in and somewhere up above could be snipers, or people to push rocks down on you. If the army is on the march and someone attacks while its travelling through, there could be a lot of damage, they make it easy to defend precisely because they are difficult to traverse. In the Mexican War in the United States there were times when the Army Of The West came across some narrow passes they needed to go through, but with some fortification and resolve the opposing forces could hold the Army at bay with vastly outnumbered forces. So avoid the narrow channels of communication, if there is a bottleneck to get information on a project there can be trouble, of if one person somehow decides to play politics, or gets in a bad mood, the project can suffer because now there is only a limited number of people to go to and that person can block communication. Make sure there are multiple lines open, have alternative routes or sources, if possible never depend on just one because you can be delayed.
With regard to PRECIPITOUS HEIGHTS, if you are beforehand with your adversary, you should occupy the raised and sunny spots, and there wait for him to come up.
As mentioned previously with trying to run up heights, attacking up a hill is severly difficult, but defending from up a hill is easier, especially if you have time to be situated. Being in the raised and sunny spots can put you in view of the enemy, but it also makes a tempting target for the enemy to come for and draws them in. Placing yourself, or your project, in a position where it is well situated and able to see problems coming, you've got a good spot indeed, but if you need to get a project there later on, there is a fight on your hands. Just don't find yourself fighting uphill, otherwise it will be a long and exhausting battle.
Another part of this chapter is what Sun Tzu calls the Six Calamities, these are not forces of nature or events that occur, but from leadership and they also are very important. Unless you can lead your group or project, you may be doomed to one of these.
Other conditions being equal, if one force is hurled against another ten times its size, the result will be the FLIGHT of the former.
Trying to take on too much with a project is daunting, but expecting the people to just handle it will cause them to break, whether its under the strain or for new employment, you never know. Look at the resources you have and don't be unrealistic with your dates or deadlines.
When the common soldiers are too strong and their officers too weak, the result is INSUBORDINATION.
If a project is being run from the people within it, and not those in charge, its the same effect as too many bosses, but what you also have is no one who is then willing to listen to someone in charge later on. Weak management is bad in the face of strong opposition and usually spells doom if no one is willing to step up and take responsibility.
When the officers are too strong and the common soldiers too weak, the result is COLLAPSE.
In pre-modern armies this usually resulted in mutiny as the soldiers felt they had nothing to lose, but just as taking on projects that are too large with insufficient resources is not a good position, taking a project beyond the capabilities of the group is equally bad. Suit the group to the project, not the other way around. Make sure what is necessary to be done can be done by the people involved, or they at least have the ability and time to get up to speed if its something new and within their capabilities.
When the higher officers are angry and insubordinate, and on meeting the enemy give battle on their own account from a feeling of resentment, before the commander-in-chief can tell whether or no he is in a position to fight, the result is RUIN.
Again it comes down to leadership, if the people managing individual parts of a project don't feel committed or there is no incentive there will be trouble down the line. Everyone needs to feel as if the outcome has something for them, its all about motivation.
when there are no fixes duties assigned to officers and men, and the ranks are formed in a slovenly haphazard manner, the result is utter DISORGANIZATION.
Make sure assignments are known, and the ones doing it are reporting back, checking progress is paramount here, not knowing what people are doing and let them do what they want when they want only leads to disaster. Especially if there is no communication, which usually happens in cases like this, people should know and understand their jobs and what is expected of them by the end.
When a general, unable to estimate the enemy's strength, allows an inferior force to engage a larger one, or hurls a weak detachment against a powerful one, and neglects to place picked soldiers in the front rank, the result must be ROUT.
Again, check the project against resources, don't waste good people doing work they are not suited for or will make them resent the work. Again all about motivation, that will usually keep people happy and will keep them interested in and doing their best at their jobs.
Regard your soldiers as your children, and they will follow you into the deepest valleys; look upon them as your own beloved sons, and they will stand by you even unto death.
This is about management styles, its about how you treat your people, and since there are numerous books on this I won't go into it, but I agree with the concept that if you treat people well and give them responsibility and maturity they will stay with you. To me, I go to a job for the work (that is interesting) but I stay for the people (the management).
Well 10 down and 3 to go...almost there!
Ground which can be freely traversed by both sides is called ACCESSIBLE.
Basically what is being referred to here is communication, this was an important trait of pre-modern armies, in addition consider communication to be a supply train; as I said previously if you have no supplies you can often lost the battle before its begun. But consider a project where people communicate, everyone knows what is going on and what people are looking for. A very nice project, no? I would think so. When groups work well there is no blockage of communication and everything is known, processes like Agile work by opening the communication between Development, QA and the Customer (I add QA here, but mostly because I can never really find it mentioned individually in many Agile documents though I think that will change). If people and information is accessible, then things proceed smoothly.
Ground which can be abandoned but is hard to re-occupy is called ENTANGLING.
In groups where communication often breaks down in certain situations and is difficult to return to being Accessible will be arduous to fix. As Sun Tzu mentions upon ground like this;
if the enemy is unprepared, you may sally forth and defeat him. But if the enemy is prepared for your coming, and you fail to defeat him, then, return being impossible, disaster will ensue.
So if you have communication break-downs and they keep reoccurring then this will always happen unless the problem of entanglement can be fixed. You can keep going back and fixing it, but if it will not stay Accessible there are other issues going on that need to be fixed and they will continually thwart you until such a time as a disaster or unfixable issue arises. Avoid the Entanglement, although its not the worst of the lot.
When the position is such that neither side will gain by making the first move, it is called TEMPORIZING ground.
When there is an issue that blocks communication, but the issue itself cannot be moved nor can it be fixed, you have a stalemate. Just as two armies will be at a deadlock in such a situation and a deadlock will occur, there will be no moving the issue out of the way of your communication lines. Its one to avoid, and hard to get around, though its possible to, everything has a solution if you look hard enough and such blocking issues can be fixed or at least brought up as a, you guessed it, Blocking Issue. In the projects I work on these receive high visibility and they become warning signs that things are not moving on the way they should, and deadlines are in peril. So we move to fix them when we can.
With regard to NARROW PASSES, if you can occupy them first, let them be strongly garrisoned and await the advent of the enemy.
If you've ever walked through a narrow canyon, or pass in the mountains, just think what it must look like to an advancing army, a confined space to be in and somewhere up above could be snipers, or people to push rocks down on you. If the army is on the march and someone attacks while its travelling through, there could be a lot of damage, they make it easy to defend precisely because they are difficult to traverse. In the Mexican War in the United States there were times when the Army Of The West came across some narrow passes they needed to go through, but with some fortification and resolve the opposing forces could hold the Army at bay with vastly outnumbered forces. So avoid the narrow channels of communication, if there is a bottleneck to get information on a project there can be trouble, of if one person somehow decides to play politics, or gets in a bad mood, the project can suffer because now there is only a limited number of people to go to and that person can block communication. Make sure there are multiple lines open, have alternative routes or sources, if possible never depend on just one because you can be delayed.
With regard to PRECIPITOUS HEIGHTS, if you are beforehand with your adversary, you should occupy the raised and sunny spots, and there wait for him to come up.
As mentioned previously with trying to run up heights, attacking up a hill is severly difficult, but defending from up a hill is easier, especially if you have time to be situated. Being in the raised and sunny spots can put you in view of the enemy, but it also makes a tempting target for the enemy to come for and draws them in. Placing yourself, or your project, in a position where it is well situated and able to see problems coming, you've got a good spot indeed, but if you need to get a project there later on, there is a fight on your hands. Just don't find yourself fighting uphill, otherwise it will be a long and exhausting battle.
Another part of this chapter is what Sun Tzu calls the Six Calamities, these are not forces of nature or events that occur, but from leadership and they also are very important. Unless you can lead your group or project, you may be doomed to one of these.
Other conditions being equal, if one force is hurled against another ten times its size, the result will be the FLIGHT of the former.
Trying to take on too much with a project is daunting, but expecting the people to just handle it will cause them to break, whether its under the strain or for new employment, you never know. Look at the resources you have and don't be unrealistic with your dates or deadlines.
When the common soldiers are too strong and their officers too weak, the result is INSUBORDINATION.
If a project is being run from the people within it, and not those in charge, its the same effect as too many bosses, but what you also have is no one who is then willing to listen to someone in charge later on. Weak management is bad in the face of strong opposition and usually spells doom if no one is willing to step up and take responsibility.
When the officers are too strong and the common soldiers too weak, the result is COLLAPSE.
In pre-modern armies this usually resulted in mutiny as the soldiers felt they had nothing to lose, but just as taking on projects that are too large with insufficient resources is not a good position, taking a project beyond the capabilities of the group is equally bad. Suit the group to the project, not the other way around. Make sure what is necessary to be done can be done by the people involved, or they at least have the ability and time to get up to speed if its something new and within their capabilities.
When the higher officers are angry and insubordinate, and on meeting the enemy give battle on their own account from a feeling of resentment, before the commander-in-chief can tell whether or no he is in a position to fight, the result is RUIN.
Again it comes down to leadership, if the people managing individual parts of a project don't feel committed or there is no incentive there will be trouble down the line. Everyone needs to feel as if the outcome has something for them, its all about motivation.
when there are no fixes duties assigned to officers and men, and the ranks are formed in a slovenly haphazard manner, the result is utter DISORGANIZATION.
Make sure assignments are known, and the ones doing it are reporting back, checking progress is paramount here, not knowing what people are doing and let them do what they want when they want only leads to disaster. Especially if there is no communication, which usually happens in cases like this, people should know and understand their jobs and what is expected of them by the end.
When a general, unable to estimate the enemy's strength, allows an inferior force to engage a larger one, or hurls a weak detachment against a powerful one, and neglects to place picked soldiers in the front rank, the result must be ROUT.
Again, check the project against resources, don't waste good people doing work they are not suited for or will make them resent the work. Again all about motivation, that will usually keep people happy and will keep them interested in and doing their best at their jobs.
Regard your soldiers as your children, and they will follow you into the deepest valleys; look upon them as your own beloved sons, and they will stand by you even unto death.
This is about management styles, its about how you treat your people, and since there are numerous books on this I won't go into it, but I agree with the concept that if you treat people well and give them responsibility and maturity they will stay with you. To me, I go to a job for the work (that is interesting) but I stay for the people (the management).
Well 10 down and 3 to go...almost there!
No comments:
Post a Comment