1C, do not hurt
I have seen in my life two types of businesses that are developing the worst of all - 1C franchisees and Christmas tree sellers. This is not about development in breadth, when just the number of programmers is growing, but about internal development. On efficiency, in short.
Although, probably, sellers of Christmas trees can be excluded from this list, they managed to surprise me before the New Year by selling me a real fir-tree. Previously, only fir and pine have been. I even looked on the Internet how to distinguish a Christmas tree from a fir - really, it was spruce.
So, only 1C franchisee remains in the list of “The most non-developing companies”. A lot of wonderful people work there, but whether this is the environment or the place is damned - something is wrong with them.
')
They think only about today. Perhaps the fault is tied to a single vendor that develops both the framework and application solutions. Nobody in their right mind in the 21st century will build a long-term business, tied to one programming language, one development environment, one market? But to strike while the iron is hot - please. When it cools down, then it will be possible to think about something serious.
But for some reason, it seems to me that all is not lost. You can do better.
Different methods of increasing efficiency are, of course, interesting. But much more interesting is the combination of these methods for a specific activity - the case. It includes processes, motivation, automation, goals and control system. Not always all the components at once - just what you need.
Let's try to form a case for a specific part of a business we know - 1C: Franchisee. He is familiar to us because there is experience in other francs for several years, plus - we are constantly confronted with francs, in a formal and informal setting.
We will form the case on the basis of aggregate experience - almost everything we have written has been tested on ourselves. We do not convince anyone of anything, the interest is purely academic. Although there were large franches who took this case into service, and they themselves are introducing something there.
If you do not know what 1C: Franchisee is, then read as if it were a question of a certain company providing software development, maintenance and development services.
The purpose of the case is simple - to increase the production of programmers and, if possible, revenue. Or exhaust, he has different options. Go. I warn you - longrid.
Take not the whole franch, but its part, which we call the development department. These are guys, 1C programmers who sit in the office, get tasks through the system or from consultants, decide, pass the result to consultants or a client, remotely.
There are several such departments in large network franchises, there is competition between them, and they, when there are not enough resources, actively exchange both specialists and tasks. Perhaps not at will, but this is not the point - we look at the development department as a business unit, and not as a bunch of “real programmers”.
Suppose our development department consists of five people. Total average monthly production is 500 hours. Of these, 200 closes a champion - the most experienced and intelligent coder. 100 hours closes Second, 80 each - Third and Fourth, 40 - Beginner.
For example, an hour of work for a client costs 2000 rubles. Suppose we have a single internal rate for programmers - 500 rubles per hour. Simple calculations say that the revenue of the department is 1 million rubles a month, the department's payroll is just 25% of the revenue, in this case 250 thousand rubles. Total, the company receives 750 thousand rubles, of which pays taxes on the same programmers, well, all their other expenses. We will not consider the profit structure, we just understand that it is non-linear, since contains fixed costs, such as renting an office and buying cookies.
The output, for example, is relatively stable, does not jump much. Is that when the Champion goes on vacation, we have a failure of 40 percent. Sometimes it happens 700 hours - when there was a good project, and the programmers work on weekends.
Immediately the purpose of the application case will tell, so as not to create mystery. We want our development department to give out not 500, but 1000 hours per month, i.e. twice as much. For the same hourly rate, with the same fixed costs, with the same number of working hours. We can allow a small temporary cost of this project - for example, in the range of 30-50 tr.
It is important to immediately decide what we will do in the target situation. On the one hand, we sell time specialists - hours that they spend on solving problems. On the other hand, we sell solved problems, evaluating them in hours. It seems everything is clear, but the difference between these two rating systems is quite significant.
Suppose our 500 hours per month is 500 real hours of work of specialists. For these 500 hours, they solve, say, 200 problems, with an average price tag of 2.5 hours. It turns out that each task costs an average of 5,000 rubles. The client is quite willing to pay that kind of money, he knows the market, the rest of franchises have the same price.
And so we learned how to solve a problem not in 2.5 hours, but in 1.25 hours. The key question is how to sell it to a customer?
If we sell time, then it is logical to sell in 1.25 hours. The customer will be damn pleased - and cheaper, and faster. But we, as a business, have almost no benefit from such a scheme - only a satisfied client and free time of specialists who need to do something. Suppose we have found more customers, and also sell them a task for 1.25 hours. As a result, in a month, what will we get? The same 500 hours for 2000 rubles. There's no point.
One option is to raise the hourly rate. We solve problems faster than competitors? Nobody will notice this especially on small works, but on tasks at 40 hours the difference will already be noticeable.
But the price of an hour is a noticeable change for the outside world that can discourage new customers from us. They do not know what we are doing twice as fast? Slogans written on the site are not particularly convincing.
It seems more correct to continue selling the task in 2.5 hours. The client does not notice anything, but we get a normal, target result - by doing twice as many tasks, we get twice as much money.
You can choose a compromise option - sell, for example, in 2 hours. Then the client sees tangible savings (especially on large volumes), gets results faster, and we are in the black. Moreover, even with the preservation of the internal rate of programmers.
For simplicity, we will consider the option when we continue to sell for 2.5 hours. Evaluation of the incoming task is based on a slightly more complicated algorithm - we need to estimate the real time and multiply it by 2. But more on that later.
Yes, there are still exotic ways to use the released time, for example, strengthening internal development. This will be the end.
Well, everything, the goal is clear, now let's move on to the analysis of the necessary changes.
They say there is always a point of application of force into which the lever must be inserted and get the maximum effect. I disagree with this - in the sense that such a point is always there. But in this case it is - a system of motivation.
Our motivation system is an individual, hourly rate for work performed.
There are a lot of advantages for programmers in it, for business it is small, but there are plenty of minuses.
A specialist has no reason to share his knowledge and experience. The only thing for which it is worth doing is to raise your importance. If everything is in order with importance, then sharing experience, and all the more helping in solving tasks, is contraindicated. If you teach a fool, he will become your competitor, and he will not even thank you.
If you know well, for example, salary (this is a program), while others do not know, you will always have bread and butter. As soon as the second salary worker appears, you will have to make an effort to get the most tasty sections of work.
What's in it for business? If specialists do not share competencies, then the concern for training falls on the shoulders of the company. It is necessary to organize courses, or pay third-party organizations (such as 1C). The second is the bottlenecks in the form of key specialists. If out of 5 people only one knows ERP (this is also a program like this), then you physically cannot take work on ERP more than this employee is able to digest. Even if it is a champion, there will be no more than 200 hours per month. Well, either take the risk - take work, to figure it out later, along the way.
Making the sharing of competencies is not very possible. Visibility can be done. But, who was a programmer, he knows - there are ways to assist in such a way that they no longer turn to you for it. You can make the Champion even a seminar, or training to hold. He honestly reprimand the material - the one that is so available on the Internet. He will still keep real, practical knowledge with him.
An individual hourly rate is like a business within a business, and this “internal business” is always an IE, not an LLC.
Competences are important, especially in epochs of change that occur periodically. It happens, of course, a lull in a couple of years - for example, before the release of ERP, when everyone has already figured out SCP (this is also a program, an old one, but vigorous). But in 2004-2010, for example, the “projectors” who had the best knowledge of SCP lived the best. Now, probably, ERP experts live best of all - I don’t know for sure.
Individual piecework payment kills the ability to share work decisions and developments, because this, again, makes no sense. Well, you gave your processing or subsystem to a person, he closed 40 hours in a day agreed with a client, raised 20 tr. What do you want from this? You can, of course, agree, and generate a black market within the department, but it makes no sense. Simply say "give me the task, I will solve." In a hopeless situation, of course, he will give it away, but rather he will leave it to himself, out of principle.
You can look at competencies differently: who is their owner? Let's say your Champion has been with the company since 2010. Performed a lot of work on the ERP, received competence. Who do they belong to?
The company will say - we own it. Our clients, our projects, our tasks. Give back competence. And how to pick them up? Do not ticks the same? This is not a tangible asset. Psihanet, go away, and crying competence.
What are competencies? Product. Or not - the income from the sale of the product. Shipped 200 hours of ERP, got two profits - 400 tr. and competencies. Money - it is clear, here they are, on the current account. You can translate, spend, invest. Where are the competences? Get out in that bald head. What can you do with them? In fact - nothing.
So, the guy learned at our expense. Not that we invested money in his training - no, it just happened. But we can get this profit only in one way - to continue to exploit these competencies, i.e. for all work on ERP to put it alone. Well, or take a risk and put a newbie to get another non-recoverable resource.
The reason for this situation is commonplace - the wrong system of motivation. It does not really encourage - it directly forbids a person to share competencies.
Motivation system - what is it for? So that the person himself, on his own will, and with all diligence did what is beneficial to the company. The system of motivation should replace the leader who walks, kicks and tries to indicate something every day.
How to make the person himself, at his own will, do what is beneficial to the company? Well, first, of course, understand what is beneficial to the company. Secondly, to make so that the benefit of the company was beneficial to the person. Not in the form of missions and slogans, but for real.
For the case, I chose the methods that, in my understanding and experience, are most suitable for achieving the goal of doubling the output. In general, there are a lot more methods, but we are not engaged in writing here, but in deed. It is also worth noting that in order to double the output, it is not necessary to introduce all the methods - often just one is enough.
The difference in the initial conditions of a particular company, about which I know nothing. Probably, there is in the world the most moronic franch, which has the lowest output per employee. You are not from this french, therefore your metric is higher. But how much higher - I have no idea. But the fact that you can double the output is a fact.
So, what to do with :
Do:
Now summarize each item. But first - an explanation of automation.
The point that is present in almost all variations of the case is automation. All changes that you will make to processes, management and motivation, you need to quickly automate.
“Quickly automate” is really fast, i.e. during the day (including waiting for the opportunity to update the database configuration). Hence the need to immediately realize this automation by the same team, the production of which you are increasing. If you are a big franch, and you have another department that is not subservient to you, then you are not very lucky, but there is a way out - covert automation.
For all that is in the case, enough made on the knee samopisannogo configuration. Then, someday, you will improve it, integrate it into your corporate system, make an ergonomic interface, etc. Now we need almost bare data, without beautiful and convenient. Therefore, if you do not have access to the refinement of the overall system, make your own and share it within the team.
If your task management system is not on 1C, then, alas, you are not lucky - you will most likely have to throw it out. Or use it as a proxy for 1Snoy, if customers stick out in it - let them drive tasks in there, but for now you make yourself a system, on 1C, and upload data to it. Otherwise, nothing happens - the developers of bitrix24, JIRA, Github and other systems, I apologize, they wanted to shit on your needs. If add. there is still a possibility to add a property to the task, then the tabular part is unlikely, and even more so - the report.
To automate the work of internal teams sitting next to each other, the best platform, alas, is 1C.
We need a new rating system - a task that we are doing in 2.5 hours, we have to do in 1.25 hours, and sell in 2.5 hours. It turns out that the problem in our target state will have two estimates - 2.5 and 1.25 hours. One is a real investment of time, the other is a certain estimate for a client. Now, in the current state, we believe that these estimates are equal (on average).
I personally do not like to keep two marks in one unit (clock). I can't stop wondering how anyone can like her at all. In reality, there are even more evaluations: the clock to the client, the clock, called by the programmer when planning, the actual clock. How then to reduce all this, somehow analyze - the devil knows.
I recommend the Scrum system - poker scheduling. Each task is scored in points taken from the Fibonacci series - 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, etc. Evaluation reflects your comprehensive vision of this task - and the complexity of execution, and labor, and uncertainty, and the problem of the client on the delivery of work.
The easiest way to start with an “anchor” is to determine what the task is in 1 point. This is the simplest, atomic problem that you solve. Accordingly, the task of 2 points is twice as difficult.
Estimates are made when processing the incoming stream, i.e. when a new task. Each team member puts his own assessment, in the end we have - 5 ratings (for the example described by us). If there are assessments that differ by more than one element of the series, then you need to talk and understand why there is such a big difference, and to eliminate it - either one overestimated it or the other underestimated it. When all disagreements are resolved, the average is considered (the sum of evaluations divided by the number of evaluations) - it will be the evaluation of the problem.
If you implement the system “from above”, then it is quite possible not to arrange the polls, but to put the marks yourself. We do not have Scrum, we write the rules ourselves.
If in the process of solving the problem it turned out that the assessment is too low or too high, then we can safely change it. Of course, by the time the task is closed, the final grade should be known.
Evaluation must be entered into the system, and stored in the form of a task requisite.
If you do not like points, then you can use some kind of standard hours. I do not recommend this option, but my opinion can be ignored. For example, at the dawn of practice, I came up with such an assessment as “for the best” - how many hours would the best programmer who knows everything about the task, context, client, functionality, etc., spend on solving the problem ... Everything that is needed by such “best” - write code.
Now it is extremely important to introduce the initial balances - assess the tasks for 1-2 months that you have already decided, and enter the estimates into the system. First, practice and develop your rating system. Secondly, and most importantly - get the current speed and "price point".
For example, it turns out that you sell 500 hours for 2000 rubles per month, and this is 500 points. Then your score at the moment is 2000 rubles. After the changes are introduced, you have to generate 1000 points, sell them at 2000 rubles and receive twice as much income (both the company and the employees).
The initial balances are extremely important, because without them you will not answer the elementary question - did it work or not? Do not be lazy, please.
It will be tempting not to evaluate old tasks, but to start with new ones. Unfortunately, the dynamics of changes is such that you can double the output in a month, and in a month you will learn how to work with estimates. In this case, you will sell your doubled output for the same amount - deceive yourself.
If you are implementing the system “from above”, then the ideal option is to make input of the initial residues secretly from programmers.
The system of accounting competencies is as important as it is not widespread. Records of the number of certificates, of course, are not a system of competency accounting (as well as certificates are not competences).
Competences are a hierarchical reference. Its structure and detailing depends entirely on your needs and diligence. It is not necessary to reduce it, because you are tortured to enter data. Just determine what is important to you in the competencies that you really need to know.
The analyst in accounting competencies is only two - the task and the person. They should be guided while filling the reference book - the answers to the questions “what competences a task requires” and “what competences a person has” issued by the system should suit you.
I divided competences into two principal parts - technique and methodology. Technique is about programming and platform. For example, work with external data sources, or exchange with bitrix, or complex data composition schemes. Methods are specific subsystems, documents, and accounting sections. For example, closing a month in SCP, budgeting, order management, production scheduling, etc. You can use my experience, you can create your own.
In the information system, in the object of the problem should appear a tabular part - competence. It lists the elements of the directory, and put the assessment. What kind of assessment - I do not know, it's up to you. I myself put one, and considered the competence confident after recruiting 10 ones. You can put interest, and consider the competence confirmed, if accumulated 100%.
Then everything is clear. You can enter the remnants of the old solved problems. In all new tasks it is necessary to fill this tab. Well, it is necessary, a bit later, to plant programmers so that they draw a petal diagram and a bunch of reports on competencies.
You can add a “Competence Plan” to the system, in which you list development priorities and the proper level of competencies for each employee. Well, the report in addition, which the plan-fact will do. It is especially interesting to watch the variance of growth of competencies - it is quite possible that your champion works only in the main, or only, studied area, which is currently popular among clients.
Such a system will measure only real competences - those that have been confirmed by the solution of problems. Certificates, courses and fairy tales at the interview - this is not about us.
This item is for bosses only. In principle, the piece-rate system of motivation, when the programmer receives, in fact, a percentage of the work, is quite acceptable (compared to the systems of motivation in other professions). But there are downsides that I talked about at the beginning of the publication - pushing towards individualism.
There may be several solutions, I offer the simplest - KTU. You have a task “Artist” in the task, you need to add the table “Artists” to it, then everything will fall into place.
Details tab. Parts - employee and percentage. Accordingly, the charge for the task goes not to one person, but to several (usually not more than two). The amount is the same, only divided by percentage, i.e. the company does not pay anything extra.
Such a system is often found in sellers, when one, for example, dragged a client, and the second accompanied the transaction.
In our case, the main motive for using KTU is to “unleash” the champions, and indeed everyone, on cooperation. Suppose a person got the task, but he is not well versed in either the technique, or the technique, or all at once. But he knows that the other guy solved a similar problem (or does not know, but he is sure if he looked at the report on competencies).
That second one, it seems, can help, but there is no reason for him, except for “brotherly help”. The performer, as a result, can spend 10 hours on the task, although it is solved in 2.
Now it will be different. The contractor is coming to the "knowledgeable", offers cooperation. "Aware" says - there is a business for a couple of hours, I have an example, I need to do a little bit, that's all. As much as you want? - asks the performer. Well, come on 40% - says "knowledgeable". The performer agrees, in 15 minutes he receives a tip and an educational program, and at the same time he receives code examples, solves the problem in 2 hours, gets 500 p. x 2 hours x 60% = 600 rubles, i.e. on this segment, for himself, he worked at 266 rubles per hour (600 rubles for 2.25 hours). If I did it myself, I would have worked 100 rubles per hour (I would have spent 10 hours, I would have received 1000 rubles).
The "Knower" worked at 1600 rubles per hour (spent 15 minutes, received 400 rubles). Well, that's what he knows. Normal work, i.e. his work and his time, he sells for 500 rubles per hour, and his real knowledge - for 1600 rubles per hour. No one is in the red, most are in the black. The client received the solution quickly, without losing anything in money. The company did not lose anything in money, received two satisfied employees and a satisfied customer. The performer is glad to the ears, and knowing, at last, he began to receive dividends from his investments in self-education.
It is clear that all proportions will vary. Sometimes a knowledgeable person will need an hour to explain, and sometimes one minute. The performer, too, when he does it in 2 hours, when 5 still protups. But, nevertheless, the average exhaust will be positive, and very significant.
The main thing, in my opinion, is to completely give the percentage distribution to the programmers, and not interfere with it. Let them agree, because they are adults.
The second thing is that if you are a boss, then do not try to take these “free” watches from the champions. After all, there is such a temptation - to pay only to the performer, and even with a reduction factor for dullness. We agreed at the beginning of the publication that the percentage of payroll does not change - neither in plus nor in minus. When saving interest and doubling the output, the company will get its own.
Once you have a system of real accounting competencies, you need to decide how to use it. Basically, there are two vectors - to distribute tasks to those who can do them and those who do not.
The first vector gives the maximum solution speed, but does not give the development of competencies. The second vector gives the minimum solution speed, but the maximum growth of competencies.
It is clear that the best way is somewhere between vectors. On the one hand, we have a business, not a university, and we cannot deal only with competencies. , , , .
, . : . – , , , , .
: 70 % – , 30 % – . , . , . , , .
, – , , , ? , . -, . -, . , , . « » – « — ».
, , – , , . , – . . -, , . , , .
– , , . , – , .
«», , , . – , , , . – , , - . .
– , . , – – .
, , . , - «, , , . , . , , . , . „ “? ? , , , , 9-00 . , . – , ».
– , ( ). .
. , . , , , , . , , , . , , , , , .
- , . 5 15 . , – .
– , , . - , . . , . , , « ».
, , . 1 – , . , , . , , – , , , – - «», , . 1 , - .
, , - , , . : .
– . , , . , – , , . .
, – , . , , . , « », - .
, , , - . , , , , .
. , , – , – . , , .
– , ? ? , ? ? - ? , , , . , - , ?
, , – . , , . , .
, -, 1? . , , .
1. , , , ( – , , ..)? 100 %? 50 %? 20 %?
, 3 %. , – . – , , . .
– , ? , . , , , , .
, . , , . 50 , . , , . 8 .
: ? , 5, ? , , , .. , ? ? , , . 16 .
, , . Another example. , , , 10-20 – : , . ?
. ( ), - – . – , .
: , , – , . , – , , , , . , . 15 . 10-20, ? 5 ?
, , . , , , – , , . .
, . – 50%, .. - , .
, , . , , – , . , , , – . , ! – .
, , . , . What does he do? – , . – . . , , « ». , .
, , , . , – . «» , «».
: , . , ( EDT), .. , – . , .
, , , . .
– , , . – – , . – .
– 1? – . , , 5 . ? : . , , – , . – , 5 , . , . ? , , ? – 13 , , .
, – ( , ) - . , .
. , – , , , . , . – .
, . , , – , .
. , , , .
, – - . , , – , . , , .
, – , , , . , – , , . .
, , – , . : . . , , , – , .
. , , , .
, – .
It's simple. – . .
, , 30 % . , – , . , , .
, . , , . , : , , .
, . – , , «, , ». , , . , , .
« » , . : . , , . , , 1 , .
– , . , . – « », , , – . , – , ( , ).
, , , , . , .
, – . .
, , , , . , – , .
. , , – .
, .
There was a separate article on this topic, I will not repeat everything. The article, by the way, was not particularly interested in 1snikov, but it appealed to the representatives of other races of developers - we are actively working with them now. This is me to the fact that in the world of 1C programming, all is not well with the methods of increasing efficiency.
When you choose a person on duty, give him a link to the article above. The main thing is that he must understand, accept and execute - the status of tasks must be monitored.
His every morning must begin with a ritual - managing task statuses. It is very simple and easy to automate. In the first window - new tasks that have not yet been accepted into the work. This is a discussion list with the team we reviewed above. The outcome of the discussion should be the devastation of this window.
In the second window there are tasks accepted for work, but not having a contractor. It is also degraded after a general discussion. Following the discussion, both lists should be empty. The allowable time for a task to be in the “Not Accepted in Work” and “Not Performer” status is not more than one working day.
If the task is not clear, and the customer needs clarification - the task, along with the list of questions, moves to the window / status “Required clarification” or “Sent for revision” - it doesn’t matter what you call it. Determinacy is important.
After discussion (or in front of him), the duty officer checks the list of those sent for revision so that there are no overdue statuses. For example, to clarify the production is given three days. Three days have passed - you need to write to the customer, so as not to slow down. He, with a high probability, simply forgot to answer.
During discussion with programmers we look at the “In Work” window. It is ranked: everyone understands who is engaged in what task. Accordingly, there is a time for the task to be in the “In Work” status, with reference to the performer, and this time must be controlled.
Trite - in order not to miss the time limit of knowledge for a beginner. If he was given a day for an independent decision, and these days were gone, then he, with a high probability, will not raise his hand and will not say that he has failed. It will be stupid to the last. We do not need it, so banal control over the lifetime of the status will save from unnecessary losses, and the beginner from guilt for his stupidity.
The last window - completed tasks that require acceptance from the customer. Here the principle is the same as in those sent for revision - we set a time limit, for example, three days, after which we begin to remind ourselves. Calmly, confidently, but persistently. I repeat, the customer could simply forget, he has enough of his affairs.
All right, finish the case. The main figure in question is the intrinsic value of a unit of work, i.e. points I argued that it is possible to reduce this cost by half - to produce the same amount of work in half the time.
Here is our schedule, according to one of the clients (the key one at the moment):
As you can see, prior to the application of the case (ie, until April), the value of the score hung at about the same level. This means that, spending the same number of hours, we produced the same amount of result - an average of 1 point in 0.9 hours.
In the first month of application of the case, the cost of the score dropped sharply, to 0.22 hours, which is about four times. The first month, of course, should be taken into account, but it cannot be trusted completely, because there was a sharp jump in the delivery of work - several “expensive” tasks were closed, which, due to the uncontrolled life cycle of tasks, dragged out like rubber.
The second month is more indicative and correct. Firstly, there were no old tasks that would be closed - all tasks closed in May were born in the previous two months, i.e. during the application of the case. Secondly, the use of the case has settled down and has become a habit. The result is 0.33 hours for 1 point, which is three times better than it was before the case.
Well, after that the figure began to hang out in the area of ​​the promised average - half of the original.
Of course, positive results were obtained not only for this client, but in general for all the work. Including - on internal, which we have quite a lot - more than for external customers.
Here, for example, a graph of the total number of points produced:
As you can see, before the case we averaged 400-500 points per month, and then this figure rose to 1,400 - an increase of 3 times.
Both graphics are cut off in October, alas - we used to do tasks in the githaba, and then moved to Flowcon. The general schedule, from two sources, to draw laziness.
It is interesting to understand the dependence of numbers. We, Oknosoft, try to engage in little services for customers, our priority is development. Before the application of the case, we had a problem - it took too much time for the customers, and very little development remained.
The use of the case allowed us to get out of this trap - we had, if not enough, but much more time for development. The result was not long in coming: we implemented several very important products for us.
The first is the site of our business programming project (I will not give you a link, but again I will receive a letter with the subject “nmivan, let's go ...”). The key word is the site, because before we did only business applications that work over the Internet. The site is based on the metadata.js platform, but the key success is not the site itself, and not the content, but the refinement of the platform and its components. Now on metadata.js you can also make sites. Moreover, the site contains the functionality of CMS and microservices.
The second project, to which hands did not reach for a long time, was a paperless, i.e. shop floor dispatching functionality, working through the browser and with cool visualization (this is important for window production, for example). Work paperless through the browser - for example, using a barcode scanner connected to a TV set - will significantly expand and simplify the use of solutions on metadata.js in production. Especially given the simplicity of working with external events in the code metadata.js - they can be caught anywhere, and not only in the active form, as in 1C.
About the third project told - Flowcon.Life . For us, it is extremely important, because gave a bunch of useful tasks for the development of the platform. This is the first project for people, not for business.
The fourth is hardly interesting for you - it is Flowcon, configuration for 1C + task / team / business management service.
Well, a few more - either smaller and duller, or bigger and more secret. Total, let's say six pieces.
Is it a lot or a little? I will clarify - for two people. Which also work with clients on implementation projects, articles are written, they quarrel a lot with each other and with the whole world, and even lazy to hell.
Everything is relative. Six projects in 9 months - a lot or a little? If we recall that in the previous 6 months there was one project (parametric order service), then the increase is significant - from 0.15 projects per month to 0.66 projects per month.
For us, these projects are more valuable than shipped watches, because they develop us - all that we put into the concept of Oknosoft. Platform, product line, sales channels, functionality of lottery solutions. Unlike the shipped watch, the only exhaust of which is money.
Of course, projects are all different in complexity and effort, and it is difficult to judge only by their number. Therefore, we use several figures that I gave to understand my condition and dynamics as adequately as possible.
Seeing a comprehensive assessment, we understand that the case works and brings real benefits to the business, moreover, very quickly. In our case, this case is not enough, because, as you understand, our priority is design.
By the way, this is the very exotic scenario of using acceleration. We have not begun to sell more services to customers, but have spent the vacant time on new products. I don’t know if we are right or not, time will tell - maybe the truth should only think about today? Like most franchises do.
Well, we talked about, now about you. I am sure that you have any questions while reading this article. The topic of acceleration is not new for me, so I heard some of the questions you want to ask, and I will answer them immediately. I will group the questions.
Faith is not required. If you think you need faith, something is wrong with you.
Faith would be needed if I tried to sell you something - consulting, a book, a seminar or club membership. Then I would have the motive to cultivate your faith. But I do not sell you anything, so the question of faith is purely your personal, it is subjective and in no way connected with me.
Well, in general, we have a case here, not a sect. We have a business, you too. Our business does not owe anything to yours, just like yours to ours. Moreover, he should not believe either.
That's when one 1C programmer came up with how to speed up the holding of documents in half, and outlined this method, does the second 1C programmer need faith to try the same method? I do not exclude, of course, that someone is needed, but most do not.
You put a copy of the database, make the proposed changes, look at the result. It turned out twice - cool. It turned out 1.5 times - cool. Has not changed or become worse - you write to the author. He will either try to help and make his way more abstract, or he will say, “pf, I have what I did.”
What is wrong with the second programmer 1C? Nothing. Even if the result is not, he will simply spend a little time - and with benefit.
With the case, the situation is exactly the same. As I said in the first article, the costs of its implementation are negligible. Most methods are generally implemented for free. Buy is not required, including from us.
Why then faith?
What could - showed. About “prove” - see above, about faith, the meaning is the same.
Proof is a very laborious process, and its purpose is, in fact, a proof. I do not have such a goal, but I do not defend my dissertation. You can prove yourself if you try. I can't prove anything to you.
I can't even prove that our case worked. Elementary - you will say that I drew graphics from the bald. And whatever the numbers, reports, statements from the account or from the tax, I did not cite, you can say - “pf, and where does the case at all?”.
Do you understand? Proof, faith, etc. - this is your personal, internal, not having nothing to do with me. This stereotype is such an inner conviction, a peculiarity of perception, and most likely a way of self-defense: I will not change anything and do it until they give me faith and prove it. It sounds clear and correct, but completely cuts off the possibility of change, for one simple reason - no one is going to prove anything to you.
If you do not try - yes, it will not work. Also a way of self-defense. It is not clear only from whom.
This is the most fun, in my opinion. Who are you trying to convince that it doesn't work? Me? So it works for me.
If I wrote a case about how “it would be possible to work”, then the point in such statements would be to warn me that I am engaged in this nonsense.
If you are trying to convince the rest of the readers, then your goals are not clear to me. I will not dispute their importance and value, I just do not understand. You care about the rest?
If you are trying to convince yourself, then you are doing great.
“We have a completely different problem - this one and this one”
Wonderful and very helpful comments. I will definitely take them into account in my work - it is important for me to know about what is bothering you and what is the problem.
What the author has to do is irrelevant. For links and tips, of course, thanks.
If you remove the opposition, then - an excellent comment. It is necessary to solve all the problems, one way or another. The issue is priorities, and they are subjective for every business and person.
Case is aimed at solving a specific problem in specific conditions. Recommendations are given with variations and options to accommodate differences. Turning relatively general recommendations into concrete ones is already your task as an implementer.
Well, what I explain, if you are a 1C programmer, then you are only engaged in that you adapt the typical, general and universal to specific realities. It's the same here.
No, not in this. Multiple sales - this is one of the examples to which efficiency can be reached, but not with this case. Consider this to be an example from another practice.
It is important that you understand that 1C: Franchisee has a lot of options for improving business efficiency, and they can give a huge result tens and hundreds of times. This case is only one of the options, with a very modest result - twice.
Fine, only better as a separate article. I will carefully study and try to apply if the experiment is understandable in time and inexpensive - as in this case.
There is no fundamental difference. On the project there is a specificity - the presence of interrelated stages, within which - interrelated tasks. But the atomic essence remains the same - the task.
Project tasks can always be turned into a stream. In a sense, they are even simpler than one-time, because the context and interrelations are preserved - therefore, it is possible to get an even more impressive result on acceleration, there is not only the exchange of experience between programmers, but also the accumulation of experience by solving related problems.
By the way, we checked the design work for two months. Only the project was made “flat” - in the form of a list of tasks separated by certain milestones.
The greatest effect is achieved if you apply the case to the team. I will explain in basic terms of systems thinking.
And one programmer, and five, and one hundred is the system. The system has elements and links. In our case, the programmer is an element. Interaction, automation, motivation, goals, management are connections.
To increase the overall performance of the system, it is possible to influence both the elements and the connections. It is very important to understand this is the key. Because everyone is trying to influence the elements - i.e. on programmers. Something to do with the programmer to make it work better. This is useful, but not very promising.
Because both the elements and the connections have the ultimate performance. It is impossible to infinitely improve only a specific programmer, or only a motivation system, or only management. In any case, you will see a plateau, after a temporary increase in productivity.
Roughly speaking, you have little leverage. If the programmer is one, then the limit of the system is equal to the limit of the element. If you go deeper, you can also imagine a programmer as a system and find connections in it, but the principle remains in place.
If you look at your system as a set, i.e. a bunch of atomic elements - programmers - then you have almost no opportunity to increase productivity. If you see connections and begin to influence them, then you will discover a whole unknown world full of new opportunities.
If you are a business owner, the answer seems to be obvious. If you want growth, you need to change something.
In business 1C: Franchisee, however, you can not change anything, because there is a "mother" who will do something for you. New products, markets, services. Then you can grow without changing anything - simply following the growth of the market, keeping your share in it.
If you have enough growth rate of the market, then everything is in order. It is not enough for us, we want to overtake these rates. And creating new markets, and increasing their share of the old, and changing the structure of markets.
If you remember (for some reason, I remembered), 1C had such a position: compete not with price, but with quality. Quality is an internal characteristic, moreover, specifically your business. The quality of your work does not depend on the "mother" and competitors.
The whole case is about performance. Productivity is one of the indicators of the quality of the system. Everything, as the "mother" ordered.
Although, probably, sellers of Christmas trees can be excluded from this list, they managed to surprise me before the New Year by selling me a real fir-tree. Previously, only fir and pine have been. I even looked on the Internet how to distinguish a Christmas tree from a fir - really, it was spruce.
So, only 1C franchisee remains in the list of “The most non-developing companies”. A lot of wonderful people work there, but whether this is the environment or the place is damned - something is wrong with them.
')
They think only about today. Perhaps the fault is tied to a single vendor that develops both the framework and application solutions. Nobody in their right mind in the 21st century will build a long-term business, tied to one programming language, one development environment, one market? But to strike while the iron is hot - please. When it cools down, then it will be possible to think about something serious.
But for some reason, it seems to me that all is not lost. You can do better.
Different methods of increasing efficiency are, of course, interesting. But much more interesting is the combination of these methods for a specific activity - the case. It includes processes, motivation, automation, goals and control system. Not always all the components at once - just what you need.
Let's try to form a case for a specific part of a business we know - 1C: Franchisee. He is familiar to us because there is experience in other francs for several years, plus - we are constantly confronted with francs, in a formal and informal setting.
We will form the case on the basis of aggregate experience - almost everything we have written has been tested on ourselves. We do not convince anyone of anything, the interest is purely academic. Although there were large franches who took this case into service, and they themselves are introducing something there.
If you do not know what 1C: Franchisee is, then read as if it were a question of a certain company providing software development, maintenance and development services.
The purpose of the case is simple - to increase the production of programmers and, if possible, revenue. Or exhaust, he has different options. Go. I warn you - longrid.
initial situation
Take not the whole franch, but its part, which we call the development department. These are guys, 1C programmers who sit in the office, get tasks through the system or from consultants, decide, pass the result to consultants or a client, remotely.
There are several such departments in large network franchises, there is competition between them, and they, when there are not enough resources, actively exchange both specialists and tasks. Perhaps not at will, but this is not the point - we look at the development department as a business unit, and not as a bunch of “real programmers”.
Suppose our development department consists of five people. Total average monthly production is 500 hours. Of these, 200 closes a champion - the most experienced and intelligent coder. 100 hours closes Second, 80 each - Third and Fourth, 40 - Beginner.
For example, an hour of work for a client costs 2000 rubles. Suppose we have a single internal rate for programmers - 500 rubles per hour. Simple calculations say that the revenue of the department is 1 million rubles a month, the department's payroll is just 25% of the revenue, in this case 250 thousand rubles. Total, the company receives 750 thousand rubles, of which pays taxes on the same programmers, well, all their other expenses. We will not consider the profit structure, we just understand that it is non-linear, since contains fixed costs, such as renting an office and buying cookies.
The output, for example, is relatively stable, does not jump much. Is that when the Champion goes on vacation, we have a failure of 40 percent. Sometimes it happens 700 hours - when there was a good project, and the programmers work on weekends.
Case Purpose
Immediately the purpose of the application case will tell, so as not to create mystery. We want our development department to give out not 500, but 1000 hours per month, i.e. twice as much. For the same hourly rate, with the same fixed costs, with the same number of working hours. We can allow a small temporary cost of this project - for example, in the range of 30-50 tr.
It is important to immediately decide what we will do in the target situation. On the one hand, we sell time specialists - hours that they spend on solving problems. On the other hand, we sell solved problems, evaluating them in hours. It seems everything is clear, but the difference between these two rating systems is quite significant.
Suppose our 500 hours per month is 500 real hours of work of specialists. For these 500 hours, they solve, say, 200 problems, with an average price tag of 2.5 hours. It turns out that each task costs an average of 5,000 rubles. The client is quite willing to pay that kind of money, he knows the market, the rest of franchises have the same price.
And so we learned how to solve a problem not in 2.5 hours, but in 1.25 hours. The key question is how to sell it to a customer?
If we sell time, then it is logical to sell in 1.25 hours. The customer will be damn pleased - and cheaper, and faster. But we, as a business, have almost no benefit from such a scheme - only a satisfied client and free time of specialists who need to do something. Suppose we have found more customers, and also sell them a task for 1.25 hours. As a result, in a month, what will we get? The same 500 hours for 2000 rubles. There's no point.
One option is to raise the hourly rate. We solve problems faster than competitors? Nobody will notice this especially on small works, but on tasks at 40 hours the difference will already be noticeable.
But the price of an hour is a noticeable change for the outside world that can discourage new customers from us. They do not know what we are doing twice as fast? Slogans written on the site are not particularly convincing.
It seems more correct to continue selling the task in 2.5 hours. The client does not notice anything, but we get a normal, target result - by doing twice as many tasks, we get twice as much money.
You can choose a compromise option - sell, for example, in 2 hours. Then the client sees tangible savings (especially on large volumes), gets results faster, and we are in the black. Moreover, even with the preservation of the internal rate of programmers.
For simplicity, we will consider the option when we continue to sell for 2.5 hours. Evaluation of the incoming task is based on a slightly more complicated algorithm - we need to estimate the real time and multiply it by 2. But more on that later.
Yes, there are still exotic ways to use the released time, for example, strengthening internal development. This will be the end.
Well, everything, the goal is clear, now let's move on to the analysis of the necessary changes.
Key issue
They say there is always a point of application of force into which the lever must be inserted and get the maximum effect. I disagree with this - in the sense that such a point is always there. But in this case it is - a system of motivation.
Our motivation system is an individual, hourly rate for work performed.
There are a lot of advantages for programmers in it, for business it is small, but there are plenty of minuses.
A specialist has no reason to share his knowledge and experience. The only thing for which it is worth doing is to raise your importance. If everything is in order with importance, then sharing experience, and all the more helping in solving tasks, is contraindicated. If you teach a fool, he will become your competitor, and he will not even thank you.
If you know well, for example, salary (this is a program), while others do not know, you will always have bread and butter. As soon as the second salary worker appears, you will have to make an effort to get the most tasty sections of work.
What's in it for business? If specialists do not share competencies, then the concern for training falls on the shoulders of the company. It is necessary to organize courses, or pay third-party organizations (such as 1C). The second is the bottlenecks in the form of key specialists. If out of 5 people only one knows ERP (this is also a program like this), then you physically cannot take work on ERP more than this employee is able to digest. Even if it is a champion, there will be no more than 200 hours per month. Well, either take the risk - take work, to figure it out later, along the way.
Making the sharing of competencies is not very possible. Visibility can be done. But, who was a programmer, he knows - there are ways to assist in such a way that they no longer turn to you for it. You can make the Champion even a seminar, or training to hold. He honestly reprimand the material - the one that is so available on the Internet. He will still keep real, practical knowledge with him.
An individual hourly rate is like a business within a business, and this “internal business” is always an IE, not an LLC.
Competences are important, especially in epochs of change that occur periodically. It happens, of course, a lull in a couple of years - for example, before the release of ERP, when everyone has already figured out SCP (this is also a program, an old one, but vigorous). But in 2004-2010, for example, the “projectors” who had the best knowledge of SCP lived the best. Now, probably, ERP experts live best of all - I don’t know for sure.
Individual piecework payment kills the ability to share work decisions and developments, because this, again, makes no sense. Well, you gave your processing or subsystem to a person, he closed 40 hours in a day agreed with a client, raised 20 tr. What do you want from this? You can, of course, agree, and generate a black market within the department, but it makes no sense. Simply say "give me the task, I will solve." In a hopeless situation, of course, he will give it away, but rather he will leave it to himself, out of principle.
You can look at competencies differently: who is their owner? Let's say your Champion has been with the company since 2010. Performed a lot of work on the ERP, received competence. Who do they belong to?
The company will say - we own it. Our clients, our projects, our tasks. Give back competence. And how to pick them up? Do not ticks the same? This is not a tangible asset. Psihanet, go away, and crying competence.
What are competencies? Product. Or not - the income from the sale of the product. Shipped 200 hours of ERP, got two profits - 400 tr. and competencies. Money - it is clear, here they are, on the current account. You can translate, spend, invest. Where are the competences? Get out in that bald head. What can you do with them? In fact - nothing.
So, the guy learned at our expense. Not that we invested money in his training - no, it just happened. But we can get this profit only in one way - to continue to exploit these competencies, i.e. for all work on ERP to put it alone. Well, or take a risk and put a newbie to get another non-recoverable resource.
The reason for this situation is commonplace - the wrong system of motivation. It does not really encourage - it directly forbids a person to share competencies.
Motivation system - what is it for? So that the person himself, on his own will, and with all diligence did what is beneficial to the company. The system of motivation should replace the leader who walks, kicks and tries to indicate something every day.
How to make the person himself, at his own will, do what is beneficial to the company? Well, first, of course, understand what is beneficial to the company. Secondly, to make so that the benefit of the company was beneficial to the person. Not in the form of missions and slogans, but for real.
Case
For the case, I chose the methods that, in my understanding and experience, are most suitable for achieving the goal of doubling the output. In general, there are a lot more methods, but we are not engaged in writing here, but in deed. It is also worth noting that in order to double the output, it is not necessary to introduce all the methods - often just one is enough.
The difference in the initial conditions of a particular company, about which I know nothing. Probably, there is in the world the most moronic franch, which has the lowest output per employee. You are not from this french, therefore your metric is higher. But how much higher - I have no idea. But the fact that you can double the output is a fact.
So, what to do with :
- Select, automate and add initial balances to the rating system;
- Automate and add initial balances to the competency system;
- Make a decision on the motivation system, automate;
- Select the parameters of the competency strategy;
- Assign duty officer;
- Talk to programmers.
Do:
- General discussion of incoming tasks;
- Selection of the executor according to the competences in accordance with the strategy;
- Management of mutual assistance and its accounting;
- Manage task status.
Now summarize each item. But first - an explanation of automation.
Automation
The point that is present in almost all variations of the case is automation. All changes that you will make to processes, management and motivation, you need to quickly automate.
“Quickly automate” is really fast, i.e. during the day (including waiting for the opportunity to update the database configuration). Hence the need to immediately realize this automation by the same team, the production of which you are increasing. If you are a big franch, and you have another department that is not subservient to you, then you are not very lucky, but there is a way out - covert automation.
For all that is in the case, enough made on the knee samopisannogo configuration. Then, someday, you will improve it, integrate it into your corporate system, make an ergonomic interface, etc. Now we need almost bare data, without beautiful and convenient. Therefore, if you do not have access to the refinement of the overall system, make your own and share it within the team.
If your task management system is not on 1C, then, alas, you are not lucky - you will most likely have to throw it out. Or use it as a proxy for 1Snoy, if customers stick out in it - let them drive tasks in there, but for now you make yourself a system, on 1C, and upload data to it. Otherwise, nothing happens - the developers of bitrix24, JIRA, Github and other systems, I apologize, they wanted to shit on your needs. If add. there is still a possibility to add a property to the task, then the tabular part is unlikely, and even more so - the report.
To automate the work of internal teams sitting next to each other, the best platform, alas, is 1C.
Rating system
We need a new rating system - a task that we are doing in 2.5 hours, we have to do in 1.25 hours, and sell in 2.5 hours. It turns out that the problem in our target state will have two estimates - 2.5 and 1.25 hours. One is a real investment of time, the other is a certain estimate for a client. Now, in the current state, we believe that these estimates are equal (on average).
I personally do not like to keep two marks in one unit (clock). I can't stop wondering how anyone can like her at all. In reality, there are even more evaluations: the clock to the client, the clock, called by the programmer when planning, the actual clock. How then to reduce all this, somehow analyze - the devil knows.
I recommend the Scrum system - poker scheduling. Each task is scored in points taken from the Fibonacci series - 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, etc. Evaluation reflects your comprehensive vision of this task - and the complexity of execution, and labor, and uncertainty, and the problem of the client on the delivery of work.
The easiest way to start with an “anchor” is to determine what the task is in 1 point. This is the simplest, atomic problem that you solve. Accordingly, the task of 2 points is twice as difficult.
Estimates are made when processing the incoming stream, i.e. when a new task. Each team member puts his own assessment, in the end we have - 5 ratings (for the example described by us). If there are assessments that differ by more than one element of the series, then you need to talk and understand why there is such a big difference, and to eliminate it - either one overestimated it or the other underestimated it. When all disagreements are resolved, the average is considered (the sum of evaluations divided by the number of evaluations) - it will be the evaluation of the problem.
If you implement the system “from above”, then it is quite possible not to arrange the polls, but to put the marks yourself. We do not have Scrum, we write the rules ourselves.
If in the process of solving the problem it turned out that the assessment is too low or too high, then we can safely change it. Of course, by the time the task is closed, the final grade should be known.
Evaluation must be entered into the system, and stored in the form of a task requisite.
If you do not like points, then you can use some kind of standard hours. I do not recommend this option, but my opinion can be ignored. For example, at the dawn of practice, I came up with such an assessment as “for the best” - how many hours would the best programmer who knows everything about the task, context, client, functionality, etc., spend on solving the problem ... Everything that is needed by such “best” - write code.
Now it is extremely important to introduce the initial balances - assess the tasks for 1-2 months that you have already decided, and enter the estimates into the system. First, practice and develop your rating system. Secondly, and most importantly - get the current speed and "price point".
For example, it turns out that you sell 500 hours for 2000 rubles per month, and this is 500 points. Then your score at the moment is 2000 rubles. After the changes are introduced, you have to generate 1000 points, sell them at 2000 rubles and receive twice as much income (both the company and the employees).
The initial balances are extremely important, because without them you will not answer the elementary question - did it work or not? Do not be lazy, please.
It will be tempting not to evaluate old tasks, but to start with new ones. Unfortunately, the dynamics of changes is such that you can double the output in a month, and in a month you will learn how to work with estimates. In this case, you will sell your doubled output for the same amount - deceive yourself.
If you are implementing the system “from above”, then the ideal option is to make input of the initial residues secretly from programmers.
Competency system
The system of accounting competencies is as important as it is not widespread. Records of the number of certificates, of course, are not a system of competency accounting (as well as certificates are not competences).
Competences are a hierarchical reference. Its structure and detailing depends entirely on your needs and diligence. It is not necessary to reduce it, because you are tortured to enter data. Just determine what is important to you in the competencies that you really need to know.
The analyst in accounting competencies is only two - the task and the person. They should be guided while filling the reference book - the answers to the questions “what competences a task requires” and “what competences a person has” issued by the system should suit you.
I divided competences into two principal parts - technique and methodology. Technique is about programming and platform. For example, work with external data sources, or exchange with bitrix, or complex data composition schemes. Methods are specific subsystems, documents, and accounting sections. For example, closing a month in SCP, budgeting, order management, production scheduling, etc. You can use my experience, you can create your own.
In the information system, in the object of the problem should appear a tabular part - competence. It lists the elements of the directory, and put the assessment. What kind of assessment - I do not know, it's up to you. I myself put one, and considered the competence confident after recruiting 10 ones. You can put interest, and consider the competence confirmed, if accumulated 100%.
Then everything is clear. You can enter the remnants of the old solved problems. In all new tasks it is necessary to fill this tab. Well, it is necessary, a bit later, to plant programmers so that they draw a petal diagram and a bunch of reports on competencies.
You can add a “Competence Plan” to the system, in which you list development priorities and the proper level of competencies for each employee. Well, the report in addition, which the plan-fact will do. It is especially interesting to watch the variance of growth of competencies - it is quite possible that your champion works only in the main, or only, studied area, which is currently popular among clients.
Such a system will measure only real competences - those that have been confirmed by the solution of problems. Certificates, courses and fairy tales at the interview - this is not about us.
Motivation system
This item is for bosses only. In principle, the piece-rate system of motivation, when the programmer receives, in fact, a percentage of the work, is quite acceptable (compared to the systems of motivation in other professions). But there are downsides that I talked about at the beginning of the publication - pushing towards individualism.
There may be several solutions, I offer the simplest - KTU. You have a task “Artist” in the task, you need to add the table “Artists” to it, then everything will fall into place.
Details tab. Parts - employee and percentage. Accordingly, the charge for the task goes not to one person, but to several (usually not more than two). The amount is the same, only divided by percentage, i.e. the company does not pay anything extra.
Such a system is often found in sellers, when one, for example, dragged a client, and the second accompanied the transaction.
In our case, the main motive for using KTU is to “unleash” the champions, and indeed everyone, on cooperation. Suppose a person got the task, but he is not well versed in either the technique, or the technique, or all at once. But he knows that the other guy solved a similar problem (or does not know, but he is sure if he looked at the report on competencies).
That second one, it seems, can help, but there is no reason for him, except for “brotherly help”. The performer, as a result, can spend 10 hours on the task, although it is solved in 2.
Now it will be different. The contractor is coming to the "knowledgeable", offers cooperation. "Aware" says - there is a business for a couple of hours, I have an example, I need to do a little bit, that's all. As much as you want? - asks the performer. Well, come on 40% - says "knowledgeable". The performer agrees, in 15 minutes he receives a tip and an educational program, and at the same time he receives code examples, solves the problem in 2 hours, gets 500 p. x 2 hours x 60% = 600 rubles, i.e. on this segment, for himself, he worked at 266 rubles per hour (600 rubles for 2.25 hours). If I did it myself, I would have worked 100 rubles per hour (I would have spent 10 hours, I would have received 1000 rubles).
The "Knower" worked at 1600 rubles per hour (spent 15 minutes, received 400 rubles). Well, that's what he knows. Normal work, i.e. his work and his time, he sells for 500 rubles per hour, and his real knowledge - for 1600 rubles per hour. No one is in the red, most are in the black. The client received the solution quickly, without losing anything in money. The company did not lose anything in money, received two satisfied employees and a satisfied customer. The performer is glad to the ears, and knowing, at last, he began to receive dividends from his investments in self-education.
It is clear that all proportions will vary. Sometimes a knowledgeable person will need an hour to explain, and sometimes one minute. The performer, too, when he does it in 2 hours, when 5 still protups. But, nevertheless, the average exhaust will be positive, and very significant.
The main thing, in my opinion, is to completely give the percentage distribution to the programmers, and not interfere with it. Let them agree, because they are adults.
The second thing is that if you are a boss, then do not try to take these “free” watches from the champions. After all, there is such a temptation - to pay only to the performer, and even with a reduction factor for dullness. We agreed at the beginning of the publication that the percentage of payroll does not change - neither in plus nor in minus. When saving interest and doubling the output, the company will get its own.
Competency Strategy
Once you have a system of real accounting competencies, you need to decide how to use it. Basically, there are two vectors - to distribute tasks to those who can do them and those who do not.
The first vector gives the maximum solution speed, but does not give the development of competencies. The second vector gives the minimum solution speed, but the maximum growth of competencies.
It is clear that the best way is somewhere between vectors. On the one hand, we have a business, not a university, and we cannot deal only with competencies. , , , .
, . : . – , , , , .
: 70 % – , 30 % – . , . , . , , .
, – , , , ? , . -, . -, . , , . « » – « — ».
, , – , , . , – . . -, , . , , .
– , , . , – , .
«», , , . – , , , . – , , - . .
– , . , – – .
, , . , - «, , , . , . , , . , . „ “? ? , , , , 9-00 . , . – , ».
– , ( ). .
. , . , , , , . , , , . , , , , , .
- , . 5 15 . , – .
– , , . - , . . , . , , « ».
, , . 1 – , . , , . , , – , , , – - «», , . 1 , - .
, , - , , . : .
– . , , . , – , , . .
, – , . , , . , « », - .
, , , - . , , , , .
. , , – , – . , , .
– , ? ? , ? ? - ? , , , . , - , ?
, , – . , , . , .
, -, 1? . , , .
1. , , , ( – , , ..)? 100 %? 50 %? 20 %?
, 3 %. , – . – , , . .
– , ? , . , , , , .
, . , , . 50 , . , , . 8 .
: ? , 5, ? , , , .. , ? ? , , . 16 .
, , . Another example. , , , 10-20 – : , . ?
. ( ), - – . – , .
: , , – , . , – , , , , . , . 15 . 10-20, ? 5 ?
, , . , , , – , , . .
, . – 50%, .. - , .
, , . , , – , . , , , – . , ! – .
, , . , . What does he do? – , . – . . , , « ». , .
, , , . , – . «» , «».
: , . , ( EDT), .. , – . , .
, , , . .
– , , . – – , . – .
– 1? – . , , 5 . ? : . , , – , . – , 5 , . , . ? , , ? – 13 , , .
, – ( , ) - . , .
. , – , , , . , . – .
, . , , – , .
. , , , .
, – - . , , – , . , , .
, – , , , . , – , , . .
, , – , . : . . , , , – , .
. , , , .
, – .
It's simple. – . .
, , 30 % . , – , . , , .
, . , , . , : , , .
, . – , , «, , ». , , . , , .
« » , . : . , , . , , 1 , .
– , . , . – « », , , – . , – , ( , ).
, , , , . , .
, – . .
, , , , . , – , .
. , , – .
, .
There was a separate article on this topic, I will not repeat everything. The article, by the way, was not particularly interested in 1snikov, but it appealed to the representatives of other races of developers - we are actively working with them now. This is me to the fact that in the world of 1C programming, all is not well with the methods of increasing efficiency.
When you choose a person on duty, give him a link to the article above. The main thing is that he must understand, accept and execute - the status of tasks must be monitored.
His every morning must begin with a ritual - managing task statuses. It is very simple and easy to automate. In the first window - new tasks that have not yet been accepted into the work. This is a discussion list with the team we reviewed above. The outcome of the discussion should be the devastation of this window.
In the second window there are tasks accepted for work, but not having a contractor. It is also degraded after a general discussion. Following the discussion, both lists should be empty. The allowable time for a task to be in the “Not Accepted in Work” and “Not Performer” status is not more than one working day.
If the task is not clear, and the customer needs clarification - the task, along with the list of questions, moves to the window / status “Required clarification” or “Sent for revision” - it doesn’t matter what you call it. Determinacy is important.
After discussion (or in front of him), the duty officer checks the list of those sent for revision so that there are no overdue statuses. For example, to clarify the production is given three days. Three days have passed - you need to write to the customer, so as not to slow down. He, with a high probability, simply forgot to answer.
During discussion with programmers we look at the “In Work” window. It is ranked: everyone understands who is engaged in what task. Accordingly, there is a time for the task to be in the “In Work” status, with reference to the performer, and this time must be controlled.
Trite - in order not to miss the time limit of knowledge for a beginner. If he was given a day for an independent decision, and these days were gone, then he, with a high probability, will not raise his hand and will not say that he has failed. It will be stupid to the last. We do not need it, so banal control over the lifetime of the status will save from unnecessary losses, and the beginner from guilt for his stupidity.
The last window - completed tasks that require acceptance from the customer. Here the principle is the same as in those sent for revision - we set a time limit, for example, three days, after which we begin to remind ourselves. Calmly, confidently, but persistently. I repeat, the customer could simply forget, he has enough of his affairs.
The final
All right, finish the case. The main figure in question is the intrinsic value of a unit of work, i.e. points I argued that it is possible to reduce this cost by half - to produce the same amount of work in half the time.
Here is our schedule, according to one of the clients (the key one at the moment):
As you can see, prior to the application of the case (ie, until April), the value of the score hung at about the same level. This means that, spending the same number of hours, we produced the same amount of result - an average of 1 point in 0.9 hours.
In the first month of application of the case, the cost of the score dropped sharply, to 0.22 hours, which is about four times. The first month, of course, should be taken into account, but it cannot be trusted completely, because there was a sharp jump in the delivery of work - several “expensive” tasks were closed, which, due to the uncontrolled life cycle of tasks, dragged out like rubber.
The second month is more indicative and correct. Firstly, there were no old tasks that would be closed - all tasks closed in May were born in the previous two months, i.e. during the application of the case. Secondly, the use of the case has settled down and has become a habit. The result is 0.33 hours for 1 point, which is three times better than it was before the case.
Well, after that the figure began to hang out in the area of ​​the promised average - half of the original.
Of course, positive results were obtained not only for this client, but in general for all the work. Including - on internal, which we have quite a lot - more than for external customers.
Here, for example, a graph of the total number of points produced:
As you can see, before the case we averaged 400-500 points per month, and then this figure rose to 1,400 - an increase of 3 times.
Both graphics are cut off in October, alas - we used to do tasks in the githaba, and then moved to Flowcon. The general schedule, from two sources, to draw laziness.
It is interesting to understand the dependence of numbers. We, Oknosoft, try to engage in little services for customers, our priority is development. Before the application of the case, we had a problem - it took too much time for the customers, and very little development remained.
The use of the case allowed us to get out of this trap - we had, if not enough, but much more time for development. The result was not long in coming: we implemented several very important products for us.
The first is the site of our business programming project (I will not give you a link, but again I will receive a letter with the subject “nmivan, let's go ...”). The key word is the site, because before we did only business applications that work over the Internet. The site is based on the metadata.js platform, but the key success is not the site itself, and not the content, but the refinement of the platform and its components. Now on metadata.js you can also make sites. Moreover, the site contains the functionality of CMS and microservices.
The second project, to which hands did not reach for a long time, was a paperless, i.e. shop floor dispatching functionality, working through the browser and with cool visualization (this is important for window production, for example). Work paperless through the browser - for example, using a barcode scanner connected to a TV set - will significantly expand and simplify the use of solutions on metadata.js in production. Especially given the simplicity of working with external events in the code metadata.js - they can be caught anywhere, and not only in the active form, as in 1C.
About the third project told - Flowcon.Life . For us, it is extremely important, because gave a bunch of useful tasks for the development of the platform. This is the first project for people, not for business.
The fourth is hardly interesting for you - it is Flowcon, configuration for 1C + task / team / business management service.
Well, a few more - either smaller and duller, or bigger and more secret. Total, let's say six pieces.
Is it a lot or a little? I will clarify - for two people. Which also work with clients on implementation projects, articles are written, they quarrel a lot with each other and with the whole world, and even lazy to hell.
Everything is relative. Six projects in 9 months - a lot or a little? If we recall that in the previous 6 months there was one project (parametric order service), then the increase is significant - from 0.15 projects per month to 0.66 projects per month.
For us, these projects are more valuable than shipped watches, because they develop us - all that we put into the concept of Oknosoft. Platform, product line, sales channels, functionality of lottery solutions. Unlike the shipped watch, the only exhaust of which is money.
Of course, projects are all different in complexity and effort, and it is difficult to judge only by their number. Therefore, we use several figures that I gave to understand my condition and dynamics as adequately as possible.
Seeing a comprehensive assessment, we understand that the case works and brings real benefits to the business, moreover, very quickly. In our case, this case is not enough, because, as you understand, our priority is design.
By the way, this is the very exotic scenario of using acceleration. We have not begun to sell more services to customers, but have spent the vacant time on new products. I don’t know if we are right or not, time will tell - maybe the truth should only think about today? Like most franchises do.
Well, we talked about, now about you. I am sure that you have any questions while reading this article. The topic of acceleration is not new for me, so I heard some of the questions you want to ask, and I will answer them immediately. I will group the questions.
"I do not believe"
Faith is not required. If you think you need faith, something is wrong with you.
Faith would be needed if I tried to sell you something - consulting, a book, a seminar or club membership. Then I would have the motive to cultivate your faith. But I do not sell you anything, so the question of faith is purely your personal, it is subjective and in no way connected with me.
Well, in general, we have a case here, not a sect. We have a business, you too. Our business does not owe anything to yours, just like yours to ours. Moreover, he should not believe either.
That's when one 1C programmer came up with how to speed up the holding of documents in half, and outlined this method, does the second 1C programmer need faith to try the same method? I do not exclude, of course, that someone is needed, but most do not.
You put a copy of the database, make the proposed changes, look at the result. It turned out twice - cool. It turned out 1.5 times - cool. Has not changed or become worse - you write to the author. He will either try to help and make his way more abstract, or he will say, “pf, I have what I did.”
What is wrong with the second programmer 1C? Nothing. Even if the result is not, he will simply spend a little time - and with benefit.
With the case, the situation is exactly the same. As I said in the first article, the costs of its implementation are negligible. Most methods are generally implemented for free. Buy is not required, including from us.
Why then faith?
"And you show, prove"
What could - showed. About “prove” - see above, about faith, the meaning is the same.
Proof is a very laborious process, and its purpose is, in fact, a proof. I do not have such a goal, but I do not defend my dissertation. You can prove yourself if you try. I can't prove anything to you.
I can't even prove that our case worked. Elementary - you will say that I drew graphics from the bald. And whatever the numbers, reports, statements from the account or from the tax, I did not cite, you can say - “pf, and where does the case at all?”.
Do you understand? Proof, faith, etc. - this is your personal, internal, not having nothing to do with me. This stereotype is such an inner conviction, a peculiarity of perception, and most likely a way of self-defense: I will not change anything and do it until they give me faith and prove it. It sounds clear and correct, but completely cuts off the possibility of change, for one simple reason - no one is going to prove anything to you.
"It makes no sense, nothing happens"
If you do not try - yes, it will not work. Also a way of self-defense. It is not clear only from whom.
"Nonsense is all this, a kindergarten of some kind, it does not work"
This is the most fun, in my opinion. Who are you trying to convince that it doesn't work? Me? So it works for me.
If I wrote a case about how “it would be possible to work”, then the point in such statements would be to warn me that I am engaged in this nonsense.
If you are trying to convince the rest of the readers, then your goals are not clear to me. I will not dispute their importance and value, I just do not understand. You care about the rest?
If you are trying to convince yourself, then you are doing great.
“We have a completely different problem - this one and this one”
Wonderful and very helpful comments. I will definitely take them into account in my work - it is important for me to know about what is bothering you and what is the problem.
“The author should watch a movie / read a book / sleep / shut up / program”
What the author has to do is irrelevant. For links and tips, of course, thanks.
"It is necessary to solve completely different problems, but not indicated"
If you remove the opposition, then - an excellent comment. It is necessary to solve all the problems, one way or another. The issue is priorities, and they are subjective for every business and person.
Case is aimed at solving a specific problem in specific conditions. Recommendations are given with variations and options to accommodate differences. Turning relatively general recommendations into concrete ones is already your task as an implementer.
Well, what I explain, if you are a 1C programmer, then you are only engaged in that you adapt the typical, general and universal to specific realities. It's the same here.
“Speech only about multiple sale of solutions? Does that make sense? ”
No, not in this. Multiple sales - this is one of the examples to which efficiency can be reached, but not with this case. Consider this to be an example from another practice.
It is important that you understand that 1C: Franchisee has a lot of options for improving business efficiency, and they can give a huge result tens and hundreds of times. This case is only one of the options, with a very modest result - twice.
"In general, this is not the way to work, but this is ..."
Fine, only better as a separate article. I will carefully study and try to apply if the experiment is understandable in time and inexpensive - as in this case.
“Is it about projects or one-time work?”
There is no fundamental difference. On the project there is a specificity - the presence of interrelated stages, within which - interrelated tasks. But the atomic essence remains the same - the task.
Project tasks can always be turned into a stream. In a sense, they are even simpler than one-time, because the context and interrelations are preserved - therefore, it is possible to get an even more impressive result on acceleration, there is not only the exchange of experience between programmers, but also the accumulation of experience by solving related problems.
By the way, we checked the design work for two months. Only the project was made “flat” - in the form of a list of tasks separated by certain milestones.
"Speech on the development of one or more programmers?"
The greatest effect is achieved if you apply the case to the team. I will explain in basic terms of systems thinking.
And one programmer, and five, and one hundred is the system. The system has elements and links. In our case, the programmer is an element. Interaction, automation, motivation, goals, management are connections.
To increase the overall performance of the system, it is possible to influence both the elements and the connections. It is very important to understand this is the key. Because everyone is trying to influence the elements - i.e. on programmers. Something to do with the programmer to make it work better. This is useful, but not very promising.
Because both the elements and the connections have the ultimate performance. It is impossible to infinitely improve only a specific programmer, or only a motivation system, or only management. In any case, you will see a plateau, after a temporary increase in productivity.
Roughly speaking, you have little leverage. If the programmer is one, then the limit of the system is equal to the limit of the element. If you go deeper, you can also imagine a programmer as a system and find connections in it, but the principle remains in place.
If you look at your system as a set, i.e. a bunch of atomic elements - programmers - then you have almost no opportunity to increase productivity. If you see connections and begin to influence them, then you will discover a whole unknown world full of new opportunities.
"What for?"
If you are a business owner, the answer seems to be obvious. If you want growth, you need to change something.
In business 1C: Franchisee, however, you can not change anything, because there is a "mother" who will do something for you. New products, markets, services. Then you can grow without changing anything - simply following the growth of the market, keeping your share in it.
If you have enough growth rate of the market, then everything is in order. It is not enough for us, we want to overtake these rates. And creating new markets, and increasing their share of the old, and changing the structure of markets.
If you remember (for some reason, I remembered), 1C had such a position: compete not with price, but with quality. Quality is an internal characteristic, moreover, specifically your business. The quality of your work does not depend on the "mother" and competitors.
The whole case is about performance. Productivity is one of the indicators of the quality of the system. Everything, as the "mother" ordered.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/435576/
All Articles