Crystal Reports Administration: Bureaucracy

We've come across an interesting dynamic in our industry. IT people, due to their left-brain training, tend to focus on the shortest path to a solution. Consequently, IT people are frequently frustrated by internal processes--which are often characterized by bureaucracy.

Today, many IT managers and IT executives are coming from the non-IT ranks. A CIO, for example, may have an MBA and a liberal arts undergrad. This person may come from a sales background, rather than having worked his/her way up along a technical path. This person, like the traditional IT person, is a growing part of our customer demographic.

Both of these folks have problems with bureaucracy, and usually neither is well-equipped by training or experience to handle it well.

For example, Jeanine is an IT director who wants to hire an assistant for the network administrator. The reason is very clear to her. The current network admin was hired on years ago, when the network was basically a Cat-4 cabling system connecting a few dozen PCs for interoffice e-mail. Daily throughput was seldom more than 10MB. The network admin, consequently, had other duties as well.

Today, however, the network handles gigabytes of data every minute. There are hundreds of users, both inside and outside the building. This includes mobile users, along with their security challenges. The Crystal Reports system is on the network, as are several other information systems. The network is no longer a sideshow--it's a main event in itself.

After fighting for budget approval, Jeanine finally gets the funding for this assistant. She knows exactly the kind of person needed for this job. But she has to go through the HR Department, which seems to be just an outdated fossil from days gone by. HR imposes all kinds of red tape. Fill out this form, provide this information, etc. Then, HR comes up with a list of restrictions and constraints that undercut the very reason this job would exist.

Such a situation is common. Another common situation is trying to purchase software. Most companies have replaced their travel department (internal or external) and paper travel expense forms with "do it yourself with our online system" and a company credit card. The cost-savings and efficiency gains have been immense. But when it comes to other operational needs, old systems are still in place and any attempt to update them results in turf warfare.

Purchasing departments impose their system of quotes, purchase orders, and paper. Quotes are already online. Visit a merchant's Website, and the "quotes" are right there. Having to copy and paste into a Word document, print it out, and send it over to Purchasing is a non-value added activity. And what's the deal with purchase orders? These just seem like "make work" devices that no longer serve any purpose.

Because these are the systems that executive management has in place, you have to use them. Yes, you could campaign for executive management to replace these systems with more efficient ones (or eliminate them altogether), but that gets you into a turf war with the bureaucrats.

A fight against these systems is, essentially, a fight against the people who own them. This approach fails to take into account that your problem is not the bureaucrats themselves, but the burden imposed by their systems. People who gripe about "the purchasing department" are overlooking the fact that the purchasing department can have real value and can actually help you do your job better. That is what purchasing departments originally did. That is what most purchasing people think they are doing today. In many companies, nothing can be further from the truth. But in many companies, that is what they are doing. This means the problem is in the processes, not the people or the department.

You have to fight the right battle, and you have to fight against the right enemy. Get that department (whatever it is--production, HR, purchasing, sales) working with you to solve the problem. Replace red tape with something useful. Remember, these people do not get up every day thinking about how to put barriers in front of you or how to introduce inefficiencies into processes.

Here's how to get started:

1. Define the problem. What is it that is causing you grief? Be exact. For example, the purchase order system requires you to obtain a formal quote and that takes time you don't have.
    
2. Determine what you really want. This is the positive statement in which you are going to frame your solution. You aren't trying to end formal quotes--you are trying to increase efficiency. It's easy for the other person to say no to "ending" an existing process and then justify that "no" with a myriad of excuses. But imagine trying to tell the CEO that you object to increasing efficiency--nobody wants to do that.
    
3. Think of possible solutions. How will it work, if there are no more formal quotes? What are the possible problems, and how will you prevent them? What are other companies doing? Ask around in your professional societies at your conferences, dinner meetings, and other events.
    
4. Have an alternative plan. The purpose of this is to give you leverage. It is not something you use to hurt the other party with no gain to you.
   
   Wrong way: "If we still have to get formal quotes, then I am going to submit them handwritten, on paper, and I will write very, very small."
   
    Right way: "If you're sure we need formal quotes, then I will have to respect your understanding of the process. But I'm also going to document the manhours spent obtaining these and present those costs to management. I think that will convince them to provide you with what you need to do away with this added cost of doing business."

If you treat bureaucrats as the enemy, that is what they will be. If, at any point in the process of working with them to make changes, you detect hostility, address that immediately. First, apologize for coming across the wrong way.

Then, state that you want both parties to come out ahead on this. But also make it clear that you aren't backing down from increasing efficiency (or whatever your positive statement was). Restate the positive outcome statement, and ask the other person if that is a common goal.

• If the answer is yes, respectfully ask, "What am I doing wrong?"
• If the answer is no, respectfully ask, "What is wrong with this goal and what would it take to get you onboard?"
• If the other person refuses to engage you, respectfully ask, "How can I get you engaged in this?"
• If all else fails, go to your alternative plan.

When working with other people, keep the concept of respect in front of mind. Most folks are insecure and easily see threats where none are intended. Simply being respectful goes a long ways toward preventing this. So does making the effort to seek the other person's viewpoint and then taking the time to listen when that person explains what that is.

When another person is stating his/her viewpoint, simply listen. Make that person the center of your universe for a few minutes, rather than thinking of counterargument. Doing this one thing will have an almost magical effect, because so few people listen to other people whose views differ from their own.

Respect the other person, realizing that doing so doesn't mean any less respect for yourself or your own position. Rather than being a zero sum game, respect is additive. Approach the situation with confidence (which comes from the preparation noted above) and respect for your own needs and position. Add to that respect for the other person and his/her needs and position (one way you demonstrate this is by listening, as mentioned above).

Extending respect will most likely result in reciprocal respect and the results you want.

This article is copyrighted by Crystalkeen, Mindconnection, and Chelsea Technologies Ltd. It may be freely copied and distributed as long as the original copyright is displayed and no modifications are made to this material. Extracts are permitted. The names Crystal Reports and Seagate Info are trademarks owned by Business Objects.