About two years ago, my wife and I signed a contract for a unit in a condo to be built in the heart of Toronto’s Distillery District. While we are trilled with our purchase, and were treated extremely well during the purchase process (it is a very big purchase, so we expected this!), once we became unit holders this seems to have come to an end.

When we signed the contract we were told to budget $5 – 10k for various upgrades, which we did, but now we are doing everything in our power to avoid giving the developer any additional money. Why? Simply due to the manner we have been treated during this big ticket purchase. Here’s our problem:

1. We have been told our design appointment (the appointment where we make the upgrade decisions and pay for upgrades) would be only a few months away, three times. The first was 9 months ago. Each time, the developers made no reference to the previous announcement or offer an apology.
2. Now that our design appoint is finally booked, we were told that we could meet with the designers on any Saturday in advance of our booking. We have been there three times, and have yet to meet a designer. This becomes a major budgeting problem when the designer is the only person who can provide pricing.
3. When we finally did meet with someone (not the designer), we were only offered vague pricing, with an assurance they would follow-up with the designer to get prices for the items we were interested in. We have yet to hear anything back, even after I have followed up.

My issue is that we were willing to commit between $5 and $10k, this is a lot of money, we should be treated with respect in this process. The developers have been obviously arrogant in their approach, and have allowed sales people to write promises that make the upgrade process seem exciting.

Because we can only work with the developers specified contractor (the designer) and suppliers, they seem to feel they can make promises, do what ever they want, and we’ll pay for it. This seems to be the monopoly power the real-estate industry  has become accustom to holding, and it’s making me sick.

I can’t wait for an open MLS style system, and further regulation to erode these kinds of monopolies. In the mean time, I’ll be going to Home Depot for those upgraded closet doors.

After reading Rework by the founders of 37 Signals, I was inspired, but left disappointed.
Overall there are some great ideas on simplifying projects to find the core value, breaking big decisions down into facets that can be implemented quickly, and just getting to work – it’s all about how well you execute not how well you plan.

After these agile development inspired ideas, the book starts to unravel. In my view this book fails to prove how the philosophy of 37 signals can be scaled to a company larger than a dozen employees, and outside of the software industry. (37 Signals software is delivered over the internet making it extremely scalable). To be fair, the book tells the reader to embrace being a small business.

Highrise:
The book routinely uses their software Highrise as an example of how their company philosophy created the tool and led to its success. While I’m sure the delivery methodology to create the software was sound, the limits of the tool reveal an insight into the limits of the business philosophy being used.

The book argues that Highrise has enough features to be simple and work – they suggest all business should simplify this way. The authors admit that Highrise lacks many features, but they don’t care, they simply won’t sacrifice the simplicity of the software to meet a few customer demands. They even admit that they allow companies to outgrow the tool – do these companies move to evil complex software?

I agree that Highrise is great for most small business, and comes in at a fantastic price point. But the second you have any complex requirement, you’ll need a new CRM tool – it’s revealing when this is the software often referenced in the book – are they saying business will outgrow this business model?

Contrast this with a competitor of Highrise, Salesforce.com. Salesforce is rapidly introducing new features to it’s developer community and business users. Sure Salesforce is complex, but the flexibility afforded by Salesforce.com is required for most mid to large companies. The developer tools are rough around the edges, but it affords tremendous innovation, and the platform just keeps growing. Salesforce solicits feedback from users and rolls out features to meet these demands. Using this model of rapid innovation they have grown to a $10 billion company.

People / HR:
I have to reject most of the HR policies that this book suggests. Only hire when you feel pain, completely ignore academic achievement, don’t hire stars unless you have a specific job for them, face-to-face time is unnecessary, sales people are unnecessary … I could go on. These are just a few policies that if followed, could undermine any business trying to grow.

Simply put:
I love the ideas around project delivery and getting to work, but Rework left me wanting more. I feel the book doesn’t answer one critical question: would this approach work at any business? Or does it just work when a small group of very talented developers make a few software applications small business owners like?

Can this book be generalized as management gospel? No.

In Dan Ariely’s most recent book, The Upside of Irrationality, Ariely argues that people will place a higher perceived value on what they produce, than the value someone else would place on that item. This fact of life is a something we all need to learn when communicating with our customers. Quite frankly, most marketers or sales people overstate the value the customer or prospect will place on the message we deliver.

Remember, customers are so overwhelmed with information that there is a growing industry of software applications that sever our internet connection, hide application windows, and minimize tool bars, all in an effort to keep us focused.

If we accept that our message isn’t as valuable as we think, and add the fact that customers are overwhelmed with information, we should assume that our content will be ignored. Despite its ‘objective’ value.

Your ability to communicate with a prospect or customer is a privilege, the minute your message is considered noise, don’t be suppressed if you’re mentally, or electronically screened out.

I recently finished reading a fascinating essay on privacy and how it influences our social selves. In sort, it argues that as the walls of privacy erode, we will become less social. This is because we will use our ‘public selves’, and have no where to share our ‘private beliefs’.

The most recent Facebook privacy scandal raises a provocative question: As our lives become more public, do we risk becoming less social? … before rushing to judgment, think about the following passage.
_________

“Richard Sennett in his book The Fall of Public Man in which the logic of Industrial Society is said to lead to a “dead public space”: “When everyone has each other under surveillance, sociability decreases, silence being the only form of protection.”

The example he cites is that of the modern open-plan office: “when people are all day long visually exposed to one another, they are less likely to gossip and chat, more likely to keep to themselves.” This means that transparent environments are not necessarily conductive to social interaction. What is designed to boost efficiency and productivity in the workplace most certainly does not promote community spirit. Without the protection of a private sphere, people withdraw. Or, as the American sociologist formulated it: “Human beings need to have some distance from intimate observation by others in order to feel sociable.”