andydidyk.com

I’ve recently been reading quite a bit on eggstrategy.com, the recently created brainchild of Julie Fleischer (her previous blog was Innovation Ecosystem). I was introduced to Innovation Ecosystem via David Armano’s blog, and have been hooked since. Egg Strategy is a blog that features content from a variety of industry professionals, and is updated regularly. Check it out.

I’m a regular reader of Time magazine and of Time.com (especially their super-friendly mobile edition). Naturally, I was quite interested to see that they had put out an article that highlights the top 50 websites and top 5 “Worst websites” on the internet today. Their criteria is much different than the design community would use, so I anticipated some head-scratching while I read the article.

However, I was totally shocked to see that the number 1 “site to avoid” (also the number 1 worst site on the web) was eHarmony.com. From a design and functionality standpoint, eHarmony isn’t anything to write home about, and it’s probably not going to be at the top of the buzz lists for Web 2.0 applications. It is, however, a solidly designed and functioning site. According to Time magazine, the reason that everyone should avoid eHarmony is:

“Our main beef with this online dating site is its power to cause utter despair. eHarmony claims its more “scientific” approach to matchmaking differentiates it from competitors — its users complete extensive personality questionnaires, in order to connect them to others based on compatibility. In early 2006, eHarmony announced that more than 16,000 couples had married during the previous year as a result of meeting on the site, citing a 2005 Harris Interactive poll. That’s about 90 people finding love every day, a track record bound to inflate expectations. On a more typical dating site, where users are prone to making snap judgments based on photos and sketchy profiles, if you don’t find that special someone you’re less likely to take it personally. It’s easier to shake off because, after all, that’s hardly the real you up there on that site. But if you’ve taken the time to answer eHarmony’s 436 compatibility survey questions and paid its premium charges ($21 to $60 a month, depending on how many months you prepay), and the site then delivers terrible recommendations — or worse, rejects you as unmatchable — what do you tell yourself then? The company’s advice, to stick with it for several months to improve your odds of finding a soul mate, sounds all too self-serving (the longer you use the site the more you pay). The site also discriminates against gays.”

If you read the “discriminates against gays” article, you’ll see the real backbone of Time’s issue with eHarmony and how utterly absurd of an argument it is. The author even acknowledges at the end of his rant that’s it’s perfectly within eHarmoy’s rights as an independent company to choose not to provide services for men seeking men or for women seeking women. The author is gay himself, and he does a thorough job of pointing out that there are many sites that provide dating services for gays only that do not include services for straight people.

Time, normally a trusted source of objective news about what’s going on around the world, has really let their readership down by choosing to publish this article. To be clear – I’d just as quickly blast Time if they were saying that a site for gays was discriminating against straight people by now providing services for them. It’s not like eHarmony is a public institution, or holding back vital services from a particular community…it’s a dating service! People generally want something that is tailored to their particular tastes when it comes to a dating service. It’s no secret that eHarmony is a more conservative site for people who are trying to find that special someone. But so what? Imagine a dating service that did nothing to be selective – how would that do anything to increase the odds of like-minded people getting together?

Rather reviewing eHarmony using objective criteria (or even subjective criteria that is somewhat rational and consistent), some disgruntled writer at Time who evidently has had some bad luck in the dating arena has chosen to take out their personal frustrations on eHarmony.com. The review has nothing to do with site functionality, its impact on the online movement, or anything else. I’m very interested to see if there is any public backlash, as well as how eHarmony will respond.

Thanks for braving my rant!

You can say what you want about the “green” movement, which has as many political overtones as a Dixie Chick concert, but some aspects of it are great. MountainSmith, a well-known manufacturer of outdoor gear, has recently announced the arrival of two new lumbar packs that are made from recycled plastic water bottles. By their estimates, it sales of these products will keep approximately 1.1 million bottles out of the landfill each year, which is great news. The sad thing is, the technology to achieve this isn’t really anything new, so I’m grateful for the political firestorm that’s yielding things like hybrid cars and recycled fabrics. Most outdoor equipment manufacturers know that they cater to an environmentally-conscious crowd, so innovations have been abundant (and well-promoted) for years, but now utilizing such techniques can generate a very real ROI from an increasingly aware public.

Of course, I didn’t see a lumbar pack recycling program mentioned anywhere…yet =).

Let’s be honest, companies of every size struggle with managing people well. The groundbreaking book, “First Break All the Rules” surveyed 80,000 people to come to the same conclusion that most everyone knows already – one of the top reasons people leave a company is because of poor management.

Of course, in a capitalistic society no opportunity can be left unexploited. CNN Money just posted a very interesting article on an upcoming trend: employee management software. Now, I’m the first one to jump on the bandwagon when it comes to management software that takes every bit of data possible to give you a clear picture of business. SAP and SalesForce for example, and I love any project management software that does the same thing (Microsoft Project, Creative Manager Pro, etc.).

But what companies such as SuccessFactors are doing is creating software that provides the same services for the often murky and subjective realm of employee performance. The software is designed to let managers rate employees on a multitude of skills, attitudes, and the like, as well as to document specific instances of achievement and/or failure. The goal is twofold – first, to objectively evaluate an employee’s performance to determine what “value” they bring to the company, and second, to provide the employee with a real time picture of the company’s vision and goals for them.

It’s pretty difficult for me not to greet the arrival of this software with a bit of cynicism. If a manager isn’t effective enough to tell an employee how they are doing, it’s hard for me to believe that the arrival of new software could transform them into Super Manager. I know that the numbers are very hard to argue with, and that there are plenty of companies using the software “successfully”. However, I don’t know how I’d personally feel about working under such a system. Would I be motivated by why the company had in store for me on my 2-year plan, or would I despair when I saw that I was number #367 on a list of 1000 for a promotion?

I’m sure managers are trained on how to give the right data at the right time, and I know that proven metrics are the future of ALL business, not just advertising (who will be considerably affected by that shift over the next 10 years). But I’m not sure if I’m ready just yet to have my worth to the company generated by a composite score.

What are your thoughts on this? I’d love to get some different perspectives.