Planners Engagement & Instant Feedback

Categories: Resource Planning, Management Tips
Planning is easy when you know what you’re doing and it does help a lot to know what the ‘bigger picture’ is. Many tools, however, do not offer this.

Have you ever been in a position where you feel you are being left out? Not intentionally, of course, but because of the shortcomings of the tools you’re working with. The feeling of getting bits and pieces of information and making your assumptions on that.

Bad communication is one thing - the inability to make sure everyone is up to date, aware of their position in a larger ‘machine’, but most of all, towards what the whole organization is moving.
Of course, this could very well be related to the managerial decision not to inform subordinates of such things, but then again, these are issues that are fixable simply by changing one’s professional attitude.

A whole different story is the choice of tools an organization has chosen to work with. It’s a bit like in communication - you can choose different kinds of professional attitudes: to be either professionally open or not. The same is with tools or softwares you’re using and it’s especially important when it comes to collaborative work.

Collaborative work tends to bring out the best and worst in us. Really put us out there. And in a way it’s logical: a work group inside and organization is in a way a small society. So is it wrong to assume that the same rules would apply in a work group inside an organization and within a society (a western, democratic one, I mean)?

Granted, there are several arguments to both support and oppose my theory, but you have to agree: there are a lot of similarities in work groups at the office and societies. Better yet, you could compare an organization to a country.

I believe, that employees best perform in an ‘open’ and ‘honest’ environment, where the communication within the organization, responsibilities and obligations are clear. Needless to say, several studies support that. So why should this not apply to a software the members of the organization are using?

I believe it’s only fair to treat the members of the organization as you would treat yourself, so why then use a software, that does not allow them to see the full picture?
I agree, that there could be security issues (most of which are probably highly guarded development plans of the organization), but to extend the ‘visibility’ to the extent of the member’s duties, is nothing short of a fair deal.

It was one of our customers, Ericsson, who a while ago described our software as an ‘engaging planner’. They liked the philosophy of engaging the members of the organization via Ganttic even more. We thank them for the comment and say ‘You’re welcome!’ in return.