Bill Gates Is A Good Guy

By Larry Lange

Updated Friday, March 14, 2003
At the risk of slapping a bulls-eye on my forehead, I've got something to say to everyone who's mad as hell that Bill Gates is rich.

Get off his back!

I'm not talking the legions of Microsoft bashers who complain about its software, that Windows is a rip-off of Apple's Lisa, that security is nearly nonexistent, that IE bullied Netscape out of the running, that licensing agreements are unfair, and on and on.

What I'm talking about here is the complete and utter resentment over Bill Gates' financial wealth. A cursory Google search finds an unlimited amount of sites dedicated to trashing Gates on a personal level, attacks that go deep. "Kill Bill! Inflict pies, eggs and scissors upon Bill's head! And "Punch Bill Gates! Slap him around!" Even "Assassinate Bill Gates!"

I think it's time to give the man his due. Why? One word: Philanthropy.

Billions And Billions ...
Bill Gates and his wife Melinda have been giving away huge chunks of their fabulous wealth to some of the world's most needy cases, and they've been doing so for years. They endowed a philanthropic foundation with more than $24 billion, and to date The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has contributed more than $5 billion to related causes:



More than $3.1 billion to global health organizations
More than $1.4 billion to improve educational opportunities, which includes an initiative to bring computers, Internet access, and training to public libraries in low-income communities in the U.S.
More than $380 million to other special projects and annual giving campaigns
More than $260 million to community projects in the Pacific Northwest.

Check out some of the specifics from just the past few months:

At the World Economic Forum meeting in January, Gates wrote a check for $200 million to determine the leading causes of death in developing countries, and to entice scientists to address them. This follows Gates' commitment of three years ago at the Forum, when he ponied up $750 million to worldwide vaccine programs. So far, that has resulted in the vaccinations of more than 10 million children, preventing more than 100,000 premature deaths.

Also in January, Gates gave $1.5 million to the International Women's Media Foundation Announces Campaign, in order to train African women journalists to become better reporters and educators on healthcare issues like HIV and AIDS—diseases that could literary kill the entire population of the continent.

And in February, Gates provided $31 million to create a nationwide network of 168 alternative schools for 36,000 kids who couldn't make it in traditional high schools, particularly African-American and Hispanic students.

I could go on here, but you're probably dying to know: Why does he do it? What's the hidden agenda? To avoid taxes? To improve his image in light of the government's high-profile antitrust suit?

The Giving Type
It's very simple. Gates' philanthropy is consistent with what he's been saying for years: That he will give away most of his fortune before he dies, so that his children aren't burdened with tremendous wealth, will be responsible for themselves, and will learn to be entrepreneurs of their own.

But the grants aren't given willy-nilly. Look at the details and it's clear that Gates is approaching crises with solid research and cold, hard thought; figuring out exactly how and where to spend the money—and then cutting the checks. Which is why he's getting scientists and the media involved in the AIDS crisis and giving educators real schools in which to work. And the checks don't go the usual suspects like the United Way; rather, Gates devises and underwrites pro-active strategies for professionals to get involved with, so they can give responsibly of themselves.

So what, you say? Maybe Gates is just looking to pass the "tombstone test," that he wants to be remembered not just for technology but as a Samaritan who put his money where his mouth was? Well, maybe so. But who among us doesn't want that?

All right, so maybe he's giving away his money to expand Microsoft's markets? Doubtful. Sure, Microsoft wants to grab coveted engineering talent from other countries, just as all the leading tech firms do. But who else is personally traveling to India to commit $100 million to fight HIV and AIDS there? Because that's just what he did last November—and he took a lot of guff for it too. For instance, one Indian Web poster, Subhomoy Mukherjee, wrote: "I strongly feel there is some sort of hidden interest lying behind this act. Maybe for building up other development centre or marketing for Windows."

C'mon—I've been to India, and you don't face the harrowing poverty there without literally dropping to your knees in anguish. I don't care how cold-hearted he's perceived to be, or how rich he is, Gates had to have been moved.

Know what I think? I think Gates-bashers are just jealous. Bottom line. They're angry he's still the richest person on the planet, and they were probably even happy that his worth fell about $10 billion last year because of the economy. I can hear them now: "Aw, too bad for Billy-boy, out $10 billion, what a shame."

But you can't bash Gates when he writes: "Our grant-making is grounded in the belief that the death of a child in Africa is no less tragic than the death of a child in America, and the understanding that those of us who were born in rich countries have a fundamental responsibility to help those who weren't." You can't fight him when he says: "This new century brings with it exciting advances in health and learning. We all share the responsibility of ensuring that these opportunities are not out of reach for the people who need them the most."

You know, he might just be doing it because he actually cares. At one point during the World Economic Forum in January, U.S. health secretary Tommy Thompson turned to Bill Gates and said matter-of-factly: "What a wonderful human being you are."

Sure, that's a little gushy, but it sounds about right to me.

Read More

Top 10 New Manager Mistakes

Guide Picks - From F. John Reh,Your Guide to Management. Managing can be a little daunting at first. A recent poll found almost 50% of managers received NO training before starting the job. Here is a list of the most common mistakes new managers make so you can avoid making them too.

1) Think you know everything.

If you were just promoted to Production Manager, you may feel you know everything about production. Even if that were true, and it isn't, you sure don't know everything about the most important part of your new job, managing people. Listen to the people around you. Ask for their input when appropriate. Keep an open mind.

2) Show everyone who's in charge.

Trust me, everyone in your group knows who the new manager is. You don't have to make a big show about being "the boss". You do, however, have to demonstrate that, as the boss, you are making a positive difference.

3) Change everything.

Don't re-invent the wheel. Just because the way something is done isn't the way you would do it, it isn't necessarily wrong. Learn the difference between "different" and "wrong".

4) Be afraid to do anything.

Maybe you didn't ask for the promotion. Maybe you are not sure you can do the job. Don't let that keep you from doing the job the best you can. Upper management wouldn't have put you into the job if they didn't have confidence that you could handle it.

5) Don't take time to get to know your people.

Maybe you worked alongside these people for years. That doesn't mean you know them. Learn what makes them excited, how to motivate them, what they fear or worry about. Get to know them as individuals, because that's the only way you can effectively manage them. Your people are what will make or break you in your quest to be a good manager. Give them your attention and time.

6) Don't waste time with your boss.

Since he/she just promoted you, surely he/she understands how busy you are and won't need any of your time, right? Wrong. Your job, just like it was before you became a manager, is to help your boss. Make sure to budget time to meet with him/her to both give information and to receive guidance and training.

7) Don't worry about problems or problem employees.

You can no longer avoid problems or hope they will work themselves out. When something comes up, it is your job to figure out the best solution and get it done. That doesn't mean you can't ask for other's input or assistance, but it does mean you are the person who has to see it gets taken care of.

8) Don't let yourself be human.

Just because you are the boss doesn't mean you can be human, that you can't laugh, or show emotion, or make an occassional mistake.

9) Don't protect your people.

The people in your group will be under pressure from every direction. Other departments may want to blame you for failed interfaces. Your boss may want to dump all the unpleasant jobs on your department. HR may decide the job classifications in your area are overpaid. It's your job to stand up for your people and make sure they are treated as fairly as possible. They will return the loyalty.

10) Avoid responsibility for anything.

Like it or not, as the manager you are responsible for everything that happens in your group, whether you did it, or knew about it, or not. Anything anyone in your group does, or doesn't do, reflects on you. You have to build the communications so there are no surprises, but also be prepared to shoulder the responsibility. It goes hand-in-hand with the authority.

Read More

How an organization defines and measures progress toward its goals

Key Performance Indicators (KPI) - From F. John Reh,Your Guide to Management.

How an organization defines and measures progress toward its goals

Key Performance Indicators, also known as KPI or Key Success Indicators (KSI), help an organization define and measure progress toward organizational goals.

Once an organization has analyzed its mission, identified all its stakeholders, and defined its goals, it needs a way to measure progress toward those goals. Key Performance Indicators are those measurements.

What Are Key Performance Indicators (KPI)

Key Performance Indicators are quantifiable measurements, agreed to beforehand, that reflect the critical success factors of an organization. They will differ depending on the organization. A business may have as one of its Key Performance Indicators the percentage of its income that comes from return customers. A school may focus its Key Performance Indicators on graduation rates of its students. A Customer Service Department may have as one of its Key Performance Indicators, in line with overall company KPIs, percentage of customer calls answered in the first minute. A Key Performance Indicators for a social service organization might be number of clients assisted during the year.

Whatever Key Performance Indicators are selected, they must reflect the organization's goals, they must be key to its success,and they must be quantifiable (measurable). Key Performance Indicators usually are long-term considerations. The definition of what they are and how they are measured do not change often. The goals for a particular Key Performance Indicator may change as the organizations goals change, or as it get closer to achieving a goal.

Key Performance Indicators Reflect The Organizational Goals

An organization that has as one of its goals "to be the most profitable company in our industry" will have Key Performance Indicators that measure profit and related fiscal measures. "Pre-tax Profit" and "Shareholder Equity" will be among them. However, "Percent of Profit Contributed to Community Causes" probably will not be one of its Key Performance Indicators. On the other hand, a school is not concerned with making a profit, so its Key Performance Indicators will be different. KPIs like "Graduation Rate" and "Success In Finding Employment After Graduation", though different, accurately reflect the schools mission and goals.

Key Performance Indicators Must Be Quantifiable

If a Key Performance Indicator is going to be of any value, there must be a way to accurately define and measure it. "Generate More Repeat Customers" is useless as a KPI without some way to distinguish between new and repeat customers. "Be The Most Popular Company" won't work as a KPI because there is no way to measure the company's popularity or compare it to others.

It is also important to define the Key Performance Indicators and stay with the same definition from year to year. For a KPI of "Increase Sales", you need to address considerations like whether to measure by units sold or by dollar value of sales. Will returns be deducted from sales in the month of the sale or the month of the return? Will sales be recorded for the KPI at list price or at the actual sales price?

You also need to set targets for each Key Performance Indicator. A company goal to be the employer of choice might include a KPI of "Turnover Rate". After the Key Performance Indicator has been defined as "the number of voluntary resignations and terminations for performance, divided by the total number of employees at the beginning of the period" and a way to measure it has been set up by collecting the information in an HRIS, the target has to be established. "Reduce turnover by five percent per year" is a clear target that everyone will understand and be able to take specific action to accomplish.

Next: KPI Must be Key To Organizational Success

Key Performance Indicators Must be Key To Organizational Success

Many things are measurable. That does not make them key to the organization's success. In selecting Key Performance Indicators, it is critical to limit them to those factors that are essential to the organization reaching its goals. It is also important to keep the number of Key Performance Indicators small just to keep everyone's attention focused on achieving the same KPIs.

That is not to say, for instance, that a company will have only three or four total KPIs in the company. Rather there will be three or four Key Performance Indicators for the company and all the units within it will have three, four, or five KPIs that support the overall company goals and can be "rolled up" into them.

If a company Key Performance Indicator is "Increased Customer Satisfaction", that KPI will be focused differently in different departments. The Manufacturing Department may have a KPI of "Number of Units Rejected by Quality Inspection", while the Sales Department has a KPI of "Minutes A Customer Is On Hold Before A Sales Rep Answers". Success by the Sales and Manufacturing Departments in meeting their respective departmental Key Performance Indicators will help the company meet its overall KPI.

Good Key Performance Indicators vs. Bad

Bad:

• Title of KPI: Increase Sales
• Defined: Change in Sales volume from month to month
• Measured: Total of Sales By Region for all region
• Target: Increase each month

What's missing? Does this measure increases in sales volume by dollars or units? If by dollars, does it measure list price or sales price? Are returns considered and if so do the appear as an adjustment to the KPI for the month of the sale or are they counted in the month the return happens? How do we make sure each sales office's volume numbers are counted in one region, i.e. that none are skipped or double counted? How much, by percentage or dollars or units, do we want to increase sales volumes each month?(Note: Some of these questions may be answered by standard company procedures.)

Good:

• Title of KPI: Employee Turnover
• Defined: The total of the number of employees who resign for whatever reason, plus the number of employees terminated for performance reasons, and that total divided by the number of employees at the beginning of the year. Employees lost due to Reductions in Force (RIF) will not be included in this calculation.
• Measured: The HRIS contains records of each employee. The separation section lists reason and date of separation for each employee. Monthly, or when requested by the SVP, the HRIS group will query the database and provide Department Heads with Turnover Reports. HRIS will post graphs of each report on the Intranet.
• Target: Reduce Employee Turnover by 5% per year.

What Do I Do With Key Performance Indicators?

Once you have good Key Performance Indicators defined, ones that reflect your organization's goals, one that you can measure, what do you do with them? You use Key Performance Indicators as a performance management tool, but also as a carrot. KPIs give everyone in the organization a clear picture of what is important, of what they need to make happen. You use that to manage performance. You make sure that everything the people in your organization do is focused on meeting or exceeding those Key Performance Indicators. You also use the KPIs as a carrot. Post the KPIs everywhere: in the lunch room, on the walls of every conference room, on the company intranet, even on the company web site for some of them. Show what the target for each KPI is and show the progress toward that target for each of them. People will be motivated to reach those KPI targets. Page 1: Key Performance Indicators

Read More

How the 80/20 rule can help you be more effective

Pareto's Principle - The 80-20 Rule - From F. John Reh, Your Guide to Management.

In 1906, Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto created a mathematical formula to describe the unequal distribution of wealth in his country, observing that twenty percent of the people owned eighty percent of the wealth. In the late 1940s, Dr. Joseph M. Juran inaccurately attributed the 80/20 Rule to Pareto, calling it Pareto's Principle. While it may be misnamed, Pareto's Principle or Pareto's Law as it is sometimes called, can be a very effective tool to help you manage effectively.

Where It Came From
After Pareto made his observation and created his formula, many others observed similar phenomena in their own areas of expertise. Quality Management pioneer, Dr. Joseph Juran, working in the US in the 1930s and 40s recognized a universal principle he called the "vital few and trivial many" and reduced it to writing. In an early work, a lack of precision on Juran's part made it appear that he was applying Pareto's observations about economics to a broader body of work. The name Pareto's Principle stuck, probably because it sounded better than Juran's Principle.

As a result, Dr. Juran's observation of the "vital few and trivial many", the principle that 20 percent of something always are responsible for 80 percent of the results, became known as Pareto's Principle or the 80/20 Rule. You can read his own description of the events in the Juran Institute article titled Juran's Non-Pareto Principle.

What It Means
The 80/20 Rule means that in anything a few (20 percent) are vital and many(80 percent) are trivial. In Pareto's case it meant 20 percent of the people owned 80 percent of the wealth. In Juran's initial work he identified 20 percent of the defects causing 80 percent of the problems. Project Managers know that 20 percent of the work (the first 10 percent and the last 10 percent) consume 80 percent of your time and resources. You can apply the 80/20 Rule to almost anything, from the science of management to the physical world.

You know 20 percent of you stock takes up 80 percent of your warehouse space and that 80 percent of your stock comes from 20 percent of your suppliers. Also 80 percent of your sales will come from 20 percent of your sales staff. 20 percent of your staff will cause 80 percent of your problems, but another 20 percent of your staff will provide 80 percent of your production. It works both ways.

How It Can Help You
The value of the Pareto Principle for a manager is that it reminds you to focus on the 20 percent that matters. Of the things you do during your day, only 20 percent really matter. Those 20 percent produce 80 percent of your results. Identify and focus on those things. When the fire drills of the day begin to sap your time, remind yourself of the 20 percent you need to focus on. If something in the schedule has to slip, if something isn't going to get done, make sure it's not part of that 20 percent.

There is a management theory floating around at the moment that proposes to interpret Pareto's Principle in such a way as to produce what is called Superstar Management. The theory's supporters claim that since 20 percent of your people produce 80 percent of your results you should focus your limited time on managing only that 20 percent, the superstars. The theory is flawed, as we are discussing here because it overlooks the fact that 80 percent of your time should be spent doing what is really important. Helping the good become better is a better use of your time than helping the great become terrific. Apply the Pareto Principle to all you do, but use it wisely.

Manage This Issue
Pareto's Principle, the 80/20 Rule, should serve as a daily reminder to focus 80 percent of your time and energy on the 20 percent of you work that is really important. Don't just "work smart", work smart on the right things.

Read More

July 2, 2005

Microsoft to Pay I.B.M. $775 Million in Settlement

By JOHN MARKOFF

SAN FRANCISCO, July 1 - Microsoft agreed on Friday to pay I.B.M. $775 million to settle claims growing out of the antitrust lawsuit brought by the Justice Department against Microsoft in 1995. I.B.M. will also receive a $75 million credit toward the use of Microsoft software.

The settlement is one of the largest in a series of settlements Microsoft has struck in its effort to resolve its legal troubles after Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson of Federal District Court in Washington ruled in 2000 that it had engaged in anticompetitive practices.

I.B.M., in negotiating a settlement with Microsoft, held back from filing a separate lawsuit. Indeed, the two rivals have recently become partners in some areas. For example, Microsoft will use I.B.M. microprocessor chips in its new game console, the Xbox 360, which is scheduled to be introduced this fall.

Microsoft executives said the settlement with I.B.M. addressed all discriminatory pricing and overcharge claims growing from the federal antitrust case, including claims related to the I.B.M. OS/2 operating system and SmartSuite products. Under the deal, I.B.M. agreed to defer consideration of filing claims related to I.B.M.'s server hardware and server software business for two years.

"It's an important milestone for us that marks the end of a significant effort," Microsoft's chief counsel, Brad Smith, said.

An I.B.M. spokesman, Scott Brooks, said the company was pleased to "resolve this amicably without having to go to greater extremes and we're looking ahead."

Executives at the companies said settlement negotiations began in November 2003 and were stepped up in the last two months because "tolling agreements" that extended the statue of limitations on claims related to the federal antitrust case were set to expire this month.

The claims first emerged in the late 1980's when Microsoft and I.B.M. agreed to develop the OS/2 operating system, which was intended as a replacement for MS-DOS, the original operating system for the I.B.M. PC.

In November 1989, the two companies publicly agreed to develop OS/2 first for high-end computing systems with more than four megabytes of memory. Microsoft, however, proceeded to develop its Windows operating system as an alternative for business customers, undercutting the agreement.

Microsoft's strategy affected not only I.B.M, but software makers like Lotus Development, which initially developed its software for OS/2 and not Windows.

Judge Jackson's ruling found that "from 1994 to 1997 Microsoft consistently pressured I.B.M. to reduce its support for software products that competed with Microsoft's offerings, and it used its monopoly power in the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems to punish I.B.M. for its refusal to cooperate."

Andrew I. Gavil, a law professor at Howard University, said that Microsoft had managed to resolve many of its legal troubles without radically altering its conduct.

"It's paying for peace," Professor Gavil said, "but it's not changing its behavior in any significant way."

In recent years, Microsoft has spent more than $3 billion settling lawsuits by its rivals, including a $1.6 billion deal with Sun Microsystems in 2004 and a $750 million deal with America Online, part of Time Warner, in 2003.

In April Microsoft agreed to settle claims with Gateway Computer arising out of the government's antitrust suit for $150 million. Microsoft said earlier this year that it would place $550 million in reserve for further antitrust-related claims.

The company said Friday that it would describe how it would account for the I.B.M. settlement when it reports its quarterly financial results in July.

"This is just cleaning up the remaining mess on the floor," said Robert E. Litan, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a former Justice Department prosecutor.

Mr. Litan also noted that while Microsoft's software monopoly in the home PC market has remained durable despite the federal antitrust ruling, the rise of the open-source Linux operating system, which is freely distributed, has proven a powerful counterweight to Microsoft's power in the corporate server market.

"You cannot underestimate the impact of Linux" on the computing industry in recent years, he said.

Microsoft also settled with Novell in November 2004 for $536 million for claims related to the antitrust case; however, Novell has since filed a second antitrust suit against Microsoft related to its WordPerfect word-processing software application.

Microsoft is also facing a lawsuit by RealNetworks over its Windows Media Player software and is appealing a $600 million antitrust ruling brought by European regulators.

As part of the ruling in 2000, Judge Jackson ordered that Microsoft be broken into two companies to curb its monopolistic practices. But the next year, the new Bush administration decided not to seek a breakup and the Justice Department settled in 2002.

Shares of I.B.M. shares rose 47 cents on Friday, to close at $74.67. Microsoft shares declined 13 cents, to close at $24.71.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/02/technology/02soft.html

Read More