Golf Ball Trialling

A non work-related blog this time, as I thought I’d share my recent experience of trialling different golf balls. I’ve always given a lot of thought to which ball to use; I think it’s mad to put a lot of effort into choosing clubs and a putter, possibly even having them all custom built, or at the very least custom fitted only to hit every shot with the first ball you find in your bag.

However, at a golfing event at the weekend I spoke to a Titleist ball specialist who persuaded me to get off my butt and actually go out and put some balls through their paces. I chose six balls, for reasons I’ll come on to, and spent a couple of hours on an almost deserted course seeing how they performed around the green, at short and longer distances and with my driver.

I made the whole test as objective as possible and promised myself that I would in future play the ball that scored highest in my tests. I left price out of the reckoning; golf’s my passion, so if I have to pay a bit more for better results I’ll do that, but I realise cost might be a factor for some players choosing a ball so I’ll include all the performance figures anyway.

I was very surprised at the final outcome, and immediately purchased a dozen of the “Winning” ball, which was one I would never have bought based on everything I have read about golf ball selection.

For information, my handicap has fluctuated between 16 and 19 over the last two years. I have no connection with any golf equipment manufacturer or with any of the sellers I list below. I just like golf.

Ball Selection

The six balls I trialled, reasons why and best price I could find:

Ball	Reason	Best price (Dozen new white)
Callaway Hex Warbird	I was given them by a rep. at Wentworth	£14.90 from www.golfonline.co.uk
TaylorMade Rocketballz (2013)	Changed to them a couple of months ago because all my clubs are now TaylorMade and they are performing well so I thought the balls might.	£19.99 inc P&P from www.americangolf.co.uk
Titleist Velocity	Given to me by the Titleist rep. who persuaded me to do this test.	£21.99 inc. handling fee from www.golfgeardirect.co.uk/
Bridgestone e6	I’ve played them for a year because they promise low spin speed and therefore straighter shots off the driver. Online ball selection sites suggest they are a good ball for high handicappers	£22.74 from eBay store
Titleist NXT Tour	I won them in a recent competition	£28.99 from www.ishop.co.uk
Titleist Pro v1x	Given to me by the Titleist rep. who persuaded me to do this test.	£29 inc. P&P from eBay store

The Tests

I hit two of each model for each test. This was the order I tested in:

1. 10yds chip on to the green with a 9 iron – common shot for me as my second shot doesn’t hit the green that often.

2. Chip over bunker on to green with 60º LW.

3. Full PW from 120yds.

4. Full 5 iron from light rough.

5. Driver off tee.

I excluded “Feel” from the tests because I don’t have the finesse to appreciate the difference except when I use something like a Top Flight, which I find so hard it feels like a brick.

Results

For each of the tests I ranked the balls from 1 to 6, 1 being the best performance, 6 being the poorest. If I hit any duff shots I excluded them from the results. So, the lower the number, the better the result.

Chip to green 9 iron

1. Pro v1x

2. NXT

3. e6

4. Velocity

T5 Rocketballz

T5 Callaway

Not too much difference in performance here if I’m honest but the top two did seem to get up off the ground more easily and have a nice, controlled roll to the hole on landing.

I was disappointed to see the Rocketballz – my current ball of choice – tie for fifth spot.

Chip over bunker, LW

1. Pro v1x

2. Callaway

3. Velocity

4. e6

5. Rocketballz

6. NXT

I could see all the balls spin in the air on this test, but the Pro v1x seemed to have that bit more and the landing was very controlled.

I was disappointed again to see the Rocketballz perform so poorly and very surprised to see the NXT come out in last place.

120yds PW

1. NXT

T2. Rocketballz

T2. e6

4. Velocity

5. Pro v1x

6. Callaway

I was very surprised to see the Pro v1x come fifth, but this perhaps highlights the weakness of the testing because I was using a small sample size for each ball.

5I from light rough

T1. Pro v1x

T1. Rocketballz

3. Velocity

4. e6

5. Callaway

6. NXT

The Pro v1x and the Rocketballz got up really well and flew straightest of all the balls on test.

Driver

I hit the balls more often with the driver than anything else because my scoring stats show that if I get a bad drive away I tend to score badly. This is contrary to Titleist’s argument that “You only use the driver 14 times a round so you should choose a ball that performs best round the greens” but I’ve collected my stats over a long period of time (years!) so I know my drive is important.

1. Pro v1x

T2. Callaway

T2. Velocity

T4. NXT

T4. e6

6. Rocketballz

Even Titleist admit that there is only about 5yds difference off the driver between their longest ball and the shortest, but when I hit shots off the sweet spot the Pro v1x positively zinged off the face and was straighter and longer than anything else I hit. I’d expect the Callaway to do well when I hit it well because it’s a harder ball and I was shocked to see the e6 and Rocketballz score at the bottom.

Overall, there wasn’t too much between first and sixth place when I struck the ball well; the acid test will be when I play a few rounds when inevitably there will be some poor drives – it’s all a matter of how bad the result when I don’t hit it off the sweet spot.

Aggregation

I added up the scores for close and middle distance to give me a little more information on which to base my choice of ball for this Saturday’s monthly medal. Remember, the lower the number the better the result:

Close (pitch and chip)

Pro v1x – 2

Velocity – 7

Callaway – 7

e6 – 7

NXT – 8

Rocketballz – 10

Middle distance (PW & 5I)

Rocketballz – 3

Pro v1x – 6

e6 – 6

Velocity – 7

NXT – 7

Callaway – 11

Next, I added up the total scores for all the tests:

Pro v1x - 9

Velocity – 16

e6 - 17

NXT - 19

Rocketballz – 19

Callaway - 20

Conclusion

The sample size – two of each model for each test except the driver - was quite small, which makes results less reliable. On another day if I were swinging the club better or worse I might have recorded different results.

Nothing I’ve written is intended to suggest that anyone else will achieve the same results, or to recommend a ball to anyone else; it’s just what I found. It’s also surprisingly time-consuming and less surprising to know that it’s not easy to find a time to do all this on the course without making a nuisance of yourself. I deliberately picked early evening when the weather was grey so the course would be quiet and I only had to call three people through in two hours.

If I take the results as pretty reliable for me it’s fairly clear that I like the Rocketballz primarily because of what I achieve with it for my second (and third!) shots on each hole. I frequently leave the green scratching my head in wonderment how I managed to be so close to the green in two and still walk off with a poor score. Perhaps the performance of the Rocketballz in this test go some way to explain that, and vindicate Titleist’s view.

I was genuinely shocked at the performance of the Pro v1x for my short game. I’ve always thought it was a ridiculous argument that a ball Tiger Woods uses (OK, I know he uses the Pro v1) could possible be the right ball for a high handicapper but the tests suggest otherwise.

So long as the Pro v1x doesn’t punish my off-centre drives more than any of the other balls I ought to be able to score better with it because of its superior performance round the green.

I started this test with no expectations of the Callaway and the NXT because they were only included because I was given them. I expected the e6 and the Rocketballz to perform well because all the research I had done told me they were good balls for my handicap and game. I expected the Velocity and Pro v1x to be erratic for anything other than round the green because of their spin speeds.

I consciously tried to avoid keeping a running score as I did each test because I didn’t want early results to influence the way I approached later tests. In the event, when I did total it all up, I was genuinely surprised to discover the Pro v1x had performed so well. Only time will tell of course, but I’ve bought a dozen to see what happens to my stats.

As I said earlier, I’m not recommending any ball to anyone, or making claims that these tests were in any way scientific, but I recorded them in case people were interested. I’d really like to hear what people think and if you have done any of this kind of testing of your own.

Valuing Staff and Developing Careers

When I started my new role as Director of Project Management at OpenBet the role of PMs here took me by surprise. OpenBet as an organisation had little understanding of project management – thankfully, because that’s why they needed me!

The work carried out by PMs differed wildly across the organisation, with some doing a fairly recognisable job whilst others were little more than admin assistants. There was also no standard project management methodology in place. Small wonder, then, that morale was low and attrition rates high.

Setting the wheels in motion to establish a company-wide methodology was the logical and easy first step – basing it largely on PRINCE 2 and ensuring that all PMs gained PRINCE 2 certification.

What I considered to be far more important was to create a meaningful career path for project managers, sending out a clear message that their contributions are valued at OpenBet.

Given my history with the Association for Project Management (APM), the APM’s Competence Framework was the logical starting point.

APM’s Registered Project Professional (RPP) process elevates 27 key competencies as the ones to be most closely evaluated when assessing a candidate for RPP status. At OpenBet we identified a subset of those, being the 20 most relevant competencies for PMs’ day-jobs in the company.

We then encouraged PMs – and by that I mean anyone on the PM career path from Project Administrator to Programme Director – to complete a self-assessment measuring his or her experience against those 20 competencies. This enabled them, in agreement with their line managers, to create SMART objectives targeted to boost their overall competence whilst at the same time contributing to OpenBet’s goals.

Hand in hand with that we introduced the notion of a Continuing Professional Development (CPD) Log and encouraged PMs to maintain one, logging a minimum of 35 hours per annum – the APM’s minimum requirement.

All line managers were mandated to hold one-to-one mentoring sessions at a minimum of once a fortnight, and they were given personal objectives that ensured they also completed all mid-year and end-of-year appraisals on time and to a high standard.

Finally, we introduced “Lunch & Learn” sessions – a monthly gathering of the whole PM community with a guest speaker, internal or external, to speak on a topic of interest at a one-hour session where a finger buffet is provided. For example, we have had presentations on the APM and on agile project management amongst other topics. We video these sessions to ensure that anyone who cannot attend, e.g. we have PMs in Australia and Canada, can catch up via the company wiki.

The response from the PM community has been quite dramatic. At the first few meetings PMs were introducing themselves to each other, such was the level of “partitioning” between the divisions. They decided independently that completing a self-assessment, although private to them and their line manager, should be compulsory for all PMs, and those PMs lacking qualifications such as PRINCE 2 and MoR (Management of Risk) began asking for training.

Their status has been raised within the company and many are telling me that at last they feel “valued” and believe there is a recognisable career path for project managers in OpenBet.

All of this has raised the standard we require from our project managers and we are attracting and keeping excellent people. Ironically, with a self-assessment matrix and a CPD Log we have armed our project managers with a great “Sales brochure” should they want to move on, and at the same time our attrition rate in the PM community has shrunk to zero. That confirms to me my belief that if a company demonstrably values its people it will reap the benefits.

Steve Syder is Director of Professional Services at Openbet, the world's leading provider of interactive gaming and betting solutions. He is a Fellow of the APM, an RPP Assessor and a contributor to the 6^th Edition of the APM’s BoK.

Matrix Management & Successful Projects

Matrix Management & Successful Projects

This article argues that an organisation’s inability to successfully dovetail matrix management alongside its vertical reporting structure is a major threats to project success…

In an increasingly complex world business change programmes and projects are also increasingly complex. More often than not, the work of a project crosses functional boundaries within an organisation.

This often leads to confusion within organisations and project teams – or, more accurately, line-managers and their direct reports. This contributes significantly to poor collaboration within projects and the added likelihood of project failure.

Traditionally, organisations are arranged vertically within functions, where line-managers have direct reports to whom they allocate targets and tasks and then manage their people accordingly.

If done well, the targets set will be derivatives of the line-manager‘s targets, which in turn are derived from the organisation’s strategic goals. The problem with this model, though, is that the accountability to which line-managers are held can quickly turn to blame if their functions fail to perform well, especially during tough economic times.

There are two important behavioural consequences arising from this, both of which decrease the likelihood of success in cross-functional projects.

The first is that line-managers take a stronger directive stance with their direct reports who, in a prevailing blame culture, will do exactly what is asked of them by their line-managers. This at best stifles initiative and flair and at worst makes the workplace a thoroughly miserable place to be.

The second threat to successful project delivery is caused because line-managers and direct reports place the non-failure of their function above the success of the cross-functional project. Whenever there is a conflict of interest between the function and the project people will rally behind the permanent structure – the function – and subjugate the temporary structure – the project.

People might argue that they do not behave in this way; line-managers in particular are wont to claim they behave corporately, but the weight of project-failure statistics is a compelling counter-argument.

Organisations implicitly accept that it is far more acceptable for a project to fail than it is for a function to fail, and in any case, managers can always dilute the success criteria for a project to lessen the apparent failure. However, it need not be this way.

If an organisation wants to undertake successful cross-functional projects the solution is to implement effective matrix management. Put simply, matrix management means emphasising the cross-functional structure over the vertical structure. The functions, in addition to their business as usual work, become enablers for business change programmes and projects.

In this model, the team is formed by drawing from all the functions with a contribution to make to the project. The project manager becomes accountable for the success of the project, but because he[1] does not have line-management responsibility for the team members his leadership is derived from the team’s consent, not from his authority over team members.

This alters team behaviour. Team members jointly “own” the project and have a vested interest in its success. They instinctively understand that success will come from collaboration, and so they work in an adult way, seeking agreement and consensus within the team.

In turn, this fosters commitment, enthusiasm and creativity, as each team member feels part of a team, not merely a puppet of the function. For the duration of the project the focus for team members is the project. The success of the project becomes the team members’ success. Work becomes more rewarding and project success becomes more likely.

So where do line-managers fit into this horizontal model? They continue to play a key part in business as usual, and will more than likely be part of the project’s stakeholder liaison plan, to be kept informed and consulted, but in terms of the delivery of business change work they are one step removed. Their role in relation to the project team members from their function is limited to what could loosely be labelled “Pastoral care”:

·       Ensure that their direct reports are adequately trained and equipped to do the work expected of them

·       Be an escalation point for non-technical problems encountered on the project by the direct report(s)

·       Be an escalation point for the project manager if there are issues with the direct report

·       Support the direct-report’s development, and career-aspirations

·       Oversee staff appraisals, holidays, disciplinary matters etc.

Additionally, in respect of projects, line-managers should represent their function at the project Steering Group.[2] This empowers them to resolve issues the project manager is experiencing when they cannot be resolved at project level, and gives them an insight into how the project fits into the overall company strategy.

Attendance at Steering Group also increases co-operation between line-managers across the functions for the good of the project. Cross-functional tensions don’t arise when a Steering Group is committed to a project because undertaking the project has been a corporate decision. Tensions arise when there is resource contention across projects competing for priority, and this is a matter for a Portfolio Executive or similar forum, it should not be the signal for a bun-fight between function heads.

If matrix management is working properly, this benefits all concerned; the project team is left to concentrate entirely on successful delivery, free from the day-to-day concerns, or interference, of the function from which they have been seconded. Line-managers, then, can concentrate on what should be their core work – ensuring that the function has the right level of staffing, with the relevant competencies to support the organisation’s strategic aims, undertake business as usual within the function and be seconded to the right projects as necessary according to the organisation’s priorities.

Steve Syder is a programme Manager specialising in eCommerce and programme recovery. He is in his 21st year as an interim. To contact him visit www.stevesyder.com

---

[1] Project managers can be male or female. I use the male pronoun because I am male.

[2] In a large and complex project it is likely that the line-managers’ managers will be the ones attending Steering Group. In any event, Steering Group should include senior managers with a full understanding of how the project satisfies corporate strategy.

Certainty or innovation - what will your stakeholders opt for?

Despite having all the right badges and certificates for methodologies, and despite producing (at least) my fair share of PIDs, PDDs, Communication Strategies etc. etc. I remain unconvinced that they will ever lead to innovation and excellence.

This "project bureaucracy" leads stakeholders to expect - and demand - certainty, which roughly translates as "safe". Nothing great was ever achieved by taking the safe route, and it almost invariably leads to disappointment because certainty cannot be guaranteed on day 1.

We've all heard the cliches - "A project plan is only 100% accurate the day after the project completes" and "Projects never go over budget, they are under-estimated in the first place".

I have seen too many times organisations where the primary outputs of a project are the governance artefacts; woe betide anyone who is late updating the RAID Log - it's far more important than making sure the REAL project products are the best they can be.

Similarly, some organisations, most notably public sector ones, who tend to be the most risk averse, hide behind governance as an excuse when projects fail; how often have you seen a civil servant bemoaning (yet another) large failed project by saying "We followed all the processes and procedures..."?

Yes, I'm sure their governance documentation is a joy to behold but it won't cut much mustard with taxpayers who just wanted a good [insert whatever you like here... health records system, passport system, border control mechanism - you get the idea]

I think this is why I am more and more drawn to agile development. Project bureaucracy leads almost inevitably into a waterfall development, where each "gate" provides certainty before the project moves on to the next phase.

Real life isn't like that. The average person, faced with, say, a project to landscape a garden with the help of some friends doesn't create a set-in-stone project plan including quality reviews and reports to their spouse. They choose a bit to tackle, complete it and move on to the next bit until the garden is complete.

You can almost picture them standing at the edge of the garden on the first weekend saying "Let's tackle x first" (Hmm - sounds a bit like a sprint plan to me) then on day two discussing where they got to and what's next (scrum, anyone?).

When I picture this, I also picture a group of people self-organising and working as a team. No bureaucracy, no over-burdening control but plenty of ambition, fun and progress.

OK, people making the financial investment need some kind of reassurance that they will receive value for money, but this does not mean they need a library's-worth of governance documentation generating.

Far better to keep them informed along the way. Prototype, demonstrate, inform, but above all, be inspired.

Socialising the Workplace

As an interim for many years now, I often find myself at a client’s site frustrated because the software they provide does not measure up to the software I use at home. The reason I am so enthusiastic about the power of IT is because it has the potential to dramatically improve the efficiency of an organisation or an individual.

I invest in software that makes me – I believe - very efficient, often automating tasks that would otherwise be time-consuming. It also improves the way I store and display data, e.g. programme plans, brainstorming and contact management, so I don’t “lose stuff” and I know what conversations I’ve had with whom a year or more ago and I can track agents’ performances over time.

The quantum shift in easily accessible software with the advent of mobile apps and the emergence of social networking sites is likely to cause similar frustration amongst people far younger than I am as they enter the workplace. Sites like Facebook, LinkedIn and others change the face of communication. Text messaging and video calling on smart phones similarly alter the way people communicate.

All this creates a huge shock to the system for new people entering the office only to find they have to communicate via email or book a room to hold meetings. In their social lives they have probably been announcing parties/plans/events etc. to their friends via Facebook for years, and suddenly, when they are supposedly in a professional environment, life slows to snail’s pace.

I’m not suggesting of course that business is conducted via Facebook, but I do believe that businesses must embrace socialising technology. That is to say central repositories for programme documentation, bulletin boards, instant messaging and wikis for faster, more efficient communication.

When I entered the workplace – just after the company archived the abacus – a quality review involved booking a meeting room, finding a convenient time for everyone, meeting to discuss the document, making the changes after the meeting and then literally walking the document around the office to confirm to people that the agreed changes had been made. How much better now to use software to store the document where everyone involved can access it and make comments. Furthermore, it will be subject to version control so the history of changes is easily tracked. We used to call that “Configuration management” and employ someone just for that!

With efficient systems, no-one is in any doubt which document is the current version and discussions are open for all to see.

This has implications for programme management of course. Security of the documentation must be paramount, and user access should be allocated judiciously. Perhaps more important than these mechanics is the implication for programme morale. I believe this programme socialising generates far more of a team ethos. Stakeholders aren’t limited to weekly – or even monthly – updates and any problems aired have the potential to be answered quicker because the whole team is aware there is an issue.

This more collaborative way of working should lead to greater motivation, more transparency and a greater degree of trust. It just needs managers to update their thinking and embrace what’s new – arguably the very reason they came into IT in the first place.

I’d like to hear your views and experiences; is your workplace socialised? Are a wiki and instant messaging cutting edge for you, or business as usual? Perhaps they are yesterday’s news and you are far more sophisticated?

Steve Syder RPP, FAPM is a freelance programme manager and RPP Assessor based in London. His web site is www.stevesyder.com

Things looking up?

A new year and a  new search for a fresh assignment.

Early signs are that the market for interim programme managers is improving. The job boards seem fairly busy and agents are calling.

My fingers are crossed for something interesting to come along soon.

Quiet Time

After a really hectic year on two different assignments with virtually no time off I'm now enjoying a break.

Playing a lot of golf (and improving!), doing those jobs that always seem to be ignored when you're working and catching up with old friends.

I've let it be known that I'm looking for a new assignment for the New Year, but I don't expect much to happen in the market now until January.

Programme Management for the 21st Century