[Original] what caused the conflict between business personnel and technical personnel?

During my two-month internship, as a technician, I often want to communicate with business personnel. Especially after taking over the work of the Public talent network, every day's work has almost become an endless demand for business personnel. The business changes frequently, and the technology changes constantly as a result. Once upon a time, the functions changed by the business staff in the morning were modified by the business staff in the afternoon. The changing results of business personnel often lead to a loss of technical personnel, which leads to conflicts between the two parties. Technical staff think that business staff are changing too quickly and at a loss. On the other hand, the service attitude of technical staff is poor. In the game between the two parties, not only communication costs are extremely high, but also the cooperation between the two parties is often not harmonious and image work is extremely great.

In the original company, there are generally two ways for businesses to raise technical requirements

1. Contact the technical staff directly to make changes.

2. submit a written request to the technical department director, who will arrange for the personnel to modify the request.

Although such a rule is stipulated, in my actual work, business personnel seldom submit written requirements according to the formal process. In fact, it is often the opposite, business personnel are more inclined to directly find the technology to put forward their own needs. No matter what the company requires, the business staff are still on their own, and there is little change. On the contrary, technicians complain about more and worse status after repeatedly requiring business requests to be normalized.

What causes the above results?

First, is there another better way of communication?

I once thought that there should be a better way of communication to solve the above problems through optimization of communication means. Although I haven't found such a good communication method yet, I learned from a chat with a friend from a large company (emerging company, which is currently the strongest in China, they are also the only two ways to put forward the demand and use them at the same time. The first direct communication method is adopted for a few urgent issues. For most problems, they think that the written requirement for standardization is more effective.

Aha? Why is the gap so big? Where is the gap?

As long as a company can successfully use these two communication methods, it will prove that the method itself is not wrong, where the errors are found elsewhere.

Then I asked my friends how the business staff of their company should distinguish which needs are urgent and adopt the form of face-to-face communication. If they are not urgent, they should submit them in writing. Based on my experience in the company, the business staff did not determine whether the task was urgent or whether the task was important when submitting the request. Ask them if their tasks are important. They all say they are important. Ask them when they need to be completed. They all say the sooner the better. Then I doubt, why can my friend's company correctly differentiate the urgent and important requirements?

My friend answered a very simple truth because of project management. If a project requires delivery at the end of the month, the request made on the 15th is of course not urgent. Of course, you need to submit a written request.

Ah! It was not a method issue, but a management issue!

It is not managed by a Technical Department, but by a business department!

In fact, as soon as I entered the company, I found that the company was weak in technical management. The development of the company's website group is basically a unit of one person, most of which isProgramCooperation with us. The company has no regulations on programming, or even connects to basicSource codeNone. I have always advocated standardized management. I entered the company and pointed out that it also hopes to bring standardized technical management to the company. Unfortunately, when I entered the company, not only did I successfully introduce standardized management, but I was also assimilated and started to develop nonstandard services.

Through this incident, I was deeply aware that the standardization of a company is definitely not just a department. As the internship Company is a serious business-oriented company, the behavior of the business department not only provides money for other departments, but also sets the tone for other departments. The management of business departments is chaotic and informal, and no other department can be standardized. Especially for the two closely related departments of technology and business, one party's chaos will certainly cause the other party's discomfort. In particular, when one party is the dominant department, this influence is even more aggravated, resulting in another department being unable to be standardized. No matter what regulations are introduced, it can only deal with official business at the end, and no one will execute them.

Okay, the reason is clear. Is the business department the cause?

Actually not. If a company has a non-standard department, what is the reason?

For some problems, contact the department manager. If a problem occurs globally, the responsibility of the general manager cannot be shirked. The root cause of a company's chaotic management at its subordinates lies in the sense of leadership. The company where a friend is located is not suitable for any old company, and it has not been in the city for a few years. In addition, the Beijing branch where a friend is located has just been established, and is in the initial stage of entrepreneurship. Of course, the accumulation of the company's management has a role, but it cannot be negative that the company's leadership attaches great importance to standardized management. Only the leadership's instructions can be executed by the lower level to generate competitiveness in the execution process.

In fact, during my internship, the company has introduced many management regulations to regulate the company's administrative process. Unfortunately, let alone the feasibility of these administrative specifications (the company's talent recruitment specifications are problematic). Simply put, there is a problem with the scope of the regulations. The company only introduced regulations for the administrative process, but did not introduce any regulations for the company's core business and technology.

In fact, the company's administrative specifications can be said to be necessary and easy. But the business and technical specifications of the company are indeed the soul of the soul, because only the two norms can truly cultivate the company's core competitiveness and build a unique culture of the company!

Today, with a few comments discussed with my friends, I suddenly woke up and noticed such truth. In fact, communication between each other is often the root of the spark of thinking. Of course, this is a family statement for your reference only.