Tag: strategy

Edmonton aspires to eliminate poverty within a generation

More than 100,000 Edmontonians live in poverty – that’s 1 out of every 8 residents. Nearly 30% of those who live in poverty are children. Thousands of Edmontonians are unable to fulfill their true potential in life due to poverty. Furthermore, the cost of poverty to Albertans is estimated to be between $7.1 and $9.5 billion each year. We cannot continue trying to simply manage poverty – we need to invest in ending and preventing it. Can we eliminate poverty in Edmonton within a generation? I think we can.

Poverty Elimination Steering Committee

Over the last year, I’ve been a member of the Poverty Elimination Steering Committee, led by Councillors Henderson and Sohi and the United Way of the Alberta Capital Region. Made up of 26 members, our committee was established in 2012 and initially aligned its work with the United Way’s “Pathways out of Poverty” initiative, as well as the Province’s Poverty Reduction Strategy. The committee’s summary report was presented to City Council on March 3:

“The cost of not responding to poverty now will have enduring intergenerational effects on individuals, families and society. Investing in eliminating poverty today is creating a better future for all Edmontonians. We can end poverty in Edmonton in a generation and build a truly inclusive and vibrant city where prosperity is shared by all. A new conversation along with dynamic and nimble partnerships will bring us successfully to this goal.”

Shifting our approach from charity to investment and transforming the public conversation accordingly were key motives behind our work. I was happy to be able to contribute in a number of ways, including building the website and making poverty a key issue for candidates to consider during last year’s municipal election. Most of all, I was grateful for the opportunity to learn so much about this complex issue from some of the local leaders I most respect and admire.

Over the last couple of months it became clear that a Mayor’s Task Force would be established, so the committee shifted its efforts to identify focus areas for action. Based on community engagement sessions, research conducted, and other input, we identified five areas for the new task force to consider.

“These five Focus Areas for Action are all critical and strategic opportunity areas to advance real change and progress as Edmonton shifts the conversation from one of band aid solutions to comprehensive long-term change towards ending poverty. It is important to note that each focus area is related to, and dependent on, the other. None can be tackled in isolation, and it is essential to avoid creating new silos.”

focus areas for action

All of these areas are important, but I’m particularly interested in transportation. It was eye-opening to see how significant a barrier it can be during the poverty simulation I participated in. I was also surprised to learn throughout my time on the committee that for an increasing number of Albertans, transportation accounts for the greatest portion of monthly expenses, even more than housing. City Council is already very focused on transit and transportation in the city, and I hope they’ll seriously consider the impact of their decisions on poverty as they progress that work.

Our last committee meeting took place a few weeks ago, to finalize the report and prepare to pass the baton to the new task force.

Task Force for the Elimination of Poverty in Edmonton

City Council passed Bylaw 16765 establishing the “Task Force for the Elimination of Poverty in Edmonton” at its March 12 meeting. In his comments about the initiative, Mayor Iveson said:

“I think we are unafraid to dream of a more inclusive Edmonton and though it will take time and a shift in our thinking I really think Edmonton is perhaps one of the best places to show leadership on this, because we are the kind of city that can bring together business, academic experts, people in civil society and leadership, non-governmental organizations, faith communities; that is the Make Something Edmonton piece of this. We can rally the whole community around this the way we have around other complex challenges.”

If you get a chance, listen to the comments Council made about the initiative. Councillor Walters shared a personal story about poverty and talked about how important it is to help all Edmontonians reach their potential. Councillor Henderson and others also spoke passionately about the importance of the work.

The task force’s mandate is to prepare and present to City Council a report on poverty in Edmonton which includes:

  • information on the nature, extent, and causes of poverty within the Edmonton region;
  • a concrete plan for eliminating poverty in Edmonton within a generation;
  • recommendations to Council on how to implement the plan.

The volunteer members of the task force are:

  • Bishop Jane Alexander
  • Justin Archer
  • Jeffrey Bisanz
  • Kate Chisholm
  • Yvonne Chiu
  • Joseph Doucet
  • Sarah Eadie
  • Dr. Louis Francescutti
  • Mark Holmgren
  • Sandra Huculak
  • Eugene Ip
  • Tiffany Linke-Boyko
  • Maria Mayan
  • Carman McNary
  • Janice Melnychuk
  • Zahra Somani

There is also one spot reserved for an aboriginal member (to be selected by Aboriginal Round Table), one spot for a provincial government representative, and one spot for a federal government representative. Councillors Henderson and Sohi will still be involved, and of course Mayor Iveson will co-chair along with Jane Alexander. Additionally, the task force will have the ability to engage others via working groups.

By September, the task force will bring a report back to Council “providing possible amendments to include in the bylaw regarding definitions for ‘poverty’ and ‘generation’.” The bylaw states that the task force will fulfill its mandate by providing its report to Council on or before December 31, 2015.

What’s next?

Just three of the task force members (Yvonne, Mark, and Janice) were also on our Poverty Elimination Steering Committee. I point that out only to express a hope that the task force doesn’t end up repeating work that we’ve already done (in many ways, the committee was repeating work done by other organizations over the years). What’s needed is ownership and action, not more research and report writing. The bylaw does explicity state that “the task force will continue the work of the Edmonton Poverty Elimination Steering Committee” so I’m hopeful that will be the case.

On Thursday, March 20, dozens of Edmontonians will come together at the Shaw Conference Centre for the Mayor’s Symposium on Poverty. It’s an opportunity to review previous work and discuss next steps. I’m looking forward to meeting the members of the new task force and contributing to the direction it will go.

The work to eliminate poverty in Edmonton will not be easy nor will it be quick, but it is important. I want to end with this passage from our committee’s final report:

“We need to shift our focus from charity to investment, from poverty alleviation to poverty elimination, recognizing that social infrastructure is as important as physical infrastructure. We have to be people centred and place-based, seeking made in Edmonton solutions involving Edmontonians.”

Our goal is to end poverty in Edmonton within a generation. How can you help?

A vision for the future of transportation in Alberta

The Province is currently working on a new long-term transportation strategy for Alberta. Over the last two months, public discussions have been held throughout Alberta and in the spring, an online survey will be released.

“This Strategy – which will focus on all forms of transportation, connections and ways to move people and products – provide an overarching vision for Alberta’s transportation system over the next 50 years. It will also help guide government decisions on transportation investments, policies and programs.”

That’s a big challenge. But it’s exciting to consider!

Since I missed the meeting here in Edmonton, I took a look at the feedback form. It includes a number of questions that aim to capture what the public thinks about the strategy. One of the first deals with the proposed vision for the Transportation Strategy for Alberta:

“A world-class transportation system that is safe, sustainable and innovative, and that supports Alberta’s economy and quality of life.”

I suppose there’s nothing wrong with that, but it just seems rather bland, doesn’t it? It’s very expected. And phrases like “world-class” are just meaningless. The proposed vision is also incredibly similar to others. For instance, here is Transport Canada’s vision:

“A transportation system in Canada that is recognized worldwide as safe and secure, efficient and environmentally responsible.”

Needless to say, I’m not a fan of the proposed vision. It doesn’t tell me anything about what transportation in Alberta will look like in the future, especially as you could credibly argue that it reflects the current state of Alberta’s transportation system.

welcome to alberta
Welcome to Alberta by Magalie

What could it be instead? Well let’s consider the context.

The shift from rural to urban has been dramatic in Alberta. According to the 2011 federal census, more than 56% of Albertans now live in population centres larger than 100,000 people in size, and 83% live in urban areas of any size (compared to 81% nationally). We’re an urban province now more than ever. The economic power of cities cannot be ignored.

We know that vehicles are dangerous. According to the World Health Organization, “road traffic injuries are the eighth leading cause of death globally, and the leading cause of death for young people aged 15-29.” Here in Alberta, traffic fatalities have declined significantly from 2007 through 2011, but there are still too many of them. We also know that vehicles have a negative impact on the environment. They contribute to global warming, they contribute to smog, and they take up an incredible amount of land that could otherwise be used more productively.

There are lots of other factors to consider, but I think these are the two most important. Reducing our dependence on vehicles and recognizing the importance of cities should be central any vision of the future of transportation in our province. Unsurprisingly, the two biggest cities in Alberta have already recognized this.

Our neighbours to the south have the Calgary Transportation Plan, which says:

The decisions made today about where and what to build will affect Calgarians for 100 years or more – just as decisions made in the past affect us today. Going forward, the transportation system must perform a wide variety of roles and consider the context of surrounding land uses, be they natural or manufactured. It must provide more choice for Calgarians – realistic choices that are convenient, affordable and attractive. These choices include walking, cycling, transit, high occupancy vehicles (HOV or carpooling) and single-occupant vehicles (SOV).

Here in Edmonton, we have the Transportation Master Plan, The Way We Move. It is even more aggressive:

We are building a 21st century city, shaping an Edmonton that will meet the needs of our diverse and growing urban and regional population. Growing environmental concerns, acknowledgment of the ongoing investment needed to maintain our transportation infrastructure and the rapid growth of our city demand a shift in transportation priority setting. It is a shift from single passenger vehicle use to more public transit; from building outward to a compact urban form. From an auto oriented view of transportation to a more holistic view of an interconnected, multi-modal transportation system where citizens can walk, bike, bus and train efficiently and conveniently to their desired location.

I recognize that Calgary and Edmonton have a completely different context and set of challenges than the rest of the province does, but I think their transportation strategies are informative. Let me also say that I don’t think creating a vision statement is easy. I know a lot of hard work, thought, and difficult discussions are needed to come up with them. That said, I’ll take a stab at it.

Here’s my attempt at crafting a stronger vision for the future of transportation in Alberta:

An innovative and sustainable transportation system that emphasizes high occupancy vehicles and strengthens the global competitiveness of Alberta’s urban areas.

What do you think?

Transforming Edmonton: Shifting our focus from plans to implementation

Toward the end of 2006, the City of Edmonton started to look at refreshing its visioning and planning efforts. A number of major City plans were about to be renewed, including the Municipal Development Plan, the Capital City Downtown Plan, and the Transportation Master Plan. Administration explained the importance of these reports in an update to Council:

Major plans are plans of city-wide or corporate-wide significance.  Major plans act as foundation blocks for Administration decisions and recommendations to City Council.  They are also a fundamental building block for future Council decisions.  These plans are meant to be in place for multiple years, and the review of these plans takes significant time and resources by both Administration and Council.

A report published in early 2007 provided a more detailed update and proposed a method for developing a “Vision for the City of Edmonton” that would kick off a full planning cycle. The report also included a Strategic Planning Brief. Here’s a look at the proposed strategic development cycle:

And here’s a look at the proposed framework process:

Writing in the Edmonton Journal about public information sessions held by the City in October 2008, Todd Babiak noted:

This process, which also includes the City Vision for 2040, the 10-year strategic plan, the Ecovision, and the plan for downtown, is broadly called "Transforming Edmonton." We’re admitting, as a people, that we have made expensive and dangerous mistakes for a generation or so.

Mary Ann McConnell-Boehm, who managed the Municipal Development Plan at the time, said:

"This is what we heard from our stakeholders in 2006, about the direction they wanted our city to take. A different approach, more integrated, a little braver."

That more integrated process ultimately led to the creation of the City Vision, the City’s Strategic Plan for 2009-2018 known as The Way Ahead, and the associated “Ways” plans:

Many Edmontonians have noted that the last plan to be approved, The Way We Finance, is the one that’s supposed to help us pay for the rest! Still, when its approval finally happens later this year, it’ll bring the most ambitious planning cycle in the City of Edmonton’s history to a close.

There were previous efforts at establishing a city-wide vision of course, such as the “Smart City” initiative of the late 90s, but none stuck. Why did Transforming Edmonton succeed at getting off the ground when other initiatives had failed? I think a big reason was Mayor Mandel. After winning re-election in October 2007, Mayor Mandel told the Edmonton Journal:

“The vision we have is of Edmonton being a city of the world. A city that is vibrant, environmentally sensitive and attractive. And a city that cares about people and opens its arms to them, wherever they came from.”

The importance of Mandel’s victory did not go unnoticed by the Edmonton Journal’s Scott McKeen, who wrote:

Mandel’s win, though hardly a surprise, was much more than a ho- hum victory over the fringers, fanatics and languid Koziaks who ran against him.

His approval rating on Monday narrates a turning point in Edmonton’s history. If Mandel’s first term stood for anything, it was a shift away from historic nickel-and-dime civic politics.

Edmontonians, it seems, embrace Mandel’s big-city vision.

The success or failure of an effort as broad and ambitious as Transforming Edmonton cannot be attributed to one person of course, but under Mayor Mandel’s watch, the City became a bit more integrated and much more strategic.

Edmonton’s efforts at improving the visioning and planning process are not unique. Vancouver’s CityPlan was adopted in 1995 and is slated to come to a close in 2015 (to be replaced with Green Vancouver, I think). Toronto’s Strategic Plan was approved in three stages from 1999-2001. Ottawa adopted its Official Plan in 2003 to guide the city through 2021. Montreal’s Master Plan was adopted in 2004. Calgary adopted imagineCALGARY in 2006, which sets out a 100 year vision with targets every 30 years. Winnipeg replaced its previous Plan Winnipeg 2020 initiative with OurWinnipeg in 2011, presenting a 25-year vision for the city. Long-term planning seems to be the norm for Canada’s major cities.

Today nearly every aspect of the City of Edmonton’s operations have been affected by Transforming Edmonton. For example, every budget item references one of “The Ways” and/or the strategic goals, and internal structures have changed to match the new approach. We’ve also seen efforts to describe progress, such as the new Citizen Dashboard.

While some implementation has occurred, the focus of the last five years has unquestionably been on the creation of Transforming Edmonton’s plans and associated documents. The approval of the final major plan, not to mention the expected retirement of Mayor Mandel next week and April’s unofficial kickoff of campaigning for the October municipal election, should signal a shift toward more concerted implementation efforts.

A shift in focus from planning to implementation won’t just happen, however. Edmontonians need to demand it. We as citizens need to do a better job of asking how things are going, not just how things are going to be.

Maybe we should have just had a food strategy

When it comes to the Food & Agriculture Strategy, there’s perhaps no organization more deserving of credit for getting us to where we are today than the Greater Edmonton Alliance (GEA). They worked hard during the development of the MDP to ensure that the importance of local food and agricultural land was recognized, and those efforts ultimately led to the creation of the strategy that is now in draft form. But GEA is also largely responsible for tying the development of that strategy to the land in the northeast, which has resulted in a document that fails to adequately address the importance of food to our city.

City Market 2012

Instead of a strategy to transform Edmonton into a world leading food city, the Food & Agriculture Strategy is viewed by most as simply one of the final remaining hurdles to the continuation of urban sprawl that has plagued our city for decades. Whereas the WinterCity Strategy was created to “highlight Edmonton as a leading winter city,” the Food & Agriculture Strategy was created to allow the development of ASPs to move forward.

The Advisory Committee, created to “offer guidance and experience in exploring the development” of the strategy, was doomed to fail from the beginning. Because the land issue was not resolved, it was made up of fifteen members representing very diverse interests, rather than fifteen members all focused on food. It’s no surprise that farmers and developers could not see eye-to-eye on what should happen with the land in the northeast and that the issue dominated discussions.

Think about all of the other advisory committees and task forces that have been created over the last few years. We’ve had groups come together to talk about community safety, homelessness, winter, and dozens of other topics. The makeup of the Food & Agriculture Advisory Committee is like putting people that hate winter on the WinterCity Strategy committee, or people who love crime on the REACH committee, or people who think we should have more homelessness on the Homeless Commission.

So, how did we get here? There are lots of reasons of course, but here are a couple thoughts.

MDP Second Reading

One issue is that GEA’s leaders don’t care about food as much as they care about power. This was made abundantly clear at the ward meeting GEA held on October 9. A significant amount of time was spent discussing the power struggles that take place behind-the-scenes inside and outside City Hall. “One of the tools GEA uses in organizing is the power analysis,” GEA’s Monique Nutter told us. She said that in organizing there are two forms of power: organized money and organized people. The latter is the approach that GEA has taken, and for a while it seemed to work well. They filled City Hall with citizens, and they got the attention of their opponents as well as City Council.

But somewhere along the line, GEA lost the room. Any support they may have had from Council during the MDP deliberations has largely evaporated. Were they too aggressive in their demands, or disrespectful in their communications? Does organized money speak louder than organized people? It doesn’t matter. The fact is, Council is unhappy with GEA right now. That’s a problem for those of us who care about the same issues as GEA but are not associated with them, because I think at least some Councillors now treat GEA and others who feel strongly about food and/or agricultural land as one and the same. Which means that if GEA is being viewed negatively, so are the rest of us.

I don’t mean to suggest that GEA deserves all the blame for the turnaround in support. Certainly Councillor Loken has not done the strategy any favors by “trying to add some reality to the discussions.” He claims his efforts have made him a target on the Advisory Committee. Rather than diffusing an already tense situation, it seems Councillor Loken has actually made things worse.

Food in the City

The second issue is that as far as I can tell, GEA didn’t have any other choice. Tying the development of the land to the creation of the strategy was really the best they could accomplish at the time. There was no support from Council for a stronger stance on urban sprawl, as evidenced by policy 3.1.1.2 in the MDP which establishes that just 25% of city-wide housing unit growth be located in the downtown and mature neighbourhoods.

In an ideal world, a Food & Agriculture Strategy would have been initiated without the need to incorporate a contentious debate over land use (of course, any strategy on food would have included something about the importance of agricultural land, but in broad strokes rather than specifics). Then again in an ideal world, the true cost of sprawl would be known and factor prominently in decisions about how our city should grow. We don’t live in an ideal world.

Untitled

On Friday, City Hall will fill up with citizens eager to have their say on the Food & Agriculture Strategy. We know that Executive Committee is not looking forward to the public hearing, they’ve made that clear. They’re expecting to hear the same thing over and over, and I admit that’s not an enticing prospect. But I think that’s because they’re viewing this strategy through the lens of land, rather than the lens of food. I hope there’s a large turnout on Friday, that at least a few people talk about the importance of food to Edmonton’s future, and that Executive Committee chooses to listen to them.

The City of Edmonton’s transformation continues with latest reorganization

The City of Edmonton’s internal transformation efforts continued this month with a reorganization taking effect on June 1. City administration has now realigned into six departments, plus the Office of the City Manager, in a bid to improve communications and to better align with strategic direction.

While I wouldn’t call the reorganization a “major” one – it’s certainly not like City ‘97 which streamlined 14 departments to just 8 and saved millions of dollars – it nevertheless is a significant step for the current City administration. Under the leadership of City Manager Simon Farbrother, the City of Edmonton has embarked on a major cultural shift known as Transforming Edmonton and Me.

Here are the details on the latest reorganization.

Old departments:

  • Asset Management & Public Works
  • Capital Construction
  • Community Services
  • Corporate Services
  • Finance & Treasury
  • Office of the City Manager
  • Planning & Development
  • Transportation

New departments:

Here’s the new organizational chart (PDF):

Community Services now includes the Parks and Community Standards branches in addition to Fire Rescue Services, Neighbourhood & Community Development, Community Facility Services, and Community Strategies.

Corporate Services remains largely unchanged, consisting of the Human Resources, Information Technology, Law, Materials Management, Fleet Services, and City Clerk branches. There’s also a new Customer Information Services branch, which is responsible for 311 and the website.

Finance & Treasury is now Financial Services, and consists of the Strategic Management, Client Financial Services, Corporate Accounting, and Assessment & Taxation branches. The former Transformation Management branch appears to no longer exist as a separate entity.

Asset Management & Public Works has become Infrastructure Services, and includes all above and below ground infrastructure. It now consists of three branches (Buildings & Landscape Services, Drainage Services, Waste Management Services) instead of four (Corporate Properties, Drainage Services, Parks, Waste Management). It will also contain the Project Management Office.

The Office of the City Manager has not changed since it adopted pieces of the old Deputy City Manager’s Office (DCMO) last year. Corporate Communications and Intergovernmental & External Affairs both report to the City Manager.

Planning & Development has become Sustainable Development, and now consists of four branches (Current Planning, Housing & Economic Sustainability, Urban Planning & Environment, Corporate Properties) instead of five (Assessment & Taxation, Community Standards, Current Planning, Housing, Planning & Policy). There’s also a new area called Transformational Projects, which will be responsible for projects like the proposed downtown arena and the City Centre Redevelopment. Urban Planning & Environment is now responsible for Parks Planning.

Transportation Services has gone from three branches (Transportation Planning, Transportation Operations, ETS) to at least five (Transportation Planning, Transportation Operations, ETS, LRT Design & Construction, Road Design & Construction). This is basically the adoption of the old Capital Construction department. The web page for the department also lists a new LRT Expansion branch, though it doesn’t appear on the org chart. The changes in this department are intended to put The Way We Move into a single area.

Final Thoughts

I think the changes, while mostly cosmetic, are important. Most of the departments now contain “services” right in the name, which better reflects their purpose and mission. The changes also reflect a desire by administration to better align with The Way Ahead, the strategic direction set by City Council. It’s not clear whether any jobs will be lost as a result of the reorganization, but I don’t think so. I also don’t believe it is in any way connected to the projected $31 million deficit the City is facing. The wheels were in motion for this reorganization some time ago.

Taking the City of Edmonton to another level with City Manager Simon Farbrother

Last week, on the one year anniversary of his first official day as the City of Edmonton’s new City Manager, Simon Farbrother sat down with me to reflect on the past twelve months. In addition to settling into the role and continually learning about the organization, Simon is leading the City through a major cultural shift that is fundamentally changing the way it does business.

Simon Farbrother
Coffee with Simon

Simon came to the City of Edmonton from Waterloo, where he was that city’s Chief Administrative Officer. He’s not new to the capital region however, having worked at the City of Leduc from 1988 until 1997, and at the City of Spruce Grove from 1997 until 2005. I wondered if he had thought about working in “the big city” but he said that was never the game plan, though he did admit the thought crossed his mind once or twice. “I think it’s important to stretch yourself, “ Simon told me, “when opportunities come up you grab them and away you go.” That’s how he ended up in Waterloo, and in January 2010, how he found himself here in Edmonton taking over for retiring City Manager Al Maurer.

Simon said his first year has gone by really quickly, but described it as “challenging, fun, and stimulating.” Noting the number of projects the City has on the go, Simon said “Edmonton is at a very interesting point in time.” He lives in the southwest and uses the LRT quite a bit and depending on his schedule. “The south LRT has changed the way people think about transit in our city.” Though he felt Edmonton had matured politically while he was out east, Simon said that he has “always thought Edmonton’s strength was its people, and I still do.” He thinks it’s because we have a unique sense of connection here. “We’re the big city on the prairie, we’re multicultural; the people who choose to live here are really carving out their lives.”

For the first few weeks of last year, Simon spent his time getting to know people at the City while Al continued on as Manager (though Simon actually knew quite a few people already from his previous positions). On January 18th 2010, he took over and hit the ground running. “You have to get up-to-speed quickly and bring your skills to the table.” Simon told me the ladies in the Manager’s office were “tremendously helpful” and made the transition a smooth one. “When you join, naturally there’s a lot of questions about you,” he said, recalling that it wasn’t just him that had to adjust to the new role. “Fundamentally I am about building – I always have a strong belief in a person’s abilities and general willingness to do the right thing.”

Simon Farbrother
Conversation with Simon & Extended Leadership Team

One of the first things Simon did was have an open conversation with the general managers. “Leadership is about framing,” he said. Simon made it clear that the City would be moving in a new direction, and told them, “your primary role is to lead the City, not your department.” He called it a “fundamental shift” and said there has been a lot of positive engagement from the general managers on the new approach. Discussions since have focused on how the City leads, rather than on each individual project that comes up. “We also opened the door to branch managers and directors around leadership,” Simon confirmed. The City of Edmonton currently has 6 general managers and 35 branch managers, but the number is not important. “It’s about what makes sense at the time to lead.” To reinforce the shift, the Senior Management Team (SMT) was renamed to the Corporate Leadership Team (CLT). Demonstrating leadership is more important than having worked at the organization for most of your career. “We’re trying to engage people to be leaders, everyone can do that.”

Simon’s focus for 2011 is this internal cultural conversation. He shared that the City has formed a group called Transforming Edmonton and Me (TEAM) that has been challenged to explore the question, “what do we want our culture to be?” An early activity involved the creation of a word cloud, and ‘communication’ emerged as the biggest word. There’s a desire to be more transparent, and to have meaningful conversations (no more going to the meeting then having the real conversation in the hallway). “It’s about how we agree to work as an organization,” Simon said. “If you don’t see me acting in the way I say I am going to act, you have every right to tell me.”

Most of Simon’s communication has been focused internally so far (he’s going to look into updating his page – archived here – on the public website). “Having various ways to communicate is really valuable.” To that end, Simon has published videos every few weeks for employees, focusing not on what the City got approved but on leadership within the organization. “For example, a video might talk about our approach to the budget, rather than giving details on what was approved.” The effort has given him the opportunity to meet people across the organization. “I’ve learned to cut trees, drive a bus, I’ve been in the sewers, it has been great.” He hopes the videos reinforce the notion that all employees at the City are important. He is thinking about an internal blog too, and said the intranet is a really important tool for giving context.

Simon Farbrother
Simon getting some hands-on experience felling trees in Delwood Park

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Simon was a BlackBerry user while in Waterloo. Now he’s got an iPhone and an iPad, but doesn’t consider himself to be an early adopter. “I really like the iPad in a meeting environment,” he said, because there’s less paper to carry and the device is great for graphics. “I do lots of email and text messaging,” he told me, and while he is familiar with Twitter, he has no plans to use the service. “A lot of my emails would look like tweets though!” Simon’s day consists largely of meetings, so it’s important to communicate efficiently. He uses text messaging to stay in touch with his family throughout the day.

Turning to external communication, Simon said the City “should talk about what we’re doing and what we’re trying to achieve.” It’s the philosophy that is important, not the list of projects. “We’re part of a bigger picture, we work for the full community.” Simon thinks it is important for employees to be mindful of that broader perspective too. “You can’t disconnect being a transit driver or an accountant or even a manager from being an ambassador and a representative of the City.” In other words, employees need to be accountable not just to their boss, but to all Edmontonians.

The word accountability was mentioned alongside transparency in his introductory letter last year. When I asked for his assessment of the City’s performance on those issues, Simon replied: “I think we’re getting better.” Being accountable and transparent to the public is a challenge given the size of the organization. “We’re in the A to Z business,” Simon remarked, “and we’re the only the organization that does all of our business in the public eye.” I suggested that the City could do more on the transparency side, especially as it relates to making information available and accessible. “I don’t think we consciously hoard,” he told me. “There are legitimate reasons for some information to be confidential.” He agreed that getting information into people’s hands is important though.

Simon Farbrother
Simon with Councillor Amarjeet Sohi

I asked Simon how he has found working with Mayor Mandel and the rest of City Council over the last year. Due to the nature of the position in large cities, Simon has worked more closely with Mayor Mandel, and described him as “very committed and very driven.” He said they get along well. Though he hasn’t had as many opportunities to work with the Councillors, he said “they’re all trying to build a better City, which is a positive environment to work in.”

Looking ahead to 2011, I asked if Simon had made any personal new years resolutions – he didn’t. “For me it’s about lifelong learning,” he said. “In whatever you do, you need to be relevant and adding value.” He’s excited for the year ahead, and talked about some of the big projects that have made headlines recently. “EXPO wasn’t just a three month event, it was positioning Edmonton as an important city in North America.” Similarly he thinks we need to look at the bigger picture when it comes to topics like the downtown arena or the city centre redevelopment. “We need to be strategic and aligned as a city.”

Simon said the City of Edmonton has always had aspirations, but has never embedded that into the culture. “Being aspirational has to be a fundamental part of what we do.” When it was discovered that some material was being created internally that talked about Edmonton being successful as a “tier 2 city”, Simon and his team put a stop to it. “What would a tier 1 city do? There’s nothing stopping us from being tier 1.” It’s about having vision and not being afraid to go after it. “We shouldn’t be shy about opportunities.” For Simon, it’s about taking Edmonton to another level. “We need to up our game and galvanize around being a city.”

“It’s going to be a good year.”

An Exit Strategy is a Good Thing!

Post ImageAs I mentioned in a previous post, I learned a lot in 2006. One of the things I learned is that having an exit strategy for your business is a good thing. Ben Yoskovitz has a great post about this at startupspark.com:

To some an exit strategy sounds negative. Or, you might think you’ll never exit because that’s not the point of the business. That’s fine, you don’t have to give up the business (although eventually we all give it up) but thinking in terms of an exit strategy will help crystallize that goal nonetheless.

One thing I’d like to add to Ben’s post is that once you’ve spent the time and effort to come up with an exit strategy, you’ll find you feel much better about yourself and your business. Like Ben says, an exit strategy is a goal. Once you’ve defined it, you can stop worrying about it, and start working to achieve it.

Another benefit: having an exit strategy in mind will help you as you make business decisions along the way.

Read: startupspark.com

What's a Yahoo! to do?

Post ImageAlmost every day now I read something about Yahoo! and its “problems” and/or “options”. Those are in quotes because it seems people are very divided on Yahoo! – some think it’s in trouble, others don’t. I’ve been a Yahoo! user since the days of the grey page-background, and if you count sites like Flickr and del.icio.us, I’m still a pretty active user. Allow me to put on my Yahoo! pundit hat for a moment.

I guess Yahoo!’s main problem is Google. Now that there’s a search-media company consistently outperforming Yahoo!, it makes them look old and stagnant. It’s actually pretty unfair, because let’s be honest, no one has the kind of growth that Google does. Yahoo! actually does pretty well in terms of search traffic, advertising dollars, and all that other stuff, but where they seem to be lacking is in respect.

So what’s a Yahoo! to do? Here are the most commonly suggested strategies I have come across:

Replace CEO Terry Semel
This suggestion is actually fairly new, and if you read Eric Jackson’s open letter to Yahoo!’s founders, it starts to make sense. Seems to me this is a relatively short-term fix though.

Buy AOL
Apparently Yahoo! has approached Time Warner about purchasing AOL. I think this would be a good deal for Time Warner, and a not so good one for Yahoo!. It would bring the failed AOL Time Warner merger to a complete end, but it would only provide a minor increase in Yahoo’s traffic and advertising, all things considered.

Buy Facebook
This rumor has been floating around for months actually. It might bring some more eyeballs to Yahoo!, but it would do nothing to help transform or improve the company. And besides, from everything I’ve read, Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook founder) is no Caterina Fake (Flickr founder).

Merge with eBay
The two companies might seem complimentary because of their completely different focuses, but that might present a problem rather than a solution. I agree with Fortune: I think this one is unlikely, because I think integrating eBay and Yahoo! would prove extremely difficult.

Sell to Microsoft
This one is my favorite, and it has a long history too, first appearing in June. Microsoft certainly has the cash, and it turns out that the two companies are fairly well-aligned – Yahoo! has made heavy investments into IE7, is a PlaysForSure supporter, and has hooked up with Microsoft on a number of initiatives ranging from Sitemaps to Instant Messaging. According to the latest comScore data (released today), a combined Microsoft-Yahoo would have around 40% of the search market compared with Google’s 45%. Of course, there are some easy to spot problems with this deal – mainly that Microsoft has invested heavily in Live Search and adCenter already. That’s not a total deal-breaker though.

Stay the course
The people that don’t view Yahoo! as floundering like this suggestion. Sure Google is #1 for now, but it can’t stay that way forever, right? Seems like this is Yahoo!’s currently preferred course of action. If they could somehow turn around their disappointing sales and profit numbers, this one might be the best option after all.

The Microsoft option is especially appealing to me, because it would have extremely broad ramifications for the industry. It also seems somewhat unlikely, given Microsoft’s huge investments in their online properties (MSN, Live.com, etc). That said, purchasing Yahoo! would instantly make them the leader on the web, a position they have long sought after. I wouldn’t be surprised if Yahoo! ended up staying the course though, and in the end, maybe that’s better for everyone – Yahoo! included.

Update: Here is more excellent commentary on Yahoo’s current situation.

Who is Google's worst enemy?

Post ImageIf you said Microsoft or Yahoo, you’d be wrong. I think the real enemy for Google is itself, which is kind of like Microsoft, but for different reasons. Microsoft’s worst enemy is itself because it has to find ways to get people to upgrade from the existing versions of Microsoft software they already use. Or to move their users to a subscription model. Google’s worst enemy is itself because they have done an amazingly good job of accomplishing nothing.

“But they have so many products!” you exclaim. Exactly. They have got a ton of products, including some like the recently released Google Spreadsheets that seem to target Microsoft applications (though Microsoft’s Don Dodge makes a good case that they target open source software instead), yet none of them make money. Honestly, Google must have the largest number of non-revenue earning products of any company in history. I say they have accomplished nothing because their core product (AdSense, not search) really hasn’t changed all that much since it was launched. Instead of improving it, and finding ways to deal with click fraud and the other problems, Google has blinded itself with these side projects that seem bent on competing with Microsoft. And don’t be fooled by their ad company purchases – none of them have come to bear any fruit yet.

When I first learned about it, I thought that Google’s policy of encouraging employees to spend 10-20% of their time working on non-core projects was a good one, but now I am not so sure. It has resulted in lots of interesting technology to be sure, but not much else. I really don’t see how Google would get any ROI out of something like Google Spreadsheets. I have no idea what Google’s revenue breakdown is, but I highly doubt there’s a gem, other than AdSense of course, to be found.

That’s why I think Google’s worst enemy is itself. They have grown so big, so fast, that they forgot to take care of the goose that laid the golden egg. They haven’t cut it open yet, but if they continue to focus on these other mostly unimportant side projects, they might as well have.