Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Yes…Sweet Cheeks Marie Wilkins was a hooker in PQ1….and gets arrested in a sting. She then helps Sonny go undercover at the Hotel Delphoria to nail Jesse Bains…
I don’t remember what job, or if she had one in PQ2
And of course, she got shot at the beginning of PQ3
JT
I guess I should chip in here with a word of endorsement for Leopold’s book. It really is quite a fun read, and I recommend it to all Sierra fans! As I posted on the Game Quest site, this book really is just as addictive as Sierra’s classic adventures!
I think Sonny (a police officer) dated a hooker in Police Quest 1 (someone correct me if I’m mistaken).
Nice find, there seem to be a few there:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search=sierra+game&search_type=search_videos
http://www.youtube.com/results?search=sierra+quest&search_type=search_videos
While messing around this site that my friend sent me to, I found the Space Quest 3 Promo Video! Check it out here…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKI9mHJeUFI&search=space%20quest
-Tom.
Quote:
…B, Patrick, 2006-04-02 15:51:43Hmmmm … the 4 – 1 seems very dangerous. It would seem that for the first 1 – 2 years ( I am assuming a 2 year timeframe to get a product out the door) , revenue is 0 and cost is everything. There was no way to guage the revenue side of the equation until the product was released. Is this correct? ….
Patrick:
You are right.
A critical part of the job, for myself, and for the studio head, was to make the decision as to when to override the designer on a project – or in some cases, to completely shut down a project. As I said, I generally liked to side with the designer. How far I let a designer go without pulling in the reigns had to do with their track record.
For designers who had several hits in a row, I would go out on a limb more for them, than for a designer on their first or second project.
Throughout a projects ‘life’ there were constantly revised revenue estimates coming in from marketing and sales. We always had a pretty good sense what the advance ‘buzz’ was on a product. If a product had a 10 million dollar revenue forecast one month, and then 5 million the next — this could dramatically affect the permitted R&D budget. A project that was looking fine could ship a dog of a demo, and see their project budget go from comfortable to something much tighter. In some cases, the designer would be upset about this — and, claim it was a self-fulfilling prophecy — and, sometimes they were right. I had to make a lot of decision calls, as to when to ‘stick with’ a designer even when it might seem that their budget and revenue forecast were out of sync.
-Ken W
The qualities I saw in the management style of Sierra were in its relationship to its customers.
1. Sierra offered to exchange software disk with customers whos computer did not meet the advance 256 color specs for KQV.
(although I could kick myself for doing it because I got a new computer not long after that)
2. Ken and Roberta wrote what felt like personal letters about the company in their promotion booklets. They made .avi videos of how the business started and how they viewed their creation style. This formed a bond between company and consumers.
3. They gave the ‘WOW’ factor in each new game they created. I was amazed at the graphics of each game that came out. In KQV when the weeping willow transformed to a princess all I could say was WOW!
4. They focused on and delivered quality. At the time I had very little problems installing a Sierra game. I knew what I was buying worked at the specs on the box. No minimum and maximum standards.
Ken, I give you an ‘A’ from the consumers standpoint.These are real, and real good issues. At the end, it also depends on who you hire. Someone who’s professional and cares about their career, reputation, and name will be respective to 360 degree vs some sort of corner rogue programmer or someone who ends up going into programming knowing they may change careers later.
Also, these are not the only stats that are looked at, you have to look at the guy’s boss, employees, performance, and like you said, statistics. Very important as well.
Manish
360 degree evaluation … I guess one company I worked for executed the 180 degree evaluation 🙂 … coworkers at similar levels (ranks) to yourself evaluated each other … isn’t that convenient for those above you..
As for 360, 180, 90 .. etc. evaluation … I am skeptical for political reasons. Some people are just too plain sensitive to authority and too emotional. They lose objectivity when their feelings are hurt are they are ‘rubbed the wrong way’. The guy in charge of a team may be wonderful for the company as a whole, but because his style is aggressive and ‘take no hostages’, he receives negative evaluations. This is just one problem I see.
How do handle this situation? Do you get rid of this guy? If you keep him in his current position and with his current team, I would assume there would be productivity issues, right? Or do you get rid of the team because people that give negative reviews because they are overly sensitive put the company’s future in jeopardy?
All of this just seems too complicated and tricky… why not be responsible enough as a manager of a division to track each subordinates task list (deliverables, deadlines, hours spent working, deadlines met, etc…) Keep the politics out. If Joe Schmo had 8 deliverables in a 3 month span and he can show that he completed all 8 deliverables, the guy is good. If Harry Henderson had 8 deliverables in a 3 month span and he can show that he only completed 1 with 7 excuses, he probably needs to be let go.
Numbers don’t lie (8 deliverables, 240 hours, # of deliverables met, etc…).
MxCoder,
Unfortunately, this is the problem with most of the companies out there. Friends and colleagues go up the chain without merit or performance reasons. I call it, and pardon the term, the ‘strokefest theory’. It is very frustrating seeing non-qualified individuals become managers, undeservedly so. It all comes down from culture at the top. If it’s supported at the top, it will be downward.
Another thing that we will implement is 360 degree evaluation. This is when managers and employees both review each other, and is taken into consideration. This works real well to weed out those managers who push blame and responsibility to employees. I think it’s a fairly new process, about 10 years maybe? I’m not sure, but it’s prevalent in many of the more successful organizations.
The government must run on a totally backward management style. We have a program were we take in X number of engineers. Each one goes through each department to get an idea of how we do business. They take a couple of test and then, if they get their PE, then they become a manager. There appears to be no test to their management skills. Some are good and some are not.
One of the big problems is they form a click where they promote their friends up the management ladder.Hmmmm … the 4 – 1 seems very dangerous. It would seem that for the first 1 – 2 years ( I am assuming a 2 year timeframe to get a product out the door) , revenue is 0 and cost is everything. There was no way to guage the revenue side of the equation until the product was released. Is this correct?
What this meant is that a team could churn out a complete failure (0 – 1 ratio) and this would seem to have a big negative impact on the company. Yes, the designer and his team would get thrown out the door, but again, they cost the company dearly. Was this system able to thrive because there was always at least 2 teams that could turn out the 4-1 ratio which meant that with only 6 divisions, you were still in the black? or something like that.
You really must’ve had a great deal of faith in everyone you dealt with, and this must’ve really motivated them (out of respect for you if nothing else).
Wow Ken,
Thanks for all this. And, although you rate yourself as a C, I think that no matter what grade the person gives themselves, at the end, it’s the experiences and learnings
they portray out that matters most. This includes you Mr. Williams! The lopping of bottom 10% still happens this day and age at GE and Siebel I know, not sure where else. It’s a good technique to remove the laggards, probably not the most fair, but some thing has to give. The second point is, it’s a matter of factors in guaging performance. For me, the fact that Sierra was on top of the heap year after year, with the most amazing and state-of-the-art games, shows that there’s something great in upper management. Any top company that is able to year-after-year outdo themself shows something. I would have loved to see some of the financial statements from that time period… I can’t even find the public ones to see what was done!I don’t know if you know this, but when I graduated from college in 1996, I sent my resume to Sierra. I was hoping to work on one of the gaming franchises, but Sierra did call me back for an interview in the greeting cards division. Were you around for this development? I didn’t think it interested me or would be a career move I’d want to make.
Wow … awesome. You need to start another company for the sake of teaching others how to manage if nothing else. Talk about a great reality TV show. Follow the lives of 4 individuals put in charge of their own division (each division is a team comprised of 25 individuals). Each one is given a year and a budget and the goal is to hit the 4-1 mark set by you.
Seriously though … you should write a book. I purchased a project management type book in the past, and I get better information from the few posts you make on the subject.
OK .. last thought on this topic….
I re-read my response below, and decided that it was missing the context. The problem I was trying to solve is: ‘How do you make a big company into a small company’.
At the end, Sierra had nearly 1,000 employees scatter across several states and countries.
My #1 fear was that we would become a big company.
A very smart guy who I had worked with on an early project with IBM, Don Estridge, an early PC pioneer, once said (or, at least I remember it as him), ‘If you want to compete with people who work in a garage, you start by building a garage’. He was referring to IBM’s competition with Apple at the time, and how Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak were leading the PC wars, while IBM couldn’t move fast enough to compete.
It was this concept of breaking large things into smaller pieces and shifting creative groups as far as I could get them from corporate crap — that made us fierce competitors.
-Ken W
While we’re on this topic (and I need to stop writing, or no work will ever get done!): Here’s something interesting I did to create ‘entrepreneurs’ within Sierra:
I had a rule of 4 to 1. Each product had to carry a revenue projection that was four times its development cost. This concept was used both at the product, and the R&D division level.
We were broken into product development subsidiaries, each consisting of 25 to 150 people. This were independent development groups, geographically dispersed, who felt like they were running their own businesses. Each one of these groups had their own general manager – Dynamix, Sierra, BrightStar, Coktel, Impressions, Headgate, Papyrus, etc.
Each of the divisions were further broken down into project teams. Our teams were lead by two people; a designer and a producer. The producer was the ‘bureaucrat’. It was the producers job to manage the artists, programmers, sound people, etc. All the paper shuffling. The designer was charged with the soul of the game. They came up with the plot, approved the characters, approved the game play, etc.
There was always a war between the designer and the persons on the team, in particular the producer. The producer wanted the project to come in on time and on budget. The designer wanted the game to be fun to play, and look great. No one is perfect. There are times when the designer approved something, only to decide later that it wasn’t working. This meant schedule slippage and cost overruns.
I used my 4-to-1 rule to govern this. Designers were always thinking about their next game. Exceeding the revenue forecast on a game meant a bigger budget on the next game. Missing the forecast meant a smaller forecast. In other words, if someone turns in a 3 to 1 revenue to cost ratio, they may not get a next game, and if they do, they won’t like the development budget. Career-wise, the monkey was on the designers back to turn in a game that exceeded the 4 to 1 ratio, so that they could get a dream budget for their next project. Turn in a 5 to 1, and both your forecast and budget (for your next game) get bigger. Turn in a 3 to 1, and start writing resumes. A simple rule.
Because all of the creative control was given to the designer, the producer wasn’t judged on the ratio. They were judged on their ability to manage as best they could, in a situation where an out-of-control designer could easily throw the project grossly over budget. I made the ultimate call on raising budgets, but generally tried to side with the designer. I would look them in the eye, and say ‘Are you sure this will get us to the 4 to 1 ratio. If not, your next game will be for someone else’ Not all designers made it to a second game, and some stepped down from front line titles to doing card games. Others went on to great success.
Divisions grew or shrunk by their ability to hit the 4 to 1 ratio. Each division had anywhere from 1 to 20 products in development at a time. At my staff meetings, the ability to ‘get budget’ and the entire pecking order derived from the revenue to cost ratio. If you didn’t want your studio (division) to ‘go out of business’, you had to hit your numbers. I forgave almost anything except missing the numbers.
In short – I gave creative freedom, along with creating entrepreneurs. There was certainly money that went with success (for the designers) but many creative people, especially the good ones, focus on building great product first, and then the money. The #1 thing they always wanted was more budget. This game them a way to get it, and pushed down to them the critical budget decisions. They knew their career was on the line with every dollar spent.
-Ken W
Generally, I divided the world into people who were there to win, and those who were there for the paycheck.
Last one … I promise!
It is really great to get positive reinforcement for my beliefs from someone that has been such a success. Ken, I would like to believe you would have hired me. 🙂
Back to the topic at hand … this must be where the ‘profit-sharing’ concept arose ??? Companies realized that a large portion of there work force (i am speculating now) were ‘the paycheckers’. The only way to alleviate this problem was to have them actually benefit from the companies success. Duh, right?
Here’s the thing though … if you are a ‘paychecker’, you are most probably not driven and motivated; otherwise you would be out there kicking butt. If you are not driven, then you are probably not looking to get rich (make extra dough) … in other words you are satisfied, and no amount of profit sharing incentive has an affect on you. In other words, profit sharing doesn’t work if someone does not want to work hard and would like to spend the times in their lives elsewhere.
I always say ‘it revolves around the individual’ … if the person has that tiger mentality … then they will help you to succeed no matter how much profit sharing, other financial incentive, etc….it is part of who they are … it is a pride thing.
I had a rule, which I really did honor. I told everyone who worked for me that the poorest performer would be terminated each year. I’m not sure that’s even legal in today’s polically correct society.
What a great idea…unfortunately, executing this nowadays would probably be a nightmare. I would assume that you could have new hires sign contracts accepting the fact that termination after a year of underachieving was a possibility given a strict system of guidelines (which would also be defined and described). If they were leery of signing, that would be a red flag … if they were gung-ho and couldn’t wait to sign the papers … he/she was the one you wanted.
Reading back on all of this, I think it really shows the importance of the hiring process. It really seems you could filter out 90+% of the people that would not be good for your company right up front. Companies send workers through HR … if you pass the HR interview, you meet with engineers. This is actually the right idea; however I see one problem. Do those engineers have stakes in the company? If they don’t, what is the real incentive to take the hiring process this seriously.
Let me explain … one could argue that everyone has a stake in the company because the company must profit or everyone will lose a job. It is not that black and white. Companies may continue to succeed because 25% within the company is doing all the work. So, even if bad hires are made, the company will still stay afloat.
One possible incentive could be for every year a new hire succeeds and remains part of the company, those responsible for the hire would get some sort of bonus.
Of course, I am speaking business philosophy now. Philosophy, work ethic, and business … 3 of my favorite subjects.
There are some who believe motivation and good morale come from Friday afternoon beer busts, and company parties. I was never one to believe in these things. Good morale comes from kicking butt. Pick an enemy and beat the enemy. Set a goal, and exceed the goal. Say when you’ll get it done, and get it done sooner.
I have worked in the software industry for 10 years now, and I can count the # of people that I have worked with that share this type of attitude on one hand … is that not scary?I believe there were more workers with the potential ‘fight’ work ethic, but after months or years of being the minority within companies, they were forced to either become like the rest, continue to fight and be looked at as a troublemaker, or quit … sometimes quitting is not an option.
If you get hired on to a big company and you share the work ethic that Ken has described here, be prepared for obstacles and roadblocks. I hesitate to say things like this, but there almost appears to be the mindset of ‘keeping the norm’ so that you don’t ruffle any feathers. If you are feather ruffler and like to see things get done efficiently, I would go so far as to suggest starting your own company rather than taking a job with a corporation; otherwise you may lead a frustrating life.
The games did kick butt and dominated sales…I think there was a time in early 1992 when Sierra had four or five of the top selling titles…If I recall 1992 was the year Sierra began issuing the VGA remakes. I never understood why the remakes got a bad rap from some people. Granted I first played most of the Sierra games a year or two before, and many people had played the originals longer before that. I guess it was just a matter of preference. There may be a few things I prefer about the originals, but overall I like the remakes too. I wish it had been more profitable, and Sierra had made a few more remakes…More than 15 years later, I still have some of the text phrases from Leisure Suit Larry 2 memorized…I always have wondered how that got past Q/A….
Did that one give you any trouble when you first played it, Ken?
JT
I encountered a bug in Space Quest 4 the first time I played it, in the software store in the
mall. It seemed all the other things in the bargain bin were always
just out of money’s reach for Roger to buy. (except the SQ4 hintbook,
of course) Well, after earning some cash at Monolith, I headed back and
lo and behold, I had enough to buy one of the other games!! I don’t
remember how many buckazoids I had or which of the games it was, but
when I attempted to buy it, I got the ‘OOPS! You did something we
didin’t think of!’ error. Indeed! 🙂-Tom.
Here’s some fun… I mentioned earlier on this thread that I contacted Sierra a few years back, to see if I could help, and they never took me up on it. I said I would post the old emails if I found them. I FOUND THEM!
Here’s one from 2001: (sent to a gentleman in France who was CEO of Vivendi Software at the time)
—–Original Message—–
From: Ken Williams [
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 2:35 PM
I founded Sierra and ran it for 18 years, including 8 as a public company, during which we grew consistently and profitably. I’m happily retired, and doubt that I will ever want to, or need to, work again.
I keep hearing mixed reports on how Sierra is doing, and just heard that Greno is leaving the company. My only interest in contacting you is to see if there is anything I can do to help (which I doubt). If you ever want someone to bounce ideas with about Sierra, or to have someone who can play devils advocate in setting product strategy, call me. I’m not looking for compensation. My only interest or goal is that I would like to see Sierra returned to its former dominance.
Merci d’avance,
Ken Williams
—————————-
I received no response, so I tried again in 2004, with the next regieme: (this was sent to a senior VP who had worked for me at Sierra, and who passed it on to Vivendi’s CEO — who never called returned a call)
It was very good to speak with you. Please accept my deepest apologies for having disappeared for so long. After nearly 20 years of building games, I had burnt out on the industry and made a decision to focus my attentions elsewhere. Also, I knew that the new owners would have a different vision than I for the future of the games business, and that to watch what they were doing would be very frustrating. It would be like watching someone else raise your child, something which would be impossible for me. It was better to not think about it. As I mentioned, I have not purchased a computer, or video game, of any sort during the last seven years, nor kept up with the industry in any way. 99% of my life has been focused on golf, and on a small non-game programming project I’ve been doing (more of a hobby than a product – I just wanted to keep my technical skills up to date).
Here’s why I called:
Sierra, during my 17 year tenure, grew 25-50% per year, every year, and consistently turned in 15-30% pretax earnings. We consistently had titles in the top 10, and dominated the retail shelves. Recently, I was sent a press clipping by someone talking about poor financial performance at VU Games, and that people at Blizzard were leaving. I have no idea how true any of this is, but can sense, even without monitoring the industry, that Sierra (and Blizzard) have less momentum today than when I left the company.
I would like to help, if I can. I am not seeking, nor would I accept, a job. I am not seeking a way to make money. I have money. What I am seeking is two things: 1) Retirement gets old after a while. I’d welcome some intellectual stimulation. And, 2) I have nearly 20 years of my life wrapped up in Sierra. Standing by and letting it die without offering to help isn’t my style.
The question is ‘what could I do?’ If VU Games were a public company, I would ask to join its board. I do not see myself in any kind of operating role. I have no interest in living in Los Angeles and going to work everyday. One idea I’ve had is that I could be a ‘person to talk to’ for whoever is the CEO of the games business. We could try talking once per month via phone, just to discuss strategies. That person would be free to ignore me or listen, or even hang up. Perhaps nothing would come of it, or perhaps I would be able to kick in some decent ideas. Alternately, or, additionally, I might be able to play a role with the development teams and in forming product strategy. I have a good eye for when a product is in trouble. I also have a good mind for how to get a development project back on track. I’ve managed over one thousand software development projects, and a strong track record of bringing hits to the market. I have some specific ideas on how I could be effective in this area.
My contact information is:
Ken Williams
US Cell phone (which finds me anywhere) +1-206-xxx-xxxx
Grin… You’re asking a guy who gives himself a C- in management these questions? And, who admits to having been unemployed for 10+ years???
Motivating people, who are not naturally motivated is tough. I’ve seen morale problems sink entire organizations. Sierra rarely had this problem. We hired smart people, and smart people tend to hire smarter people.
Here’s an example of what a bad manager I was….
I had a rule, which I really did honor. I told everyone who worked for me that the poorest performer would be terminated each year. I’m not sure that’s even legal in today’s polically correct society. My feeling was that anyone who comes in within the bottom 10% of their class isn’t in the right job. I wasn’t doing them, or me, or Sierra’s shareholders, any favors by keeping them around. I also asked my people to prune the bottom 10% of their organizations each year.
I heard many times that this was a system that was unfair and was bad for morale. But, you know what: the more profitable we were, and the more our games were at the top of the charts, the better morale was.
There are some who believe motivation and good morale come from Friday afternoon beer busts, and company parties. I was never one to believe in these things. Good morale comes from kicking butt. Pick an enemy and beat the enemy. Set a goal, and exceed the goal. Say when you’ll get it done, and get it done sooner. For us the ultimate high was watching someone play the games and see the look in their eyes.
Or, at least… that’s the system that worked at Sierra.
-Ken W
