erode - Developer IT

Internet Explorer's Dominance Continues to Erode

Internet Explorer's usage drops below 60 percent for the first time and Firefox's growth has slowed, while other browsers have picked up the pace.

Read the article

WPF & RenderTierCapability, what could cause a machine to be dropped from Tier 2 to 0?

- by Erode

I'm having an issue on some imaged machines where they will started out on Tier 2 and after some time of use (they are well spec'd kiosk machines, quad-core, Nvidia 550Ti), they drop to Tier 0 and effectively become useless. Restarting the machine doesn't seem to help. This is a problem more than just "missing hardware acceleration" because my application requires D3DImage to function (which requires Tier 2). Thanks for any help!

Read the article

New to Drupal -- how should I create a main page with a mix of dynamic and static content?

- by Erode

I apologize for the terribly basic question but I'm not even a particularly adept web dev. I've read that Drupal is great if you know exactly what you want to do (then the API is handy) but I don't even know what I need yet. That is what I am hoping to gain from this discussion. I want a main content page which has a fancy content slider (using jQuery or something) which will be a selector for showing some basic information on these 2 or 3 subjects. I'm stuck on where I should be writing this mix of markup. In the template? Create "content" through a content type? Since there's a fair share of CSS and markup required to do this, I don't know if I can do that through the "basic page" content type that was there. I'm looking for pointers that can teach me how I would become aware of what Drupal can and can not do. Thanks for reading, let me know if I need to clarify anything.

Read the article

Image Erosion for face detection in C#

- by Chris Dobinson

Hi, I'm trying to implement face detection in C#. I currently have a black + white outline of a photo with a face within it (Here). However i'm now trying to remove the noise and then dilate the image in order to improve reliability when i implement the detection. The method I have so far is here: unsafe public Image Process(Image input) { Bitmap bmp = (Bitmap)input; Bitmap bmpSrc = (Bitmap)input; BitmapData bmData = bmp.LockBits(new Rectangle(0, 0, bmp.Width, bmp.Height), ImageLockMode.ReadWrite, PixelFormat.Format24bppRgb); int stride = bmData.Stride; int stride2 = bmData.Stride * 2; IntPtr Scan0 = bmData.Scan0; byte* p = (byte*)(void*)Scan0; int nOffset = stride - bmp.Width * 3; int nWidth = bmp.Width - 2; int nHeight = bmp.Height - 2; var w = bmp.Width; var h = bmp.Height; var rp = p; var empty = CompareEmptyColor; byte c, cm; int i = 0; // Erode every pixel for (int y = 0; y < h; y++) { for (int x = 0; x < w; x++, i++) { // Middle pixel cm = p[y * w + x]; if (cm == empty) { continue; } // Row 0 // Left pixel if (x - 2 > 0 && y - 2 > 0) { c = p[(y - 2) * w + (x - 2)]; if (c == empty) { continue; } } // Middle left pixel if (x - 1 > 0 && y - 2 > 0) { c = p[(y - 2) * w + (x - 1)]; if (c == empty) { continue; } } if (y - 2 > 0) { c = p[(y - 2) * w + x]; if (c == empty) { continue; } } if (x + 1 < w && y - 2 > 0) { c = p[(y - 2) * w + (x + 1)]; if (c == empty) { continue; } } if (x + 2 < w && y - 2 > 0) { c = p[(y - 2) * w + (x + 2)]; if (c == empty) { continue; } } // Row 1 // Left pixel if (x - 2 > 0 && y - 1 > 0) { c = p[(y - 1) * w + (x - 2)]; if (c == empty) { continue; } } if (x - 1 > 0 && y - 1 > 0) { c = p[(y - 1) * w + (x - 1)]; if (c == empty) { continue; } } if (y - 1 > 0) { c = p[(y - 1) * w + x]; if (c == empty) { continue; } } if (x + 1 < w && y - 1 > 0) { c = p[(y - 1) * w + (x + 1)]; if (c == empty) { continue; } } if (x + 2 < w && y - 1 > 0) { c = p[(y - 1) * w + (x + 2)]; if (c == empty) { continue; } } // Row 2 if (x - 2 > 0) { c = p[y * w + (x - 2)]; if (c == empty) { continue; } } if (x - 1 > 0) { c = p[y * w + (x - 1)]; if (c == empty) { continue; } } if (x + 1 < w) { c = p[y * w + (x + 1)]; if (c == empty) { continue; } } if (x + 2 < w) { c = p[y * w + (x + 2)]; if (c == empty) { continue; } } // Row 3 if (x - 2 > 0 && y + 1 < h) { c = p[(y + 1) * w + (x - 2)]; if (c == empty) { continue; } } if (x - 1 > 0 && y + 1 < h) { c = p[(y + 1) * w + (x - 1)]; if (c == empty) { continue; } } if (y + 1 < h) { c = p[(y + 1) * w + x]; if (c == empty) { continue; } } if (x + 1 < w && y + 1 < h) { c = p[(y + 1) * w + (x + 1)]; if (c == empty) { continue; } } if (x + 2 < w && y + 1 < h) { c = p[(y + 1) * w + (x + 2)]; if (c == empty) { continue; } } // Row 4 if (x - 2 > 0 && y + 2 < h) { c = p[(y + 2) * w + (x - 2)]; if (c == empty) { continue; } } if (x - 1 > 0 && y + 2 < h) { c = p[(y + 2) * w + (x - 1)]; if (c == empty) { continue; } } if (y + 2 < h) { c = p[(y + 2) * w + x]; if (c == empty) { continue; } } if (x + 1 < w && y + 2 < h) { c = p[(y + 2) * w + (x + 1)]; if (c == empty) { continue; } } if (x + 2 < w && y + 2 < h) { c = p[(y + 2) * w + (x + 2)]; if (c == empty) { continue; } } // If all neighboring pixels are processed // it's clear that the current pixel is not a boundary pixel. rp[i] = cm; } } bmpSrc.UnlockBits(bmData); return bmpSrc; } As I understand it, in order to erode the image (and remove the noise), we need to check each pixel to see if it's surrounding pixels are black, and if so, then it is a border pixel and we need not keep it, which i believe my code does, so it is beyond me why it doesn't work. Any help or pointers would be greatly appreciated Thanks, Chris

Read the article

Calculating skew of text OpenCV

- by Nick

I am trying to calculate the skew of text in an image so I can correct it for the best OCR results. Currently this is the function I am using: double compute_skew(Mat &img) { // Binarize cv::threshold(img, img, 225, 255, cv::THRESH_BINARY); // Invert colors cv::bitwise_not(img, img); cv::Mat element = cv::getStructuringElement(cv::MORPH_RECT, cv::Size(5, 3)); cv::erode(img, img, element); std::vector<cv::Point> points; cv::Mat_<uchar>::iterator it = img.begin<uchar>(); cv::Mat_<uchar>::iterator end = img.end<uchar>(); for (; it != end; ++it) if (*it) points.push_back(it.pos()); cv::RotatedRect box = cv::minAreaRect(cv::Mat(points)); double angle = box.angle; if (angle < -45.) angle += 90.; cv::Point2f vertices[4]; box.points(vertices); for(int i = 0; i < 4; ++i) cv::line(img, vertices[i], vertices[(i + 1) % 4], cv::Scalar(255, 0, 0), 1, CV_AA); return angle; } When I look at then angle in debug I get 0.000000 However when I give it this image I get proper results of a skew of about 16 degrees: How can I properly detect the skew in the first image?

Read the article

7 Reasons for Abandonment in eCommerce and the need for Contextual Support by JP Saunders

- by Tuula Fai

Shopper confidence, or more accurately the lack thereof, is the bane of the online retailer. There are a number of questions that influence whether a shopper completes a transaction, and all of those attributes revolve around knowledge. What products are available? What products are on offer? What would be the cost of the transaction? What are my options for delivery? In general, most online businesses do a good job of answering basic questions around the products as the shopper engages in the online journey, navigating the product catalog and working through the checkout process. The needs that are harder to address for the shopper are those that are less concerned with product specifics and more concerned with deciding whether the transaction met their needs and delivered value. A recent study by the Baymard Institute [1] finds that more than 60% of ecommerce site visitors will abandon their shopping cart. The study also identifies seven reasons for abandonment out of the commerce process [2]. Most of those reasons come down to poor usability within the commerce experience. Distractions. External distractions within the shopper’s external environment (TV, Children, Pets, etc.) or distractions on the eCommerce page can drive shopper abandonment. Ideally, the selection and check-out process should be straightforward. One common distraction is to drive the shopper away from the task at hand through pop-ups or re-directs. The shopper engaging with support information in the checkout process should not be directed away from the page to consume support. Though confidence may improve, the distraction also means abandonment may increase. Poor Usability. When the experience gets more complicated, buyer’s remorse can set in. While knowledge drives confidence, a lack of understanding erodes it. Therefore it is important that the commerce process is streamlined. In some cases, the number of clicks to complete a purchase is lengthy and unavoidable. In these situations, it is vital to ensure that the complexity of your experience can be explained with contextual support to avoid abandonment. If you can illustrate the solution to a complex action while the user is engaged in that action and address customer frustrations with your checkout process before they arise, you can decrease abandonment. Fraud. The perception of potential fraud can be enough to deter a buyer. Does your site look credible? Can shoppers trust your brand? Providing answers on the security of your experience and the levels of protection applied to profile information may play as big a role in ensuring the sale, as does the support you provide on the product offerings and purchasing process. Does it fit? If it is a clothing item or oversized furniture item, another common form of abandonment is for the shopper to question whether the item can be worn by the intended user. Providing information on the sizing applied to clothing, physical dimensions, and limitations on delivery/returns of oversized items will also assist the sale. A photo alone of the item will help, as it answers some of those questions, but won’t assuage all customer concerns about sizing and fit. Sometimes the customer doesn’t want to buy. Prospective buyers might be browsing through your catalog to kill time, or just might not have the money to purchase the item! You are unlikely to provide any information in contextual support to increase the likelihood to buy if the shopper already has no intentions of doing so. The customer will still likely abandon. Ensuring that any questions are proactively answered as they browse through your site can only increase their likelihood to return and buy at a future date. Can’t Buy. Errors or complexity at checkout can be another major cause of abandonment. Good contextual support is unlikely to help with severe errors caused by technical issues on your site, but it will have a big impact on customers struggling with complexity in the checkout process and needing a question answered prior to completing the sale. Embedded support within the checkout process to patiently explain how to complete a task will help increase conversion rates. Additional Costs. Tax, shipping and other costs or duties can dramatically increase the cost of the purchase and when unexpected, can increase abandonment, particularly if they can’t be adequately explained. Again, a lack of knowledge erodes confidence in the purchase, and cost concerns in particular, erode the perception of your brand’s trustworthiness. Again, providing information on what costs are additive and why they are being levied can decrease the likelihood that the customer will abandon out of the experience. Knowledge drives confidence and confidence drives conversion. If you’d like to understand best practices in providing contextual customer support in eCommerce to provide your shoppers with confidence, download the Oracle Cloud Service and Oracle Commerce - Contextual Support in Commerce White Paper. This white paper discusses the process of adding customer support, including a suggested process for finding where knowledge has the most influence on your shoppers and practical step-by-step illustrations on how contextual self-service can be added to your online commerce experience. Resources: [1] http://baymard.com/checkout-usability [2] http://baymard.com/blog/cart-abandonment

Read the article

Windows 8 Will be Here Tomorrow; but Should Silverlight be Gone Today?

- by andrewbrust

The software industry lives within an interesting paradox. IT in the enterprise moves slowly and cautiously, upgrading only when safe and necessary. IT interests intentionally live in the past. On the other hand, developers, and Independent Software Vendors (ISVs) not only want to use the latest and greatest technologies, but this constituency prides itself on gauging tech’s future, and basing its present-day strategy upon it. Normally, we as an industry manage this paradox with a shrug of the shoulder and musings along the lines of “it takes all kinds.” Different subcultures have different tendencies. So be it. Microsoft, with its Windows operating system (OS), can’t take such a laissez-faire view of the world though. Redmond relies on IT to deploy Windows and (at the very least) influence its procurement, but it also relies on developers to build software for Windows, especially software that has a dependency on features in new versions of the OS. It must indulge and nourish developers’ fetish for an early birthing of the next generation of software, even as it acknowledges the IT reality that the next wave will arrive on-schedule in Redmond and will travel very slowly to end users. With the move to Windows 8, and the corresponding shift in application development models, this paradox is certainly in place. On the one hand, the next version of Windows is widely expected sometime in 2012, and its full-scale deployment will likely push into 2014 or even later. Meanwhile, there’s a technology that runs on today’s Windows 7, will continue to run in the desktop mode of Windows 8 (the next version’s codename), and provides absolutely the best architectural bridge to the Windows 8 Metro-style application development stack. That technology is Silverlight. And given what we now know about Windows 8, one might think, as I do, that Microsoft ecosystem developers should be flocking to it. But because developers are trying to get a jump on the future, and since many of them believe the impending v5.0 release of Silverlight will be the technology’s last, not everyone is flocking to it; in fact some are fleeing from it. Is this sensible? Is it not unprecedented? What options does it lead to? What’s the right way to think about the situation? Is v5.0 really the last major version of the technology called Silverlight? We don’t know. But Scott Guthrie, the “father” and champion of the technology, left the Developer Division of Microsoft months ago to work on the Windows Azure team, and he took his people with him. John Papa, who was a very influential Redmond-based evangelist for Silverlight (and is a Visual Studio Magazine author), left Microsoft completely. About a year ago, when initial suspicion of Silverlight’s demise reached significant magnitude, Papa interviewed Guthrie on video and their discussion served to dispel developers’ fears; but now they’ve moved on. So read into that what you will and let’s suppose, for the sake of argument, speculation that Silverlight’s days of major revision and iteration are over now is correct. Let’s assume the shine and glimmer has dimmed. Let’s assume that any Silverlight application written today, and that therefore any investment of financial and human resources made in Silverlight development today, is destined for rework and extra investment in a few years, if the application’s platform needs to stay current. Is this really so different from any technology investment we make? Every framework, language, runtime and operating system is subject to change, to improvement, to flux and, yes, to obsolescence. What differs from project to project, is how near-term that obsolescence is and how disruptive the change will be. The shift from .NET 1.1. to 2.0 was incremental. Some of the further changes were too. But the switch from Windows Forms to WPF was major, and the change from ASP.NET Web Services (asmx) to Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) was downright fundamental. Meanwhile, the transition to the .NET development model for Windows 8 Metro-style applications is actually quite gentle. The finer points of this subject are covered nicely in Magenic’s excellent white paper “Assessing the Windows 8 Development Platform.” As the authors of that paper (including Rocky Lhotka) point out, Silverlight code won’t just “port” to Windows 8. And, no, Silverlight user interfaces won’t either; Metro always supports XAML, but that relationship is not commutative. But the concepts, the syntax, the architecture and developers’ skills map from Silverlight to Windows 8 Metro and the Windows Runtime (WinRT) very nicely. That’s not a coincidence. It’s not an accident. This is a protected transition. It’s not a slap in the face. There are few things that are unnerving about this transition, which make it seem markedly different from others: The assumed end of the road for Silverlight is something many think they can see. Instead of being ignorant of the technology’s expiration date, we believe we know it. If ignorance is bliss, it would seem our situation lacks it. The new technology involving WinRT and Metro involves a name change from Silverlight. .NET, which underlies both Silverlight and the XAML approach to WinRT development, has just about reached 10 years of age. That’s equivalent to 80 in human years, or so many fear. My take is that the combination of these three factors has contributed to what for many is a psychologically compelling case that Silverlight should be abandoned today and HTML 5 (the agnostic kind, not the Windows RT variety) should be embraced in its stead. I understand the logic behind that. I appreciate the preemptive, proactive, vigilant conscientiousness involved in its calculus. But for a great many scenarios, I don’t agree with it. HTML 5 clients, no matter how impressive their interactivity and the emulation of native application interfaces they present may be, are still second-class clients. They are getting better, especially when hardware acceleration and fast processors are involved. But they still lag. They still feel like they’re emulating something, like they’re prototypes, like they’re not comfortable in their own skins. They are based on compromise, and they feel compromised too. HTML 5/JavaScript development tools are getting better, and will get better still, but they are not as productive as tools for other environments, like Flash, like Silverlight or even more primitive tooling for iOS or Android. HTML’s roots as a document markup language, rather than an application interface, create a disconnect that impedes productivity. I do not necessarily think that problem is insurmountable, but it’s here today. If you’re building line-of-business applications, you need a first-class client and you need productivity. Lack of productivity increases your costs and worsens your backlog. A second class client will erode user satisfaction, which is never good. Worse yet, this erosion will be inconspicuous, rather than easily identified and diagnosed, because the inferiority of an HTML 5 client over a native one is hard to identify and, notably, doing so at this juncture in the industry is unpopular. Why would you fault a technology that everyone believes is revolutionary? Instead, user disenchantment will remain latent and yet will add to the malaise caused by slower development. If you’re an ISV and you’re coveting the reach of running multi-platform, it’s a different story. You’ve likely wanted to move to HTML 5 already, and the uncertainty around Silverlight may be the only remaining momentum or pretext you need to make the shift. You’re deploying many more copies of your application than a line-of-business developer is anyway; this makes the economic hit from lower productivity less impactful, and the wider potential installed base might even make it profitable. But no matter who you are, it’s important to take stock of the situation and do it accurately. Continued, but merely incremental changes in a development model lead to conservatism and general lack of innovation in the underlying platform. Periods of stability and equilibrium are necessary, but permanence in that equilibrium leads to loss of platform relevance, market share and utility. Arguably, that’s already happened to Windows. The change Windows 8 brings is necessary and overdue. The marked changes in using .NET if we’re to build applications for the new OS are inevitable. We will ultimately benefit from the change, and what we can reasonably hope for in the interim is a migration path for our code and skills that is navigable, logical and conceptually comfortable. That path takes us to a place called WinRT, rather than a place called Silverlight. But considering everything that is changing for the good, the number of disruptive changes is impressively minimal. The name may be changing, and there may even be some significance to that in terms of Microsoft’s internal management of products and technologies. But as the consumer, you should care about the ingredients, not the name. Turkish coffee and Greek coffee are much the same. Although you’ll find plenty of interested parties who will find the names significant, drinkers of the beverage should enjoy either one. It’s all coffee, it’s all sweet, and you can tell your fortune from the grounds that are left at the end. Back on the software side, it’s all XAML, and C# or VB .NET, and you can make your fortune from the product that comes out at the end. Coffee drinkers wouldn’t switch to tea. Why should XAML developers switch to HTML?

Read the article

Is your team is a high-performing team?

As a child I can remember looking out of the car window as my father drove along the Interstate in Florida while seeing prisoners wearing bright orange jump suits and prison guards keeping a watchful eye on them. The prisoners were taking part in a prison road gang. These road gangs were formed to help the state maintain the state highway infrastructure. The prisoner’s primary responsibilities are to pick up trash and debris from the roadway. This is a prime example of a work group or working group used by most prison systems in the United States. Work groups or working groups can be defined as a collection of individuals or entities working together to achieve a specific goal or accomplish a specific set of tasks. Typically these groups are only established for a short period of time and are dissolved once the desired outcome has been achieved. More often than not group members usually feel as though they are expendable to the group and some even dread that they are even in the group. "A team is a small number of people with complementary skills who are committed to a common purpose, performance goals, and approach for which they are mutually accountable." (Katzenbach and Smith, 1993) So how do you determine that a team is a high-performing team? This can be determined by three base line criteria that include: consistently high quality output, the promotion of personal growth and well being of all team members, and most importantly the ability to learn and grow as a unit. Initially, a team can successfully create high-performing output without meeting all three criteria, however this will erode over time because team members will feel detached from the group or that they are not growing then the quality of the output will decline. High performing teams are similar to work groups because they both utilize a collection of individuals or entities to accomplish tasks. What distinguish a high-performing team from a work group are its characteristics. High-performing teams contain five core characteristics. These characteristics are what separate a group from a team. The five characteristics of a high-performing team include: Purpose, Performance Measures, People with Tasks and Relationship Skills, Process, and Preparation and Practice. A high-performing team is much more than a work group, and typically has a life cycle that can vary from team to team. The standard team lifecycle consists of five states and is comparable to a human life cycle. The five states of a high-performing team lifecycle include: Formulating, Storming, Normalizing, Performing, and Adjourning. The Formulating State of a team is first realized when the team members are first defined and roles are assigned to all members. This initial stage is very important because it can set the tone for the team and can ultimately determine its success or failure. In addition, this stage requires the team to have a strong leader because team members are normally unclear about specific roles, specific obstacles and goals that my lay ahead of them. Finally, this stage is where most team members initially meet one another prior to working as a team unless the team members already know each other. The Storming State normally arrives directly after the formulation of a new team because there are still a lot of unknowns amongst the newly formed assembly. As a general rule most of the parties involved in the team are still getting used to the workload, pace of work, deadlines and the validity of various tasks that need to be performed by the group. In this state everything is questioned because there are so many unknowns. Items commonly questioned include the credentials of others on the team, the actual validity of a project, and the leadership abilities of the team leader. This can be exemplified by looking at the interactions between animals when they first meet. If we look at a scenario where two people are walking directly toward each other with their dogs. The dogs will automatically enter the Storming State because they do not know the other dog. Typically in this situation, they attempt to define which is more dominating via play or fighting depending on how the dogs interact with each other. Once dominance has been defined and accepted by both dogs then they will either want to play or leave depending on how the dogs interacted and other environmental variables. Once the Storming State has been realized then the Normalizing State takes over. This state is entered by a team once all the questions of the Storming State have been answered and the team has been tested by a few tasks or projects. Typically, participants in the team are filled with energy, and comradery, and a strong alliance with team goals and objectives. A high school football team is a perfect example of the Normalizing State when they start their season. The player positions have been assigned, the depth chart has been filled and everyone is focused on winning each game. All of the players encourage and expect each other to perform at the best of their abilities and are united by competition from other teams. The Performing State is achieved by a team when its history, working habits, and culture solidify the team as one working unit. In this state team members can anticipate specific behaviors, attitudes, reactions, and challenges are seen as opportunities and not problems. Additionally, each team member knows their role in the team’s success, and the roles of others. This is the most productive state of a group and is where all the time invested working together really pays off. If you look at an Olympic figure skating team skate you can easily see how the time spent working together benefits their performance. They skate as one unit even though it is comprised of two skaters. Each skater has their routine completely memorized as well as their partners. This allows them to anticipate each other’s moves on the ice makes their skating look effortless. The final state of a team is the Adjourning State. This state is where accomplishments by the team and each individual team member are recognized. Additionally, this state also allows for reflection of the interactions between team members, work accomplished and challenges that were faced. Finally, the team celebrates the challenges they have faced and overcome as a unit. Currently in the workplace teams are divided into two different types: Co-located and Distributed Teams. Co-located teams defined as the traditional group of people working together in an office, according to Andy Singleton of Assembla. This traditional type of a team has dominated business in the past due to inadequate technology, which forced workers to primarily interact with one another via face to face meetings. Team meetings are primarily lead by the person with the highest status in the company. Having personally, participated in meetings of this type, usually a select few of the team members dominate the flow of communication which reduces the input of others in group discussions. Since discussions are dominated by a select few individuals the discussions and group discussion are skewed in favor of the individuals who communicate the most in meetings. In addition, Team members might not give their full opinions on a topic of discussion in part not to offend or create controversy amongst the team and can alter decision made in meetings towards those of the opinions of the dominating team members. Distributed teams are by definition spread across an area or subdivided into separate sections. That is exactly what distributed teams when compared to a more traditional team. It is common place for distributed teams to have team members across town, in the next state, across the country and even with the advances in technology over the last 20 year across the world. These teams allow for more diversity compared to the other type of teams because they allow for more flexibility regarding location. A team could consist of a 30 year old male Italian project manager from New York, a 50 year old female Hispanic from California and a collection of programmers from India because technology allows them to communicate as if they were standing next to one another. In addition, distributed team members consult with more team members prior to making decisions compared to traditional teams, and take longer to come to decisions due to the changes in time zones and cultural events. However, team members feel more empowered to speak out when they do not agree with the team and to notify others of potential issues regarding the work that the team is doing. Virtual teams which are a subset of the distributed team type is changing organizational strategies due to the fact that a team can now in essence be working 24 hrs a day because of utilizing employees in various time zones and locations. A primary example of this is with customer services departments, a company can have multiple call centers spread across multiple time zones allowing them to appear to be open 24 hours a day while all a employees work from 9AM to 5 PM every day. Virtual teams also allow human resources departments to go after the best talent for the company regardless of where the potential employee works because they will be a part of a virtual team all that is need is the proper technology to be setup to allow everyone to communicate. In addition to allowing employees to work from home, the company can save space and resources by not having to provide a desk for every team member. In fact, those team members that randomly come into the office can actually share one desk amongst multiple people. This is definitely a cost cutting plus given the current state of the economy. One thing that can turn a team into a high-performing team is leadership. High-performing team leaders need to focus on investing in ongoing personal development, provide team members with direction, structure, and resources needed to accomplish their work, make the right interventions at the right time, and help the team manage boundaries between the team and various external parties involved in the teams work. A team leader needs to invest in ongoing personal development in order to effectively manage their team. People have said that attitude is everything; this is very true about leaders and leadership. A team takes on the attitudes and behaviors of its leaders. This can potentially harm the team and the team’s output. Leaders must concentrate on self-awareness, and understanding their team’s group dynamics to fully understand how to lead them. In addition, always learning new leadership techniques from other effective leaders is also very beneficial. Providing team members with direction, structure, and resources that they need to accomplish their work collectively sounds easy, but it is not. Leaders need to be able to effectively communicate with their team on how their work helps the company reach for its organizational vision. Conversely, the leader needs to allow his team to work autonomously within specific guidelines to turn the company’s vision into a reality. This being said the team must be appropriately staffed according to the size of the team’s tasks and their complexity. These tasks should be clear, and be meaningful to the company’s objectives and allow for feedback to be exchanged with the leader and the team member and the leader and upper management. Now if the team is properly staffed, and has a clear and full understanding of what is to be done; the company also must supply the workers with the proper tools to achieve the tasks that they are asked to do. No one should be asked to dig a hole without being given a shovel. Finally, leaders must reward their team members for accomplishments that they achieve. Awards could range from just a simple congratulatory email, a party to close the completion of a large project, or other monetary rewards. Managing boundaries is very important for team leaders because it can alter attitudes of team members and can add undue stress to the team which will force them to loose focus on the tasks at hand for the group. Team leaders should promote communication between team members so that burdens are shared amongst the team and solutions can be derived from hearing the opinions of multiple sources. This also reinforces team camaraderie and working as a unit. Team leaders must manage the type and timing of interventions as to not create an even bigger mess within the team. Poorly timed interventions can really deflate team members and make them question themselves. This could really increase further and undue interventions by the team leader. Typically, the best time for interventions is when the team is just starting to form so that all unproductive behaviors are removed from the team and that it can retain focus on its agenda. If an intervention is effectively executed the team will feel energized about the work that they are doing, promote communication and interaction amongst the group and improve moral overall. High-performing teams are very import to organizations because they consistently produce high quality output and develop a collective purpose for their work. This drive to succeed allows team members to utilize specific talents allowing for growth in these areas. In addition, these team members usually take on a sense of ownership with their projects and feel that the other team members are irreplaceable. References: http://blog.assembla.com/assemblablog/tabid/12618/bid/3127/Three-ways-to-organize-your-team-co-located-outsourced-or-global.aspx Katzenbach, J.R. & Smith, D.K. (1993). The Wisdom of Teams: Creating the High-performance Organization. Boston: Harvard Business School.

Developer IT