ISethWebster

I just finished migrating my blog here to windows 2008 -- I am testing to make sure that I can indeed post an entry. 

The migration wasn't bad though there were definitely manual configuration tweaks that had to be made.  Interesting that MS released such breaking changes... progress!

I had to manually move the registered httpHandlers and httpModules into the <system.webServer> section and rename the section tags to "handlers" and "modules".  I also had to enable detailed errors to figure out what was going on.  

Enabling Detailed Errors: Click Here
Breaking Changes Reference: Click Here

Thanks to Mike Volodarsky for the great info!

Defining desired outcomes can be one of the most difficult exercises (sometimes in futility) that an individual or a group can undertake.  There will undoubtedly be a question similar to, "What are you solving for?"  Then someone who just doesn't get it (not my assessment, mind you), responds with a how. In traditional situations, someone reminds the solver, "that's a hhhowwww... What are you solving for?"

I often will take this opportunity when participating or leading these exercises to remind people that Whats and Hows are hierarchical... Every what is another what's how.  For example, if I define an outcome of, "Deliver a 20% increase in wheelbarrow sales for Q4," I have defined a how for the outcome above, "Increase Lawn and Garden sales."  And this what drives to the outcome of, "Enter the lawn and garden market," defined in the previous year.

It is often the case that people in the room are driving the discussion too deep into solving, however, the reason I feel that this discussion is important is to the end that what may be insightful, informative or otherwise beneficial discussions are often cut short and curtailed to avoid defining hows.  Is it possible that having this brief discussion, if targeted, can provide planners (the what people) with invaluable information for making better decisions around the What? 

Don't get me wrong, however.  Solving too early in the (outcome) planning process can be extremely detrimental to success.  You cannot solve as a unit without cohesively knowing what you are solving for (the what). 

Something else to be aware of is that when people spend an excessive amount of time pushing forward with more hows; trying to solve what in the what planning meeting, it may symptomatic of the fact that there isn't shared vision around that outcome.  Many times, this solve mode is enacted upon an internal (even unidentified) gap realization.  That outcome may be missing the point for the solver.  This can often be solved by getting shared vision, adjusting the outcome phraseology or even adding an additional separate outcome.

Food for thought.