The two things we have to achieve for our grandchildren

The two things we have to achieve for our grandchildren

Oct 31, 2019 | Governance, Leadership

Yesterday I listened to a hysterical condemnation of Woolworths, who had come clean to the Employment Ombudsman when they realised they had underpaid staff.

Another example of big business rorting workers, or more evidence of the impact of overwhelming complexity of a system causing self implosion?

Woolworths is the biggest private sector employer in the country, so it is reasonable to assume they have the will and resources to ensure employees are paid properly. On the other hand, with the complexity of the award systems, staggered and differing shifts, varied hours of operation, and the sheer number of people moving from one job classification to another, across locations, the complexity of the payroll must be staggering.  

Over the millennia, as we humans have become more ‘civilised’ and our social and commercial systems more sophisticated and complex, from the early Greeks through to today, there has been an increasingly delicate balance at play.

Varying supply systems and the bureaucracies that control them, deliver the means by which the surplus from our collective endeavours is distributed. While the cost of that complexity is less than the revenue generated, we continue to become more complex. Once we reach a tipping point, where the revenue generated is less than the cost of the management bureaucracies that enable it, we become pointed at shitters ditch.

Look at almost any part of the ‘management’ systems in a democracy. There are always competing priorities, with vocal advocates on all sides. The tax system, NDIS,  defence, social welfare, personal power Vs institutional power, and on, and on, and on. In Woolworths case, the responsibility to get employees pay correctly compliant with various agreements and regulations, while remaining in control of, and extracting maximum return from the biggest expense incurred in operating, is such a balancing act.

It seems to me we have reached if not passed the tipping point.

As Hemingway asks in the Sun Also Rises:

‘How did you go bankrupt?‘

‘Two ways:  Gradually, then suddenly”

Unless we find ways to address just two challenging items, we will continue to slide, as complexity increases, goals become more fluffy,  and accountability diffused .

Those two items:

Priorities.

Focus.

We have to identify and prioritise the few key things upon which the future of our children and grandchildren are based.

We then have to focus resources on their achievement. It will be long term, incremental, and politically difficult, but the alternative is ugly.

The challenge is the same for any enterprise as it is for the country, only the scale is different, along with the accountability. After all, politicians have 3 or 4 years to make a start, depending on the location, while public companies have  to make adjustments quarter by quarter or be castigated by the stock markets.

I wonder if we mere mortals have the grit and foresight to act?

A very rare few do, they are not mere mortals, they are true leaders.

Have you seen any recently?

 

Cartoon credit: Scott Adams and his mate Dilbert.

 

 

 

A critical antidote to confirmation bias.

Oct 28, 2019 | Governance, Leadership, Management

Confirmation bias is a seductive bitch.

We see what we expect to see, the things that confirm our existing views and expectations, to the exclusion of alternatives. When taken to extremes,  loonies like holocaust deniers, and the ‘no vac’ lot emerge and sprout their fact and logic free poison, and attract a small following, and the rest of us just fail to understand how.

We humans tend to see things as if we were looking out a window.  It consumes less cognitive energy when patterns of the past are just assumed by our brains to be repeated, so that is the brains default. The further back from the window, the narrower the view, but however close you get, there is still a restriction.

The challenge therefore is to find an alternative window through which to look at the problem facing you, or better still, assemble a few others with different windows through which they look at the same problem.

Do  not just  think outside the box, get another box!

One way to use this different box, or window, to continue the metaphor, when facing a challenge is to ask better questions, ones that force the challenge to be examined from different perspectives.

  • Why is it so?
  • Where is the leverage?
  • Have we described the problem correctly, or just the symptom?
  • What is the pain point?
  • What has to be true for this outcome to emerge?
  • For this expected result to become about, which assumptions have to be accurate?
  • What happens if we do not decide?
  • What does this challenge look like in other arenas?
  • Are we relying too much on data?
  • What does the behaviour of others when confronting this really look like?
  • Is the data we have reliable, or has it been ‘managed’?
  • How is this different?
  • Have we simplified the challenge sufficiently for a solution to emerge?
  • What would the devils advocate say?

I could go on, but you get the picture.

Driving change in a business means butting heads with confirmation bias.

This is why you need a distinct catalyst to kick it off, and keep it running, for the change process to be successful.

Ask better questions!

How to measure ‘Flow’ through a process.

How to measure ‘Flow’ through a process.

Oct 23, 2019 | Lean, OE, Operations

The word ‘Flow’ has a few differing meanings, but all imply the smooth transition from one place to another.

To improve operational efficiency, as well as the productivity of a process, the best way to go about it is to remove the sources of interruption to the smooth flow of the product or service from one point to another.

In some cases, the results of the interruption will be obvious, a build-up of WIP waiting for the opportunity to move forward, and its sibling, lack of product to move into a waiting machine, or part of a process. In others, it will not be so obvious, and often takes time to isolate and address.

Fortunately, the metrics of ‘Flow’ are simple, there are only two:

Throughput.

Cycle time.

How much moves from one point to the next, and how long does it take.

These metrics can be applied to a whole process, and parts of the process. Usually an improvement starts with the former, and as investigation proceeds, it digs into individual stages in the process, removing interruptions progressively, starting with the biggest, which may in itself have several components.

Tracking and making transparent these two measures, while having those involved take responsibility for continuous improvement is where the productivity gold lies hidden.

Tracking can be achieved by some sort of digital visual display, now everywhere, and/or the original and perhaps still best way, with Kanban cards (which means in Japanese ‘visual signal’) that follow the process, step by step. Utilising both achieves the benefit of both wide transparency, and individual responsibility.

In its simplest form, the metrics track time and delivery.

The example above in the header shows, in period 1, 8 units were delivered, period 2, 10 units, and so on.

The time will be whatever is appropriate to the process being measured, as will the units.

It may be minutes, days, weeks, whatever is appropriate.

This may represent the total process, or a small part of it. In the latter case, it will usually be sensible to add a column between each of the process stages to capture the WIP, the reduction of which is almost always the best place to start when optimising the flow through a multi stage process.

When you need an experienced head to assist you think your way through this seemingly simple idea, give me a call.

5 meanings of ‘Send me a proposal’

Oct 21, 2019 | Customers, Management

 

Send me a proposal is a phrase I hear from time to time, and most of my clients hear often.

The challenge is to interpret what it really means.

Possible meaning 1. You have their attention, your pitch has generated genuine interest, and it is likely that there will be a job here, assuming the demons of the procurement process, and that person in the background with the power of veto, is amenable. Great.

Possible meaning 2. There is a job here, but you are not going to get it. Our procurement process requires us to have three quotes, and yours is number three. We can now confirm our first choice has the job.

Possible meaning 3. Great meeting you, thanks for the time and information. Your offer is really interesting, and I would like to go ahead, but cannot. However, I really like you, and would not want you to feel as if you have wasted your time, so send me a proposal.

Possible meaning 4. We think we have a problem, but are not sure, and even if we have, are not sure if it is worth addressing. Therefore, have a think about it, do some preliminary research, and give us your views, we will be grateful, we will both know  a bit more.

Possible meaning 5. I am just making myself feel important by asking for a proposal, but do not have the authority or budget to commission such a crazy project.

Clearly there are many variations, but they seem to boil down to these five.

I recently made the mistake of preparing a proposal for an industry body, knowing at the back of my mind that it was a waste of time, but the exercise of gathering the information to prepare it was useful for other reasons, so I proceeded. As anticipated, there have been a number of requests to amend the proposal, which has been done, but I do  not anticipate a green light any time soon.

As consultants, and service providers, we can spend a lot of time preparing proposals that will never go anywhere, and the time we spend is not valued by those who are asking us to do the preparation. It is up to us to leverage the opportunities as we best we can.

There are several strategies you may want to think about, all require you to have some sort of

‘RFQ Qualification’ process in place.

  • Politely decline the opportunity. It seems that sometimes when you do this, it just confirms in the mind of the potential client that you are in fact the right person for the job. You can then go around again if you choose to.
  • Reframe the RFQ so that you are responding to the question through a different frame from the one your competitors will use. At least that way, a real choice has to be made, and perhaps some deeper thought put into the brief, and ultimate choice. Sometimes this works.
  • Subcontract the job to someone else, and should they get it, you can clip the ticket.
  • Run for the hills.

In most cases where a proposal that acts as a competitive tender is required, there will already be a preferred tenderer. If you do not know who it is, it is not you!

 

Header cartoon credit: Scott Adams, again nails it.

 

 

 

Are SMART goals redundant?

Oct 16, 2019 | Governance, Innovation, Strategy

 

Goal setting and the subsequent resource allocation decisions taken to address the goals are an integral part of every management job, no matter where on the organisational totem that job stands.

Setting goals appropriate to the level at which they are being implemented is a function of being appropriate for the level, as well as ensuring they are consistent and aligned with the overall goals of the organisation.

The greater the degree of alignment, in conjunction with the greater the degree of relevance of the goals to those at every level to which they are being applied, the more effective they will be.

‘If it cannot be measured, it does not matter’. I subscribe to this idea, first articulated by Peter Drucker,  with the simple caveat that it is not always right. As Einstein said, ‘not everything that matters can be measured‘. For example, How do you measure the value of good parenting? We all know it is good for the individuals, and the community, but what are the objective measures of good  parenting?

 It is also important to make the distinction between goals and KPI’s, which are simply the signposts along the way towards goals by which  you measure progress. Confusion of the meaning of these two terms is common, and destructive.

The acronym SMART was used a lot in the past to set the goals of an enterprise, function, teams, and even individuals. It seems, unfortunately, to have gone out of fashion. Perhaps because managing objectives in such a way increases accountability, which might just be a good idea!

Specific. Be very specific about what the objective is, no fluffy words, no ‘get out of gaol’ card.  What is it exactly that you want to achieve?

Measurable.  What are the measures to be employed that will chart progress towards the goal, and most importantly,  tell you when you have achieved it

Achievable. Do you have the capabilities required and the cultural and performance frameworks that will enable the achievement. Is everyone on board? It is hard for employees to strive to achieve an objective  they do not believe in, or think is unachievable. 

Relevant. The goal is consistent with the overall strategy, and contributes to  the delivery of that strategy.

Time-bound. Deadlines drive performance, and highlight activity priorities. The overall goal end point needs to be agreed, as do the key points on the journey

The poster boy for a SMART goal was JFK’s 1961 goal of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely by the end of the decade.

Header photo by NASA. Astonishing to think it was 50 years ago, I remember it like it was yesterday.