The Newtonian paradox of groups.

Successful groups have great power, power to identify, understand the causes and implications of problems and opportunities, and come up with creative responses, and once moving can gather great momentum. Most workplaces are now actively seeking to harness the intellect and creative power of their employees and other stakeholders, and those that do it well create great opportunity.

The flip side is that groups also have inertia, they are much harder to get rolling than just an individual, and once rolling, have a tendency to take unpredictable excursions.

It is easy to underestimate the effort, leadership, and capacity to connect that is required to overcome this inertia, and to manage the momentum constructively, leading a group in a consistent direction, focusing on the important issues, and consistently delivering outcomes.

I bet Isaac never thought of this application of his laws.   

Successful chains are communities

When people are tied together, when they are in “communities” they tend to develop shared values, aspirations, and courses of action. The incidence of double dealing, dishonesty, personal gain at the expense of the community gain, are reduced.

An efficient demand chain is just another type of community, it benefits from the collaboration, is able to identify and filter out self interest and hubris, and can deliver value to all participants.

The oxygen of such a community is information, both the quantitative data that can be collected and shared, but perhaps more importantly, the qualitative stuff that accrues with use, personal relationships,  shared obligations, the mutual understanding of peoples idiosyncrasies,  and simply the need to be recognised. 

Another management paradox

 

All species, including humans, are inherently adaptive, yet the organisations humans inhabit are by their nature resistant to change.

The management challenge of the future is to figure out how to build an organisation that evolves sufficiently quickly to be ahead of the changes occurring in the environment around them so as to be in a position to exploit and leverage those changes rather than just reacting to them.

“Democtratising knowledge” in demand chains

Democratising  knowledge, isn’t this a lovely term! I have heard it used on a number of occasions recently, and it came up again in an extraordinary TED presentation by Stephen Wolfram .

In just two words it nails the complex changes happening in numerous ways in our lives. Knowledge used to be power, now it is freely available, it is simply a tool, and the ones who use it best will win, rather than in the past, where the holder of the knowledge had a huge advantage.

Amongst all the other things that have changed, is the potential to turn simple supply chains that pump product into a channel driven only by capacity, into demand chains that respond backwards to demand signals from the customer.

This opportunity for change driven by a combination of the communication tools on the net, and the ability to assemble and analyse the drivers of demand in your particular market  offers huge potential for innovation, efficiency, and differentiation based on the capabilities of those in the chain. 

Are they really friends?

Anthropologist Robin Dunbar theorised that the maximum number of people any individual could maintain a relationship with was 150, which has become known as Dunbar’s number. It reflects the cognitive maximum for someone to know everyone in a group, and to be aware of the relationships between them all.

Social media has led to people into  having many “friends” sometimes thousands, but in the human sense, they do not have a relationship, it is something different, for which I suspect we need a new term.

Human beings are social animals, and no matter how valuable our digital networks are to us, they are no substitute for the human interactions that define us, but are limited to around 150 individuals at any one time.

What is the problem, and how do we fix it?

What is the problem, and how do we fix it?

Working my way through a book on the implementation of “Lean”  called “Manage to learn” an interesting book that further evolves the textbook as a story genre started by Eliyahu Goldratt’s best selling book “The Goal” originally published back in the early eighties, I saw the list of questions reproduced below.

The book itself is about the learning how to use A3 method of problem solving and teaching that has come out of Toyota and is very useful, but it struck me that the list is a generic list of sensible questions that should be asked in a wide range of circumstances where solving a problem is the task at hand.

1. What is the problem or issue?

2. Who owns the problem?

3. What are the root causes of the problem?

4. What are some possible countermeasures?

5. How will you decide which countermeasures to propose?

6. How will you get agreement from everyone concerned?

7. What is your implementation plan—who, what, when, where, how?

8. How will you know if your countermeasures work?

9. What follow-up issues can you anticipate? What problems may occur

during implementation?

10. How will you capture and share the learning?

Answer all these, and the path will be very clear.