Nov 2, 2011 | Management, Operations, Strategy
Yesterday’s question time, a childish brawl over who knew what and when about the Qantas decision to ground its aircraft, lock out staff, and leave customers around the world stranded, got me thinking. Not just about the pointless squabbling amongst the pollies over a point of history that legally is none of their business, but about the way a business can be subject to expectations way out of line with their competitors, and its legal obligations.
It is obvious that Qantas had considered grounding as a tactic in their industrial dispute, it is completely stupid to think Alan Joyce woke up on Saturday with a bright idea, there would have been a deep consideration at board level of a very aggressive and disruptive tactic that was almost of a “bet the farm” nature.
The real question is, what obligations does Qantas have to act in what politicians consider to be the public interest, when Qantas is a public company, and the Government sold their shareholding years ago in order to free themselves from the demands of being the major shareholder?
Qantas is fighting for its survival, the competitive world of aviation has moved on, and Qantas must adjust or disappear, and yet, there are clamourings for it to ignore the probability of its demise without change.
What gives the pollies, and a large portion of the public the right to demand that Qantas shareholders take a bath to satisfy an emotional attachment that is not backed by any financial commitment? If this was almost any other company in the top 100 listed companies, the tactics in an industrial dispute would be of little general interest, only the stakeholders directly involved would be making their points, and then within the legislated framework.
Why is Qantas different?
Nov 1, 2011 | Change, Leadership, Management, Strategy
Gary Hamel is one of the leading management thinkers around. Every time he speaks, he is worth listening to, and whilst you may not always agree, there is always depth to his views.
In this post he proposes that management as we know it will be destroyed by three forces of the 21st century . To quote, “Over the coming decades, these forces will mostly destroy management as we know it”
The forces he refers to are the rapid changes in the competitive environment that just keep accelerating, the development of web based collaboration tools, and the impact of the generation just growing up to whom the net is just there, a thing that is not even considered, to repeat his metaphor, it is as transparent as water is to a fish.
As one who talks about this stuff continually, I wish I could articulate is as simply, and clearly as he does.
Sep 29, 2011 | Collaboration, Leadership, Strategy
Complexity is strangling us, paralysis by analysis has become pretty widespread, and the paradox is that we are all trying to do more with less.
In that context, creating an environment where everyone can contribute to the maximum of their capability seems like a pretty good idea.
To achieve that level of engagement irrespective of the size and complexity of an organisation, all it takes is one simple question”
“What do you think?”
The catch is that the hard part starts after the question, when the cultural environment needs to have evolved sufficiently to encourage people to tell it as they really see it, and then feel they have the power and authority to implement.
Sep 25, 2011 | Collaboration, Strategy
Thinking about they way organisations work, the “industrial” model of hierarchical functional management, expertise and knowledge hoarded, and little transparency of effort and outcomes is way past its use buy date.
We are social animals, who evolved in a village, usually not more than 150 people, where all the individuals made their contributions by way of what they were best at, and the group benefitted.
The age of the net 2.0 is bringing back the notion of the collaborative potential of the village as distinct from the hierarchical structure of the corporation.
This is a different way of organising ourselves. We need to be more adaptive and collaborative, the outcome of the whole system is the objective, not just the benefit that may accrue to an individual.
Sep 19, 2011 | Demand chains, Operations, Strategy
People routinely forecast optimistically, they under-forecast costs, and over-forecast outcomes. We have all seen it happen repeatedly in businesses and the public sector, most of us have seen it on personal level.
Demand planning is the core of effective operational optimisation, and differs from simply sales forecasting, in that it looks at the drivers of demand, rather than drivers of sales, often a big difference, and it is free of the bogy of just assuming the past will be repeated, even if massaged by some fancy algorithm.
Demand planning has been enhanced by the developments in what are in effect benchmarking of similar situations, collectively called Reference Class Forecasting by its Nobel prize winning proponents, Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky.
Demand planning is hard to do well, but most useful things are.
Sep 13, 2011 | Change, Innovation, Social Media, Strategy
Coles & Woolies are starting out to reduce the gap between their marketing practices and those of the trendsetter, Tesco in the UK.
I guess this is not surprising given they are both watching Tesco very closely, and Coles management is now dominated by ex Tesco personnel, but I wonder if Australia has the depth of Innovation capability to not just copy what others have done, but to create genuine innovation in this exploding digital space.
We appear to have taken the edge off our capability, Universities and research facilities are starved of funds, hobbled by any current political agenda, and standards do not appear to be sufficiently rigorous to test and train the very best minds we produce. This is a long term challenge, way beyond any political cycle, but in my view should be high on our agenda if we are serious as a nation about the role we play into the future. It is not just about the carbon tax (look at what Iceland is doing) or what to do with a few desperate people arriving in leaky boats, it is about how we set up our nation for the long term.
Insead Business School and the Confederation of Indian Industry have produced a credible report that ranks our performance in the all important “Innovation Stakes” at 18, better than Thailand, but behind New Zealand. Australia’s profile is on page 79.
