Why special purpose teams often don’t work.

Why special purpose teams often don’t work.

 

 

Special purpose teams are generally formed to solve a problem.

However, it seems that ‘collaboration’ has become so integral to many corporate cultures, that every problem becomes an opportunity to ‘collaborate’. Teams are often formed without sufficient reference to the experience and capabilities required to define and address the problem.

When you want a problem assessed, and a resulting action to remove it, you must hold somebody accountable for the outcome.

A process or task that is not attached to a person’s name will rarely be optimised.

Often when an ad hoc team is formed in response to a perceived problem, the performance of that team becomes marginal, simply because it is always somebody else’s job to be accountable for all or part of the solution.

The task of a team is to:

  • Define a problem by looking at the blockage from many perspectives provided by the individuals in the team. This is why the choice of personnel is critical. Do not make the common mistake of allocating personnel who seem to have the time to a team. Allocate personnel by expertise and leadership styles.
  • Generate possible solutions, and then:
  • Pick one possible solution, perhaps after some initial experimentation, and then:
  • Allocate an individual to be accountable for the execution of the chosen course of action.
  • Rinse and repeat.

Do that, and the team will deliver results when members have been selected by the capabilities necessary, assuming you also give them the resources needed to do the job being asked of them.

Failure to assemble a team carefully, which requires leadership, will ensure little more than a gabfest.

 

Header cartoon credit: Tom Fishburne at www.Marketoonist.com.

 

 

 

Political Strategy: Choose between the now and the future.

Political Strategy: Choose between the now and the future.

 

 

Our current politics is an intensely adversarial, short-term, zero-sum game.

Is this what is best for the country?

The federal budget is due in a few days.

Based on the selective leaking and conversations happening, the budget will be focused, or at least the political narrative will be focused, on cost of living, housing, male violence against females, and the build-up of national security assets, military and technology.

All worthy topics, demanding attention, understanding, and investment.

However, if anybody in Canberra chose to take a helicopter view of the strategy of Australia Inc, as it would be in a business, there are only two questions that should be the framework that drives the tactical choices that are made every year in the budget.

  • What are we building that will deliver long term capacity, resilience, and innovation to the economy?
  • What are we doing now to optimise the way we invest resource is against those long-term priorities, and the shorter-term tactical investments necessary to achieve them?

The first is a drag on current expenditure that is designed to deliver a long-term outcome.

The second is an imposition on the long-term outcome to deliver in the short term.

At the best of times this is a delicate balance, and you never have all the right answers.

However, in the absence of asking the question, there will be no answers other than a knee jerk response to whatever happens to be in the headlines today.

Let’s not worry about our children and grandchildren, they will find a way to recover the can we have so solidly kicked down the road.

On that can are the words: we have a revenue problem.

This means tax, as that is the only way governments have the resources to deliver to the country.

Unfortunately, Tax is a noxious three letter word, and no politician who desires to remain one, (they almost all do) will touch, unless accompanied by the word ‘Cut’. Besides, no politician is short of a bob, superannuation entitlement, negatively geared investments, and the largess of party donors. They live comfortably on the teat, while often complaining about how hard the job is, which is no doubt true for those few who are trying, easy for those who are just seat warmers.

The header is courtesy of DALL-E, my artful helper.

 

 

Is 3% of GDP the right answer to our manufacturing complexity problem?

Is 3% of GDP the right answer to our manufacturing complexity problem?

 

 

As we seek to move towards 3% of GDP as a measure of the R&D in the economy, we are assuming that simply increasing the percentage will increase the output, in some sort of linear manner.

Ranking as we do at 93 on the Harvard list, squeezed between Uganda on 92, and Pakistan at 94, we need to do something different.

We have not asked the question: what changes need to be made to the multi-jurisdictional, fragmented and short-term focused system we have currently.

In my view we should.

Before we throw more effort and money into the existing system, we should be questioning if the system is able to deliver the outcomes being sought in an optimised manner.

Assuming we elect to keep the existing system, (a given I suspect) we should start by asking challenging strategic questions about the technology domains we need to focus on, that contribute to the shape of the economy we envisage in a decade or two.

That is easy to say, sadly, it is extraordinarily hard to do. It is even harder for the answers that may emerge to get any traction, by way of public awareness and funding. Without exception, the questions we must ask will run against the readily available answers that reflect just the extrapolation of the status quo, perhaps with a few wrinkles.

Inevitably, multiplying the complexity of the challenges faced will present problems with no apparent answers, or they would have been answered before. That is why the cycle from science to commercialised product is so long, in most cases, 30 years or more.

Change needs a catalyst, which usually comes from unexpected angles.

Take the development of mRNA vaccines during Covid.

To most this was a rushed and half-baked process, as we all know that the pharma innovation cycle is at least a decade, from identification of a molecule of value, through product development and increasingly demanding levels of clinical trial. Here, it happened in 18 months.

Thing is mRNA vaccine development did not happen in 18 months.

The logic of what became mRNA  was first articulated in 1956, and had been investigated continuously for the following 65 years. Suddenly the catalyst of Covid emerged, and the next decade or longer of development was compressed into the 18 months. This is simply because most of the work had been done, under the radar, and on a small scale, scientists knew it was extremely promising, they just lacked the catalyst and therefore the funds to prove it.

The question here was: can the expensive and technically very difficult production of mRNA be proved and scaled in 18 months? Clearly the answer was ‘yes’ and now we have mRNA as part of the pharma arsenal.

The PM has committed a billion dollars to developing a manufacturing plant in the Hunter that produces solar panels. On the surface, it is dumb, and has been condemned by many, including yours truly, and chair of the productivity Commission Danielle Wood.

However, what if we asked the mRNA question: Can the production of electricity from solar be re-engineered to use significantly advanced technology over what is currently available? If so, that may enable the plant to be a ‘next technology generation’ solar plant that sets a whole new standard.

The whole basis of the current argument that the investment can never be commercially viable because the Chinese have a stranglehold on the existing technology and cost structure is out the window. A new plant using new technology, delivering lower cost structures and capital productivity would make the current dominating technology redundant.

The intensity of intellectual effort required to ask and investigate these alternative questions is extreme.

The odds of one of them identifying an opportunity that is, with the benefit of hindsight, a ‘unicorn’ is tiny, so the political risk is significant. However, if we allow ourselves to be seduced by the fantasy of doing more of what has resulted in our current situation and expecting a better outcome, we will deserve the shellacking the investment will receive.

Two years ago I had a shot, and nominated three headline domains where we should be investing, and my views have not changed. Sitting under these three headlines are a host of opportunities for a focused R&D effort that should be considered by experts in the various fields, choices made, and long-term investment locked in.

Header is from the extensive StrategyAudit slide bank.

 

 

How do we measure and value resilience?

How do we measure and value resilience?

 

 

‘Resilience’ is a word we are hearing a lot these days and will hear more today.

On this ANZAC day 2024, there will be a lot of words sprayed around that amount to acknowledgement of the resilience of ANZAC troops.

They clung to the cliffs on the Gallipoli peninsular, died in the mud of Passchendaele, slogged across the Owen Stanleys a couple of times, and lived under rocks in the seaside splendour of Tobruk.

It is used to describe both the personal characteristics required of the individual, and the culture of organisations.

The dictionary definition leaves a bit to be desired, referring to the ability of a person or organisation to return to a previous state. ‘Elasticity’ is a common simile.

How do we measure resilience? If we cannot measure it, as the saying goes, we cannot improve it.

What is the measure of resilience shown by the ANZACS in those meat grinders? Indeed, how do we measure the resilience of those at home, watching as the casualty lists were posted?

In a commercial context, resilience implies the degree to which an enterprise is able to absorb and adjust to the unexpected. Usually, it refers to the short term from the decisions made by others that drive an unexpected outcome that changes the status quo. Substantial competitive moves, new products that deliver new value, or the emergence of something that could be classed to some degree as ‘disruptive’.

Measuring by financial outcomes is misleading. Financial outcomes are the result of other decisions taken on the inputs to the business. Do that well, and you become financially secure, do it poorly and you go out of business.

The allied high command on the Western Front measured the outcomes of their initiatives by two things: the ground gained, and the casualties incurred. Of the two, the first was the more important to them. Field Marshall Haig never got close enough to the lines to understand the resilience required to ‘jump the bags’, again. The linkage and enormous gap between his orders, written in the splendour of the Château de Beaurepaire, and the squalor and death on the front lines that was the outcome, was never meaningfully acknowledged.

Measuring outcomes is always easier than measuring the inputs, then allocating cause and effect to the decisions but is rarely useful. Just as measuring your weight every morning will not assist you to lose weight in the absence of resulting reduction in calories, throwing yourself at a machine gun nest will not win ground.

It does however require resilience, courage, and dedication to both those beside you, the wider objective, and willingness to ‘do the work’.

In our modern world, despite the continuous marketing of the silver bullet products promising the contrary, there is no substitute for domain knowledge, planning, optimised resource allocation, and the sheer resilience to stick at it in the face of adversity.

It comes down to the culture at the micro level. How the individual behaves, and how that behaviour translates to the immediate group.

It has always be so.

It is a lovely autumn day in Sydney, as we reflect on those that gave us the opportunity to enjoy the freedoms we take for granted. It is also my beautiful daughters 38th birthday. Happy birthday Jenn!

How time flies.

The header is an arial photo of the gorge, hidden in the Wollemi State Forest, after the fires of 2019-20. The green spine is made up of the only stand left of Wollemi Pines. They have survived since the dinosaurs roamed the area. Resilience.

 

 

 

The hidden cancer of your battery-powered device

The hidden cancer of your battery-powered device

 

Suddenly, everyone is interested in batteries.

When mobile devices took off after the launch of the iPhone, the demand for batteries with a longer life than the then existing chemistry could deliver took off as well. Panasonic held a dominating position in this new market, being the major supplier of batteries made using Lithium as the power store.

Then along came Elon Musk. The first Tesla cars, the initial roadster and early models of the series 1 and 2 sedans used what was in effect just large-scale Panasonic batteries. Individual units were linked together with cooling tubes assembled into the pack to dissipate the heat generated by the lithium, which otherwise led to spectacular fires.

Musk in collaboration with Panasonic envisaged a ‘gigafactory’ in Nevada that would supply the packs. As has become a pattern, Panasonic found the task of working with Musk all too much, and were bought out. However, to the point, an essential part of a lithium battery is a range of rare minerals, amongst them Cobalt.

The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) hardly democratic, holds almost all the worlds known reserves of Cobalt. Rapid development was inevitable, as was the corruption of local power brokers, and the human rights blindness of the major corporations. Cobalt is a dangerous material, yet much of it is mined by kids in holes with a pick and shovel, dying like flies. There is a registration process designed to monitor and outlaw these practices, but they are useless.

The challenge of replacing Cobalt is therefore the focus of much scientific attention. It is the chemistry of batteries that will deliver a power to weight ratio that will guarantee longer charge life, in everything from your phone to your car, and all the other uses to which Lithium batteries are suddenly being placed.

The world as a choice of three strategies, which should be mutually exclusive:

    • Find an alternative to cobalt, and quickly.
    • Find alternative sources of Cobalt, leaving the DRC out of the picture.
    • Internationally strengthen and enforce the existing regulations on the mining and processing of Cobalt to remove the incentive for the current corruption and exploitation that occurs.

The first two options are clearly the best. However, the challenge of replacing Cobalt requires a scientific breakthrough that while probable, is yet to be made, and the DRC remains the primary supplier. The third option seems to be beyond our joint capability.

The first to find and commercialise a solution will reap the rewards.