Mar 8, 2021 | Analytics, Governance, Operations
One of the significant problems in making any change is the articulation of the need to change, and the outcomes that are expected as a result.
Overcome those two, and change is suddenly easier, albeit still really hard.
The first hurdle is the articulation.
In order to communicate and have complex ideas generally understood, you do not use technical, academic jargon backed by data, you use stories and metaphors in a way that connects with the audience.
Communicating industry 4.0 is such a complex challenge.
What is it, how will it affect me, why should I be interested?
Answering these questions is a core foundation of gaining acceptance, followed by action that becomes automatic as it gets buried in the auto-response system.
Remember the last time you put your hand onto a hot stove.
Before you felt anything, you had reacted by pulling your hand away, a totally unconscious, instantaneous, action then, it started to hurt like hell.
Think about the processes involved in this.
First: the ‘data’ that indicated the stove was hot was collected by the nerves in your fingers and hand.
Second: the ‘data’ is sent for processing to your brain, the CPU between your ears. This processing concludes your hand is in danger of being burnt.
Third: That conclusion is sent to the muscles that control where your hand is, with firm instructions to remove it immediately.
Fourth: Your hand is pulled back out of danger.
Fifth: It starts to hurt like hell, and the memory of that hurt is stored deep in your personal CPU for future reference should your hand stray again.
The astonishing thing is that the first four happen without thought, instantaneously, and the fifth is a long term ‘frame’ through which you unconsciously ‘feel’ the hurt and approach the stove warily. It is a neural network that collaborates, communicates, drives action, and learns.
Industry, or more specifically, Factory 4.0 is, similarly, a set of tools that collects, analyses and acts on data without direction, and learns from the experience, adding to the auto-response ‘memory bank’ and adjusted based on the ‘learning’ that occurs as data on outcomes is collected. The system becomes more Automatic than Artificial.
Header cartoon credit: Tom Gauld in ‘New Scientist’ magazine.
Mar 2, 2021 | Change, Governance, Management
Covid has forced remote working, and many have responded by introducing a well-proven strategy to maintain the sense of ‘togetherness’ as well as delivering accountability.
The ‘Huddle’
It goes by many names, one of my clients calls it the ‘daily toolbox’.
Nevertheless, it is a challenging idea to implement. Initially there are always those who see it as just another imposition, or waste of everyone’s time, but done well, they are a wonderful tool, and not just for these Covid times.
Following are the 9 practices I have seen that contribute to the great outcomes possible:
-
-
- The daily huddle is by definition, daily, which means that the next 24 hours are the topic of discussion. Anything else should be treated elsewhere in the most appropriate forum.
- Use a set time, and always be on time.
- Make the agenda consistent and focussed on the tasks and accountabilities of those in the huddle only.
- Follow ups, and problems that need further consideration should be taken offline or escalated. The huddle itself should be no more than 15 minutes at the most.
- Do not allow waffle. Preparation for the huddle means that people have points they need to make. Written down and read verbatim is often the best way. However, use full sentences, your summary, while clear to you, may not be to others.
- Everyone in the huddle is given the opportunity to speak, and those who naturally are reticent, are prompted by the chair.
- Ideally, the chair should rotate in some manner that suits the group, which gives all an equal share in the ‘ownership’ of the group and its outcomes.
- It is a place for shout-out praise as well as noting problems and emerging challenges.
- Be attentive. No devices that intrude are allowed.
‘Huddles’ at the next level up, weekly, monthly, work the same way, and are ideally timed to follow the previous huddle, so items are easily and seamlessly escalated.
Huddles are a great way to increase the communication in any enterprise, always the source of most employee angst. Building them into the ‘way we do things around here’ enables rapid, clear communication, one to many. This results in everyone getting the same message at the same time, with a minimum of contextual colouring allowed to creep in.
The outcomes are always around a greater sense of accountability, team and individual, and a culture that involves collaboration. Irrespective of the future of the workplace post the COVID-19 vaccine, when we evolve to some sort of new normal, make your version of the daily huddle a part of it.
When you need an experienced hand to help implement this enormously valuable business improvement strategy, call me.
Header credit: Again, Dilbert and his mate Scott Adams pick the challenge implementing a ‘huddle’.
Mar 1, 2021 | Governance, Personal Rant
How is it that some individuals at the top can get away with the claim that they knew nothing about the stench that must have been emanating from below the floorboards?
Our chief marketing spruiker, the PM, seems to know nothing of the rotting corpse that is the culture of parliament house, until forced to set up some arse covering inquiries after widely accepted allegations of sexual misconduct of the most grievous form emerges?
Some months ago, the ABC had the temerity to show a program titled ‘Inside the Canberra Bubble’ that had the roaches running for the dark corners, and the chief law officer of the country sending ‘please explain’ letters to the ABC.
Now you have multiple accusations of rape, followed by what can only be described as cover-up under the guise of maintaining the confidentiality of the victims. A noble aspiration, misused by those who are ultimately responsible for the culture and behaviour in the place.
The culture it seems, follows those who survive it.
Helen Coonan, former Liberal cabinet minister remains on the board of Crown casinos, indeed, is now chairing the business after a scathing report written by Patricia Bergin SC found Crown had been a very naughty boy. Money laundering, involvement with organised crime, and in general being a really nasty piece of work. Ms. Coonan, has conceded that Crown had facilitated money laundering at its Melbourne casino, but denied turning a blind eye, blaming the oversight on ineptitude. She has been on the board of Crown for a considerable time, so the Lord Nelson defence holds little water.
Meanwhile, to what extent have the recommendations of Royal Commissioner Hayne been implemented? A few of the easy ones have been, and the odd head has rolled out the boardroom door, but there has been little more than added bureaucracy built into the system, and a few of the perpetrators of selling insurance to dead people, breaking the laws surrounding money transfers being promoted.
Despite the calls for some sort of ‘Federal ICAC’ supported by most in Canberra, except those with a majority in the House (until the odious member for Hughes bolted for the cross benches last week), little has transpired. The proposed legislation is as toothless and useful as my granddaughter’s teddy bear. Looks fierce, but no teeth at all, just a cuddly bed mate. Utterly disgraceful.
Perhaps the castrated, non-existent Fed ICAC, should it emerge into law, would like to examine the disgrace that is the absolute lack of transparency surrounding political donations. We all know that money given by corporate donors, is given in the expectation of a return. Shine a light on it, and we might see who is actually making the laws. As a wonderful example, just look at the basket of ‘PR-able’ nonsense that is the ‘Media Code’ passed into law last week. Mr Murdoch’s shareholders are very grateful to you.
There is an exceedingly long list of dodgy dealings, to be kind with the description, that could be listed here, but the work has been done for me. While this list of 124 instances of malfeasance is exclusively the Liberal party, I see no reason to believe the current opposition is any different and would not take similar advantage given the opportunity.
I am reminded of a couple of quotations, which sadly both apply:
Firstly, George Bernard Shaw: ‘When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares it is his duty’.
Secondly, Erwin Schrodinger, he of the cat in the box: “The task is…not so much to see what no one has yet seen; but to think what nobody has yet thought, about that which everybody sees.”
Meanwhile, Small businesses struggle to survive, employ, and train most of the workforce, pay their tax, and try to get on with the job despite those in charge of the country grasping every opportunity delivered by power to screw them.
Header cartoon courtesy Tom Gauld at www.tomgauld.com
Feb 17, 2021 | Governance, Strategy
The key difference between a successful strategy, and an unsuccessful one, is that the former is implemented.
That simplistic statement does little to acknowledge the challenges in the implementation process.
The purpose of this post is to offer a few observations and recommendations that come from extensive experience, and the mistakes that go with that experience for you to consider.
Two essentials for a successful implementation.
- What and Why. What you are doing and why, should be clear to everyone at every level in the organisation. When the bottom of the organisational pyramid has no idea of the role they play, and how that role fits in and complements others, the strategy is doomed.
- Performance management. Performance feedback loops at all levels and importantly across functions are essential. This requires both good communication, and the processes by which the people in the organisation can learn from mistakes, and adjust processes to avoid repeating the same ones.
In addition, following are 4 observations that may be useful, in no particular order.
- Sunk cost avoidance. Being prepared to recognise early when something is not working, being willing and able to acknowledge the misstep, and back away is a key component to the process of improving the productivity of the resources deployed. This is equally applicable to the detailed operational levels as it is to the executive suite, and requires that ego be left at the door. I have seen this called a ‘batwing’ mentality, like the batwing doors in a western saloon. When you walk through and it is welcoming, keep walking, but when it seems to be filled with gun fighters, back out quickly. Such a culture enables experimentation, and the devolution of decision making to those on the ‘front line’ of any decision, enabling a positive and productive work environment.
- Matryoshka doll. Implementing strategy successfully always reminds me of those Russian dolls that fit inside each other, smallest to the largest. Successful strategy implementation similarly has smaller pieces fitting progressively inside the larger, next level up. While it does not cover the cross functional requirement for strategic success, it has proven to be a useful metaphor.
- Rolling performance management. It is getting harder and harder to forecast anything, the longer the time frame, the more suspect any forecast becomes. The answer is to be focused on the strategic objective, while managing progress towards that objective on a rolling basis, making tactical adjustments based on the context and learning that happens on a continuous basis. This runs counter to the prevailing practise of managing to annual budgets, so creates the need for leadership in the place of management.
- People. Finally, while we are running businesses, the real game is all about people. The way to engage with people is with stories, so ensure that your story is clear, engaging, and known by all employees so they can repeat it, with commitment, at every opportunity.
How can I bring the experience of the years to your challenges? Just give me a call.
Header credit: Tom Fishburne at Marketoonist.com. Again.
Jan 25, 2021 | Governance, Strategy
Well, tomorrow we will have made it to January 26, 2021. Phew!
As I have for the decade of this blog, I have tried to distil the murky water around us into a few points that I think are worth the consideration of Australians.
2020 was a year in which collectively, the world stared into the abyss, and perhaps the abyss is still coming for us, but we seem to have survived reasonably intact, so far. However, the impact will be long term, and predicting the future usually carries a high failure rate.
2020 has highlighted the binary nature of the political processes around the world. To varying degrees, the nature of global politics has shifted, losing sight of the common good in favour of the good to ‘our side’. This is not just a function of 2020, it has been happening for some time, it is just that ‘The Bug’ of 2020 acted as a catalyst to turbo charge its growth.
It is not as malignant in this country as it has been in the US, and Britain, nevertheless, in our political lives, ‘Binary’, between the various political parties, within the parties, in between states in the Federation, has become entrenched. You are either with me or against me. This ensures that differences are personal, the root causes of problems are not even identified let alone examined, and that experimentation is never done, as failure of any kind brings derision, blame, and personal risk.
Australia has done well by world standards fighting the ‘Bug’ by locking down, largely at the insistence of the state premiers. As a result, we will come out quicker and earlier than most, but travel will remain a dream for a long time, as evidenced by the chaos around the Australian open in Melbourne. A few more days and I might have a chance to get into the main draw as more players are quarantined.
Meanwhile, we gear up for an election, due for some time from August this year. My guess is that it will be early 2022, as that gives the Morrison government more time to dish out the pork, disguised as Corona led recovery investments in infrastructure and ‘community’. The opportunity to push out money to buy votes will not be missed by this bunch of pork addicted hypocrites. However, should the other lot be in government, we are assured by no less than the NSW premier, previously an icon of rectitude, that they would be doing the same thing, ‘Everyone does it’.
The vaccine seems to be around the corner, although believing the press releases of pharmaceutical companies and politicians under pressure is not usually recommended. However, the scientists seem to be reasonably confident it is close, taking advantage of the opportunity to build credibility, after being side-lined in the ‘climate debate’ by vested interests for the last 30 years. The ‘no vaccers’ are out in force, a movement that should be confined to small rooms in nut houses. In Australia they seem to be yelping just on the fringes, but elsewhere in the world, have a real voice that may compromise the value of any vaccine, particularly invigorated by the emergence of data recording challenging side effects in the frail, and otherwise compromised recipients, in addition to emerging evidence that this thing can mutate at an astonishing rate.
The Chinese pachyderm trampling our economy from the back of the room seems out of control, and there seems to be no easy antidote to be administered. The new trade minister has blathered about a ‘pivot’ to India, as if by a few press releases, India will come running to help us as brothers in cricket, or something. He must be ‘dreamin’ or perhaps doing something else best done in private.
Meanwhile, last week there was a couple of cyclones causing damage in QLD and WA. Two, at the same time, nothing to do with climate change. I remain amused, or perhaps disgusted, recalling that idiot Craig Kelly calling a British meteorologist with a PhD, an ‘ignorant pommy weather girl’. This is, however, serious stuff, and decisions that affect us, and our children, are being made by this standard of ignorance displayed by Kelly.
With the inauguration of the new Biden administration in the US last Wednesday, perhaps we can hope for some level of sane government from them, although the wounds are unlikely to heal quickly. It seems to me however, that the change will have little impact on our current domestic and export challenges. We still must navigate the delicate balance between the alliance with the US, and the simple fact that China is the local ‘bother boy’ throwing their increasing weight around with little regard beyond some soothing rhetoric, for those who might get caught in the crossfire.
The general concern about the size of the debt run up in response to Covid, offers an unprecedented opportunity for the Government to take some steps towards sensible tax reform. Unfortunately, I am not able to definitively argue that the rich have got richer over the past 12 months, but those in full time work, in enterprises that have not felt the hammer of Covid (including all the public servants around) are in a pretty good place. They have cash coming in, and interest rates are the lowest in living memory, so there is a lot of demand for items not denied by Covid, like a nicer house in place of the trip to Alaska.
A good place to start would be to dust off the now over a decade old Henry tax review, and the ‘short term’ grandfather provisions to ease the change to a new regulatory regime brought in by the Keating government, and still in force despite several efforts to dump it. Michael West media has been doing a terrific job in highlighting just how effective this 35-year-old ‘short term’ grandfathering clause has been in giving billionaires a leg up.
The government has taken a step towards limiting the reach of Digital platforms by proposing they pay a royalty to analogue media for copy they post on their sites. While this may be well intentioned, similar regulation has failed in Europe, and the cynic in me screams that the hand of Mr Murdoch is up the back of the government. Legacy news organisations missed the emergence of the net, and have been sidelined, and sadly largely disappeared, replaced by a different model. The sight of the Murdoch and Nine group which now includes the remains of the once mighty Fairfax group holding out the begging bowl is not pretty. Emerging is a small group of online journals that do deliver balanced and deep reporting, eschewing the clickbait driven models of many of the remaining legacy media. Organisations such as Medium, The Guardian, Michael West, and several domain focussed journals are carving out a business model that appears sustainable. Also, we still have the ABC, potentially compromised as it may be by the need to please the government of the day, but doing in my mind, a great job.
Let us hope the new acceptance of the value of science generated by the Bug, carries on to other domains, such as Climate change. However, while idiots like Craig Kelly, pollute the federal parliament, and the forces against change that protect the interests of the few, can assemble the resources and dole them out to political parties with no transparency, I fear little will change. There should be no impediment to real time declaration of direct, and indirect donations to political parties and individual politicians. On a similar line, while lobbyists outnumber pollies by 10:1, and have their pockets stuffed with largess, the pollies will be reluctant to take them on.
We have seen the power of social platforms at work over the last year, for good and bad. The good is great, families isolated by Covid can see and talk to each other in ways inconceivable beyond science fiction just a generation ago. Also, on display has been the dark side. Extremist views given the oxygen to spread via social, led by the platforms own algorithms to places of extreme ideas they would never have found without that algorithmic hand holding. This is in the name of free speech, giving people what they want to see, and of course, then selling those eyeballs to advertisers, and in the process, enabling huge levels of ad fraud.
Where do we draw the line between free speech and the ability of tech platforms to put limits on it? The banning by Facebook and Twitter of the last bellows of the Trump presidency has been applauded by most as too little too late. However, it begs the question of where is the line between the individual’s right to communicate and a platforms ability to censor? This is a wider debate than just what should be done about Trump and offensive posts. How do we manage the power of the state to censor intelligent and robust debate? Hong Kong media is slowly being strangled by Beijing, to bring it into line with the rest of China. How should the platforms, who want to be engaged in the Chinese market respond?
There are several key domestic debates, about real issues we need to have. Perhaps I am just old, but I am cynical about the willingness of the institutions involved to debate on the facts, and deep analysis, rather than in sound bites that selectively support their preferred position, irrespective of the wider impact. Several are noted following:
- The debate will be about the increase in compulsory super due to rise from the current 9.5% to 10% on July 1, then progressively increase to 12% from July 1, 2025. Will it, or will it not go ahead? The pandemic has provided a reason to delay once again, as businesses recover. However, the hip pocket nerve will be engaged. The added 0.5% is in effect a pay rise workers will not get, so the individual worker might be unhappy. The opposition seems committed to the rise.
- The proposed changes to the IR laws that the government dropped on the table after parliament had closed shop in December 2020. The guts of the amendments to the existing Fair Work act revolve around the definitions of casual employment, the mechanisms by which enterprise agreements can be reached, award simplification, and the entitlements of those workers in so called casual employment. At the core of the public spat will be the ‘BOOT’ (Better Off Overall Test) provisions. There are serious questions here that impact people’s lives, and superficial sound bite debate is simply not good enough.
- Energy policy, and the attitude of the government to the questions around climate change. It is obvious that private capital is bolting from investment in fossil fuel sources at the rate of knots, but the government seems wedded to the notion that this is a bad thing. The energy companies have a powerful grip on the government, and no doubt the opposition, but common sense, as well as the science indicates this country should be doubling down on renewables.
- Tax reform. Here I go again. Dust off the Henry review and remove some of the more obvious rorts highlighted in the report, and since. In any change to the tax system there will be winners and losers. You can expect the losers to scream loudly, and apply as much pressure as they can, which will be a lot. For the stability of the economy and the society we want to be, a tax system that reflects the long-term national interest rather than sectional financial interests is essential.
- Transparency of politics, and specifically the transparency of political donations needs a radical overhaul. It is an absolute nonsense that donations are not published as they happen, and that so many loopholes are available. We will never get rid of the cash in Aldi bags, unfortunately, until we rid ourselves of political processes infested with people with interests focussed on narrow and too often personal outcomes. However, we must make a start. Similar transparency needs to be in place so we can see the pork as it is dished out. Often money spent in electorates is well deserved, needed, and has considerable community value, and it is the role of members to address as many of the local issues as they can, that is what they are elected to do. However, the blatant pork barrelling that has been going on is a disgrace to us all, and a blight on our community values.
- Manufacturing matters. The disruption of supply chains brought about by Covid, Brexit, and the Chinese pachyderm have, or should have, focussed our collective minds on the value of a robust domestic manufacturing capability. We have become rich and lazy digging great big holes and farming broad acres to flog off commodities. This has given us a false sense of security, a belief that the world needs our coal, iron ore, wheat, and barley. The world can exist without us, and we seem surprised. We are in desperate need for manufacturing value adding and have left it late to come to that recognition. Sadly, this need may not yet have dawned on those elected to look after our long-term prosperity.
- It is of little value to bleat about the lack of manufacturing, when we have not educated our kids to believe there is a great life to be lived with a technical and STEM education. The gutting of our technical capability has been progressing incrementally over the last 30 years, and will not be addressed by simple Band-Aids and press releases. Investment in education is a fundamental pillar of long-term prosperity, and we need desperately to get on with it. As a side benefit, this will also serve to moderate the increasing polarisation of wealth in the community, but again, a long-term outcome.
- Let us not forget the catastrophe that enveloped the east coast in flames a year ago, catching us short in preparation. As a principle, it is hard to invest today in measures to mitigate something that that may, or may not happen. It is hard to quantify the risk and rewards of such investment. However, if we have learnt anything from the past year, it is that we must be prepared. We do that by listening to the science and acting in anticipation. Our grandchildren will thank us, whereas I suspect if we continue as we are, they will be cursing us.
Thanks to those who comment, share, and otherwise find value in my musings.
Have a successful and disaster free 2021.
Allen
Jan 22, 2021 | Governance, Strategy
Our world is as volatile now as it has ever been.
Planning assumes some level of predictability, sufficient to make resource allocation decisions that will drive activity in the future, even if that future is next week.
Planning in this environment, much beyond lunch tomorrow is challenging, and long-term planning in the manner most are used to, downright dangerous.
Instead, we need to focus on probabilities of outcomes, and plan for them, recognising there will be inconsistencies and unanticipated things happening around us every day.
Never has that old chestnut ‘Plan for the worst, hope for the best‘ been more relevant. However, hoping is not a strategy, so it pays to plan with probabilities and the attendant risks in mind.
Thinking creatively and delivering three scenarios greatly assists the process:
The best outcome.
The worst outcome.
The predicted outcome.
This should not be a probability of 33% each, but a more nuanced assessment of the probability of outcomes given a variable set of assumed circumstances.
Inherent in planning to achieve a future outcome is the risk assessment process.
It is all too easy to use a spreadsheet to extrapolate, but spreadsheets cannot think, weigh up probabilities, and make qualitative assessments, all of which are necessary in any sensible risk assessment. To comprehensively assess the risks in a plan, you need to look at the components of the plan, and at least acknowledge the impact of unplanned events on the overall plan.
You need to weight the probabilities of happening with the impact if, and when, they do!!!!
Risk = probability + impact.
How do you assess the probability?
The world is not a binary place, good and bad, black, and white, there are always shades. In assessing the probability of an occurrence, it pays to consider the scenarios from a range of different perspectives, mental models if you like.
This consideration is the most challenging part of the process. You must assume the future is different from the past, and the current, and for most people and institutions, that is extremely difficult. We shy away from uncertainty and ambiguity, tending to fall back on the known and understood, where we have a playbook that we know has worked.
Pity the playbook of the past will not tell us much about the future.
Need assistance thinking about this challenging stuff? Call someone who has done it successfully many times.
Header is from the StrategyAudit ideas bank.
