Succeed, then start. Strategic lessons from a gardener.

Succeed, then start. Strategic lessons from a gardener.

Dec 2, 2019 | Innovation, Strategy

My sister is a gardener, a producer of a prolific mass of colour and edible plants year round. It takes work, time, and planning, but as they say, the proof is in the pudding.

By contrast, most businesses I work with have a strategic process that starts with a workshop, or some sort of off site involving senior management, sometimes a few more junior and high potential managers, and perhaps an after dinner speaker to liven things up.

Generally the outcome is pretty bland, little more than an articulation of what the CEO or board thought they wanted when walking in on day 1.

Contrast that to my sister.

She does not do her gardening by digging.

She is constantly absorbing ideas and lessons from those around her who are also gardeners, what worked, what did not, and why. She absorbs information from wherever it comes, and then sets up trials to see small scale outcomes before making any commitment to turn over a chunk of her extensive gardens to something different. When all that comes together, she has something different and surprising, she will take the leap and expand the planting, continuing to learn as she goes.

She has a good idea of the outcomes before she commits the time, energy and cost that it takes to commit a chunk of her garden to this new thing, because it has worked in a real world test.

Not so the strategic processes of most. 

There is little energy spent thinking about the strategic, competitive and regulatory environment in which they must succeed, little time and effort spend learning from others, and little appetite for small scale trials that might give the game away to competitors.

My sister succeeds on micro scale before investing in the macro, and it is a continuous process,  not one that takes place at a specific window of time in spring, but rolls continuously through the year.

Perhaps gardening is a better metaphor for strategic development than it would appear at first glance.

As an aside, the current drought in the country town where she lives has delivered some nasty and unexpected surprises. All are being met with a mindset that will see the important parts of her garden survive and thrive again as rain reappears, as it will. She will have learnt much from the experience.

6 ways leaders disrupt the ‘Lemming Effect’

Nov 4, 2019 | Governance, Innovation, Strategy

 

It is a confusing world.

On one hand, change is everywhere, and the pace of change is increasing as we watch. On the other, generating change in an organisation is really hard; we humans do not   like change, despite what we sometimes say. We are hard wired to resist it in the absence of a compelling reason, some set of circumstances that leaves us absolutely no option.

In the 50’s, psychologist Solomon Asch ran a series of ground-breaking experiments where he showed the power of conformity.

He shows a group of subjects two cards, one with three lines in it of different lengths, the second with a single line.  The question was, which of the three lines on card A was the same length as the line on card B?

He would go around the room, asking the question, and each person successively deliberately gave the wrong answer, until he got to the last person, the only real subject in the room. In an overwhelming majority of cases, the last person agreed with everyone else to the obviously wrong answer.

We are hard wired to conform, to agree with the group, to avoid being an outlier, even when the group is wrong; we still find it hard to do anything other than conform.

Evolutionary psychology at work.

Being outside the safety of the group, where cooperation added to the odds of survival, you conformed or you were expelled from the group, which meant you quickly ended up as sabre toothed tiger shit.

Not an attractive prospect.

There are not too many sabre toothed tigers left around, but the safety of the group is still a driving force in our behaviour, so we have to change the mind of the group.

  • Create a catalytic event. When confronted by a crisis, where the status quo has clearly failed to deliver, change is suddenly made easier to implement.
  • Identify the opinion leaders in the group; convince them, let them do your persuasion work for you. ‘Local’ networks and opinion leaders are very powerful as change agents. Conversely, they are in a position to block any change they do not like.
  • Identify a ‘keystone’ change, one that forces other changes, that that clearly demonstrates the value of wider improvements that can be achieved. Managing a manufacturing business as a contractor, we had an assumed  capacity problem, that necessitated long runs to inventory to service demand. The result was slow inventory turn, redundant stock that could not be sold, and excessive working capital, all problems stemming from the capacity limit. On analysis, the real problem was in the scheduling of the production process, which created a bottleneck at a key piece of machinery. This was solved by rejigging the timing and order of activities, changes that were strongly resisted by staff until a mandated trial clearly demonstrated the substantial productivity benefits that accrued.  This one  change led to significant improvement in almost all other productivity and financial KPI’s.
  • Create stories that the group members can relate to, that demonstrate the costs of no change are greater than the risk of change. The story related above took on a life of its own, as the staff involved rewrote history, by assuming the responsibility for suggesting and driving the ‘keystone’ change.
  • Have great clarity about the benefits of the outcome after the change, how it will be achieved, and the benefits it will deliver. Again, the story above had a knock-on effect through the business, as the results of the improvements were made very public, and credit given to the staff involved.
  • Embed the changes into the operating psyche of the organisation. Culture is elastic, and unless the binds of the past are comprehensively broken, they will spring back once the pressure is released.

Lemmings are persistent creatures, if not too bright. Put a barrier in place in front of the cliff, and they will climb it, unless there is an alternative path that is made to be more attractive in some way leads them in a different direction.

How are you disrupting the Lemming Effect in your enterprise?

 

Cartoon credit: Mike Keefe Denver Post.

 

 

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.

 

5 strategies to ensure your innovation ideation workshop delivers

5 strategies to ensure your innovation ideation workshop delivers

Sep 12, 2019 | Collaboration, Innovation

People quite like the freedom of a workshop where there are no limits, where the objective is to generate as many ideas as possible. They then feel satisfied that they have done their bit for the innovation efforts of their employer.

Nonsense.

Unfocussed Ideation bears little relationship to innovation.

Having done many workshops over the years, there are some practices I have found by trial and error that work.

Closely define the innovation assignment.  

Usually this is done by clearly articulating the problem to be solved. The more you understand about the problem, the context in which it occurs, and the costs it generates, the more relevant and ultimately useful the ideas for possible solutions will be.

Diversity.

This is not a call for a politically correct workshop group, but one that acknowledges that people have different ways of looking at problems and potential solutions. Everyone has a differing style of thinking and expression, and all are useful. Having a range of practical, professional and analytical skills, domain knowledge, personal commitment to a solution,  and organisational position creates the sort of cross pollination opportunity that can lead to insight. However, a significant hurdle I often see is where there is someone of organisational power in the group, who fails to throw off the mantle of the position for the duration of  the workshop. Better that they were absent, having offered their support to the process.

Have a structure.

It seems counter intuitive to have a structure to run an ideation workshop, but without structure you risk skating over the surface. The structure needs to ensure everyone has equal voice, and opportunity to use it. There needs to be appropriate idea  generating techniques used,  and the workshop needs to be adaptable as things evolve, and importantly, it must be interesting, engaging and fun. It also must be recognised as the serious exercise it really is, not just some junket for a couple of days.

Have a professional facilitator.

This need not necessarily be someone from the outside, but it needs to be someone who stays in the background, separated from but directing the conversations. The facilitators job is to direct the traffic, ensure the right questions are asked and answered, and to ensure that the light is thrown in all the possible corners.

Create expectations.

Ensuring the exercise is taken seriously is partly dependent on what happens after the exercise, as everyone will be watching. Follow up on the workshop outcomes by allocating specific tasks, accountabilities and timelines to individuals and groups. This will ensure as far as possible the workshop has ‘legs,’ and people do not just go back to their normal jobs next week. It will also frame their expectations of the next step. Using the SMART framework can help, as does creating some urgency in the discussions, as in: something must be done now!

Ideation is a core part of the innovation process, not some sort of separate exercise, and the expectation that that outcomes will play a serious part in the whole innovation process is really important for the depth of thinking that goes on in the workshop.

Need a hand with this stuff, give me a call.

 

 

 

The sad and entirely avoidable death of a great old FMCG brand.

The sad and entirely avoidable death of a great old FMCG brand.

Aug 26, 2019 | Branding, Innovation, Marketing, Strategy

Currently in my cupboard almost gone, is a bottle of detergent, a well known and trusted brand, formerly the market leader, been around for ages.

It will not be bought again by anyone in my household.

Here is what I suspect happened.

Sales of the brand were eroding as cheaper, usually house branded product ate into the volumes. Somewhere in the multinational that owns the brand there was a bright young thing charged with resurrecting volumes, a project to ‘test their metal,’ requiring a 20% increase for success to be declared.

He, or more likely these days, she, did the corporate rounds seeking inspiration.

The R&D people believed they could improve the performance of the product by utilising a new emerging technology, but it required an extensive  R&D program to clarify some of the technical issues. No budget available.

The Engineering people reckoned they could speed up the line, reducing costs by updating, at considerable capital cost, the existing machinery, making production cheaper and more flexible. This would  reduce the systemic out of stock problem caused by the long runs required to generate factory efficiencies. These factory KPI’s are completely disconnected to the increasing difficulty of forecasting sales as volumes erode and become more erratic. No capital budget available.

The accountants are arguing for a price increase as well as a reduction in retailer promotional spend, as the gross margins fall below their target rates. Neither tactic seems well suited to the problem at hand.

The advertising agency strongly recommended a multi million dollar integrated TV, Magazine and digital marketing campaign, designed to bring back lapsed users to the brand, while intriguing new users to give it a try. No budget available.

The marketing he/she concerned reckoned it would be easier and cheaper to make the hole in the top bigger, make the product flow faster, encouraging a quicker usage cycle and therefore increasing replacement sales.

On a spreadsheet it looks logical, sensible, and with a great ROI. Everybody was happy, especially the product manager, who could see the trappings of corporate success coming his/her way by Christmas.

Whoops: forgot the value conscious consumer, to whom the integrity of the brand had remained, until now,  an important consideration, and who is not stupid. She is my wife, (who still does the bulk of the shopping) and believe me,  she is absolutely unforgiving.

Being captured by the interaction of functional KPI’s, status quo management processes, and resistance to any change, is a common corporate problem. It is unsolvable by anyone other than the Boss, who is mostly too busy contemplating the forest next door (or their navels) to see the trees in the forest they currently occupy, and take some decisive action.

When your brand, marketing, and innovation processes need a reality check, call me to tap into the ‘experience bank’ in my possession. 

Algorithm groundhog day

Algorithm groundhog day

Jun 19, 2019 | Governance, Innovation

In 1911, Frederick Winslow Taylor published his book ‘The Principals of Scientific Management’, which used logic and maths to describe the pathway to efficiency. It shaped the practice of management for the next 80 years, until, slowly, we realised that not all behaviour was rational, able to be broken down in a binary way. In fact, most of our behaviour is not binary in the way envisaged by Taylor. It is shaped by the forces that have driven our evolutionary success, best described by Daniel Kahneman in his great book, ‘Thinking, Fast & Slow’.

Increasingly I am seeing and reading stuff that reflects the explosive growth of AI, and the impact it will have on our lives, working and private. I cannot help but wonder if this is another manifestation of the same mistake that Taylor made.

Artificial intelligence will be a huge boon to all sorts of tasks, it is way better than we mere humans at all sorts of things, but it cannot, at least yet, reflect the nuances of human behaviour, and reactions to the things that makes us a successful species.

How will AI deliver us the elements of pride and accountability we have in a complex job, when that job is broken down into a series of sequential tasks to be done by the ‘recipe’ without variation? Where does the insight and creativity that comes from doing such a job emerge when it is being done by the numbers generated by a machine?

My mother in law used to do paintings by the numbers, her unit had quite a number of ‘originals’ by famous artists, all done by the numbers, with great care and attention, and the application of considerable skill in attending to the minutest details. However, they were not the  originals, not even great copies of the originals, they were by the numbers.

Algorithms are great, but not at everything.