Bob Biddinger used to speak about the, "Footprints in the sands of time." Or as Bob would to say, "There aren't any when it comes to real sustained change in organizations. The next tide will just wash them out." Why I wondered?
We developed this model to illustrate the things that need to be affected in order to create change, where there are still "footprints in the sand" months and years after an improvement intervention is implemented.
Technology organizations tend to focus on process and tools in the mistaken belief that these, necessary but not sufficient elements, are all they need to change in order to gain measurable improvements. In fact, we can impact technology, business processes, and individual skills over a few weeks or months but the magnitude of improvement is relatively small. It isn't until we get into organizational structure, business strategy, and organizational behavior changes that we see more lasting improvement.
Of course the hardest thing to change is the underlying culture of an organization which is set by its senior executives and the legacy of prior management teams.
The concept applied to the planning methodology (download)
View Animation.
“After the fall” is from a recent special report published in the The Economist (October 3, 2009); looking at recovery scenarios. I particularly liked this chart (above). This is basically the chart that we see many executives looking at now; trying to guess which path the market will take -- trying to assess the degree of risk they will assume. The penalty for the wrong guess could be expensive.
Investment decisions that need to be made today, in order to be ready for the expected 2012+ upturn, are predicated on being able to have some degree of accuracy in predicting which path the recovery will take.
Many are anticipating that it will be Scenario 2,“Permanent Loss." You could also plot another line to accompany Scenario 2 that reflects what we see happening with resources (I added a red line). Efficiency will be forced up while fewer people do more work, greater output with fewer inputs. So, in my revised chart, the blue line is the “new normal” market and the red line is the output that will be demanded by those fewer resources that are left. Not a technically accurate chart, but rather a conceptual idea of this interaction.
Further, growth will most likely come from market share gains from competitors, rather than through double digit increases in market size, which appear to be rather flat in the technology sector for the next few years.
It is more critical now to pick the right strategies, the right focus, the right projects, the right products, the right portfolio, the right... where benefit is maximized and on things that get the biggest "bang for the buck." Every shot needs to hit in the “new normal” world.
Related | Series on restructuring and decision-making | Decision-making today and the implications to "the other side"
The Western way of thinking is based on analysis and argument. In order to understand, we need to analyze. Through analysis, we breakdown complex problems into bite sized chunks that we can deal with and then we either find a solution or we take action. There is a myth that the more information and data we have, the better decisions we can make.
We teach analysis in school and college and we human brain is conditioned to be good at it. Case studies are just one of many ways that students are taught to analyze a problem. It's like Lego. You pull a complex thing you've built apart into its separate pieces. You then reassemble into anything you wish. However - and this is key - before assembling you need a design and design is not just simply putting the pieces together randomly. Before you can create something you need either a concept, a design or an idea. Unfortunately design, concepts and idea generation are not emphasized in traditional Western education. This is not to say that analysis is bad. It's just that it should come after design to support it.
I read an interesting story the other day about conflict resolution that exemplifies this. Generally, both parties start at extreme positions and attempt to meet in the middle or find a compromise solution. The idea here is to fight to get as much as you can. A great deal of energy, time and expense is involved. Consider an alternative approach where each party designs the most reasonable outcome. A judge/third party arbiter is chosen to pick the one they find most reasonable. Both parties now aim to design the most reasonable outcome. All the effort now goes into design and not fighting. If both do a good job, it probably doesn't matter who wins because either solution is likely acceptable. The point is the effort is focused on design and not argument.
This leads nicely to the idea that for breakthrough thinking, you need design and you need concepts. Imagine developing a new car. You get the requirements then design the car to meet those requirements. The result will satisfy the requirements but quite possibly bland. The designer would use known concepts to satisfy the requirements.
Now take the idea of developing some create concepts and injecting some fresh new ideas. You then shape the concepts to meet the design requirements. We have now flipped this around: rather than using the known concepts to meet the requirements, we use the requirements to shape the new concepts. There's a greater risk in this approach, but also a greater likelihood of a breakthrough.
This all leads into the idea of design, concepts, ideas. How do we get them? We use several techniques including challenge, provocation, concept fans and the random approach. The approach applied depends on the situation and whether we are starting from something existing (challenge) or a blank sheet of paper (random). Teams with an open mind enjoy the workshop(s) as it gives them the opportunity to free themselves from traditional thinking. You'd be surprised at the results!
I had the opportunity to witness a champion win. 38 year old Lance Armstrong won the Nevada City Bicycle Classic in our little town of about 2000 people in the California Sierra Nevada Foothills--that yesterday swelled to over 30,000 for the race.
This was Armstrong's first victory since winning his seventh Tour de France. He's been out of racing for about four years. In two weeks he'll be in France for the Tour.
Our race is a 1.1 mile circle around Nevada City. It has a giant 1/2 mile climb followed by a steep 1/2 mile downhill with a 90 degree turn at the bottom of the hill. They go around 40 times in 90 minutes. Spectators stand inches away from the racers all around the course.
Armstrong was never out of the lead group, and was either 1 or 2 most of the race. Clearly this was his strategy. Dominate, set the pace, and beat-down the other racers on the brutal hill climb (his specialty). It was like a mini-Tour in 90 minutes.
Then with a few laps to go he made the break from the Peloton on the climb and just blew away the rest of the field. No one could chase him. The crowd was roaring as he put it into another gear. Everyone was dead, yet at 38, he just seemed like he'd come from another planet. Remember, in 1996 he had cancer and had a 3% chance of surviving.
He was at this same race 18 years ago and came in second. He was 20 years old then. As the race was starting, they reported over the PA system that his teammate sent him a text before the race asking who would win, and he replied, "Armstrong."
We all knew that we were seeing history. The comeback of a true champion. Perhaps a preview of the 8th Tour victory next month? You could just feel and see his focus and determination and belief that there was no question who, out of the 130 professionals in the race, would win. 30,000 fans knew it, and so did the guy that strategically controlled every one of the 40 laps.
Lance Armstrong is a great metaphor for what corporations have to do today to climb out of this current hole--plan, focus, execute without doubt of the eventual outcome... "You have to be willing to lose, in order to win."
Photo: Neal Mitchell
"Action this day" is the sticker that Winston Churchill would attach to documents in order to strongly communicate that he wanted something done, now.
I've always liked this concept. It is consistent with all of our work over the years with high performers. Perhaps this will become the new Modus Operandi in 2009.
Furthering the idea, another favorite is a Japanese proverb that would seem to go well with Mr. Churchill's "default-to-action" thinking, it goes something like this...
"Vision without action is a daydream; action without vision is a nightmare."
