July 2008

Jim Champy’s new book titled “Outsmart!: How to Do What Your Competitors Can’t” is an interesting book.  It’s short and easy to read…and full of some very interesting stories about building competitive advantage.

For those that don’t know, Jim Champy is the author of classics like “Reengineering the Corporation” and “Reengineering Management” and is the Chairman of Consulting at Perot Systems.

The book does do a good job of describing how eight ‘high velocity’ companies have used what Champy described as ’surprising counterintuitive lessons’ to grow into industry leaders in a short amount of time.    The ’surprising counterintuitive lessons’ are:

• Compete by seeing what others don’t
• Compete by thinking outside the bubble
• Compete by using all you know
• Compete by doing everything yourself
• Compete by tapping the success of others
• Compete by creating order out of chaos
• Compete by simplifying complexity.

The book is split into chapters with each chapter covering a different lesson.  Each lesson is presented to the reader by describing an organization that used that lesson to become successful and why that lesson should be considered by other companies.  Each chapter closes with questions that you can ask yourself and/or your organization to see if you can tap into these lessons to grow and become more competitive.

For anyone looking for another “Good to Great” type of book with statistics and detail about why companies were chosen and how these companies were built, this isn’t the book.  This book doesn’t go into detail about why/how companies were chosen or what ‘high velocity’ really means, but it does a good job of describing how the organizations listed were able to find their ‘niche’ by utilizing one of the above lessons to build themselves into industry leaders.

If you’re looking for an easy to read book that provides a brief overview a select number of companies who’ve applied the above lessons and been successful, this book is a good buy for you.

For further reading check out Jim Champy’s guest post titled “Where are all the great companies?” on Lisa Haneberg’s Management Craft blog.

Peter Vajda has a great post over on Slow Leadership titled “Why People Resist Change” that is well worth the time to read.

Peter argues that the reasons people resist change is that they are ‘told’ to change….rather than being ‘asked’ to change.   He writes:

What’s the most common process for introducing change in our organizations? We hold a meeting. Tell people why the change is necessary and give our reasons for the change, the expected benefits and tell them be prepared to do it our way. Then, we become angry and frustrated as all heck when we experience their subsequent resistance and lack of buy-in. Usually, little or no change happens in the long run.

Now…in most instances, the management team have done their homework and really believe that the changes that they trying to implement are the best things for the organization…but they do a poor job of engaging their employees in creating these changes.  This ‘telling’ approach makes employees feel as if management doesn’t really care about them.  Again, Peter writes:

If those in charge take a ‘telling’ approach towards change, in essence they are saying to employees: “We really don’t appreciate you; we really don’t want to include you. You have to change, like it or not.” That’s the perception and we all know perception is reality — especially in workplace situations when change is the issue.

Think about the last time you were told that change was coming.  Were you in complete agreement that it was the right change and it was necessary?   If you are like most people, you might agree that change needs to occur but you aren’t sure that ‘this’ change is necessary or that the implementation of the change is quite right.

What would happen if you were involved from day one in the decision making process?  Peter suggests that:

If you would take the time — and be honest and sincere in your efforts — you could ask people for ideas and be assured they will come up with most of the solutions required for them to do their best, both for themselves and for the good of their team and organization…

….What would it be like if leaders engaged employees in the change process by inviting them to join in the decision-making and problem-solving leading up to the change?

Most organizations can’t involve every single employee in change initiatives but a good cross-section of employees would be better than nothing.  Ask employees what they think about the current environment and what needs to change…most times, they’ll come up with some excellent ideas for change that may have been missed by management alone.   Lastly,  engaging employees in creating change initiatives will normally bring about the proper sense of urgency and ownership required for the change(s) to be successful.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Leadership and Organizational Change
• People Love Change (No Really, They Do!)

There’s an interesting story on ReadWriteWeb (RWW) and the Wall Street Journal this week about Social Networking failures in the enterprise.

An excerpt from the WSJ:

One of the hot investments for businesses these days is online communities that help customers feel connected to a brand. But most of these efforts produce fancy Web sites that few people ever visit. The problem: Businesses are focusing on the value an online community can provide to themselves, not the community.

Both articles use recent research released by Deloitte.  This research suggests that:

enterprises have begun to effectively use social media tools and online communities to engage with customers and employees for brand discussions, idea generation and product discovery. However, the survey also indicates that while these online initiatives are having a positive impact, enterprises have not yet harnessed the true potential of these communities.

I would agree with the last sentence.  The enterprise hasn’t truly figured out how to use social media tools to engage employees and clients.

WSJ provides a few numbers from the Deloitte study that prove enlightning.

• Thirty-five percent of the online communities studied have less than 100 members
• Less than 25% have more than 1,000 members – despite the fact that close to 60% of these businesses have spent over $1 million on their community projects.

Interesting numbers that some can point to as failures of social networking…but I think organizations are coming around on the need for social media but just haven’t figured out how to ‘manage’ these communities.  The Deloitte survey points to poor community management as one of the biggest roadblocks to any organization implementing social media projects.  The research report states

Conversely, poorly managed online communities are a critical barrier to their effectiveness. Forty-five percent of respondents recognize that finding enough time to manage the community is one of the biggest obstacles to making communities work. Survey respondents also see facilitation (25 percent) and quality of the community manager (34 percent) as two features that greatly impact the community’s effectiveness, making it critical for companies to devote the necessary resources to this important role.

So…what this research tells me is that organizations have the technology in place to turn on a social network and they’ve turned them on.  But…very few have figured out that it isn’t the technology that makes a social network a success…it’s the people involved that make it work.

Sounds like many other posts on this blog doesn’t it?  :)  It isn’t the technology…its the people that will lead you to success.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Corporate Social Networks Are A Waste of Money, Study Finds
• Social Media 101: How to Get Your Business Involved
• Why Does Corporate Social Networking Fail?

I was reminded this past weekend by Bruce Henry that I sometimes push “publish” much too quickly on a blog post.

Go read my post titled “Leadership and Organizational Change” and specifically Bruce’s comment.  Bruce called me out on some of my comments in my post….and rightfully so.

I still stand behind the overall message of the post that good leadership and organizational culture shouldn’t need to ‘create a sense of urgency’ for change to occur….but I think I needed to expand on my thoughts.  The word ‘create’ is what makes me a bit squeamish about this because it makes me feel as though you should ‘conjure up’ some reason for urgency.  A good leader should have already instilled a sense of urgency in their group….perhaps the authors of the book could have used ‘instill a sense of urgency’.  If they had used that terminology, I probably wouldn’t be writhing this post (or the previous one!).

In addition, I made a few comments about leaders not needing to have political acumen and the ability to be persuasive…which are false.  As a leader you must have these skills.   But again, in the context of the book I was reading at the time, it felt a little ‘off’ to me when the authors talked about using politics to ‘win battles’ and ‘convince others’ that you are rights.

Bruce - Thanks for calling me on the carpet and making me think!

BTW - Every reader of this blog should go check out Bruce’s blog…he’s got some great stuff there.  While you are at it, check out Bruce’s company LiquidPlanner…maker of one of the most interesting and exciting project management tools I’ve seen in a long time.  I had the pleasure of having Bruce give me a demo of the tool a few months ago and was extremely excited about what I saw.

Just finished reading “Moose on the Table“by Jim Clemmer.

Before I get into the review, let me define “moose on the table.”  According to the author, it is a rephrasing of the old saying “the elephant in the room”…as in…the thing nobody wants to discuss (or can discuss, etc).

Jim Clemmer uses a fable to tell the story of an organization that is in need of leadership and change…but the ‘leader’ is brow-beater who only wants someone to agree with him.  The story follows Pete Leonard as he works his way through some issues at work and at home.  Pete attends a seminar and realizes that the way his boss is acting is forcing the organization down into the depths of failure and that he and the other folks need to make an effort to “face the moose”.

The author provides some concepts about how to deal with the moose on the table…some are novel and others aren’t but all are great ideas that can be implemented by anyone trying to approach solving a problem like a moose on the table.

The basic outcome of the story is this:  When a problem rears up, communicate and solve the problem rather than rather than talk around it, place blame for the problem or go into ‘pity city’ (e.g., poor me, etc).  Leadership and communication are key to solving the “moose on the table” problem.

This book is a good read and is short enough to finish quickly.  The concept is a good one and the story is engaging.  I’d recommend it to anyone out there who is dealing with a “moose on the table”.

NOTE: This book was provided by the publisher as an advanced review copy.

Michael Hugos had a really good post on CIO.com titled “Agility Means Simple Things Done Well, Not Complex Things Done Fast” that provided the best definition of “agility’ that I’ve found.  He writes:

Experience shows me (again and again) that agility is not about working fast but about finding elegantly simple solutions to business problems. You’ll know you’ve found an elegantly simple solution when the business people agree it solves their most important and immediate problems…

…because people can’t find these simple solutions, they mistakenly claim that agility itself doesn’t work. They come to this conclusion because they attempt to be agile by cramming complex solutions into short development cycles through working harder, longer, and faster…

…An elegantly simple solution (a robust 80% solution) doesn’t do everything (there isn’t time for that), just the most important things.

I found Michael’s article via George Ambler’s The Practice of Leadership Blog (great blog…check it out) in a post with the same title as Michael Hugos’.  In George’s blog post, he says (emphasis mine):

We spend too much time complicating our lives by trying to do too much, too fast! There seems to never be enough time to do something correctly, but always enough time to do it over again! Given to complexity of managing business, we’re prone to think that complex solutions, are better solutions. Instead we need to focus on implementing good enough solutions, solutions that bring about small wins. Small wins, if continually applied, in a thoughtful and strategic manner, quickly add up to significant results. Small wins are more manageable and have less of an impact if they fail. Seeking big wins are extremely difficult, prone to failure and require significant political will! Focus on the small wins…simple things done well… repeatedly provide true competitive advantage.

Hugos and Ambler have some amazing insight in these two passages.

The original intent of Michael Hugos article was to describe Agile development methods but I think it can be easily transferred to any piece of an organization, which is what George Ambler is pointing at in his post.  This is also what I’ve been trying to say in previous posts (see Simplicity equals Success, Is Perfect Worth It? and In Search of Perfection for examples).

Agility isn’t just needed for competitive advantage…it is required for survival.  Organization’s without agility will not survive…so why then do organizations and people still rely on heavy handed processes and bureaucracy?  I think it’s because they don’t know any better.

In order to bring agility into the bureaucratic organizations, a value must be placed on the ability to be agile…hopefully some of the research occurring today and in the near future will help.

How would you show the value of agility to your organization?

Related articles by Zemanta

• Agile lands role in games and business software
• IBM promotes agile development
• Ten tips on agile software development
• Agile project management set for small teams

I recently ran across a survey by Accretive Solutions (formerly Horn Murdock Cole, Dickson Allan, BF Consultants, and CFO Service) discussing the results of an Enterprise Risk Management Survey commissioned by Accretive Solutions and conducted by Harris Interactive.  The results aren’t necessarily surprising but are interesting.

Before we get to the results, for those that aren’t sure what Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) is, it is defined by Accretive Solutions as:

Enterprise Risk Management is an ongoing, company-wide process designed to identify, communicate, evaluate, analyze, address and monitor risks. It extends far beyond financial statements and accounting policies to include strategic, operational and compliance risks. A partial list of risks that fall under the purview of an effective ERM plan includes fraud, supply chain and business continuity plans, changes in the competitive landscape, IT security, changing compliance and regulatory requirements and personnel risks, including the potential for unethical behavior.

Some interesting results from the survey are (emphasis mine):

Thirty-nine percent of respondents to this survey of Executive-level decision-makers at Fortune 1000 companies labeled IT Security as their number one worry over the coming twelve months

Among IT Security threats, breaches via compromised wireless connections were chosen by 14 percent of respondents, while 12 percent chose hackers, and 10 percent chose stolen hardware.

At the same time that IT topped the list of likely headaches, it was also the number one functional area where executives reported seeing a shortage of talent, far outpacing needs in accounting, finance and taxation.

Interesting results…especially the third one. Perhaps this is good news for good IT folks out there?

Related articles by Zemanta

• Unpredictable IT means unreliable business
• IBM expert: IT risk is opaque

Recently, while reading a book on Organizational Change and Project Management, I noticed a disturbing pattern.

The book I was reading discusses the creation of a central project office to manage all projects within organizations (note…it is not the book I reviewed here) and looked interesting when I saw it at the local half-price book store.

The first chapter, which provided an overview of the the topics covered in the book, started off on a bad note.  The first few paragraphs eluded to topics like “create a sense of urgency”, “develop political acumen”, “find a champion” and “master the art of persuasion”.

These topics disturb me for a few reasons…but mostly because they make me believe that the authors are trying to ‘teach’ a reader how to ‘play the game’ rather than ‘change the game’.  Organizational change should be about changing the game rather than playing it.

The book continues on about processes and ‘tips’ for getting people to ‘buy in’ to the change that needs to occur.  The authors write about ‘projectizing the organization’ to add value and ‘creating a sense of urgency’ for employees so they understand how important the change is.

As I mentioned, I have a problem with this approach.

As a leader, If i have to ‘create’ urgency for change have I been doing my job? A good leader should already have people aligned with the necessary changes and have them ready to implement change. Steve Roesler over at All Things Workplace described leaders in a recent post titled “Leadership: Facilitating The Show You Are In” as:

People who are engaged with what needs to happen while orchestrating how to make it happen.

Steve is exactly correct.

As a leader, if you are engaged with your team (and they with you), you and your team should already have a grasp on what changes are needed and your everyone should fully understand why those changes are necessary.

If a leader is doing their job, there should be no need to ‘create a sense of urgency’…it should already exist.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Are People More Important Than Projects in the Workplace?
• Book Review: The Program Management Office
• Book Review: The Strategic Project Leader

Just finished up reading “The Milkshake Moment” by Steven S. Little. This is an interesting, well-written book worth picking up.  It’s easy to read with short chapters and contains some interesting, and at times funny, insights into the world of processes…especially bad processes (those that bind the hands of employees/organizations).

The book’s entire premise is that while processes are necessary and provide value to an organization, you should make sure they allow ‘wiggle’ room for individuals who use those processes.  This wiggle room is necessary to allow people to be creative and innovative in how they solve problems.  Most organization’s don’t stress that employees be creative and use processes at the same time…they’d prefer that an employee ’stick to the process’.

For example, the book uses the author’s attempt at ordering a milkshake from room service at a fancy hotel. The hotel didn’t have milkshakes on their menu and the room service personnel didn’t quite know how to handle the request.  The author asked if the hotel had milk, ice cream, a bowl and a spoon…the answer was yes.  The author ordered these items and made his own milkshake.

The author uses this simple example to point out that the room service personnel were stuck in a process and just because they didn’t sell milkshakes, they couldn’t provide one and didn’t have a ‘process’ in place to get one to the author.

The book provides a good overview of what it means to be process bound, but also steps into the role of trying to teach the reader how to take simple actions to change these processes to follow a more common sense approach.