Category:

Leadership

MSP You are here part 2
InspirationLeadershipSelf-Improvement

Management Survival Guide Part 2: The best secrets of re-defining a toxic programme in trouble

by MIKE JACOB
written by MIKE JACOB

If you are reading this article, I will presume you have read, Part 1: Recovering a Toxic program. Note, these are written in order. If you have not read Part 1, I would suggest you do so before proceeding.  Otherwise, some of the contextual references will not make sense.  The focus is a guided approach in recovering a toxic programme so good discipline counts highly!

Additionally, keep in mind we are recovering, per se, “a program” (e.g. “initiative”, “concept”, “project”, “new enterprise”, “strategy”, etc.).  Since this guide though is also useful also for setting up a program/strategy/initiative, we will deviate a bit from standard MSP.  Keep in mind, whereas the (project) outputs are important, your key focus is on outcomes. So do not get lost in the weeds, thinking at the project level.

Definition

Now that you have clearly identified the programme of work and have the required understanding and collateral, your next steps involves defining the programme of work.  This is a drilldown now to the next level, with key (outputs) outcomes as follows: –

  1. Securing detailed information that will define the new capabilities. To include the method of how you will deliver the new capabilities.
  2. Developing a delivery framework of how the Programme will be run & managed
  3. Factual list of changes that will be delivered into the company (HINT: Program Brief >> Blueprint);
  4. What benefits, costs & delivery timeframes, dates; delivered (HINT: Business Case);

This part of the recovery process is crucial to success.  The products/collateral will require deep level investigation, analysis and understanding.  Detail is extremely important at this stage as it will become the foundation for developing your overarching delivery plan.

Cost/benefits are a key factor also in the viability in any programme.  It may seem redundant in stating this fact, but you want benefits that outweigh the costs in a reasonable time period (typically 3-5 years max).   You wouldn’t for example spend ÂŁ10,000 replacing all PVC windows in your house if you are only saving ÂŁ200 a year in energy bills. It’s simply not cost effective.  so keep this first and foremost in your mind at all times.

Inputs, Controls, Outputs, Mechanisms (ICOM’s)

If you have ever seen an MSP framework model, you may note similarities to another older modelling language (analysis) framework referred to as “IDEF” (ICAM definition). Originally initiated in the 1970’s by the USAF, it was a pioneer model used for overarching integration definition.  It’s core concepts were so robust and insightful, you will still find its models in use today.  As it seems both MSP and I like its usage here, lets digress slightly for understanding.

The following model comes from an IDEF framework (NB: If you want to read more on IDEF).  ICOM’s is an acronym that simply put, tells you: –

  • what to do (activities at the centre of the box below, always a verb/action)’
  • what is needed (Inputs);
  • what will influence the work (Controls);
  • what the end result will be (Outputs, outcomes);
  • what systems, parts, people will be required to make it all work (Mechanisms);

IDEF is a function modelling language that utilizes ICOM based flow and syntax. The following is an enhanced MSP flow model.  It will be useful for understanding, where to next.

Methodical approach

The following diagram is an extended ICOM model I have enhanced to paint a clear picture of all constituent programme parts.  Before proceeding, please study and have and read closely all Inputs, Controls, Outputs, Mechanisms and finally (in the centre), the Activities.

MSP Part 2 IDEF

I am sure some will feel daunted here.  Remember, there were gaps in the previous running of the program.  If the program board were actively running the program, they would have acted on concerns (Risks, Issues).  The fact they did not implies either a gap in knowledge, a gap in collateral, or a gap in leadership.  Regardless, it implies a lack of methodical management of at a senior level. This is why you inherited this toxic program and you are now tackling this core issue. A functional model of the programme is very beneficial so that you gain (or develop?) an intrinsic “feel” for what you are attempting.

So take a deep breath, turn the actions around into a “definition” plan and tackle the list, one by one.  Delegate where possible but handle critical parts yourself.  You can for example have your Business Analysts develop the Blueprint.  However, you need to ensure you clearly read and endorse what they have written.  Let your Project Managers put together the strawman plans.  Do not forget!  You have the helicopter view so ensure you are OK with the activities, timelines, costs, owners.

Trust me, your leadership will feel more confident with a methodical approach this time around.  Especially if they are partially culpable and whipped the previous team for too much speed, too many shortcuts.

Useful tips Part 2

As in Part 1, more useful tips to help you along.  Note, some of the previous tips are re-suable so are also listed below.

  1. DO re-enforce the understanding that you are in charge and report directly to the SRO/Programme Board. It will ensure you are able to secure desired support at key stages of Definition.
  2. DON’T be shy about handing out work and assigning owners, especially in terms of Risks & Issues. Place your Risks/Issues log in a visible area so all stakeholders can review this as needed daily.  Ideally, owners should be able to update this with progress as/when needed (e.g. Sharepoint, Teams, or some other collaboration tool).  Check it, daily, for updates.  If people are missing target dates or not updating the register, contact them directly for updates.
  3. DO define a standard template for the Program Board. You cannot afford to waste time with a new template each meeting. Secure approval with the Board and ensure it is clearly updated before every Board meeting. Ideally arrange a Board meeting on weekly schedule, worst case would be fortnightly.  Flag anything greater than fortnightly as a “High Risk” item in the Raid Log! 
  4. DON’T be afraid to ask for resource “Mechanisms” to support the program. If you need more BA’s, push for them.  More PM’s, push. More report leads, push. This is especially important if you have a need for Interim Funding.  Just be clear as to why when you explain the “Need” here.
  5. DO challenge people for good honest feedback, especially in reviewing emerging collateral. If you ask for a review, ensure the feedback is meaningful. Be especially mindful where some of the owners are “co-responsible” for certain collateral; e.g. the business case would be co-owned by Responsible Finance stakeholder and SRO.
  6. DON’T fudge costs or benefits. The expectation is that at this point, you will have a target estimate of costs +/- 30%.  Similarly on the benefits.  If the variance is outside of 30%, you have not thrashed this out enough.  Get further into the detail and nail this down.
  7. DO practice good version control. Every release of a core product should have Title, Date, Version embedded directly in the file name.
  8. DON’T forget to crosscheck your documentation for accuracy. Especially where you are publishing costs or benefits.  g., Costs/Benefit profiles should be in accord with Blueprint and Business case.
  9. DO challenge negative attitudes and/or behaviours wherever you see them, but at a one to one level. These are a subtle form of sabotage and are extremely damaging to any program. Do not be harsh.  Just advise the person in question that you would appreciate their positive support.  Diplomacy goes a long way here!
  10. DON’T forget to review the Program Definition Plan with all key stakeholders, especially the SRO/Sponsor. Then issue as a formal Version 1.0 and circulate to ALL team members, stakeholders, and anyone associated to the program. Lock this under firm change control.
  11. DO ensure you have a robust communications strategy outlined. Clear communications of plans, intent, progress are one of the biggest failures in programmes.  People will worry if they do not see regular progress, even if everything is going perfectly!
  12. DON’T forget formal approvals on all key documents. If you are not clear on which documents are “key”, then agree a formal list with the SRO/Sponsor.
  13. DO be consistent on everything you do. No matter what the circumstances.  If you have to cancel a regularly scheduled call more than twice in 3 months, you are entering dangerous waters.  If you are not around, have a delegate run the call.  If you are running late on issuing a product (e.g. revised plan), issue an apology and do not let it slip again.  Even if the plan has no changes, people will want that re-assurance.

Additional guidance that may help

Try not to “re-invent the wheel” here.  There are many excellent websites that have great templates you can uplift for your purposes.  My favourite is the Association for Project Management (APM) website.  A treasure trove of knowledge!  Do not be fooled by the word “project”.  It does deal with projects and programmes and you will find much of the collateral interchangeable.  Alternatively, here is a site that offers free MSP templates, ILX Group.

MSP Part 2ADo not forget that people will look to you for guidance.  You should be absolutely “radiating” confidence, blinding people with your positivity!  A good attitude will be immeasurable helpful.

Finally, do practice diplomacy, coupled with positivity.  I do not endorse lying but that does not mean you have to put things in very negative context either.

For example, if you have slipped a date, an honest message could be as follows. “Yes, we missed the target but are recovering the date and there will be nil impact on the plan”.  Alternatively, if you are over budget, an honest message could be as follows.  “Yes, we overspent in this area by ÂŁ20K but we believe we will remain on target within the variance and we don’t foresee any further problems here”.  How you tell a truth, is sometimes more important than the actual message itself.

What next?

In continuation, I hope you are finding value in using an MSP framework.  By this time, you should be finding that your hard work is paying off and attitudes are changing for the better! The teams should be more switched on now with positive “can do” attitudes.

The next instalment of these Survival Guides will take you to the next step of Managing the Tranches.  I hope that you have secured a book here on MSP as advised earlier.  Moreover, you have been diligent in reading it, cover to cover.  If you did follow this key advice, this should all be making much better sense.

Look for my next instalment. Coming soon!

10 comments
3 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
business analyst
InspirationLeadershipSelf-empowerment

The invaluable, beautiful art of Business Analysis in Companies

by MIKE JACOB
written by MIKE JACOB

New programs are the life blood of any organisation, company, corporation, government agency, military, etc. (NB: For ease of discussions, let’s just use the term “company” to cover all the above.) They support the company’s business strategy, vision, and future.  Yet confusion often arises when a company decides to launch a new programme.  They want to further growth but are unclear on “whom do we need”.  Well you need a sponsor (obviously), who will be the “champion” for the program.  But who next?  The answer will surprise many.  You must appoint/hire someone to the mostly unrecognised, most overlooked, most underrated role in business today.  The lowly business analyst (BA).  I say “lowly” because they (BA’s) are quite often the “unsung” heroes of any “good” emerging programme.

Now this may confuse some who typically would have thought something else.  Perhaps a Project Manager (PM)?  Alternatively, a Program manager (PgM)? A Change Manager (CM)?  Some even consider a financial expert of sorts.  All wrong.

See, what you need to appreciate is the difference between programme roles, versus a set of responsibilities.  (NB: A RACI would make this clearer if you are not clear on intent). The key is focus on the responsibilities, not the role.  You can hire a PM or PgM if they are “qualified” in Business Analysis.  I have seen many PM’s and PgM’s over the years who are excellent in business analysis.  So it’s not uncommon for these “jack of many trade” experts to wear multiple hats.  But make no mistake.  IF a PM or PgM wears this hat, they must be an absolute “artist” in this skill.  Even so, what does this mean?  Let’s explore this a bit.

What does “Qualified” mean?

First, the bad news.  Many universities today offer degrees in Business Analysis and you can find them just about everywhere (e.g. Universities offering BA degrees). With undergrad focus/niche specialities such as “Business Analytics”. Or “Business Data Analytics”.  Fancy  a degree in “Business Analytics with Financial Technology”? Or how about “Business Intelligence and Data analytics”? And look a this one, “Intelligence Analysis and Management with Foundation Year”; (Egads! What is going on here??)

With apologies, I am not trying to belittle a persons accomplishments if they have a degree in this area. Yet sadly, just about anyone can get a degree and emerge as a so-called “expert”. Yet true business analysis is more of an “Artistic ability”, rather than just education.  And sadly, this will become readily apparent within a very few short years post-graduation.  Those with an artistic streak will endure. Whilst those who do not have that “je ne sais quoi” for business analysis, will quickly find other work.

In my experience, some of the best BA’s I have ever met are “home grown” from other disciplines. For the simple reason is that they love the work. Their “artistic abilities” are evident in so many ways (which we will explore further here).  It is why they have found work as BA’s.  Because they enjoy it and they have highly disciplined analytical minds.

Business Analysis Discipline – “Must Haves”

First, just to be clear, “discipline” does not equate to “punishment” in this context.  It simply means becoming a true expert in a branch of knowledge.  Moreover, having the quality of being able to behave and work in a controlled way, which involves obeying particular rules or standards.  Key words here are “knowledge”, “controlled” and “rules or standards”.  Some of the most important aspects common to all great BA’s: –

  • Able to read, digest and clearly comprehend large amounts of information;
  • Can think “outside of the box” in terms of avenues of research; takes new findings in stride with all known facts.
  • Able to evaluate benefits & dis-benefits of key findings during research with clearly articulated reasons of why to include, or exclude (work through ambiguity, a critical thinker);
  • Can model these benefits & dis-benefits clearly in a form easily understood at a senior level;
  • Can clearly propose and articulate well-structured options and arguments (both verbal & written) on how to proceed, to include “do nothing” options (problem solving).
  • Good at communicating and listening (social skills). This means they can build relationships, facilitate meetings, ask pertinent questions, really listen and comprehend the answers.
  • Depending on the endeavour, clearly understands the business, technology, financial goals and ambitions: as both a standalone programme and in context of the wider company ambitions.

Business Analysis Discipline – Good to Have

Other good key skills that would truly benefit the programme are listed as follows: –

  • Experience on the subject area (e.g. Technology; Software; Finance; Manufacturing; Construction; Education; etc.);
  •  Principled to not lie, manipulate data or soften the truth of findings;
  • Ability to build relationships (I said this twice now so important, yes?), self-manage their own time, be thick skinned to criticisms/feedback;
  • Ability to put aside their feelings when considering feedback;
  • Able to be assertive on findings without being aggressive; (e.g. deliver truthful findings in a non-adversarial manner); ability to put aside their feelings when considering feedback;
  • Loves the work!
  • Experience in the role commensurate to the value of the programme; e.g. 1 year for programmes under ÂŁ100K versus 5+ years on programmes over ÂŁ1M. (NB: Not a hard fast rule though. Some of the best BA’s I have ever met were true “artists”, yet only had 1-2 years in the area);

I could go on to sub dimensions of these skills & behaviours but you should get the point from this short list.

The impact to a new programme

Now I could ramble on with literal verbal diarrhoea on how this could affect emerging programmes.  Instead, let’s provide a case type study so we can demonstrate the effectiveness of a great BA, versus a mediocre one.

  • Scenario: The Company has 87 sites that accumulate customer data. New GDPR regulations (GDPR) require strict adherence to new standards.  The company has 9 months to ensure new GDPR standards are in place. Late delivery will incur significant financial penalties. Each site has their own database of contacts.  On-site teams manage current standards on limited budgets.  A new programme is started to bring all site data in line with new GDPR standards. Allocation is a ÂŁ2M budget.  “Do nothing” approach is not an option here.
  • Two Business Analysts are assigned and will work independently of each other. BA#1 has 5+ years but is not happy in the role and is “mediocre” at best. BA#2 has 5+ years, loves the work and is an “artist”.
  • The BA’s are given 8 weeks (~2 months) to conclude their work, present findings, and courses of action.

BA#1 method and results (Mr. Mediocre)

BA#1 talks to the local team to understand current way of working.  Assesses new standards, the team size, workload required, and technologies used (Oracle DB). Determines that new standards would affect team size by +1, graduate level new hires. Contacts 3 other centres to confirm same/similar scenarios. Proposed hire costs of ÂŁ20K per new member, 1 per each site = ÂŁ1.74M. Transition would be done in 6 months, with ÂŁ250K allocated to start up/running costs. New license costs for each person included.  This is the proposal Mr. Mediocre puts forth to the Sponsor utilising the ÂŁ2M.

BA#2 method and results (Mrs. Artist)

BA#2 talks to the local team to understand current way of working.  Similarly, she assesses new standards, the team size, workload required, and technologies used (Oracle DB).  She digs in much farther, investigates new cloud technologies, and contacts a further 15 remote sites. She raises questions on architecture, database licensing, and way of working, resource costs, and current compliance rates.

Additionally, she finds compliance rates in past have been generally poor.  Teams were overworked and took “shortcuts” in adhering to old standards. So there is little faith new standards would be adhered to better.  Also discovers some sites are high cost regions so new personnel would be expensive.  Discovers the Company has a corporate Oracle license with free cloud incentive packages being offered.

The proposal Mrs. Artist proposes has key outline as follows: –

  • Each site engages with a local Oracle admin to link local databases and schema’s at each site to new cloud solution. ÂŁ150K;
  • New Oracle cloud solution setup. ÂŁ100K cost for new central site technical setup;
  • Central control team at new site to be setup; 10 new hires, highly experienced GDPR experts @ÂŁ400K.
  • ÂŁ200K allocated to start-up/running costs, no new licenses required.
  • Overall setup will take 6 months;
  • Reduced workload at each site will result in average person cost savings of ÂŁ1.5M per annum. Based on release of 87 staff, one per site. There will be reduced license costs of ÂŁ50K.
  • Central control option fully compliant, upgraded quality of standards;

The proposal Mrs. Artist submits to the sponsor has a target cost of ÂŁ850K for the full programme (ÂŁ150+ÂŁ100+ÂŁ400+250K).   With subsequent savings of ÂŁ1.5M resource costs per annum now and in future and ÂŁ50K license costs.

Conclusions are fairly obvious, yes?

Fair play to Mr. Mediocre.  His outline of a plan meets targets, costs, and agenda.  He took the agreed scope and built a reasonable solution around the parameters provided. In short, a “mediocre” plan.

Mrs. Artist though is exactly that as her name describes.  An Artist.  She was not looking to just meet conditions.  She is quite experienced in “digging in” to the unexplored regions most people avoid (murky waters).  To include controversial areas such as “releasing people”. Then, she further considered the business technologies in use and the goals of the programme (and company).  Quality was at the forefront of her mind whilst considering existing agreements and conditions, at multiple sites.  This “deep dive” on her part enabled her to conceive an option that was somewhat “outside of the box”.  Yet truly presented a far more “artful” solution option.  Finding an artist with great business analysis skills may also be your salvation in recovering a Toxic Programme!

So which do you prefer? Meet all conditions at a cost of ÂŁ2M? Or exceed conditions, improve quality, deliver at an ÂŁ850K cost and reap benefits of an additional ÂŁ1.55M per annum?

The Hunt

Finding these “artists” is not as hard as you may think. Go talk to your employees and find out what is working great.  A technical solution. A process. A strategy.  A programme.  I will bet you that 9 times out of 10, there was an “Artist” involved.  These are the type of people that “make a difference” between successful companies, and “mediocre” ones!  The true “Unsung heroes” of the 21st Century!

0 comment
1 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
2 sides,same face
DeceptionLeadershipSelf-Interest

A new spotlight on the stunning cost of corporate change

by MIKE JACOB
written by MIKE JACOB

Companies love change! Moreover, corporate change is always good in a company, yes?   It is exciting, new, intoxicating, and bound to generate great benefits, right?  We see so much of it everywhere we look. Moreover, it infects us with the fever of “success”! With the result, that many companies ram these mantras into our brains daily in attempts to brainwash us.  “Change is good”.   “It brings opportunity”. “It is the lifeblood of a company”. “Change brings wealth”! Blah, blah, blah…ho hum.

 

Sadly, these brainwashing tactics do work for the most part. A delirious fever grips the leadership and employees alike. With visions of rich profits and personal advancement! With delicious dreams of wealth, respect, glory and pride!

 

Yet therein lies the root of the problem.  Companies so ridden with corporate change programs, the velocity of change exceeds their abilities to grasp the impact. With leadership embracing a “Go Faster and Faster” strategy that results in a total loss of control. The average employee is also so infected, they do not question why.  They just follow blindly.  Akin to a motor race, where too many drivers go faster than their skills allow, resulting in mistakes.  As well as a massive pileup, crash!

 

Misunderstanding what change means

 

Many companies who have fallen into this trap question (in hindsight); “Where did we go wrong”? Yet we quite often overlook the answer despite it being right there in front of us.  It is because most leaders do not understand what the word “Change” means.  They thrust it at the forefront of every conversation.  It is part of every vision.  Written into every presentation they create. It is “core” to every leaders “strategy”.  That ignorance of what change means is magnified when developing corporate change strategies. Thus, it is sadly why companies lose 10’s or 100’s of millions of ££ annually. 

 

Let’s explore for a moment.  You can use the word “Change” as a verb or a noun, defined as follows (Oxford Dictionary).

 

1.       Verb: make or become different. “a proposal to change the law”

2.       Noun: an act or process through which something becomes different. “the change from single life to married life”

 

Therefore, as a result, if you do change a law, there is a result that something is different now.  A speed limit changes from 50KPH to 70KPH. Drinking is now legal for adults over 18 years old.  Gambling becomes legal now.  The key point though is you moved from one stable position, to a new one.

 

Understanding the word “different”

 

To understand change, you must also understand “different”.  In short, the word “different” means

 

·       “Not the same as another or each other; unlike in nature, form, or quality”; “distinct”; “separate”. 

 

The fundamental truth here is that you first must have something stable, in order for it to become “different”. 

 

This is where many companies fail repeatedly when embarking on corporate change. They never let the “dust settle” from the last change, before embarking on their next “Change programme”.  They never truly measure the benefits or dis-benefits of the new environment from the last change. Nor do they allow for a stabilisation period, before embarking on their next mad venture.  They don’t give people time to “settle in” to the new structure, process, product, and/or way of working.  Nor give their customers time to understand how the company now does business.  In other words, they are not stable, but rather in a constant state of flux.

 

Understanding the word “chaos”

 

There is a word that does clearly describe this phenomenon.  It is an apt descriptor of a company caught in a constant state of flux with “change programs”.  In a word, “Chaos”! 

 

·       Definition: complete disorder and confusion!

 

Leadership are ultimately fixated on “Corporate Change”.  And they fail to take into account the tremendous impacts of Change, in a chaotic environment.  So ultimately, the corporations pay for change after change after change, without counting the final costs!  Until it’s too late and the losses become staggering! 

 

The ironical aspect to this dilemma is the situation of when a CEO fails to improve a company.  All the “change programs” launched by the CEO fail, so the Board of Directors let him go.  (NB: with a Golden Parachute of course! See Rewarding Failure).  They then bring in a new “go getter”.  Who is bright, enthusiastic, and passionate (Danger!)?  Who quickly decides to steer the company into a brand new portfolio of “ corporate change programs”! Seems these companies could benefit from a “pace car” in their race to fortune and glory!

 

Use Case, the initial strategy

 

If you are unconvinced, perhaps we can use this to illustrate further.  With this simple Use Case to explain the point.

 

Scenario: Imagine a car company that develops the new “PomPom” electric car program.  Cost of development & initial production, one-time setup fees is £100M.  Cost of production per car is £16,000 per car once production starts.  Projected retail cost of £40,000. Timeline from start of program to first production start, 18 months.  Projected sales of 20,000 units in first full year of production, based on concise market analysis post 18 months. £100M additional spent on marketing.  Expected revenues of £800M in Year 1 minus material costs of £320M = £480M profit.  Projected sales of 25,000 units in Year 2. Expected revenues of £1B in Year 2 minus material costs of £400M = £600M profit.  Plan is for 42 months (18+12+12), and then re-evaluate next steps.

 

Then came the changes to strategy

 

1.       6 months into the program, new technology emerges.  Leadership initiate a “Change program” to incorporate the new technology.  Additional R&D costs, setup costs of £50M interjected, 6 months delay added, revised cost per unit £18,000.  Additional £25M Marketing costs.
2.       9 months into the program, new Leadership push for new market “Change strategy”. Different target market based on revised demographics.  Volumes remain stable. Additional site locations, setup costs of £75M interjected. Further 4 months delay added, revised cost per unit remains at £18,000.
3.       12 months into the program, discovery that new technology costs were not analysed sufficiently. Revised cost per unit increases to £22,000.  Further 6 months delay to secure new suppliers.  Setup costs increase by £25M.
4.       15 months into the program, new Leadership push for revised market strategy.  This is to cover growing cost overruns, increase of projected sales volumes.  Further 6 months delay. Additional £50M Marketing costs. Market analysis indicates that new sales strategy was not effective.  Volumes do not change and remain stable based on initial projections.
5.       18 months into the program, Leadership determines that the new technology is not cost effective.  They decide to have it removed. Further 6 months delay. Additional £50M marketing costs. Additional setup costs of £50M interjected to remove new technology.
6.       No further changes noted, first “PomPom” delivered, “Month 46”.

 

So a typical scenario that could be theoretically played in a car company. Except there was no accountability of overall changes in play, shifting leadership, or new technology strategies.  As a result, the program was “adrift”.  Shall we compare the outcomes now?

 

Best Case (If you had stuck to the plan!)

 

If you had stuck to the initial plan, the calculations look like this.  To ensure we do not lose the point, we will skip for now the finer points around EBITDA, depreciation, etc. Instead, just focus just on simple profits model.

 

BEST CASE:

  • START: Elapsed time 18 months, initial costs ÂŁ200M (Start-up + Marketing);
  • YEAR 1 profit = ÂŁ480M
  • YEAR 2 profit = ÂŁ600M
  • Net profit, end of Year 2 = ÂŁ1080M – ÂŁ200M start-up costs = ÂŁ880M
  • Elapsed time 42 months total;

 

What really happened

 REAL CASE:

  • START: Elapsed time 46 months, initial costs ÂŁ525M (ÂŁ200M + ÂŁ50M + ÂŁ25M + ÂŁ75M + ÂŁ25M + ÂŁ50M + ÂŁ50M+ ÂŁ50M);
  • YEAR 1 profit = ÂŁ480M
  •  YEAR 2 profit = ÂŁ600M
  • Net profit, end of Year 2 = ÂŁ1080M – ÂŁ525M start-up costs = ÂŁ555M
  • Elapsed time 70 months total;

Now if we extrapolated the initial plan to include an average 25,000 units per year (£600M profit per annum), the differences become very unsettling.   

 

THE OUTCOME:

  • Duration: 70 months
  • Best Case: ÂŁ880M + (ÂŁ600M * 28 months) = ÂŁ2.28 Billion.
  • Real Case: ÂŁ555M

 

In view of these numbers, it is fair to say there is still going to be a long road to recovery.  If we had modelled using break-even analysis, the changed strategy break-even point is around Month 59. However, it presumes NO FURTHER CHANGES! So nearly 5 years in, before you begin making profit.  Ghastly! (NB: I will let you do the break-even math.)

 

In short, which would you prefer after 70 months?  A profit of £2.28B?  Or in contrast, a profit of £555M?  Simple, yes?

 

Effective Change

 

As the saying goes, “hindsight is 20/20” and it is always much easier to see why things went wrong AFTER the fact.  However, for corporate “Change” programs to be effective, they must be coordinated as part of a portfolio of change programs. Any new change must be evaluated in context of other programs in play.  Moreover, there must be clear Accountability at the highest levels to put on the brakes if the situation is spiralling out of control.  In short, someone who says, “enough is enough”, no more changes!

 

In the long run, changes are required from time to time in any company. You ALWAYS have to do your homework. Every time.  If you did concise market analysis the first time, re-do it for any proposed changes. New technology must be researched fully and totally before it is used.  If you have a budget, stick to it and only deviate after intense scrutiny and analysis.  In other words, DO NOT take shortcuts!  

 

Here are some very simple questions that need asking, BEFORE initiating a new corporate change program, or strategy change. 

 

1.       When did the last Change program end? Has it ended?

2.       What period of stabilization has occurred since program completion?

3.       Do we have a clear roadmap showing benefit positions at each decision point?  E.g., a 100% clearly articulated benefit realization plan?

4.       Have we clearly analysed the impacts of proposed new change?  Costs, timelines, impacts to benefits, markets, strategy, analysis, etc.?

5.       Is anyone “putting their thumb on the scales” out of self-interest?  Can you validate their numbers?

6.       Is Kleptocracy a problem in your company?

7.       Above all, “Do we really need a new Change program”?

 

Unless Chaos is your ultimate objective?

0 comment
1 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Businessman drowning
InspirationLeadershipSelf-Improvement

Management Survival Guide Part 1: The best secrets of recovering a toxic program in trouble

by MIKE JACOB
written by MIKE JACOB

If you work in a management position, chances are that you have already encountered (or will encounter), the most deadly program of all.  The “Toxic Program”.  The toxic program is typically one that is defined in your local terminology as “critical” or “red”.  Something has gone seriously wrong. And you have been “parachuted in” to recover the situation.

 

I’m using the term “program” loosely here (See: Program_management) because these tips are very useful in general. And good for recovering quite a few different toxic situations in any organisation. This could be called something very different elsewhere, depending on the organisation.  I’ve heard terms such as “initiative”, “concept”, “project”, “new enterprise”, “strategy”, etc.  Make no mistake, it’s still a program of some form of work.  And that requires a well-defined road map that follows a framework. 

 

Unfortunately management quite often use other terms to mislead, confuse. Or are simply ignorant of correct terminology.  This allows them to escape the need for discipline and structure.  Which is typically why these programs become toxic in the first place!

 

Practical guidance

Now I could give you a lengthy course on the virtues of structured program methodologies. But I personally prefer MSP, Managing Successful Programmes so will base recovery on this framework. But if you are reading this, I suspect you are looking for solid tips and guidance, and not abstract teaching.  Bear in mind that many of these principles, DO’s, DON’T’s would be in place for a normal program also.  So this is about discipline in a difficult program that is already in crisis.

 

It is vital to remember that individuals associated to the program will not be at their best.  Tempers will most likely be frayed, people will be feeling hurt and emotionally scarred. There will animosity in some, active or passive resistance in others.  Deliberate sabotage is also a possibility so be careful!

 

So having a professional bearing will work wonders.  Be disciplined but friendly, conscientious & considerate.  A non-aggressive but professional, methodical, assertive approach will be very re-assuring to the teams, and management.

 

So without further ado, let’s get started.

 

Don’t rush headlong in, expecting to save the world

So first off, let’s set some ground rules. Necessary to ensure we are both on the same page and understandings.  Rules we need to agree on as follows.

 

  1. That the program is deemed to be something that can be achieved and not a “lost cause”. And to some extent, there is some form of benefit attached. How much, to be determined?
  2. We can presume the previous owner was most likely, a reasonably competent individual. Or they would never have been given the program in the first place!
  3. That the program is toxic/failing due to one or more gaps.  Some examples could be soft areas such as expectations, communications, and understandings.  Or hard areas such as costs, scope, timelines, resources, equipment, suppliers, etc.

Remember, it’s a toxic program of work that needs a structured approach to fix it.  So start at the beginning.  Find out what forms of collateral are in place and read, read, read.  Evaluate any available collateral already in place. Issue logs, risk logs, registers, meeting notes, authentic program collateral, etc. Then prepare a list and evaluate the condition of the collateral.  This initially will let you know where the gaps are. 

 

Keep it simple (stupid – the KISS principle) and give each piece of collateral a rating of “Good”, “Average”, “Bad”, “Missing”, “Not Required”.  Gather evidence by talking to the people currently associated, or were in the program (but left?).  Take copious notes on all facts, thoughts, and opinions about what happened, what went wrong.  Ask for opinions about gathered collateral on credibility and adjust your scores accordingly.

 

Your starting position

As a start, when you begin recovery of a toxic program, you need clarity on many levels.  Creating good collateral to accompany the program IS NOT just a “paper pushing exercise”!  It is a VITAL part of a recovery road map as it serves a number of key purposes.  These include: –

 

  • It provides you with a starting point in beginning the work;
  • It provides a framework plan for “the next 4-8 weeks”, depending on what needs to be done.  E.g. re-write collateral, create collateral, collate evidence, etc.
  • It provides you and management an opportunity to level the playing field (in writing). And being honest in clearing up critical errors.  This is especially important if there are problems in “softer” areas such as misaligned expectations.  Or fuzzy roles & responsibilities. Or misguided communications strategy.
  • Once complete, the understanding from the products will form the basis of a more extended plan.
  • The completed products will clarify (immensely!) key aspects of a new plan. To include dependencies, risks, roles/responsibilities, key players, costs, benefits, timelines, etc.

If you cannot see the necessity of this approach, you may as well quit now.  And ask your line management for urgent re-assignment to simpler work.  I didn’t say this would be easy.  But it can be done.

 

The collateral

The standard pieces of programme collateral that SHOULD be in place.  Depending on the value and complexity, you should be able to “trawl” Google or Bing for sample templates. These would include.

 

  1. A Policy/Strategy/Vision document or statement (if available).
  2. A mandate – Short, clear management level statement (or document) on what the programme is being set up to achieve. How organisation will be improved as a result. How programme fits with corporate mission & goals / other initiatives. If one is not available or was never prepared, create one.MSP You are here
  3. Terms of Reference (TOR) – Defines program board (individuals, SRO, Board), Accountability, Roles & Responsibilities.  Should also include (ideally), estimation of resources, terms used, duration’s, structure, meetings, etc. If one is not available or was never prepared, create one.
  4. Initial Plans – Preparation plan, how to get to a stage where you can define a program. If one is not available or was never prepared, create one.
  5. RACI matrix (Senior) – Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, and Informed (NB: I am not keen on RASCI so not used here. The “Support” designation is in my eyes, confusing and just muddies the waters with “Consulted”). If one is not available or was never prepared, create one.
  6. Program Brief (presuming the above collateral in place) – At minimum, it will reflect: –
    1. The Vision-what will the organisation look like once you have delivered the programme.
    2. Benefits-what type, when they will be delivered, how to measure them.  Ensure you also clearly call out “dis-benefits”.
    3. Risks & Issues-Programme level, known constraints, assumptions or conflicts.  Be clear on what the impacts are.
    4. Estimates-costs, resources, timing, effort.
    5. If one is not available or was never prepared, create one.

These are essential products that MUST exist.  And you must be crystal clear on their use, before you can begin defining and recovering the toxic program.  Otherwise, how do you really know what you are expected to deliver?

Good documentation of course needs no alteration.  Average means accept it, but with risk.  Bad or missing will need to be accomplished (or re-accomplished).  Archive any “Not Required” documentation.  

 

Useful tips to help you along

  1. DO: ask for a very clear charter from your Director/VP level stating that YOU, are now in charge and Responsible for delivery. And that this charter needs to be sent out to all senior level stakeholders, owners.  You must have this as you will need to make decisions, secure support. Stakeholders need to recognise your ownership, to ensure you get the support you need.
  2. DON’T: let your management rush you.  It’s obvious you’re expected to work professionally and promptly.  But there is a vast difference between working efficiently versus rushing headlong into a second disaster.  Set good timelines and be honest with your management as to why you need the time.  If they still try to rush/push aggressively, be careful. They are not giving you adequate time to prepare, so push back assertively.  Begin a Risk log and clearly capture the risk, who made the decision, business impact.  Then ask the person rushing you if they are comfortable being the “Risk Owner”.  (NB: This is to help protect you!).
  3. DO: Prepare for good meetings, in advance, for Responsible & Accountable owners, so you can get everyone “on board”. Circulate the collateral, in advance, and get feedback.  Don’t wait till the day before to arrange a meeting.  And push the owners to ensure they accept the meeting invite.  If they don’t attend, pick up the phone and pester them (politely).  Persistence is a virtue in corporations. Chronic absences of essential people should be captured in the Risk log.
  4. DON’T: Be bashful on asking your upper management for assistance in coercing support as needed.  I have seen this often in past.  Where for example, a Vice-President (VP) who persistently skips my meeting invites, tends to be more “cooperative” with other VP’s/Presidents. Their support may be vital in moving the toxic program from Red to Green!
  5. DO: Encourage people to speak out, especially in one to one discussions.  You will learn things.  Ask what they think went wrong.  And listen!  When you are talking, you are not learning!
  6. DON’T: accept “fluff” when you have hard questions that need answering. E.g. you need to know what the budget is and the answer they give you is “I think it’s somewhere around £500K but I’m not sure”. Or you need to know how many people will be in the team by skill set. And they respond with “oh, I have a nameless team that will help out”. You need to know Accountable owners. A response of “Oh don’t worry about that.  We’ll work it out as we go along” is not acceptable.
  7. DO: learn to “dig in your heels”.  Be honest, forthright, and concise in your analysis. And in what actions or outputs are required from others.  If they cause a delay, then you tell them the plan will be delayed. No excuses.  If you are in charge and you honestly think you are making the right decision, stick by it.  Don’t let others “railroad” you into accepting decisions you know are wrong.  If you are overruled by your direct Line Management, so be it. Capture this as a decision against a RISK you have diligently entered in your Risk Log.
  8. DON’T: accept blame for others’ mistakes, but don’t become a “blame caster” either.  For example, if someone has “dropped the ball” after agreeing a suspense date. You can call this out in a “politically polite” manner with a positive spin.  E.g. “the costs forecasts were delayed due other priorities but we expect to recover them by end of week”.
  9. DON’T: be arrogant and act like you walk on water.  If you make a (minor) mistake, admit it, apologise and move on.  Don’t dwell on it.  Try not to make major mistakes as too many of these will mean you are also going to be replaced!  Take your time as you must, to ensure you are making the right decisions.
  10. DO: ensure your scope is very tight. And don’t accept “scope creep” without proper evaluation and change control.  If for example you know you are rolling out a new system to 200 sites, this will form the basis of your plan.  If 6 weeks later, they decide its 400 sites, register this into a Change control log.  And ensure EVERYONE is aware a new plan will be delivered.  And that it will be reflecting new timelines, impact, costs, and resources as required.
  11. DO: call in other experts as needed. You are managing this.  That doesn’t necessarily mean you have to do everything yourself.  If for example you need an infrastructure specialist to provide cost estimates, get an expert here.  Your plan will be much more credible if backed up with expert advice.
  12. DO: review collateral from other programs of similar nature.  Especially if they are complete and there is a “Lessons learned” area.  Its good practice and can often save an immense amount of time and energy. You can avoid or fix potentially difficult areas up front.  Ideally, this should also include not only “What went wrong” statements and analysis.  But also positive statements of “What went well” so you learn best practice.

What next?

Modelling this on an MSP framework, we can hopefully presume you have begun a “road to recovery”.  And that the team are on-board to recover of this toxic situation (toxic program).  The next instalment of these Survival Guides will take you to the next step of Defining a programme.  In the meantime, you may find it useful to pick up a book from Amazon, read about MSP.  It would be good learning to familiarise yourself with the overall methodology, framework, terms, and definitions.  Further useful tips can be found here (Essential job skills ).

 

Look for my next instalment. Coming soon!

0 comment
3 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Don't listen to others , don't speak about it, don't see what is happening
DeceptionLeadershipSelf-Interest

Leadership styles, the Soaring costs of Passion in business now

by MIKE JACOB
written by MIKE JACOB

The most dangerous words I have heard in every company I have worked at in the last 20 years are “Passion” and “Enthusiasm”.   So used, abused, misused, it’s become the magic “halo” that all corporate “ladder climbers” wear as they rise in a company. Also these traits do seem to be more prevalent in our corporate leaders, those being Directors, VP’s and above. You can find them scattered in CV’s, dropped into conversations, documents and presentations.  Ordinarily these “Pearls” are used beyond belief, because they believe it “defines” them and the work they do. But make no mistake.  It IS NOT a leadership style.

 

Frankly, I am utterly sick and tired of hearing these 2 words, for so many years by so many people who simply do not understand what they really mean. And these same people who embrace these personal traits so highly, are exactly the same ones who allow other essential traits to atrophy.  As a result, honesty takes a back seat to dishonesty. They wont take responsibility for their actions, decisions.  Furthermore, they are not adaptable, preferring things are always done their way.  Incompatible attitude, inconsistent with traits such as patience, courage, loyalty, and compassion.  They fall on the wayside as “non-essential” in the search of the holy grail of “passion & enthusiasm”.  Accordingly, these are the same culprits who are namely responsible for so many things that go wrong in a company, it’s scary!

 

Corrupted leadership style?

So what’s the issue with these 2 little jewels?  Simple fact is corruption of the meaning over the past 2 decades, especially in business.  The most basic definitions of these 2 words (Thank You Oxford) breaks out as follows: –

 

  • Passion: strong and barely controllable emotion; an intense desire or enthusiasm for something; (NB: we can exclude “intense sexual love” from this discussion).
  • Enthusiasm: intense and eager enjoyment, interest, or approval.

Generally embedded in current corporate culture is misapplication of these words to extremes. They have been “re-defined” by businesses in the 21st century into something unhealthy.  A “surrogate” so called “leadership style”.  Rude or abrupt, you excuse yourself with “Sorry, I’m just passionate about my work”. If you are arrogant and dictatorial, you are just being “enthusiastic”. Work extreme hours and are totally obsessed with a piece of work or project, you claim it’s because of “passion” for the work.  Force your teams to work obsessively, you claim your “enthusiasm” is infectious. And yes, they fake findings (lie) then rationalise it down to “enthusiasm” and their desire to succeed.

 

Now passion and enthusiasm are not necessarily bad things.  In philosophy and religion, passion is the instinctive, emotional, primitive drives in a human being.  The human being must restrain, channel, develop and sublimate these drives in order to be possessed of wisdom.  And one of the prime essentials of enthusiasm lies in that quality called happiness.  Yet balance is critical in life and business.  And sacrificing many good key traits for the sake of only these 2 traits impairs their perception of reality.  The classic definition of psychotic behaviour.

 

Passion and Enthusiasm in a program

These traits have had a huge detrimental effect in the workplace today in many companies, usually not tracked or measure in terms of loss. As an example you may be able to relate to.

 

Scenario: The consulting company we hired was brought in to help the company cut costs based on change strategies.  After several months of investigation, it was advised that “significant” cost savings could be achieved in a key change program of work.  The program would involve using back end CRM integration with some of our key suppliers. The end result would be improved quality of service, ability to scale back resources, improve fault resolution times. Our VP was handed this piece of work and told to “run with it”.  A very excitable, passionate, enthusiastic chap as he was often fond of pointing out to us. With no basis of comparison, he arbitrarily stated we could get this program “kicked off” within the next 8 weeks.

 

What happened?

Here are few examples of what really happened in live conversations.  In the meantime, let’s call the Boss, “Tiberius”.  An avid believer in the “passion & enthusiasm” leadership style: –

 

  1. So Tiberius calls a meeting with his 5 person team, starts off with saying “I’m really passionate about this new program”.  He then proceeds to outline his plan with “passionate and enthusiasm”.  Results were as follows.
    1. Effect on Teams: Tiberius is expecting overtime. He is rude, aggressive, shows unreasonable behaviour in face of hard facts. Ignores facts if they don’t fit his viewpoint. He ignores timelines if they don’t fit his expectations, ignores effort required, focuses on the goal only.
    2. Business outcome: Demotivated team, unreliable data and/or deliverables, a rushed job absent of quality. Teams overworked, extreme stress levels, fear, and keen desire in short to find a new Boss!
  2. In the meeting, Tiberius says: “Sorry, just enthusiastic about my job” as a standard excuse when he talked over people he disagreed with.
    1. Effect on Teams: Tiberius looks poorly at others who are not “infected” with that same enthusiasm, viewed as obstructive. His definition of “a good worker” as someone with high enthusiasm. He expects deliverables in half the time. His expectation is that others are happy to put in 60 hours a week. He uses the standard excuse to cut off conversations that seem too “realistic” which he views as “being negative”. Coaching or leadership not required as they are natural parts of “enthusiastic behaviour”. Half formed ideas waste time and effort, resulting in a constant shifting set of goals, challenges and deliverables.
    2. Business outcome: Demotivated team, team members rated unfairly during performance reviews. Poor quality products and services due to rushed work. Fear culture from voicing ideas, overworked, poor training support, excessive wasted time and effort due to lack of focus.

The outcome of too much passion and enthusiasm

(NB: Incidentally, the program was parked after 20 weeks, put into backlog as savings could not be substantiated.  Subsequently, 2 team members quit and found other jobs. Furthermore, person days effort wasted (50% effort) = 250 days @ £450 per day =   £112,500. “Tiberius” in the meantime found something else more exciting now to occupy his time, and moved onto new work).

 

In brief,  £112K is not a fortune to most companies.  Yet in the meantime, consider how many times this happens every day in a large organisation at multiple levels, multiple programs?  Consequently, think of the overall impact to a company’s costs, staff retention, demotivated employees, stress, trust, culture, etc., and you will soon see why the concern on this failed leadership style!

 

Where are you?  Who are you?

Passion and enthusiasm have their place in any business or profession. But it’s not a leadership style.  It’s a valuable set of behaviours (drives) that can take us far.  But the more “passionate and enthusiastic” the person, the greater the dangers. And therefore, the greater the safeguards required to compensate for the lack of other required “good traits”.

 

You wouldn’t deliberately go hire psychotics from an asylum so why would you accept it in the workplace?

 

Here are some simple questions that will help you improve with your teams, colleagues, co-workers, peers, superiors: –

 

  1. Is work life balance being maintained? Time off in lieu in place?  Overtime pay? Recognition?
  2. Have I been rude to someone? Cutting across them?  Shutting them up?  Ignoring what they had to say?
  3. Was I arrogant, discounting other views? Egocentric?
  4. Are timescales really realistic? Or delusional based on my own beliefs?
  5. As a rule, am I being fair in rating my team’s skills and strengths? Annual performance reports marked fairly? Unfair bias? Thereby rating people higher whom are “passionate, enthusiastic”?  Instead of their strengths?
  6. Do I want quality or quantity? Workload, effort adequately sized? How was this determined?  Formula or my own manic thoughts?
  7. Am I wasting team efforts on “half cooked” ideas? Are they really of value?
  8. Is the focus and objectives clear? Or do they shift week by week?
  9. What are my real objectives? Can I write them out clearly?
  10. Am I holding regular “One to One’s” with each member of my team to gauge effects of my behaviour? Or are they looking for a job elsewhere?
  11. Are you honest? Loyal? Also have real courage to do what is right?
  12. And above all else, are you happy? Liked? Respected?

In short, are you the type of person people want to work for?  Or conversely, everyone’s last choice?

 

Where to next?

If you answered these truthfully, well done! You are on the road to recovery, to regain your humanity and will become a better person for it! You have recognised the fact that you may be stupidly optimistic, narcissistic in nature, and therefore you want to grow into a better, real leadership style (and person!).   If you’re still not sure though, here is an easy way to check your homework.

 

The next time you are engaged in a group conversation with your team or many others where you are the primary speaker, record the call or meeting.  Then try playing it back to your spouse or a friend.  If they are honest with you, the feedback from them could come as a bit of a surprise!

 

0 comment
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
@2020 - All Right Reserved. Corporate Candour.

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Accept Read More