tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-79810545615930526772024-02-19T17:13:46.683+13:00ISAMBARDJDDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15448047257333910899noreply@blogger.comBlogger157125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7981054561593052677.post-23646307261881574842019-11-25T21:10:00.002+13:002022-05-23T18:14:10.361+12:00Great projects have purpose, vision, focus & ambitionIf you know me, you'll know I'm a fan of <a href="http://www.isambardgroup.com/2011/06/in-honour-of-isambard-kingdom-brunel.html" target="_blank">Isambard Kingdom Brunel</a>, the renowned 19th century engineer. One of my maxims is that designing and operating a great business is akin to a great engineering project:<br />
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: inherit; text-align: justify; white-space: pre-wrap;"><b>Purpose</b>: an overarching proposition of what you offer the world, to whom, and why they'd want it;</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: inherit; text-align: justify; white-space: pre-wrap;"><b>Principles</b>: mutually-reinforcing core principles and values which define and underpin everything you do;</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: inherit; text-align: justify; white-space: pre-wrap;"><b>Vision</b>: a clear, coherent, consistent, and elegant design of how you will make and fulfil your offer;</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: inherit; text-align: justify; white-space: pre-wrap;"><b>Focus</b>: doing what should be done to build that (and not doing what shouldn't);</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: inherit; text-align: justify; white-space: pre-wrap;"><b>Ambition</b>: thinking, planning, and acting for greatness.</span></li>
</ul>
I'm working on a side project that's very different from my usual focus, but still based on that maxim. So I may go quiet for a while, although I'll be contactable on <a href="http://twitter.com/jimisambard" target="_blank">Twitter</a> and <a href="http://http//www.linkedin.com/in/jimisambard" target="_blank">LinkedIn</a>.Jim Donovanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07550270373801423955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7981054561593052677.post-42269955821461528862019-11-25T20:00:00.000+13:002019-11-25T21:12:01.814+13:00Good strategy is making a choice and meaning itI’m often asked to talk to groups and to lead workshops on strategic thinking. (I even get paid for it occasionally). In a nutshell, here’s what I say:<br />
<br />
<b>Clearly define your offer and how to fulfil it</b><br />
<ul>
<li>For the customer, investor, supplier and employee</li>
<li>What, why, when, how, where, who?</li>
<li>What not, why not, when not, how not, where not, who not?</li>
</ul>
<b>Keep it simple</b><br />
<ul>
<li>Consistent, coherent, understandable, doable, communicable</li>
<li>Simpler is easier, less risky, concentrates resources for maximum impact</li>
</ul>
<b>Do it!</b><br />
<ul>
<li>Put in place the people, resources and priorities</li>
<li>Build the processes, organisation, culture and style</li>
<li>Dedicate people to make change happen</li>
<li>Do the stuff you decided to do</li>
<li>Cut out the stuff you decided not to do</li>
<li>Fix problem causes before clearing backlogs</li>
<li>Measure, report and communicate progress on the strategy (up and down, in and out)</li>
</ul>
<b>Think and act for greatness!</b><br />
<br />
Simple, really. Any questions?<br />
<br />
<i>First posted April 17th, 2007 and, even if I say so myself, worth repeating again and again and again.</i>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7981054561593052677.post-58905823833911751922019-07-19T14:56:00.001+12:002019-07-19T14:56:25.532+12:00International relationships and Dad jokes<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: left; text-indent: 14.1732pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">I’ve travelled around the world on business throughout my career. At my old company Deltec, we had over 30 different nationalities and even more ethnicities. If there’s one thing I’ve learnt from establishing relationships with people from other cultures, it’s this; we have far more in common than we have differences. People love their families and their home; they want their children to do well (while sharing amused bewilderment about teenagers); they want safe, vibrant communities and honest, effective government (everyone complains about the bureaucracy); and they value fair, reliable business partnerships. Any differences can usually be managed with good manners and tolerance.</span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span id="docs-internal-guid-0ae3a973-7fff-8369-9736-9a823033413a"></span></span><br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: left; text-indent: 14.1732pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">On business trips, we often had dinner with new customers and business partners. If it was an all-male social evening (in those days it usually was), I’d tell an old joke, “What are the magic two words for a happy marriage? ‘Yes, dear.’” Everywhere, in China, the USA, France, Switzerland, Brazil or Indonesia, it would elicit wry laughs, knowing nods, and someone would tell us the local version. People would relax, and we would have a great evening building the interpersonal relationships as well as the business ones.</span></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: left; text-indent: 14.1732pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Most people are open to connecting, if you can find a way. Sharing everyday commonalities is a good place to start. </span></span></div>
Jim Donovanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07550270373801423955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7981054561593052677.post-45672886363330417412019-04-26T16:36:00.001+12:002019-04-26T16:36:35.679+12:00Hope is key to turnaroundsIn a discussion about turmoil and the likelihood of an organisation getting into trouble, I was asked what’s the most important thing to do once you’ve established that there is a mess and figured out what to do about it. My answer was simple: “<b>restore hope</b>“. I could have used other words like confidence or faith or belief or trust. The point is that you need to get the support of many people if the turnaround is going to work, and giving people hope is the first step in the journey to recovery.<br />
<br />
Don’t get me wrong here. I’m not talking about pussy-footing around the harsh realities. You need to be upfront and honest. But you have key constituencies who need to feel hopeful about what you’re doing:<br />
<ul>
<li><b>The board</b>: The first people that need to have hope that the business can be turned around. If you can’t convince them, you may need to work with owners to replace them (or give up). Your relationship with the board chair will be crucial.</li>
<li><b>The banks</b>: They need to be certain that you will do an even better job of managing the situation than they could if they sent in the administrators. And they’ll need constant reassurance - setbacks spook them, and there will be setbacks.</li>
<li><b>Shareholders</b>: If you have dominant shareholders in a position to take drastic action, you need win their support. With small shareholders, a confident, straightforward message of decisive action and progress should suffice, with strong backing from your board.. Basically you need them off your back, so you and the team can get on with the job. Use the board chair to run interference, although you will need to keep involved with the powerful ones, especially if board changes are necessary.</li>
<li><b>Key staff</b>: These are your core team, the ones you need to stick around to make things happen. They’ll be vitally important in restoring hope in the rest of the organisation and outside.</li>
<li><b>The rest of the staff</b>: Yes, even if massive redundancies are likely. This might sound naive, but people respond better when they know what’s going on, why and that they will be treated fairly, that at least the business may survive and some jobs with it. You also may need to persuade them to stick around because you’ll need some/many to continue to operate the business; and you'll want to reduce he likelihood of industrial unrest, personal grievance cases and unsought leavers. Staff are also important in keeping customers, suppliers and channels onside. And don’t forget that staff have families and friends both as influences and as informal communication channels to the wider world. If the staff don’t have hope, then their personal networks will be even more negative. I’ve sometimes had to lay off over half the staff in companies I’m turning around, which is hugely devastating to the organisation’s morale. You’ve got to rebuild it quickly to get people energised about saving the business.</li>
<li><b>Customers</b>: This might sound bizarre, but customers are often the easiest to restore hope in. They will be unsettled, but if you can assure them that the plan will work and their needs met, then it’s down to performance. Staff hope is vital in restoring customer hope, which is why I mentioned it ahead of customers. (NB. Banks and their ilk are a different case when their customers get spooked).</li>
<li><b>Suppliers and channels</b>: Your suppliers and channels are businesses too. They’ll want to know about continuity and about getting paid. It’s a bit like customers - unsettling but performance will assuage their fears. Even if you are in receivership, they usually still want your custom, although payment terms may get somewhat harsher! Again your staff have a key role.</li>
<li><b>Communities</b>: I’ve done a major restructuring of the largest employer in a small town. You’ll have the local mayor and councillors, the local MP, and the local newspaper all over you, desperate for news and out to hang you if they can. They’re a bit like staff. You can’t give them guarantees (especially if you’re closing down in their patch) but you can actually enlist their help in alleviating the problem. Getting them hopeful that some good (however small) will come out of the process can help keep them off your back.</li>
</ul>
This isn’t a simple process done once at the start. It’s a continuous communication exercise, with setbacks and achievements along the way. Of course, the best way to restore hope is to get the tough stuff over and done quickly- preferably cut once and cut deep, if you can. That’s harder to do in a large complex organisation but you can still apply the principle within each affected unit. Restoring and maintaining hope is vital - early on and all the way through.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>First posted July 24th, 2008</i></span>Jim Donovanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07550270373801423955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7981054561593052677.post-46770058260687290342019-03-04T20:00:00.000+13:002019-03-04T20:04:01.132+13:00The 3 step strategic plan<div style="display: inline !important;">
Too many so-called strategic plans are full of warm fuzzy platitudes. Get specific!</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>Where are you going (what do you want to achieve and why)?</li>
<li>What will it look like when you get there (your market, your offer to that market, your business model, processes, organisation, etc. and why)?</li>
<li>How will you get there (what will you do, why and when)?</li>
</ul>
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>First posted 22 June 2009</i>.</span></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7981054561593052677.post-35843403824041977542019-02-04T15:02:00.000+13:002019-02-04T13:19:25.295+13:00Understanding the Chatham House RuleA common phrase often used at large meetings is that they're being held "<i>under Chatham House Rules</i>", which some people seem to think is an agreement of complete confidentiality. This isn't so.<br />
<br />
As Michael Gregg once politely reminded me, there is only <u>one</u> Rule. Quoting from <a href="http://www.chathamhouse.org/about/chatham-house-rule" target="_blank">Chatham House</a> itself:<br />
<blockquote>
<i><b>When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed.</b></i></blockquote>
Whenever I chair a meeting or conference under the Chatham House Rule, I tell everyone precisely what I mean.<br />
<blockquote>
<i><b>After this meeting, you are free to talk about the ideas you have heard here, but without reference to people or organisations.</b></i></blockquote>
The Chatham House Rule is usually invoked by the chairman, the speaker or via the invitation. Normally it is only a "gentlemen's agreement". If you need more certainty, either get people to sign a non-disclosure agreement before the meeting (as some groups do) or don't disclose the information. If media (or bloggers, etc.) are likely to be present, it's a good idea to get their personal commitment to abiding by the Rule when inviting them to the meeting<br />
<br />
The Chatham House website explains further:<br />
<blockquote>
<b><i>Explanation of the Rule</i></b><br />
<i>The Chatham House Rule originated at Chatham House with the aim of providing anonymity to speakers and to encourage openness and the sharing of information. It is now used throughout the world as an aid to free discussion. Meetings do not have to take place at Chatham House, or be organized by Chatham House, to be held under the Rule.</i><br />
<br />
<i>Meetings, events and discussions held at Chatham House are normally conducted 'on the record' with the Rule occasionally invoked at the speaker's request. In cases where the Rule is not considered sufficiently strict, an event may be held 'off the record'.</i><br />
<br />
<b><i>Frequently Asked Questions:</i></b><br />
<i>Q. When was the Rule devised?</i><br />
<i>A. In 1927 and refined in 1992 and 2002.</i><br />
<br />
<i>Q. Should one refer to the Chatham House Rule or the Chatham House Rules?</i><br />
<i>A. There is only one Rule.</i><br />
<br />
<i>Q. What are the benefits of using the Rule?</i><br />
<i>A. It allows people to speak as individuals, and to express views that may not be those of their organizations, and therefore it encourages free discussion. People usually feel more relaxed if they don't have to worry about their reputation or the implications if they are publicly quoted.</i><br />
<br />
<i>Q. How is the Rule enforced?</i><br />
<i>A. Chatham House can take disciplinary action against one of its members who breaks the Rule. Not all organizations that use the Rule have sanctions. The Rule then depends for its success on being seen as morally binding.</i><br />
<br />
<i>Q. Is the Rule used for all meetings at Chatham House?</i><br />
<i>A. Not often for Members Events; more frequently for smaller research meetings, for example where work in progress is discussed or when subject matter is politically sensitive. Most Chatham House conferences are under the Rule.</i><br />
<br />
<i>Q. Who uses the Rule these days?</i><br />
<i>A. It is widely used by local government and commercial organizations as well as research organizations.</i><br />
<br />
<i>Q. Can participants in a meeting be named as long as what is said is not attributed?</i><br />
<i>A. It is important to think about the spirit of the Rule. For example, sometimes speakers need to be named when publicizing the meeting. The Rule is more about the dissemination of the information after the event - nothing should be done to identify, either explicitly or implicitly, who said what.</i><br />
<br />
<i>Q. Can you say within a report what you yourself said at a meeting under the Chatham House Rule?</i><br />
<i>A. Yes if you wish to do so.</i><br />
<br />
<i>Q. Can a list of attendees at the meeting be published?</i><br />
<i>A. No - the list of attendees should not be circulated beyond those participating in the meeting.</i><br />
<br />
<i>Q. Can I 'tweet' while at an event under the Chatham House Rule?</i><br />
<i>A. The Rule can be used effectively on social media sites such as Twitter as long as the person tweeting or messaging reports only what was said at an event and does not identify - directly or indirectly - the speaker or another participant. This consideration should always guide the way in which event information is disseminated - online as well as offline.</i></blockquote>
<br />
<i><span style="font-size: x-small;">First published June 2007</span></i>Jim Donovanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07550270373801423955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7981054561593052677.post-40788394289041631922018-10-09T17:16:00.001+13:002018-10-09T17:16:56.069+13:00Review: Fifty things that made the modern economyI've long been a fan of journalist and broadcaster Tim Harford (aka. <a href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Undercover-Economist-Strikes-Back-Economy/dp/0349138931/tag=i069-21" style="font-style: italic;" target="_blank">The Undercover Economist</a>). Harford's skill is making economics and related topics understandable/readable/listenable for you and me. His latest book is <a href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Fifty-Things-that-Modern-Economy/dp/0349142637/ref=io69-21" style="font-style: italic;" target="_blank">Fifty Things That Made The Modern Economy</a>, published by Abacus and based on the excellent <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04b1g3c" target="_blank">BBC series</a> of the same name.<br />
<br />
As the title implies, Harford tells the reader something of the often-quirky history of 50 important inventions which have had a profound impact on the world today. These are not "The Top 50" - more like a curated selection among many important developments. Some are obvious, such as the plough and its impact on food production. Others perhaps less so; for example, copyright and the limited liability company. And Harford makes no bones about leaving out some of the more obvious, such as the computer, while extolling the significance of Grace Hopper's computer language compiler, and the wonders unleashed by computer software.<br />
<br />
It's an eclectic mix that takes the reader down unexpected paths. Each short chapter is entertaining and informative, ideal for a few minutes' read before turning the bedside light out (or wherever else you ingest such mind fodder). One or two were a little too brief for my taste, but that's a minor quibble and the extensive Notes section at the back gives ample follow-up references.<br />
<br />
<i>50 Things</i> was a success as a radio programme and the book is already a bestseller and Book of the Year, according to the Financial Times and Bloomberg. I predict there will be a follow-up series and book - <i>50 More Things That Made The Modern Economy</i>. Here's my suggestion for inclusion: cooking. Cooking gave humanity access to a vastly expanded range of food sources and, probably by happenstance, led to ceramics, metal-working, brewing and, ultimately, industry and science. I look forward to reading about that and the other 49.<br />
<br />
<i><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>Disclosure</b>: Isambard receives commission from Amazon if you buy after clicking on the link. That has no bearing on my review.</span></i><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Jim Donovanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07550270373801423955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7981054561593052677.post-74711505682633742482018-07-01T14:42:00.000+12:002018-07-01T14:42:19.657+12:00Logging off from REANNZYesterday, after 6 years, was my final day as chair of <a href="http://reannz.co.nz/">REANNZ</a> (Research & Education Advanced Network New Zealand Limited). REANNZ has been a fantastic business to be part of. It is a highly specialised national and international telecommunications company with a very particular technological advantage. In layman's terms, REANNZ moves heaps and heaps of data very, very fast. We're talking truly huge data flows - astronomically large files (literally). Normal telcos are optimised to move lots of small packets of data. REANNZ (like its partner R&E networks around the world) moves data in a different way. A normal network might need to re-transmit 1 out of every 100 or 1000 data packets. REANNZ has a packet loss rate of 1 in hundreds of millions. That has huge performance implications for large discrete data flows over long distances. What REANNZ moves in an hour can take days or even months on a conventional network. That means researchers can run experiments much more frequently, collaborate internationally, have access to global research facilities, and perform research that couldn't be done without a high performance R&E network.<br />
<br />
But REANNZ is more than technology. It is the system manager for the R&E network - linking most of NZ's research institutions, larger tertiary education institutions and government agencies to each other and the world's R&E community. And system management is really about people. I've been privileged to work with great people through my involvement with REANNZ - great staff, great CEOs and great co-directors. REANNZ has become one of the best small R&E networks in the world, and we've done some superb deals for NZ (eg. FX/Vocus and Hawaiki).<br />
<br />
REANNZ doesn't try to compete in the general telecommunications market. It is really about large institutional data flows and related services. But not every institution needs the full bundle of services offered by REANNZ. So in the next few months, REANNZ will unveil a new multi-dimensional pricing model which should make its offering even more attractive and relevant.<br />
<br />
I normally believe that the private sector should provide services where it can. Normally, but not always. NZ (and the NZ taxpayer) has a precious gem in REANNZ - both as a service and as a system manager - and NZ should make more use of its investment.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Jim Donovanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07550270373801423955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7981054561593052677.post-89547834715576874272018-06-18T17:08:00.000+12:002019-09-02T15:23:03.239+12:00Alligators and swamps: 10 rules for change<i><b>"When you're up to your arse in alligators, it's easy to forget you came here to drain the swamp”.</b></i><br />
<br />
I’ve had many conversations about making change happen within organisations. There’s so much noise going on (especially if it’s a problematic customer-facing process) that you spend all your time trying to put failures right and don’t have time to fix the root cause (product design, business process, skills, whatever). Likewise you’re pretty much guaranteed a failure if you put people onto the change project who aren’t ultimately responsible for the new process, who aren’t skilled and talented, who can’t make decisions on design and implementation, and who are tied up in doing their day jobs.<br />
<br />
Assuming you are addressing the right opportunity/problem (and that's a whole subject on its own), here are 10 rules learned from running or helping several organisations to effect change in difficult circumstances:<br />
<ol>
<li>The best person to lead a change project is the person who will run the new process afterwards. Failing that, get someone even more qualified and powerful, not less, to be your change agent. Sitting on a governance committee is not enough.</li>
<li>Give the change leader the power to decide as much as possible, and have fast access to higher decision-makers when necessary. There is no value-add and much cost from constantly briefing and waiting on uninvolved decision-makers.</li>
<li>The project team should be drawn from the best people in the organisation, the ones who will drive the new way, and will likely hold leadership roles in it. Don’t staff projects with your third-rate cast-offs. Don’t rely on contractors for roles that should be held by business experts; use contractors to fill gaps in the operational teams.</li>
<li>Like any major change proposal, nothing will happen unless you dedicate resources (people, time, money) to make the change happen. If you're serious, pull them out of their day jobs for the duration of the project. Expecting people to design and implement a major change while doing their day jobs rarely works, especially when their core process is broken. </li>
<li>The change leader and the change team must be indoctrinated into the new way of thinking, and become passionate, effective advocates as well as good at their jobs.</li>
<li>Don’t treat change as an IT project, even if largely based around new IT systems. It’s a business project. The best businesses train their business managers in smart project management, process design and change management. These are not IT skills, they are business skills. Having said that, good business-savvy IT people can make great business change people if you follow these rules.</li>
<li>Be ambitious but realistic about what you can achieve with the money, time, resources and ownership support you have available to you. Despite knowing this, I too have sometimes fooled myself or been pressured into going ahead on over-ambitious projects without adequate resources, with predictable results. Heroism, hope and luck are not reliable ingredients for success.</li>
<li>Avoid highly structured project management methodologies. I recommend a much more agile, low-tech approach. Don’t try to specify everything before you start. Have a high level “architectural” concept to guide you, but get going!</li>
<li>Keep the alligators at bay, but focus on the swamp draining. Don’t worry about dealing with the current stream of problems - that’s the job of the operational teams. Put in place some holding plan, but concentrate your best resources on creating the new model that will work. Get it working, put all new customers, and new transactions onto it, transfer all customers without problems onto it, and then, last, not first, deal with the problem backlog.</li>
<li>Notwithstanding rule 9, try to deliver value quickly, in chunks, rather than going for the big bang. Incremental success builds support.</li>
<li>Bonus rule: communicate, communicate, communicate; up, down, across, inward, outward. Sell the vision, tell people what you're doing and why, keep them informed on progress, and as soon as practicable, let them know if and how it will affect them.</li>
</ol>
<i>First published June 2008</i>Jim Donovanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07550270373801423955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7981054561593052677.post-55779452542225666942018-01-22T14:30:00.002+13:002018-01-28T14:17:57.800+13:002018 Year of EngineeringTo mark <a href="http://www.yearofengineering.gov.uk/about">The Year of Engineering</a>, here's Sydney Padua's envisioning of my personal engineering hero, the one and only Isambard Kingdom Brunel:<br />
<br />
<img src="http://sydneypadua.com/2dgoggles/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/brunelWallpaper.jpg" height="360" width="640" /><br />
<br />
If you haven't already read it, check out Sydney Padua's comic novel <i><a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Thrilling-Adventures-Lovelace-Babbage/dp/0141981539/tag=i069-21">The Thrilling Adventures of Lovelace and Babbage</a></i>, featuring the founders of computing and other Victorian engineering heroes in all kinds of bonkers derring-do. (<a href="http://www.zazzle.co.uk/sydney_padua">T-shirts, coffee mugs, etc.</a> are available from Zazzle).<br />
<br />
The UK Government has designated 2018 as <a href="http://www.yearofengineering.gov.uk/about">The Year of Engineering</a>, and launched a campaign to promote <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineer">engineering in all its forms</a> as a career. I still think of myself as a systems engineer; the skills I learnt have been invaluable and widely applicable throughout <a href="http://www.isambardgroup.com/p/experience.html">my career</a> as an executive and director.Jim Donovanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07550270373801423955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7981054561593052677.post-14207052458047941652018-01-10T08:57:00.000+13:002018-01-10T08:59:34.996+13:00In which I talk about life, the universe and everythingAccess Granted, the online podcast channel, focuses on NZ tech sector and related themes. They interviewed me recently. We discussed change, tech, research & education, construction, and directorship. We covered a lot of ground. If you've got a spare hour, here's the link: <a href="http://www.accessgranted.nz/episodes/2018/1/9/jim-donovan-professional-director-changing-the-world-in-big-ways">http://www.accessgranted.nz/episodes/2018/1/9/jim-donovan-professional-director-changing-the-world-in-big-ways</a>Jim Donovanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07550270373801423955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7981054561593052677.post-78001558656088341712017-09-21T17:40:00.000+12:002017-09-21T17:49:47.562+12:00Is innovation sufficient?Governments, business theorists and business media are obsessed with innovation. Vast sums of money are expended on government-sponsored research. Something’s bound to pay off with a ground-breaking new technology that will increase jobs, wealth and foreign-exchange earnings, won’t it? However, innovation is only the start of the process. We’ve got plenty of innovation, and we aren’t short of new businesses either. The problem is creating better, larger businesses that can foot it internationally (with full overseas operations, not just exporting).<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12637160"><i>The Economist</i> explored the same issue</a>, reporting on those who question the fear of US companies being overwhelmed by technological innovation coming out of India and China.<br />
<blockquote>
<i>So does the relative decline of America as a technology powerhouse really amount to a threat to its prosperity? Nonsense, insists Amar Bhidé of Columbia Business School. In “The Venturesome Economy” ... he explains why he thinks this gloomy thesis misunderstands innovation in several fundamental ways.</i></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>First, he argues that the obsession with the number of doctorates and technical graduates is misplaced because the “high-level” inventions and ideas such boffins come up with travel easily across national borders. Even if China spends a fortune to train more scientists, it cannot prevent America from capitalising on their inventions with better business models.</i></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>That points to his next insight, that the commercialisation, diffusion and use of inventions is of more value to companies and societies than the initial bright spark. America’s sophisticated marketing, distribution, sales and customer-service systems have long given it a decisive advantage over rivals, such as Japan in the 1980s, that began to catch up with its technological prowess. …</i></blockquote>
I’m an enthusiastic encourager of product and service design and development, and I disagree with Bhidé about the importance of technical graduates; I’ve argued often for greater support of STEMD subjects (science, technology, engineering, mathematics and design) and development of a technology-competent leadership cadre, However, if push comes to shove, I’d rather own a business with a great brand and business model ahead of great products. You can buy innovation:<br />
<blockquote>
<i>… as GE’s Mr Immelt likes to say, his firm is not great at invention, but it is outstanding at “turning $50m businesses into billion-dollar businesses</i>”.</blockquote>
<i><span style="font-size: x-small;">First posted November 28th, 2008</span></i>Jim Donovanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07550270373801423955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7981054561593052677.post-79017519670125520362017-08-16T14:51:00.000+12:002017-08-16T14:51:33.043+12:00The move from manager to executive<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #292929;">Many young technology companies do very little to build the leadership skills of their people, relying on recruiting or being acquired to solve their future leadership needs; and where’s the payback if a fast business sale is the aim? More established businesses and public sector organisations send their people on courses to acquire entry-level technical, commercial and team leadership skills. Some governments actively encourage this by subsidizing industry training programmes. But what about developing senior management?</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #292929;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #292929;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #292929;">Promising managers are often sent to various executive education programmes, although less so in mid-size organisations, despite increasingly valuable and relevant programmes targeted at them. But even in the most committed organisations, if there is no supportive context for the manager to move up to the next level, he or she may struggle to make the shift, and fail. Professor Doug Ready of MIT's Sloan Business School has published several papers on </span><a href="http://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/developing-the-next-generation-of-enterprise-leaders/" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); color: #253fa1; cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;">making the move to executive status</a><span style="background-color: white; color: #292929;">:</span></span><br />
<blockquote style="background-color: white; color: #292929; font-stretch: normal; font-style: italic; font-weight: bold; line-height: normal; quotes: "“" "”" "‘" "’";">
<i><span style="font-family: inherit;">This transition is probably the most difficult for managers to make. The move from running a unit, geography or function to becoming part of a team running an entire group or organisation requires development of new skills and strengths. It requires a change in behaviour and the way you think about the business, which can sometimes mean making difficult decisions about people or projects you have worked closely with.</span></i></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #292929;">Exercising much higher levels of initiative, judgement and decision-making; bigger risks; dealing with shades of grey rather than absolutes of black and white; imperfect information; uncomfortable trade-offs; realpolitik; putting the whole enterprise ahead of the interests of their functional unit; initiating, not just implementing, tough decisions such as downsizing or reassigning. The list goes on. No wonder many struggle, or find the prospect so daunting they turn down the role, or retreat into risk-aversion, bureaucracy and backside-covering.</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #292929;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #292929;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #292929;">The challenges for boards and CEOs (and central government agencies responsible for public sector skills) are to create an executive leadership development environment that will support the long term health of the organisation, and to maintain that through the ups and downs of the business cycle.</span><br style="background-color: white; color: #292929;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #292929;" /><i style="background-color: white; color: #292929;">First posted November 30th, 2008</i></span>Jim Donovanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07550270373801423955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7981054561593052677.post-48822755981995214292017-07-31T17:40:00.000+12:002017-07-31T17:44:09.145+12:00Bank on your back? Act like a receiverI’ve had this conversation often, including with myself on a couple of occasions. Most businesses go through a major financial crisis at some point. You just don’t hear about most of them unless they prove fatal. The banks are very tough on anyone in breach of their bank covenants (key financial targets which have to be met or the bank can call in its loan).<br />
<br />
Assuming your business is salvageable, the best way to keep the bank from sending in the receivers is to be tougher than they would be. By that I mean that you should think like a receiver - drastically chopping expenditure, cutting staff, closing branches, taking a large axe to management, killing off non-profitable products and services, and so on. Not half-hearted measures, but really tough-minded ones. If you’ve got a plan that the bank can easily see is tougher than what they’d do, you’ve got a chance of staying in control - providing you actually do what you said you’d do. And you’ve got a better chance of preserving some strategic capability for the future (like key designers or young trainees). Once you do get the bank off your back, you can get on with the job of building your business, even if it is from a smaller base.<br />
<br />
Of course, it’s even better if you get tough a lot sooner in the crisis, long before the bank gets heavy-handed. That way there’s a small chance that they’ll leave you alone and not impose all those reporting requirements, penalty interest rates and outrageous investigation fees which make the job of recovery even harder. A small chance.<br />
<br />
<i><span style="font-size: x-small;">First published 18 June 2009</span></i>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7981054561593052677.post-1140552666794059232017-07-17T16:32:00.000+12:002017-07-18T11:44:45.095+12:00Don’t assume technology is the answerIT guy Mike Riversdale makes <a href="http://work.miramarmike.co.nz/2008/07/collaboration-think-before-you-jump-for.html">some common sense points</a> on his website:<br />
<blockquote>
<ul>
<li><i>... the chatter about “collaboration” one tends to hear now-a-days (and boy, isn’t there a lot) all centres around “on-line collaboration” … the use of the computer as the ultimate collaboration tool. What a load of plop.</i></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><i>I sat with a fellow “on-line collaboration / community wrangler” a while ago and we both used pen and paper as our collaboration tools of choice.</i></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><i>… when I talk with organisations about collaboration I always ask if they use whiteboards, meeting spaces or Scrum-type meetings to collaborate as they can be the most cost effective, most efficient and, let’s be honest, the easiest way to collaborate.</i></li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
Mike ran an collaboration and information project for me. Most of his success came not from the technology deployed, but by good old fashioned simplicity and clarity in project management and communication. Mike’s comments reminded me of Toyota’s production management systems - coloured lights, white boards, marker pens and magnetic buttons. Yes, they use some sophisticated IT systems, but only when there’s no simpler alternative.<br />
<br />
Here’s a good way to illustrate the point to your team (as deployed by one Dave Stringer in another change project I sponsored). Most families these days grab breakfast on the run, amid the chaos of finding the right clothes, making lunches, and packing the right books and gear for school and work. How does the idea appeal of having enough time in the morning so that you can sit down with all the family, eating a healthy and unrushed breakfast while talking to each other about the day ahead? What changes would you make to achieve that?<br />
<br />
Invariably, people (especially engineers) start talking about home automation (especially in the bathroom, bedroom and kitchen), standardised meals, and other complexities. The low-tech answer: prepare for tomorrow before you go to bed and get up a little earlier. Obvious when you read it, but I can tell you that people fall into the technology trap nearly every time. (The one exception was one of my guys who had already made just those changes so he could always start the day talking with his wife and children while having a full English breakfast - he trained for his sport in the early evenings).<br />
<br />
The aprocryphal<a href="http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/spacepen.asp"> NASA “space pen” vs Russian pencil</a> story, while untrue, makes the valid point that we can waste much time, effort, and money on complex hi-tech solutions when simple, effective, inexpensive and quick solutions will do at least as well. As Mike says:<br />
<blockquote>
<i>… when you next have a software vendor touting their latest and greatest collaboration software (which they may even sell as their “knowledge solution”, *shudder*) think about yellow stick it notes, white boards in prominent places and getting people to talk to each other.</i></blockquote>
Why pay for a pen when a pencil will do!<br />
<br />
<i><span style="font-size: x-small;">First posted 23 July 2008 - still relevant today</span></i>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7981054561593052677.post-6045517340539028072017-05-14T16:30:00.000+12:002017-05-25T12:33:53.410+12:00The importance of knowing how you make moneyIf you’ve thought much about why your business exists, you’ve probably come up with some worthy statement of business purpose. Good; but what about making money? I’m not denigrating high ideals of business purpose, but a business that doesn’t make money can’t achieve those ideals. Some business leaders seem ashamed to explain this fact of life to their staff. Indeed, in many companies, most staff do not understand how the company makes money or their responsibility and role in that. That’s madness. If your people don’t understand your business model and its key metrics, any targets you set may seem capricious or arbitrary. That can mean wrong operating decisions and a high probability of staff not taking responsibility for their own contribution (or lack of it) to the viability of the business.<br />
<br />
Let’s look at a very simple business - hourly-billed services (basic labour or top-end professional services):<br />
<ul>
<li>You pay people for 52 weeks of 5 days = 260 days a year. At 8 hours per day, that’s 2080 hours of costs.</li>
<li>Let’s allow for, say, 20 days annual leave, 10 days public holidays, 5 days technical training, 2 days on company process training and 3 days off sick. That’s 40 days your people are not on the job.</li>
<li>That leaves 220 days or 1760 hours to do the job.</li>
<li>Assuming good productivity at say 80% (allowing for time on internal non-client stuff, proposals, waiting for new jobs to start, etc.) that’s ~1400 hours of billable work a year.</li>
<li>Spread over the 220 days, that’s ~6.5 hours billable every day.</li>
</ul>
I assume that you are in a competitive industry, but your pricing of those 1400 billable hours hopefully reflects your actual 2080 hour costs (don’t forget training, insurance, office rental, IT costs, sales, management, administration, etc, etc, etc.) plus a reasonable profit. That 6.5 hours a day is the minimum required daily billable time from your staff. Importantly, if someone has a quiet day, the shortfall has to be made up quickly - there aren’t enough spare hours in the year to catch up a long period of low billable activity. Yet many of the people who work in hourly-billed services (and even some who run them) don’t understand these relentless numbers and their responsibility for achieving them.<br />
<br />
Some business leaders don’t share their business metrics with their staff, perhaps because of unnecessary embarrassment about the profit motive or a concern that staff won’t understand. My experience is that people respond well to knowing these things. I once explained the company’s cost of capital to a group of electricity network construction workers. Simple examples, relevant to the team's work and personal lives, got across the idea of relating risk and return. That, together with an explanation of depreciation, maintenance and operating costs, saw them volunteering many suggestions for simpler line maintenance vehicles - the most dramatic being a change from the ubiquitous standard $250k line truck with HIAB (onboard hydraulic lifting arm) to more $30k utility vehicles!<br />
<br />
Everyone who works for you needs at least a rudimentary understanding of:<br />
<ul>
<li>Your business purpose, market offer, ethos and modus operandi</li>
<li>Your business processes</li>
<li>Your revenue model</li>
<li>Your cost structure (operating and capital)</li>
<li>The rationale behind them</li>
<li>Your people’s individual roles and responsibilities in making the business work.</li>
</ul>
PS. If your pricing doesn’t cover your costs and a reasonable return on capital, you have to change something (your price, your product, your operations, your promotion, your tough-mindedness in customer negotiations, something) to ensure that it does. Otherwise you have to somehow get out of the business, or you’ll go broke. As the US auto industry had to learn, harsh realities must be faced and overcome.<br />
<br />
<i><span style="font-size: x-small;">First published 25 May 2009 </span></i>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7981054561593052677.post-5500752758973453232017-03-04T17:00:00.000+13:002017-03-19T16:27:23.567+13:00Donovan's 70-word guide to building and operating a great businessA great business requires: <br />
<ul>
<li>a purpose and proposition: what you offer the world, to whom (customers, shareholders, staff, communities, business partners), and why they'd want it;</li>
<li>a clear, coherent, consistent and elegant design of how you will make and fulfil that offer - core principles, processes, people, products, price, promotion, etc.;</li>
<li>doing what should be done to build that business (and not doing what shouldn't);</li>
<li>thinking, planning and acting for greatness.</li>
</ul>
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>First published 27 May 2013</i></span><br />
<ul>
</ul>
Jim Donovanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07550270373801423955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7981054561593052677.post-39021275294293682152017-01-23T14:35:00.000+13:002017-01-24T14:37:04.378+13:00Security - your biggest risk is your own staffBusinesses spend a fortune protecting themselves from outside security threats, but too few recognize that their biggest threat is from those already inside the security fence - i.e. their own staff. While 99.99% of staff are honest (give or take the odd dubious “sick day”), now and again someone on the company payroll may do some damage. The biggest corporate thefts are perpetrated by insiders - from simple pilfering (women’s fashion retailing notoriously suffers badly from staff theft) through bogus invoicing all the way up to stock option manipulation.<br />
<br />
One area of risk that’s often overlooked is IT. The widespread use of outside suppliers and contractors is ripe for fake invoicing and kickbacks. Malicious programming which steals a cent here and there over time can cost millions. Disgruntled employees can do nasty things to your systems, e.g. stealing your data, corrupting it, or building “logic bombs” to bring down your systems. <br />
<br />
While you can manage most of these risks, there is one group of IT staff that is almost impossible to monitor - your system administrators. They have the keys to unlock everything - because that’s what they need to do their jobs. They can read your emails, payroll files and personnel records. They can access your payment systems. They can install spyware behind your firewall. And they can cover their tracks easily, because their tools enable them to change just about anything that is recorded electronically.<br />
<br />
I’ve heard many times that ”our people wouldn’t do that”. In most organizations, that is absolutely correct. Most system administrators are decent, hardworking, honest people. Many have a deeply ethical approach to their role. However, you never can be absolutely sure.<br />
<br />
There’s no magic bullet for this problem. Some organizations only use long-term trusted employees as system administrators. Others vet new hires very carefully before appointment. Smart businesses carefully screen and select staff, manage and reward them well, look after them, deliberately cultivate an ethic of trust and integrity, oversee change processes very closely, and randomly audit transactions and processes. But in the end, you still rely on your staff’s personal ethics and the alertness of other staff.<br />
<br />
Don’t kid yourself; the risk may be lower, but the risk is still there.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>First posted January 10th, 2008</i></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7981054561593052677.post-6575825620340403902016-11-11T22:45:00.001+13:002022-03-23T15:06:22.790+13:00Protectionism is the worst response to an economic crisisAround the world, governments are under increasing pressure from their unions, manufacturers and farmers to re-erect trade barriers and instruct government agencies to buy local. In times of economic crisis, that’s the worst possible thing to do.<br />
<br />
Buying imports enables others to buy your exports. In general, providing you live within your means, trade tends to balance out, and the more trade the merrier for everyone. You sell more of what you’re good at, and buy more of what others are good at. There’s possibly an argument to be made for temporary specific protectionism when you’re building a new industry which will be genuinely globally competitive once it has achieved scale and the barriers are removed; but generally, protectionism only transfers wealth from consumers and taxpayers to uncompetitive local suppliers.<br />
<br />
Whether it’s in response to calls for US highway builders to use US steel, the NZ Army to buy locally made wet-weather-gear, or British hospitals schools and prisons to buy only British meat fruit and dairy products, governments must not yield to popular pressure (and their manufacturers’ and farmers’ naked self-interest). Otherwise, as the chart below shows, things will only get very very much worse. The Great Depression of the 1930’s may have been triggered by a stock market crash, but it was made many times worse by well-meaning protectionist initiatives and retaliatory moves by other countries. <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7866930.stm">World trade plunged by two-thirds</a>, industries collapsed, and many millions were thrown into the breadline. Let’s not even start going down that slippery slope.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div>
<br />
<i>First posted February 26th, 2009 and reposted post Brexit, Trump, et al</i>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7981054561593052677.post-57621443796088060092016-09-12T22:00:00.000+12:002016-11-04T21:48:12.376+13:00Sell to those who see your valueI bemoan <a href="http://www.isambardgroup.com/2009/07/buying-cheap-versus-buying-results.html">buyers who confuse cheapness with value</a>. As a director, I want to see project proposals based on best value outcomes, which is not the same as lowest input costs. But, as I also pointed out, it’s my role as a seller to demonstrate value that’s relevant to the buyer. As Greg remarked in a comment on my earlier post:<br />
<blockquote>
“… the problem is more often the sellers inability to convey the value they offer to the buyer. They don’t really understand the customer’s problem and why their product is a unique solution to it. People don’t want to buy an inferior solution, they just don’t want to pay extra for a solution that doesn’t look much different from the cheaper version”.</blockquote>
Let’s put that another way:<br />
<ul>
<li>Do you understand the customer’s need? (That needn’t necessarily be what the customer originally said it was).</li>
<li>Does the customer agree with your perception of that need?</li>
<li>Does your proposition satisfy that need? Again, does the customer agree?</li>
<li>Does your proposition offer superior value compared to the alternatives?</li>
<li>Can you clearly explain your superior value proposition?</li>
<li>Does your customer accept that proposition and agree that the extra value is worth it to them?</li>
</ul>
If the answer to that last question is no, it can mean one or more things:<br />
<ul>
<li>You need to improve your prospecting, qualification and selling process.</li>
<li>The customer needs to improve their need definition/buying process.</li>
<li>Your market offer needs to be improved in some way so that it does represent superior value.</li>
<li>Your basis of superiority is irrelevant to this customer.</li>
<li>You’re in the wrong business.</li>
</ul>
Only one of these is a fault on the customer’s part. The rest are down to you. And remember, unless you are aiming to be a monopoly, you shouldn’t expect to win every opportunity. But you can choose customers in the same way that customers chose suppliers. Focus on customers for whom your market offer superiority is relevant, and avoid customers for whom it isn’t. It will save both sides a lot of wasted time, effort and angst.<br />
<br />
<i><span style="font-size: x-small;">First published 3 August 2009</span></i>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7981054561593052677.post-73893637748326216492016-09-08T15:00:00.000+12:002016-09-08T15:25:11.402+12:00Buying cheap versus buying results<span style="font-family: inherit;">Why do corporate (and especially government) buyers keep confusing cheapness with value? Time and again I’ve seen the best vendors lose on price because the buyer could “get it much cheaper elsewhere”. The classic example is professional services charged by the hour. Any good manager of people knows that you pay your better staff more because they are more than worth it to you. For example, a good IT designer/developer will work out many times cheaper in the long run. They understand the business need quicker, design quicker, design better, write code quicker, write better code with faster performance and fewer bugs, and their software is cheaper to maintain. That can equate to a 10-30 fold lifetime cost difference - the saving more than outweighing any hourly rate difference. And that’s before you factor in the risk of non-delivery - much lower with better suppliers.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">But many corporate buyers persist in penny-wise, pound-foolish buying practices. I have interests in several firms who sell products and services to other businesses, and my attitude is clear. I put a lot of emphasis on getting the price/value/cost proposition right, but if I can’t persuade you of the value for our prices, I’ll walk away before discounting. I’m not in business to subsidise anyone else’s business.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">As a board member, I often see proposals for approval brought forward by managers proudly telling me that they’ve got the lowest input costs. All too often, I send them away to redo the basis of purchase and decision. Get me the best price and the best people to deliver the best outcome, not just the lowest cost of the inputs. If it has to be input-based, hire the best you can (while avoiding bloated suppliers and being sensible on price). It may cost more theoretically on paper, but I’ve rarely seen it cost more in actuality. On the contrary, the lowest input cost approach usually blows out on time, cost, reliability and efficacy. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Managers and buying teams - take note: top executives and boards much prefer effectiveness over cheapness. But that's not a reason to buy only from big-name suppliers. A small agile supplier can often be an innovative, effective and low-cost option.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<i><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: x-small;">First posted 29 July 2009 </span></i>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7981054561593052677.post-50847194812740684422016-04-07T14:30:00.000+12:002016-08-25T17:03:30.901+12:00The difference between rules and principlesI’ve written before about the importance of defining your core principles, the need for them to be<a href="http://www.isambardgroup.com/2011/06/strategy-and-people.html"> consistent externally and internally</a> with your <a href="http://www.isambardgroup.com/2011/06/good-strategy-is-making-choices-and.html">strategy</a>, and living them through <a href="http://www.isambardgroup.com/2011/06/open-and-honest-if-you-say-you-are-youd.html">actions, not words</a>. Don’t get me wrong - sainthood is not realistic for most of us - but on the whole, most of us aspire to live up to our principles, even if occasionally we forget ourselves.<br />
<br />
Rules, however, are a wholly different concept. Principles are how we live; rules are technical constructs to be obeyed (or disobeyed). Too often, people try to enshrine principles as rules, or worse, suborn principles through ill-conceived, contradictory or just plain dishonest rules.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://davidmaister.com/blog/438/">David Maister</a>, author of '<i>Managing the Professional Service Firm</i>‘, pointed me to this summary from '<i><a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1118106377/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=i069-21&linkCode=as2&camp=1634&creative=6738&creativeASIN=1118106377">How: Why How We Do Anything Means Everything</a><img alt="" border="0" class=" osxjdupdjpkkjotpyevb" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.co.uk/e/ir?t=i069-21&l=as2&o=2&a=1118106377" height="1" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important;" width="1" />'</i> by Dov Seidman:<br />
<blockquote>
<b>The Problem With Rules</b> (as opposed to Values or Principles)<br />
<ol>
<li>Rules are external: made by others</li>
<li>We are ambivalent about rules (we like breaking them)</li>
<li>Rules are reactive to past events</li>
<li>Rules are both over- and under-inclusive (they are proxies, not precise)</li>
<li>Proliferation of rules is a tax on the system</li>
<li>Rules are typically prohibitions</li>
<li>Rules require enforcement</li>
<li>Rules speak to boundaries and floors, but create ceilings</li>
<li>The only way to honor rules is to obey them exactly</li>
<li>Too many rules breed over-reliance</li>
</ol>
</blockquote>
<i><span style="font-size: x-small;">First posted 3 July 2007</span></i>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7981054561593052677.post-29930675810879923322016-01-21T15:00:00.000+13:002016-06-20T13:02:05.507+12:00Constituencies of change - be prepared to rip the plaster off.<br />
Two recent conversations about how to drive change drew me to observe that any change agent often has to deal with and manage several constituencies:<br />
<ul>
<li>The <b>early zealots</b>: eager proponents and advocates, but they may want you to fire everyone else who doesn’t ‘<i>get it</i>’ straight away.</li>
<li>The <b>nervous approvers</b>: They need selling on the rationale, and are nervous about the change, but consultation, communication, confidence, consistency, and constancy of purpose will bring them aboard. They get very anxious when others don’t ‘get it’, and expect massive efforts to keep everyone happy.</li>
<li>The <b>passive acceptors</b>: They may question the rationale first, but, as the change becomes embedded, just accept it and forget about it.</li>
<li>The<b> late converts</b>: They fight the change tooth and nail, but as they see things start to work, they become its most ardent enthusiasts, and stop worrying about those who have yet to see the light.</li>
<li>The <b>smart leavers</b>: Strangely, these often understand the rationale for change, but for various reasons, it’s not for them, and they move themselves on to new jobs (where they often adopt new ways anyhow). You remain on good terms with them.</li>
<li>The <b>bitter hangers-on</b>: These are the ones who hate the change, and constantly bemoan it. They’ll never be converted, yet they stay on, becoming increasingly bitter and twisted, undermining everything and everyone, and constantly demanding your attention to their grievance.</li>
</ul>
It’s important to figure out which constituency someone is in, and manage them accordingly. If you’ve got a bitter hanger-on who can’t be turned into a late convert, try to turn them into a smart leaver. Otherwise, put them out of their misery - get them out as fairly, humanely and quickly as possible. The success and well-being of the team, the change and the business are more important than wasting time and energy on a cause you can’t win. It’s like removing a sticking plaster - a quick rip is less painful in the end.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>First posted 28 March 2008</i></span> Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7981054561593052677.post-26250670628218893112015-10-13T20:50:00.001+13:002015-10-13T21:01:11.196+13:00Ada Lovelace - IT superhero<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://sydneypadua.com/2dgoggles/comics/" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" target="_blank"><img alt="http://sydneypadua.com/2dgoggles/comics/" border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjk7rTPf6vt0MOEZd5Q58mdaUl0bNUq5qINAn6DlT6YFGXlGzJeAX2Wi6ONkW5Ndq_lUIfIbkPA_TKhRonPyberSGLBg9XyXEVkYNWkOZWaGlpshq5zOgTwLEm72Mg5u3qwpde2E5YJf0HQ/s320/anotherada.jpg" width="260" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">© Sydney Padua</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
Today is Ada Lovelace Day. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_Lovelace" target="_blank">Ada, Lady Lovelace</a>, is widely recognised as the world's first computer programmer. Born in 1815, Ada was the daughter of Lord Byron, the poet, who abandoned Ada and her mother just after Ada was born. Probably in reaction to Byron's "poetic madness", Ada's mother insisted Ada be taught "rational" subjects, and she received tutoring from some of the finest intellects in Britain. She was, by many accounts, a mathematical whizz.<br />
<br />
Ada became a friend and collaborator of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Babbage" target="_blank">Charles Babbage</a>, and she devised the programs for his Analytical Engine. Although Babbage's machines were never built, recent experiments have shown they would have worked, and he is regarded as the inventor of the first programmable general computer; hence Ada's honorific as the first computer programmer. She described herself as an "<i>analyst (and metaphysician)</i>".<br />
<br />
When I first started in IT, the gender ratio was much more balanced than it is today, largely because IT was a new industry that had to take bright brains wherever it found them. There was always a strong contingent of bright women, but over time, the gender ratio changed dramatically, and IT morphed into an male geekdom. Fortunately that's changing again, and it's fantastic to see so many female IT engineers, leaders and entrepreneurs today. The world is full of budding Ada Lovelaces.<br />
<br />
Which brings me to Ada Lovelace, IT superhero. If you haven't already tried them, have a look at Sydney Padua's comic novels about <a href="http://sydneypadua.com/2dgoggles/comics/" target="_blank">Lovelace and Babbage</a>. Steam punk, derring-do, Victorian melodrama, and guest appearances from the great little hero himself, <a href="http://www.isambardgroup.com/2011/06/in-honour-of-isambard-kingdom-brunel.html" target="_blank">Isambard Kingdom Brunel</a>. And for the geeks of whatever gender, <a href="http://sydneypadua.com/2dgoggles/the-marvellous-analytical-engine-how-it-works/" target="_blank">working animations</a> of Babbage's computer. Enjoy.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjT-0Ijn18z95W1WX0WLjGggg4zhRMAUBfK0cVofb9uttBYIInWLastB6PMtTSfdGV2rwiBARZiHNgrj6KzPW86tJx9qc2qljfz_RhcdwswerQYToiLEHdJWTWoeJGZNZTjh0V1dCDkto1Z/s1600/isambardbrunel.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjT-0Ijn18z95W1WX0WLjGggg4zhRMAUBfK0cVofb9uttBYIInWLastB6PMtTSfdGV2rwiBARZiHNgrj6KzPW86tJx9qc2qljfz_RhcdwswerQYToiLEHdJWTWoeJGZNZTjh0V1dCDkto1Z/s200/isambardbrunel.jpg" width="120" /></a></div>
Jim Donovanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07550270373801423955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7981054561593052677.post-12615082062272616872015-08-22T15:00:00.000+12:002015-08-22T15:21:19.899+12:00Setting the toneSome staff have an unfortunate sense of what’s appropriate. How you react will set the tone of your organisation. Your people will watch you closely to pick up that tone.<br />
<ul>
<li>A customer mailing list file called “ratbags” (or somesuch). As soon as I saw it, I insisted the name be changed. There was some shame-faced bluster about it just being someone’s silly sense of humour, but a glowering look stopped that. The word went out - always treat customers respectfully.</li>
<li>Walking past some staff drinking wine at their desks in the middle of the afternoon, I came back. simply said “That’s not appropriate” and walked off. The wine was gone in a minute and the staff later apologised.</li>
<li>On hearing that I wanted a more effective approach to late payment for electricity supply rather than simply cutting off customers’ power, the team leader responsible for credit control and payments proclaimed that “they’re all liars, and it’s the only thing that works”. I said I doubted that, and asked him to produce an analysis of the past year’s late payers and their frequency. Out of 40,00 customers, approximately 10% had been referred for late payment - most only once, and only 200 were chronic bad payers. He acknowledged he was wrong, but didn’t change his approach. He didn’t stay long and we made credit control part of a new customer service approach under a team leader who saw her job very differently, looking for ways to help customers not fall behind.</li>
<li>On hearing a product manager suggest that we make unsubstantiated claims in our product specifications, I respond “We don’t lie to customers.” On hearing the justification that “everyone else does it,” I reply “I doubt that, and in any case I don’t care. We don’t lie to customers.” That product manager didn’t last long either.</li>
<li>A product development team, given the challenge of designing a new antenna product platform at half the cost of the existing platform, started calling itself the CNA team which, on hearing for the first time, I learnt stood for “Cheap and Nasty Antenna”. My instant reaction: “You will drop that name immediately. I never want to hear it again. From now on, you are the EYE team - Elegant Yet Economic”. It not only set a different expectation for the new product platform; that name became a badge of honour and they still called themselves the EYE team years after that particular project had successfully finished.</li>
</ul>
You don’t always have to be quick on your feet; sometimes, a measured reaction is appropriate. Sometimes you’ll want to take a more consultative approach; asking people to think about the matter and decide what’s appropriate. But an instant reaction sends a very powerful message, as does a direct order, especially if you don’t usually act that way. Importantly, be consistent. And always remember, who you hire or fire, who you give an important project, who gets promoted, rewarded or praised - these all send important and closely-watched signals. What you do sets the tone.<br />
<br />
<b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal;"><b>Updat</b></span>e in answer to Josh Forde</b><br />
<blockquote>
<i>Jim : What do you think gave you the authority to do that with other people? We all have situations of seeing behaviour that we disagree with but don’t always feel we can effectively confront it or that we carry the respect to do so. It can’t be just about being the boss, it has to resonate with something larger than that?</i>:</blockquote>
Good question, Josh. Actually being the boss does give you positional authority, but you use it carefully, and it only works well if it is backed up by personal authority - being assertive rather than authoritative, having confidence and conviction, and having earned respect for your past actions, knowledge and demonstrated behaviour. That’s something you build over time. Even if you don’t have it yet, it’s never too late to start. Most people recognise valid thinking when they see it, and although you may not persuade them this time, you’re building a personal ethos and reputation which will evolve into personal authority as a formal leader or as an important and respected influencer. And sometimes, all it takes is for you to speak out; you’ll be surprised at how often someone else jumps in to support you - the world is full of good people who want to do the right thing.<br />
<br />
<i><span style="font-size: x-small;">First published 28 November 2009</span></i> Unknownnoreply@blogger.com