Stop Work.

Stop work.

It’s a simple concept. Stop doing tasks and activities that add no material value, don’t make a difference to a client or to an organisations financial position (directly or indirectly), is merely a box ticking exercise to say you do ‘xyz’, or is a stop gap measure that’s now become bau as a result of an organisations inability to resolve role and responsibility conflicts.

This is not something new, but it is one way of ensuring people have meaningful activities to perform that they know is contributing to driving things forward. I think we tend to all focus on driving more value and improving our personal brand within our team, organisation and/or industry, and invariably we may end up doing more things that we believe are the right things. On the other hand, we also tend to inherit teams or move into roles that are impacted by legacy decisions and operating models, and I would dare say it is our responsibility to help change this, focusing on the core job to be done and the extra activities that matter to people.

One way to approach stopping work is by asking your team to outline all that they do, and the implications or issues of not doing those activities. Sense check this with the stakeholders these activities have a supposed impact to, and scrutinize the need for the work to be done vs. achieving the desired outcome via a more optimal method.

An example of this could be an existing business process which has reviews and checks performed by multiple teams at multiple stages, for the possibility there is an issue with the information provided. The real driver in these scenarios is often problematic information flow between people and systems, and systems and systems, as well as misaligned responsibilities between those initiating the work vs those later on in the process.

Fixing the misaligned responsibilities and information flow issues would be ideal, as it would enable all downstream teams to stop performing activities that should not be required. This is easier than it sounds however, as there usually are valid reasons that have lead to this all occurring. The key here though, is to show the benefits for those individual in a way which resonates with their function and what they aim to achieve.

This concept also applies to situations where you are looking to drive efficiency or improve productivity within a team, or within your own role. This could be something you continually review,and can also approach from a relevancy perspective – is what you and/or your team doing still relevant within the context of where the organisation is at today, or where it will be moving towards.

Stopping work may just turn out to be as beneficial as taking on something new.

Change Cycles, and the need for direction

There will always be a need,  to a certain degree,  for businesses to change, transform, and pivot into new areas, given the increasing rate of disruption and growth of non- traditional competitors entering new marketplaces in search for diversified revenue streams and relevancy.

If this trend, which has been growing over the last few years, continues with the same if not greater momentum, will we end up with a marketplace that consists of organisations that provide a multitude of goods and services, with fewer focused on niche or specific segments? Perhaps organisations will take these factors and consider doubling down on existing capability, strengthening their knowledge and reputation as a differentiator to those looking to change either way (as mentioned above).

This interests me as business philosophy or approaches tend to operate in cycles within organisations, such as decentralization vs. centralization of teams and services, in-sourcing vs. outsourcing, best of breed vs. singular platform systems and software etc… As one of many lenses by which transformational journeys of organisations can be viewed, the overall outcome appears to be attainment of the end state,  in which the organisation effectively becomes ‘new’, or a reversion back to core competencies and offerings in which there is deep knowledge and expertise.

Somewhere in between is where some organisations fall into the trap of too sudden or frequent a change in strategic direction, often causing the benefits of a full transformational journey to never materialize, and the remnants of a legacy business continuing to complicate investment and decision making capability of whether to progress and evolve existing capability or build for the new.

The above however, assumes the chosen cycle is the right one for the organisation at that point in time, and is delivering the outcomes expected. We know this often is not the case, and results are varied, with the difference between success and failure not too far apart. The current trajectory may indeed need to be altered at this point to a reversion back to the start of the cycle, or on a new course to achieve a different end state.

This has to be managed carefully and planned with full knowledge that employees and in some instances suppliers and customers will be impacted and may question just how ‘under control’ the business is. What I’ve seen work well in these scenarios is for organisational leaders to be open and honest, admitting the strategic direction, execution and inability for leadership to deliver results has occurred, and steps are being taken to rectify it.

To me, this is one of difficult and complex areas that strategic functions as well as leadership within organisations are faced with navigating. As one cycle nears an ends and a new one begins, there will be a constant need to assess where an organisation is moving towards, and what this will be; to ensure business leaders can make the right long term decisions, the right investments, which then must be executed effectively so that stakeholders within and external to an organisation join in the journey as well.

 

Too many frameworks and methodologies

The number of frameworks and methodologies across all facets of business are far too numerous to mention.  There is a framework or methodology, process, or standard for almost everything you can think of.

More often than not these different frameworks run in different directions in attempt to achieve the same outcome, or are variations of an idea a generated many years ago. Having been exposed to such a vast number and accredited in a few, I can honestly say that my opinion is most of them are a ‘waste of time’. By ‘waste of time,’ I mean that once you learn one the others are not that much different, or feel somewhat contradictory to what you know, making it somewhat unnatural trying to utilise them in everyday scenarios.

I find the approach that works best for me is doing what feels natural or makes sense for the situation I am facing, so long as certain guidelines are followed. As these are very subjective, you may have your own choice or view of what is important, but for me they are:

• Keep things as simple and standardised as possible, especially when it comes to roles and responsibilities.
• Let people have a say and voice an opinion. At the very least you can disagree and move on.
• Focus on the outcome not the input or output. Who cares how you achieve it so long as you can achieve what you are after in a manner that garners enough consensus to be agreed upon.
• Remember that people will always do what’s best for themselves or their teams so don’t be shy to negotiate for what you are after too.
• Communicate, communicate, communicate!

Organisations in perspective

Over the years many people from the concept of an organisation in many different ways. I’ve always found it interesting listening to the way people describe an organisation, as it usually reveals the way in which they operate. Below are some common examples..

• A series of processes
• Relationship driven exchanges
• An exchange of information
• Buyers and sellers of goods and services
• A series of businesses
• Suppliers and customers operating towards a common objective

The key difference between these views can be described as the difference between task orientation and people orientation perspectives.

My view is that people work with people, who operate processes or perform tasks or provide services – so I would say that I am relationship driven and take this approach into driving outcomes. 

Some thoughts for graduates

Having mentored a number of graduates throughout the last few years, and having been one myself at the organisation I now work for, I have reflected upon my experiences and thought I would share some thoughts and ideas that have resonated with me along these years.

Fear is normal 
It’s absolutely normal to have some fear and doubts about your first role as a graduate. You may be anticipating your manager and team have high expectations, which you want to meet and certainly not disappoint. But guess what..they come into this fully aware that they are here to guide, mentor and encourage you; building up your skills and knowledge.

It may not feel like it at first but each mistake you make, thing you get wrong, issue or concept you don’t understand at first, will all fall into place with the right leader and mentor, and your desire to push yourself.

Question, Question, Question…
Question everything! If you don’t understand, ask the question. If it sounds complicated to you, ask why it can’t be simpler. If you hear about a project, team, concept, report, person…basically anything you’re intrigued by, ask the question. How else do you expect to find out?

Most people are more than happy to answer. If anything, people like to be made to feel knowledgeable and valuable, and will articulate their points of view to anyone who will listen. This doesn’t mean you have to agree, but rather listen and appreciate that not everything is black and white, and the questions you ask will generate different answers from different people.

Keep level-headed
As someone who left a strong ‘legacy’ as a graduate, and received substantial praise and admiration, it was very hard to keep level-headed and remind myself that I was at the very beginning of my career. That’s not to say you shouldn’t be proud of what you have achieved, but don’t bask in your own glory. It’s a fine line between pushing yourself further and harder vs. thinking you’re amazing and everything you do will be recognized and rewarded.

The best way to do this, in my opinion, is to remind yourself that the person you are today will become a shadow of the person you will turn into in the future. You can only improve and get better, so appreciate the feedback and take on the next challenge that arises.

This ties into the concept of confidence – confidence in your ability to complete tasks, engage with people, and more importantly, discuss and argue a point of view. The latter is the most difficult of all, as starting out you may feel that you don’t have the requisite knowledge, skills, or years of experience to challenge someone more senior than you. Do it anyway.

Great Leaders will guide you further
One of the most critical and instrumental development mechanisms throughout your time as a graduate is finding the leaders that motivate and resonate with you. These are the leaders that people look towards for guidance, advise, and to make tough but challenging decisions.

Whilst choosing the team or area you want to work within an organisation is important, I would argue that working with the right leaders is just as beneficial, if not more so, at the early stages of your career.

A great leader makes their people successful no matter what they do, and the skills you learn and develop become applicable to any role you wish to pursue in the future.

Final Thoughts

A graduate position is a great opportunity to get your foot in the door. Make the most of it as it is your opportunity to learn and develop skills, ideas and communication/leadership styles that will enable you to be successful for years to come. Don’t squander the opportunity given to you by doing the bare minimum and putting the social aspects of work (which are important mind you, but not the most important thing..) above your career, as once you have established yourself, you will be given the freedom and flexibility to build the career and work lifestyle you want for yourself.

The Need to Transact vs. The Desire for Reports – Conflicting priorities which impact solution design

The Need to Transact vs. The Desire for Reports is a topic that has come up a number of times in recent months, as we look to implement a number of system based projects within our organisation.

A lot of senior stakeholders focus on the reporting aspects of system based projects, as this is often their direct engagement with these tools, processes and teams. Operational / BAU teams, however, are focused on transacting within these systems as they are often highly cumbersome and manual. In addition, these team members are dealing with the day to day issues and working with multiple systems at the same time.

This brings me to the dilemma of balancing these two objectives – ensuring transacting is as easy and optimized as possible, whilst providing the required level of reporting and analysis. The latter often involves adding more fields, customization and detail for capturing within systems, increasing transaction time and the information required by teams from upstream processes.

A great example of this is our Enterprise Financial Management System, which is currently undergoing a large scale transformation to consolidate multiple companies, and streamline processes. A recurring theme has been for granular reporting by different lenses – profit centers, products, departments, teams, cost centers etc, all from the one system.

The financial teams impacted however, are dealing with multiple processes to achieve the same outcomes, and a significant change to the way they work, so their focus has been on standardizing transaction processes, reducing information requirements end to end, and determining other line of business systems where stakeholders in the business can source information from for reporting purposes.

The way in which we have approached this is two fold. Firstly, we have separated out reporting and analytical requirements into a separate work stream, which draws inputs and requirements out of the operational teams, senior leaders, and other stakeholders during workshops. playback sessions, process discussions, and solution reviews.

The second work stream focuses on transactional efficiency (or process efficiency), which has the objective of creating singular, standard processes end-to-end, which look at the minimum information and process steps required to meet expected business objectives and outcomes.

Where these two streams inter-lock is during the playback sessions, which take the project team through the solution from both perspectives. It is here that the stakeholders debate and agree on the information required and reporting the business wishes to see. Those requirements that are deemed non essential for day 1 release are moved to a ‘parking-lot’ for a second phase review.

This approach to date has limited the number of additional requirements for transacting to those that are enough to meet business objectives as well as an acceptable level of reporting for initial release. Business stakeholders have also been made aware of alternate ways to achieve the reporting and insights they desire, which leverages organisational Business Intelligence and Reporting capability that exists today, rather than duplicating data in yet another system.

Time will tell if this approach was the right one in balancing these objectives. These competing requirements, however, will remain as common considerations in future projects to come.

 

 

 

 

Outcome: The Focus We need to Have

Too often when sourcing services from third party vendors, implementing new systems, generating new reports, we tend to focus on the input or output, not the outcome.

According to Corrs, a good definition of an Outcome based approach is where:

A customer contracts and pays for business results delivered by a service provider, rather than for defined activities, tasks or assets. The contract focuses on the desired outcome of the work to be performed (the “what”) rather than the manner in which it is to be performed (the “how”). The service provider decides how it will deliver on the customer requirements – and thus a degree of both control and risk shift to the service provider.

Using an example of third party vendor services, an input approach focuses on utilising resources to perform work (i.e. body-shopping), an output approach focus on widgets produced or transactions performed, and the outcome approach is an improvement to service levels or reduction in operational costs by $x amount.

By taking an outcome approach, you essentially driving both cost effectiveness and supplier innovation, and enabling a share in both risk and reward. This approach, whilst not a new one, is significantly rising both here in Australia and overseas, where traditional models that provide a specific service or product are now being replaced with Outcome focused approaches as businesses look to align their organisational goals and strategies towards a common outcome.

Continual improvement within an organisation

There is much written about continually improving processes,  systems, capabilities, and services within an organisation. It is often assumed that by improving all of the above, profitability and customer satisfaction will also improve.

I’m of the belief however that it is behaviour and culture that drive improvement in an organisation.  You could have the best systems in the world, agile and lean processes and a flat organisational structure with empowerment and rewards, but people may not want to use them or simply don’t care. Often employees have heard it all before and seen initiatives under deliver or lose focus after a short period of time,  so there is a large degree of scepticism inherent in the workplace today.

Thats why I often aim to build the culture and forgive the sins of the past before embarking on any improvement initiative. As a builder once put it to me ‘if you look after your people they will look after you’.  This doesn’t mean monetary rewards necessarily, but rather accountability and the tools and freedom to deliver what is required,  as well as recognition for a job well done or a failure with many lessons learnt.

The only thing that’s constant is change

In today’s society, the rate of change, whether it be technological, economic, fashion, and public opinion is rapid. All aspects of our live constantly change, and technology is one of many catalysts for this. From the proliferation of the internet into all aspects of life, to 3D printing and virtual reality – the world we know today will look vastly different in the net, 5, 10, 20 years.

Keeping up isn’t easy, nor is acceptance or adoption of change. Whilst the current generation of kids, teenagers and young adults have grown up with  technology such as the internet and social media, there are many in the older generations who have not, or who have had exposure in recent years and are frightened and uncomfortable by these new technologies.  How do we then manage change effectively? My view is it boils down to two key things – Leadership and Communication.

Leadership has many definitions and facets to it, but I like to define leadership as being able to make effective decisions, be looked upon as a role model to others, and the ability to earn other’s respect through the choices and decisions you make in difficult situations. In an ever-changing society, leaders who are able to set a clear path forward, have a long-term view, and are not afraid to fight for a cause they believe in and for the common good of others, are viewed more favorably as opposed to this who rely on reactive decisions after something has changed or an event has occurred.

The second aspect is communication. Email is not the only form of communication in the office, just like social media is not the only form of communication in society. It takes a combination of different mediums/channels to reach different audiences, but what is also key is the effectiveness of the message itself. Communication needs to be believable and genuine. It needs to clearly articulate the message and bring people on a journey and make them want to agree, or challenge them into thinking differently about a concept or topic.

These are only two aspects of effective change management but I believe they are critical to society, be it businesses or individuals, accepting change more readily and being open to something different.