Archive for the ‘Simplicity’ Category

5 Ways To Improve Your Performance Reports

Tuesday, March 9th, 2010

Click on the link to read my article, 5 Ways To Pep Up Your Performance Reports, which has just been posted on BNET.

© Stuart Cross 2010. All rights reserved.

Business Lessons From The Latest Failed Airline Bomb Plot

Tuesday, December 29th, 2009

Nothing adds complexity, wastes time and reduces the effectiveness of organisations as much as solving problems by focusing on effect rather than cause.

Take the immediate response to the latest failed terrorist attack. By adding to the number and length of searches carried out on all air passengers, the authorities are merely adding to the workload of security staff, delaying flights and increasing costs for all involved.

It is the equivalent to ‘fixing’ a leaking pipe by placing a series of buckets underneath the leak. It does nothing to fix the hole in the pipe or prevent future leaks from occuring.

Since the atrocities of 9/11 I am not aware of any instances where terrorists were prevented from carrying out an attack on a commercial airline as a result of an airport security check.

I see the same inefficiencies in corporate organisations. For example, I recently worked with an organisation where it took an executive level director over 3 months, and many hours of negotiation, to get his team the smart phones they needed to do their jobs well.

As he haggled with the “Head of Smart Phones” he found out that one or two previous managers had wasted money on unnecessary smart phones in the past. Unfortunately, these actions were then used to prevent anyone else from acquiring these phones.

The best solution for this organisation is not to make it harder for everyone to make good decisions (which focuses on effect), but to change the behaviour of the previous managers and to appoint and develop more capable managers in the first place (which both focus on cause).

Similarly, the solution for airline security is not to impose unnecessary screening on the vast, vast majority of passengers, but to focus the attention of the security services on higher-risk passengers and to prevent those who are suspected of terrorist involvement from boarding the plane in the first place.

The Myth Of Change Management

Monday, December 21st, 2009

Sunrise over mountain streamManagement books talk about the nature and speed of change as if it is some new concept, developed over the past 50 years. Academics and consultants develop models and approaches that seek to help business leaders overcome the difficulties of getting people to accept and respond to change.

Yet people cope with change all the time. Births, deaths, marriages, divorces, new jobs, lost jobs: most people seem to find ways to deal with these situations and still function effectively.

Far from being fearful of change, people, on the whole, are pretty good at it, and the history of mankind is, in many ways, a testament to our species’ ability to handle and adapt to change.

In fact, the term, “change is the only constant” is not from a recent management book, but was first coined by Heraclitus, 2,500 years ago.

Not much has changed since.

The Upside Of Worst-Case Planning

Friday, December 11th, 2009

How would you change your business if your profits were cut by 50% overnight?

I was working with an executive team earlier this week, helping them to create focus and alignment around their agenda for the next 12-18 months. They have a potential problem – which may or may not happen – and so did some work to determine how they could reduce costs if the worst case was to happen.

Despite this organisation being full of busy, efficient and effective people, the exercise helped them discover interesting new ways in which they could more than cover the shortfall.

And here’s the interesting thing: many, if not most of the ideas can be applied to the existing business whether or not the worse case happens.

In other words, by seriously reviewing the implications of a worst-case scenario, this executive team has created alignment and commitment around a few, focused actions that will add 25% to their bottom-line over the next 12 months.

If you were to really question the way your organisation does business, what new opportunities for profit growth could you discover?

© Stuart Cross 2009. All rights reserved.

How To Turn Opinion Into Insight

Thursday, December 3rd, 2009

When I work with my clients I find I can increase the speed and effectiveness of the work by focusing first on the executive team’s opinions. We call these hypotheses or assumptions, but the premise is the same: if we start with an answer we usually get to a better solution faster, even if it is different to the one we started with.

The process I use is summarised in the chart, and I call it the ‘4A Framework’.

The 4A Framework

4a-framework1

The first step is to clearly define the issue at hand, but it is the second step that is critical. Rather than seeking to ‘boil the ocean’ with analysis, you set out your initial view on the alternative solutions, and then, based on your existing knowledge of your business and your markets, take a high-level view of which alternative you believe is best.

This allows you to focus your analysis, increasing the pace and effectiveness of your decision-making.

© Stuart Cross 2009. All rights are reserved.

You Can’t Chase Two Hares

Thursday, November 19th, 2009

istock_hares1There is a Japanese saying that translates, ‘you can’t chase two hares’. If a top-class hunting dog chases after a hare it has a 10% chance of catching it. But if the dog hedges its bets and tries to chase two at once, its success rate is reduced to nil. The dog quickly learns that 10% is the way to go!

How many hares are you currently chasing?

© Stuart Cross 2009. All rights reserved.

Take The Business Tool Fadaholic Test

Tuesday, November 17th, 2009

Click on the link to read my article, Take The Business Tool Fadaholic Test, which has just been posted on BNET.

© Stuart Cross 2009. All rights reserved.

Focus On Results, Not Method

Friday, November 13th, 2009

Many managers spend too much of their time trying to find the absolute best way of doing something. Yet, if you focus more on results, chances are you will find a reasonable way of achieving them.

Yesterday evening, for example, I had the pleasure of hosting the Morgan Cross Strategy Directors’ Forum. We had a great group of strategy directors from some of the UK’s leading companies, including Alliance Boots, BAe Systems and Balfour Beatty, round the table, and our guest speaker was Staff Engstrom from Carillion plc.

Staff led a discussion on driving value from acquisitions, and although ‘Chatham House’ rules apply to the Forum, it quickly became clear that very different approaches could work equally well.

The keys to success for these organisations were to:

  1. Have a very clear view of their strategic objectives
  2. Know what success looked like for each acquisition, and
  3. Have an approach to delivering the acquisition benefits that managers from across the business understood and bought into

In short, clarity and alignment were more important than method.

Different organisations have different norms, different beliefs and different values, and that drives the way they work. It is tempting to transplant an apparently ‘best way’ of working and seek to apply it to your business, but the risk is that it doesn’t fit with the way your company operates.

Instead of concentrating on trying to find the ‘best’ method, spend more of your effort clarifying the results you wish to achieve and gaining alignment on a reasonable way of delivering them. That way, you’ll increase your chances of success.

© Stuart Cross 2009. All rights reserved.

George At Asda: From Rags To Riches

Tuesday, October 13th, 2009

Click on the link to read my article, George At Asda: From Rags To Riches, which has just been posted on BNET.

© Stuart Cross 2009. All rights reserved.

Agreement Isn’t Alignment

Thursday, October 1st, 2009

I’m in Rhode Island, USA, this week working with my mentor, Alan Weiss, and meeting some potential clients. Last night a small group of us went to a local restaurant that Alan had recommended called Siena, which is near our hotel in Warwick.

As we set off the taxi the driver flicked the meter and confidently went onto the motorway, heading towards the nearby city of Providence. After a couple of minutes I finally noticed that we were heading in the wrong direction and asked him where we were going. He apologised and said that he thought we meant the Siena restaurant in Providence, as that was the restaurant he was used to taking passengers.

After a quick discussion we finally headed back to Warwick, and as we passed the hotel from where we’d set off 10 minutes before, I casually noticed the meter had hit $30.

By the time we reached the restaurant the fare was $45. After some grumbling, my colleague Phil paid the driver. Personally, I was just happy that we hadn’t set off for the Siena in Tuscany.

Graciously, I paid for the $15 cab ride back to the hotel, which gave a cost difference of 3:1 between the ride with, rather than without alignment.

The cost of misalignment to business can be much, much greater. In 1998 a $300 million NASA spacecraft mission to Mars was destroyed because one of the sub-contractors used imperial units rather than NASA’s metric approach.

Checking for alignment means confirming actions, specifying accountabilities, establishing milestones, and clarifying details and assumptions.

Agreement isn’t necessarily alignment. Agreed?

© Stuart Cross 2009. All rights reserved.