Pinterest - What is it for?

I just got my Pinterest Account.......in part so I keep my set of "IanJSutherland" internet resources.

The challenge is now to work out what to do with it? I am by nature a curious and exploratory person so I will be in this. I can't say that I have really taken to Twitter, definitely not caught up in MySpace and Facebook is good for family and friends. Linkedin in my place of choice for business and professional connections so where does Pinterest fit in?

I have no idea yet, but have set up a first page that is really a place for me to "pin" some of my favourite photographs. At the moment they are mainly ones I have taken, but will include items I come across on the web.

I am also thinking of building a board that holds useful and interesting articles - access via links through the images, but that is still work in progress.

I would be interested to know what anyone else makes of this new tool(?) or whatever it is?

Who will be the Greek Sweeper?

I am still thinking about the Greek question and how Greece could leave the Euro.

In previous posts I have highlighted the question of a lack of physical currency stock and the difficulties of swapping it out. along with that there is, I feel, a real issue with how to draw a line around what comprises the Greek economy that will leave considerable imprecision about what would need to be converted by banks etc into the new currency, the New Drachma.

It is this latter issue I have been thinking about. I have only come up with one answer that is not simple and could have some serious implications. In  simple terms I do not think that the community will be able to issue rules that inherently create matched assets and liabilities in the New Drachma. This means that in keeping with the principles of double entry accounting there will need to be a sweep, a collection and consoliodation of all the mismatched balances. This I expect will have to be cumulative ie local banks reporting to a central bank who then, I expect will need to work with the ECB who I expect will have to take the full impact, taking the resultant exposure and providing corresponding compensation to the rest of the banking system.

Without this there could be considerable exposure in each regional (eg UK, US, etc) banking system. This would be unacceptable and create even more uncertainty and instability with each region trying to look after their own interests and exposed to the actions of speculators and hedge funds. This is not a recipe for financial stability.

Where any rules leave doubt or ambiguity I would expect enactors to take what they consider to be the most advantageous choice, which is probably leaving balances in Euros as I would expect the New Drachma to be pretty weak. This means that that non-Greek banks will try and keep as many of their assets, ie debt to Greek entities, in Euros while much of the resulting money will be converted into New Grachmas. 

Now I am not economist and I have to admit that I have not worked this all out and have no idea of the scale, but instinctively I believe I am on the right track - the risk and implications have to be "taken" centrally and I can see no other place than the ECB.

This could be a very interesting and difficult ride. I just hope bigger brains that mine are thinking about this and can come up with a better solution.
 

A personal watershed

Over 25 years ago I spent one evening a week attending a Dale Carnegie course with something like 30 strangers. The course was entitled "Human Relations and Effective Communication" and was based upon the books written by Dale Carnegie over 50 years ago. I not only took the course but then worked as a volunteer assistant on two more programmes.

The main book was "How To Win Friends And Influence People" and I was reminded of it all when I came across the mindmap shown above. It can be found and viewed in larger format on www.mindmeister.com .

The other sources were "Don't Grow Old, Grow Up" and "How To Stop Worrying And Start Living".

Looking back I have to say that I think it was one of the most valuable learning experiences I have enjoyed in my life and I have attended a lot of courses. As a teenager I was very self-conscious. If I had to speak or ask a question in public then my heart raced and I felt sick. I tended to internalise a huge amount and build internal stresses. I was also very technical in my approach to work, possibly at the expense of the people and relationship aspect.

Those who know me now might ask, "So what's changed?", but I know they would be joking, at least in the most part. I am now a happy extrovert who is happy speaking and contributing in public. I have much better ways of dealing with stress and certainly don't feel as old as my birth certificate suggests I should.

Of the almost 100 people I have personally seen go through the course (I have put a few of my staff on it too), all but one gained significantly from it, often in ways they did not expect at the start.

Of course I am not a prime example of all things Dale Carnegie. I still make my share of mistakes, but a self awareness really helps.

I know they run the modern version of the programmes all over the world. It can seem rather formulaic, ie session 12 in London is the same as session 12 in New York or Hong Kong, and this may put some people off. Instead this structure allows one to make up missed sessions with confidence or possible adapt to travel schedules.

For anyone who is committed to developing themselves and/or their team, I commend consideration of the Dale Carnegie courses.

Somethings you REALLY cannot script!!!

I will start this with a BIG BIG WARNING that anyone who is easily offended or very conservative when talking about sexual matters may want to leave this post now - you have been warned.

I did consider not posting this, but decided that I had set my stall out at the start and made it clear that this would be an eclectic set of postings of things that caught my eye, interested me or amused me. This certainly amused me.

I also recognise that some of the humour in here may well work best for British readers, but that it is what it is. I know from the google stats that I get readers from Nepal and Mongolia, Brazil and China, Russia and Singapore, so I wonder what they will make of this if they read on?

I will now pad a good few rows that will fill most peoples' initial screen, but if you wish to continue please scroll down and the blog will continue.
\/
\/
\/
\/

\/
\/
\/
\/

\/
\/
\/
\/

\/
\/
\/
\/

\/
\/
\/
\/

\/
\/
\/
\/

\/
\/
\/
\/

\/
\/
\/
\/

So......it was a nice spring day today and I decided to do some work in the garden. Two sides or our property are bounded by a pretty ancient hedge, with a path the other side. This hedge is mixed Hawthorn, Holly and Ivy with seven large trees along its length. This makes it sound grander than it is, but certainly the amount of fallen wood and other bits makes for a continual clear up.

Today I was doing that with a beautiful robin for company, pecking at the ground where I had been and I was enjoy the sun, the breeze and the general wild life that was awakening.

A common image associated spring in the UK is leaping hares, but today that is not what I saw. Instead I saw a flourescent pink flash in the middle of  the hedge. I thought it was a kid's toy or something as we often have empty cans or bags thrown in there. However this time, instead of a hare I came across a rabbit, a rampant rabbit to be precise. Now I expect many British readers will know what I mean, but I don't intend to explain it for the rest. Instead I suggest that you just google "rampant rabbit" adding "ann summers" if you need to.

So without going into details this "rabbit" looked to be a new item, as it was neither wet nor dirty. It did make my wife reel back when it started moving as she touched it!!!!

Her reaction was that she did not want it in her garbage so what were we going to do with it. My response, a man's, was well let's save the batteries and in that is another tale.

Of course the batteries had to be "long life", but in this instance they were also branded "Mothercare".

As I said you could not script it! Well it gave us a good laugh.

Lastly, if anyone read through and was offended then I apologise, but you were warned.

PS: Day two and the rabbits are breeding! This morning, in the same spot, a second (different model) rabbit was found sitting (waiting?). While unboxed and without batteries, it is pristine and certainly unused.

So what next?

PPS: No more rabbits so maybe the population explosion is over!!!

More Greek musings

In most changes the "big picture" is good enough, but the devil is in the detail; that is where the problems come to light. It seems to me that in this case of breaking Greece out of the Euro there are serious problems in the "big picture", ones that will only compound in the detail.

The big question is how one draws the lines around the assets and liabilities that will comprise the New Drachma?

When we created the Euro it was easy. ANY & EVERY asset and liability in each of the component currencies were converted. In this instance, just SOME of the Euro will be broken out, but what and where.

Simple domestic Greek assets and liabilities are not the problem. It is the more international , well inter-eurobond elements that create the challenge. Imagine a Greek company that legitimately and reasonably took out a euro loan with a Belgian bank (I will avoid using Germany as the example) and then used it across its European operations, with the balance held in a head office account with a Greek bank in Athens.

It would seem that the portion in Athens is a no brainer, but what about assets in France that were funded by the loan? Similarly can one force the lending bank in Belgium to rede imitate its loan to New Drachma, with all that could imply?

Unless we corral all the relevant assets and liabilities we will have an unbalanced set of accounts. What do we do with the mismatch?

I will keep thinking and reading around this until it becomes clear.

Whatever happens it seems that identifying Greek domicile will be critical. For the banks this will hinge upon the static data held for clients, instruments and accounts. Now we know how notoriously inconsistent that data is. We spent months cleansing the data before creating the Euro, but we will not have the same rump here.

I know that a number of Banks are already in data clean up mode for KYC (know your customer) requirements, but expect it to take years. I am also aware of many debates around idmetifying the country of issue for a number of instruments , especially for larger supranational organisations.

Now while the first point still means I don't think we know the boundaries, I think it is clear that there needs to be an urgent focus on everything that looks as if it could be "Greek" and ensuring that the data held is correct and consistent. That way when the apparently inevitable happens one can at least have a reasonable set of data to work with.

More musings later.

Thriving threads - what does it take to be near eternal online?

The thriving threads I am talking about are the discussion topics found on various discussion boards that just seem to go on and on endlessly and apparently effortlessly. There are some, but not many.

Two examples I have are from LinkedIn, but that is just where my main focus has been. I am sure there are thriving threads on many discussion boards or forums.

The normal patterns are either that a post gets a small initial burst of response ( or possibly none) and quietly dies, slipping down the listings and into digital oblivion, other than the possibility that some future Google (or similar) search will lift it back to visibility for at least one person.

Other threads, but not many, will enjoy an active and engaging exchange of posts for a while. A while being a few days or a few weeks. This activity may be reinvigorated from time to time, by the original poster, but eventually the thread becomes inactive and slips into the same digital oblivion as the previous set.

A very few though seem to inspire a steady and long lasting set of responses from a wide range of correspondents. The two I had in mind were these.

Firstly a thread on a group linked to my old university that just asked people to introduce themselves, what they were doing and what interested them. This would receive many additions from all over the world each and every day, and dumperelated emails in my inbox. The group hosting this thread just disappeared one day and it's loss spawned a fairly active thread from those looking for it. Unfortunately it has no reappeared nor have any similar attempts been so successful.

The second is one on the Harvard Business Review group and asks what is the true value, if any, of an MBA? This has been running for a while now and I have seen at least six additions today. The response is mixed and, I think, surprisingly downbeat, but then maybe many had unrealistic expectations. That is not the point; instead the point is that it is thriving.

The commonality seems to be an open question, to a large and diverse community that many feel able to comment on. The questions are also non-threatening.

Has anyone else seen a "thriving thread" and are prepared to share it here.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Where are all the Drachma's?

Over New Year 1999 I spent a lot of time in the office as I led the Flemings' operational adoption of the Euro. Today my role would have been called programme manager, but back then I think I was called co-ordinator. That weekend was the culmination of months of planning and preparation and there clear and specific rules that everyone had to follow.

In principle the addition of a new currency was not that difficult for the technology as most allowed the addition of new currency codes etc. The issue was converting all the blanaces and values accurately, completely and at the same time making sure that all "outstanding" business, ie transactions that started in 1998, but would only finish in 1999. The volume was the issue and the timing was to allow a long weekend, all before the Y2K (non)event.

On the 1st of January 1999 in the countries involved everyone still had their old currency, coins and notes, and that was still usable. Over time and gradually replaced by new currency stock and the old recalled. Merging many into one was not so hard and indeed in France they still dual priced, Euros AND French Francs for years.

So now I am puzzled, how can Greece leave the Euro and institute a new currency, presumably the New Drachma, without a currency stock?

My sources suggest that the banks are still expecting a  Greek default at Easter. The markets still indicate that a Greece will default eventually even after the latest bailout agreement and Easter is the next, common long weekend, so it is not surprising that those that want to maintain stablity would try and manage the timing.

Now the processes around data are likely to be very similar to that weekend back in 1999, though the volumes will be lower. That said there will need to be very clear rules about the simple mechanics, but the old ones can probably be pulled out, rubbed down and modified.

There will probably need some legislative changes regarding contracts etc, but again that can be delivered, even if it is just in time or even a touch retorspective.

Determining the rate will be critcial as there will be an army of speculators and hedge funds ready to pounce on any perceived mis-pricing. This is not new, but is arguably more pervasive now and the lack of preparatory time increases the chances of mistakes.

Butthe bit I really don't get is what will the Greeks do for cash after a break. I can't beleive that enough can be created let alone distributed in time. Now there may be secret stocks somewhere, but somehow I doubt it. There may even be piles of the old Drachma, but that doesn't feel like the right thing to use.

More than that the question must be how does one identify the "Greek" euros that need to be converted? I know that at issue some euro notes have Greek images on them, but once in circulation all the strains of Euro have mingled so a Greek farmer is as likely to "French", "Belgian" or indeed any other variant of Euro as a "Greek" euros.

For a Greek citizen with a Euro account with a French Bank, is that money still Euros or will it be New Drachma?

I have yet to see an answer to this conundrum, but as the expectation of default remains and grows it is something that needs an answer. If Easter is the date then every day that passes makes delivery of a solution harder. Then again who, politically, is going to make the hard governmental preparations (ie more than theoretical planning) while officially we have a bailout agreement that everyone(?) supports?

As they say, hold on this will be a bumpy ride!

If you work in Programme, Project or Change management.........

...... I would appreciate your help in completing a short anonymous survey about your experience and views on benefit management.

As part of the Enterprise Management Association Strategy team one of the things I agreed to take forward was looking into benefits management and helping determine if this should be an area of focus and contribution for the association.

As part of that I am trying to gauge the current state of affairs and have built a 10 question online survey. It is anonymous and no attempt will be made to attribute any response, but overall it should give us a barameter of current practice and issues.

The survey can be found here http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/HLZBZJK

Please feel free to pass it on to any other friends and colleagues you think may be interested in contributing.

With thanks,
Ian.

Dealing with troubled change and how the letter "C" can help!

I housekeeping some old hard drives the other day I came across a PowerPoint deck I used for an evening seminar. It still seems relevant so I thought I would reprise it here.

By way of background, the Managing Director of a consultancy I knew and respected had watched me struggle with a programme that was hit from all sides; assumptions (made by others) were failing, harsh constraints being imposed and all in an immature organisation. She saw my endeavours as I had engaged her and two colleagues to assist on part of the programme. I was flattered that she thought I had enough to interest industry peers.

As I said it was an evening event so I went a little light hearted with a passing acknowledgement to Sesame Street. For those that are too young or for any other reason do not know Sesame Street it was a ground breaking puppet-based educational kids programme. Each week they used a different letter of the alphabet to link the contents engage their audience.

I took the same approach and used the letter "C" and the strap line how to cope with change, constraint and confusion, by combining challenge, communication and compassion to create clarity confidence and continuity.

As I looked through it many of the messages/lessons from that time are still very relevant. I will happily share the slide pack or reprise the seminar for anyone that is interested, but I don't want to bloat this blog - just mail me at ian@ianjsutherland.com if you are interested.

I will however summarise some of the points

1. Change happens to any significant change programme so be prepared. Make sure that the model, benefits, financial plan, etc are built so they can flex from the start; having to redo all the model when you are in the middle of tackling a crisis is a horrible place to be.
2. The process by which people deal with change is predictable to a large extent so understand it and use it.
3. Every programme has constraints around cost, time, quality and scope. Once you find you have max'ed your tolerances around cost and time and minimised the quality and scope there is nowhere else to go. You have to go and ask for help!
4. Watch the frequency of business cycle and respond to it. In crisis the review and decision cycles shorten so you need to make sure your delivery plan synchronises the best you can.
5. Vacuums fill naturally and this is true of information vacuums. In the absence of information speculation, most often negative speculation, thrives. As the change agent you need to grasp and manage the information flows, preventing vacuums.
6. Watch out for catastrophic events, ie times when just undoing what happened will not take you back to where you were. These are times when new rules apply and you need to assimilate these quickly and make appropriate adjustments
7. Accept the challenges of others and address them. Denial is usually futile and often terminal. The challenges develop for a reason, even if you cannot see it at the start.
8. Make your communication to stakeholders honest, quick, frequent and simple.
9. Have compassion with those affected by the crisis and your response. Bulldozing a response may appear attractive, but often backfires.
10. Keep checking what people understand and perceive. Their perspective may be different from yours and you need to understand that and redress where necessary.

There were of course many other "C"s I could have used and incase you find it useful I have included them below.

My closing comment of the evening was a saying my father had on his office wall and one I think it pays to keep a tight hold on as it can help you focus your effort most effectively.

As I said I am happy to share more if wanted. It all seems very relevant even now, nearly ten years on.

More Pride and a Little Promotion

Attached is a video of my daughter's work on the catwalk this weekend. The whole effort was in aid of a small spinal injury charity called the Rooprai Spinal Trust. Everyone gave their time for free and it gave girls like my daughter an opportunity to experience and practice that world and their own deportmant.

Enough about my daughter as I know I am biased, but there were a few who I thought I might help with a little bit of exposure here.

In no particular order there is the charity itself, The Rooprai Spinal Trust, whose details you can find here.

The next is Keith Rogers and Strut Fashion who put the event together. Their facebook page is here.

I also thought I would mention three of the contestants from the TV contest "Britain and Ireland's Next Top Model" who came and gave the girls advice and support and graced the evening. They were Charlotte Holmes, Imogen Lever and Jade Thompson

Lastly I wanted to link to the band that played after dinner. I have heard many bands, but these, in my opinion, rank up with the best. While the do do covers as they did on Saturday night they also create original music, which is pretty good too. Their name was Hitched Music.

Karma - an investment in the future?

As I approached my train station heading home, I was stopped by a young woman, probably not much older than my daughter, who was clearly angry and in tears. I decided to give her a few moments to hear what she had to say. It appears that she was trying to get home and for whatever reason did not have enough money for the fare.

She said she needed GBP2 on top of a handful of change she already had.

Now, while I will often buy The BIG Issue and help those helping themselves, I do not respond to blatant begging. In this instance I decided that her distress was genuine and gave her the money.

It is true that I may have been duped, but she did take off with purpose in the right direction so I think not; either way I gave her the benefit of the doubt.

In return I hope that the Universe will find help for my daughter should she ever find herself away from home without money or immediate help. To me that is Karma and an investment in the future.

I follow the same philosophy in my personal and professional world too. If I see work opportunities for friends I will pass them on. If I can reasonably help a friend in other ways I will. I have seen returns with other different friends providing me with help and assitance.

It does seem that in general and unpredictably what goes around, comes around and long may that be so.

No wonder it has felt so hard to get investment!!

Last evening I attended the first meeting in 2012 of the City branch of MAG-net, the networking group supporting the work of The Mine Action Group (MAG). This organisation is usually the first into areas of conflict to locate and nullify mines and other ordinance, an action that makes it safe for other organisations to follow and for the local population to start repairing their lives safely.

Tonight's talk was by Ha Joon Chang,a reader in economics at Cambridge University, author and contrarian. His talk was drawn from his recent book, "23 Things They Didn't Tell You About Capitalism." it is no surprise that it is built around 23 statements,such as there is no such thing as a free market, financial markets should be less efficient rather than more, companies should not be looking to maximise shareholder value, that people in the rich countries are paid more than they are worth, etc.. 

Ha Joon illustrated a number of the "truths" and subsequent informal discussions showed that the majority of the audience, if not all, after a little reflection thought them self-evident. The big question was generally who could and more importantly would break ranks and try and deal with the issues they raise. I am afraid I cannot offer any answers, at least not yet.

One things that really struck me were some statistics Ha Joon quoted from research by another economist (I think) and that was having looked at data from major companies in the US and UK, between 2000 and 2010, after considering dividend distributions and share buy-backs/repurchases those companies paid 94% and 88% respectively of profits straight back to shareholders. These are staggering numbers and way up from historical levels nearer 30%.

Now I am no economist, but my financially understanding leads me to believe that retention rates of 6% and 12% are unlikely to even cover the increases needed in working capital in that time. The implication is that the investment has been covered by increasing debt. It is no surprise that finding funding for necessary change has bee hard and that many companies have under-invested. The problems created by these behaviours are coming home to roost.

In the networking afterwards there was a general view that the political cycles were an issue for this and other problems or at least there short terms were; how does one take a 20 year view when re-election is never more than four or five years away. This is compounded by how joined up the issues are across geography and regimes.

As I said I wish I had the answers, but at last some are starting to recognise and talk about the issues. 

Comments please.

Past Performance and all that stuff!

There is a heavily over-used phrase in business, at least in the UK. It is one that is intended as a truth and a warning, but one that most businessmen hope their clients will take as a untruth (possibly a bit string to call it a lie?). In large part that is because commercially it suits them best if clients disbelieve and disregard it.

Their belief that it is untrue is also evident in much that of their behaviour, particularly in recruitment.

So what is it?

"Past performance is no guarantee of future performance"

This gained public use from the regulatory requirement to give it as a caveat on many, many documents relating to financial products. Of course it is often placed in the least obvious position in the least eye-catching way, but it is there; indeed it is in the national psyche and is often quoted.

When a business is selling a product, an idea or a service, they clearly want the client to believe that they can deliver to their promise and will never fail to cite previous experience and deliveries by way of supporting their claim that they can do it again. They really want the client to believe that past performance is a guarantee, or at least a near guarantee, of future performance.

This is also true when the same business people are selling themselvesto a new employer or investor. They will cite their track record of how they have achieved something before, in a different place at a different time. In the past, when the world was simpler (with fewer dependencies and connections) and evolved more slowly, this was probably more relevant. The environment in which were looking to work could well have been very similar to the one in which they previously succeeded. But now it is hard to argue that the situation in an one organisation is the same as another. The opportunity for difference are manifold, culture, infrastructure, personal factors, clients, markets, ethics ...... and so on

By way of further illustration change has been described as the journey from one steady state to another. That is one knows exactly where one starts and can describe where one wants to end up, this being able to divinve the difference and plan work to change matters. On a simpler world those steady states were simpler and in a slower world those states tended to persist.

But as the world has become more complex and moves faster those "steady states" are at best transitory. The outcome that is planned now is unlikley to be exactly the one that is needed even in a few months times. In mathematical terms, rather than moving state to state, we are moving along a continuum whose future is not exactly known. This requires increased awareness, undertsanding and agility to continually scan, assess and react.

I can think of a system upgrade I managed some years ago for a trading room. The system was contained on one machine, operated in one office location and accepted a handful of data feeds, mostly by end of day/overnight specifically configured files. These days the same undertaking will most likely need to tackle multiple locations both for processing and operation, will be taking many complex real-time feeds and be expected to interface with any number of other systems.

I would argue that I could undertake and successfully complete that project today, but it is not because I have done it before, but because I have the capabilities and change skills to adapt and address to the situation I find in front of me.

As a result what should be presented and assessed are capabilities and understanding rather that results per se. Of course results can be used as evidence of these personal qualities, but only as such.

In the past this was sometimes referred to as creative recruitment ie hiring someone who was not a perfect match but who you thought/believed had the capabilities and potential. This is all but absent these days as more defensive hiring is in evidence. In a precarious world the hirer only hires if s/he can tick the box "done before". This way were are perpetuating the past rather than embracing and adapting to the future......and people wonder why so many initiative founder.

Even in the hard nosed world of investment management there is plenty of evidence of this . In fact I overheard an earnest conversation the other day where a particular fund manager was cited as having been able to deliver supreme returns for four years and then it dropped off and he has never recovered. The comment was that he had lost his "mojo", but I suspect that the knack he had worked specifically at the time and in the market he was working in, but when that changed he failed to translate and repeat his performance.

There are many, many stories like this.

So I would say that past performance is no guarantee to future performance, instead used it as a guage of capability and base your judgements on that.

The Cost Saving Ritual

As many businesses realise how bad the world is and that it is not getting better any time soon, there will be a laser-like focus on cutting costs and manageing them closely.

I have been around this cost-cutting cycle a number of times and noticed, at least in the financial services world I have been in, a repeating ritual. One that it seems one has to go through and complete before costs are seriously reduced.

By way of background I ran business management for a gobal trading and broking business.The guy I worked for was the archetypal and ultimate accounting professional and working for him I pulled together all the financial plans. He showed me initially, but I subsequently confirmed many times that the total cost of that business (excluding discretionary bonuses) was pretty consistent multiple of front office personnel cosst ie salaries and related taxes. I don't recall the exact number, but it was something like x2.5 and covered the costs of all direct support areas and allocations.

Higher salaried staff tend to generate more business, need more support, have more expenses, etc, etc. The ratio does tend to work!

I realise that other businesses will have different dynamics, but I am pretty sure that there will be some prime driver in each.

The relevance is that it comes into the third step of the ritual.

The first step of the ritual is this: "Count the paper clips!"

What this means are the trivial steps that don't hit people hard. Examples the move to use recycled paper, make ordering stationery harder,rations pens, charge for coffee make all travel "cattle class" and hotel limited to budget brands. While these send a message and can on the face of it save a little money, the administrative costs erode and savings and the lost goodwill from staff will lead to unexpected costs or work arounds.

The second step usually follows soon after the first and certainly once the lack of initial impact is recognised and that is: "Point the finger!"

This usually means scrutinising everyone who charges you directly or through allocations. This starts by argueing about the basis of cost transfer ie a % or based on headcount or something else. Once this is done the next stage is to reduce use of those support services and thus avoid some allocated costs.

The allocation arguments are usually unproductive in any substantial way as the costs of the originating units have to be recovered. Initial victories in pushing costs to other business units just prompts them to start the same arguments resulting in what is generally a nil sum game ie overall no-one wins or loses.

Reduced use of services can again look attractive, but generally if the service is needed then it has to be supplied some how. For example, reduced use of a corporate travel desk to book and manage travel often results in an additional PA here and there, negating savings.

Another way is to look to alternative suppliers eg outsource the work. This can appear attractive initially especially when looking at lower cost locations, but in the end this also introduces another party looking to take a profit from work and creates new governance roles. It often reduces flexibility that creates other costs. Additionally rapid wage inflation in countries such as India and China is quickly reducing the simple economic attraction.

Only once the first two steps have been taken, painfully and unsuccessfully will the company take the third and necessary step: "Reduce the cost drivers"

In my personal experience that meant reducing traders and sales people. With them gone there was an immediate significant cost reduction, but also it was not long before further savings came as the number of people needed to support them could be reduced.

Of course there are "reorganisation" costs that have an upfront impact, but in the end the only way to deliver sustainable savings is to tackle the cost drivers.

So watch for the ritual. I am not sure that one can avoid the first two steps, but at least try and complete them as quickly as possible with the least damage so that you can address the real issue - cut to the chase!

The Venn Diagram of Change and what it means?

I thought today I would write about something that may be so obvious to some that you wonder why I would bother. I do so because I feel there is still considerable confusion in the mind of recruiters.

I have been told a few times that I don't have enough "IT" on my CV to be considered for roles I could easily fulfill. This can be personally frustrating, but I also wonder if the mindsets behind these comments is not one of the contributors to the perceived failure rate of change projects.

I hope this is of use to at least some readers and that they can then use them to better assess requirements and candidates.

My starting point is the common view that a business is a combination of people, processes and systems. Of the terms systems is used in its more general sense rather than specifically to information technology. In the context of this post I will consider the terms systems to refer to the technology that supports business, be it email, trading systems, telephony and such.

The classic Venn diagram looks like this with the overlaps creating seven zones. This version is purely indicative and used to indicate the combinations and is no comment on the importance or volume of change in any individual segment.

So how does this help?

Let us first number the segments for easy reference

Picking off easiest to describe first, lets start with #7. This is pure technology and as shown in the diagram is not expecting their to be associated people or process change, at least not in the body of the business. Even a simple software upgrade or technology implmentation will require some people and process changes within the functions that support it, but I would suggest that if the change has little or no impact on the day-to-day work of users and management then it fits into #7. In my opinion this is clearly the domain of the "technical" project manager. The methodologies to analyse the requirements and deliver a solution are usually pretty well known and transferrable from project to project.

This is the domain of IT and includes the likes of IT networks, data centres, telephony/communications including services like internet, email, etc..

# 1 is the area of "pure" people change. This is a little harder to define, but includes changes to employment contracts, remuneration and can include more elusive topics such as cultural change. Again these may touch need some changes to the interactions between management and staff and use some technology to deliver, but if the changes have little or no impact on the daily execution of business by the core of the business then it falls into this segment. In many instances this is seen as the domain of the HR change specialist, someone who understands the daily operation of HR functions and the legal and contractual aspects. I am sure I have undervalued this segment, but mean no offence to anyone. I am just trying to illustrate this area of work.

One area that I would personally dispute is that of cultural change. It is often launched and "owned" in this space, but should, in my opinion sit in zones #2 and #5, but we will come back to that.

#3 is "pure" process change. It suggests that the same people will use the same tools/technology to do things differently/better. To my mind this can only be incremental (and relatively small) change as anything else will require people and/or technology to change. There are tools such as 6Sigma and Lean that help in the analysis of the opportunities here, but the danger is to underestimate the implementation of desired changes.

In truth many people find it simpler to think of change in just these three arenas. Indeed many organisations look to place change under the management of technology, who rarely have the empathy or experience to deliver the other two. This is often the source of dissatisfactoin and turf wars between executives, leading to "Black Ops" change initiatives run outside the normal governance frameworks. Often these only come to light when they hit trouble or need extra or already committed resources.

In practice in my expereince most change sits with zones #2, #5 and #6 with transformational change firmly in #5. These changes normally need the same or new people, working in different ways (maybe under different conditions) with new or enhanced tools to deliver business improved ways.

I struggle to think of an example that would sit in #4, but maybe someone can suggest suitable candidates.

Operational Change as used in my world of Financial services is usually placed in #6 as it is usually looking to use the same human resources in broadly the same way, but with different processes and possibly with new tools to deliver a business requirement. The issue here is that it is often under different management from the larger technology and transformational undertakings, often leading to overlap and conflict.

Personally I have operated in zones #2, #5, #6 and #7, helping to guide undertakings in #1 and #3 at different times. The place I enjoy most and believe where I add most value is in the more complex and, at times, transformational area of #5. These are the places where ambiguity is usually higher and the recipient environment prone to external change.

I find this framework is useful in assessing opportunities that present themselves and how well I "fit".

It also illustrates that project or programme manager needs more than "technology" skills when they step into endeavours that have significant people or process change. I would love a £1 for every time I have seen a technical project manager the job of implementing a new or upgraded trading system and run up on the rocks of people and process. Please do not think I lack respect for technical project managers, because I don't. They do certain changes better than I could and enjoy them more than I would, but I suspect they would say the same about me

I wonder if this makes sense or is use to others? Is it something we can develop or explain further?

How easy it is to become an App developer!

Try this.....it works!!!

Last week I published my first App!!! It was easy and pretty quick and illustrates how rapidly the world is changing.

I know, I know, I have blogged about the increasing rate of change, but every now and then it really slaps you in the face. I haven't completed this journey yet, but I thought I would share some of the experience so far.

As I have said I looked at creating an ebook in 2010. I wanted to see what could be done with the new technology such as iPads and the reach they offer through the Apple Store and the millions of users around the world.

At that point I looked into how one created an ebook and got it onto the Apple platform. The route was not that easy. There were a number of ways to create an ebook, but they cost either in buying software or the services of others. Yes, there was some free software, but that left the author with a lot to do. It did not feel quite ready, at least not to me, so when my co-operative effort floundered I was not too disappointed.

Since then we have seen the rise of the Android OS on smart phones and the supporting Marketplace. I have an Android phone and am very happy and I have been keeping an eye on tools to create Apps for the iPad. I did not find anything much for the iPad, just for smart phones and that did not really meet my vision.

At the beginning of this year I revived my ebook project, with a new idea on content. I have been working on that since then. I also had another look for creation software and came across iBuilderApp.com . This site offer a free web-based platform for creating smart phone apps along with native iPad apps. OK, it is template based so not suitable for everything, but with a little imagination it is suprising what can be created.

I am now putting together my "book" using one of their templates and I am pleased with the previews so far. I have a few more weeks of work to create a finished product, but I am hopeful that this time it will all come together.

I then received an invitation to a "free" webinar about how to create Apps. I listend to that on Thursday evening and was both excited and a little disappointed. The disappointment was that the free webinar was primarily the promotion of another platform that be used to create apps from templates. This one is more powerful and potentially more commercial (www.gomobilesolutions.com). This is aimed at freelancers who  then use the tool to create apps for various businesses and clubs. Some of the numbers quoted were impressive, eg installed users, viewing rates etc. It is solely for smart phones as it offers ways to use the location based services, the camera function and for the sending of push notices ie short messages that pop up on the phones of users who have agreed to the service.

This made me think that I should look at the smartphone option, initially as a promotion tool, but maybe as a companion to the book. I did not know where this would go but on Friday afternoon I decided to have a go.

I went back to use iBuilderApp as it offers a way to create iphone and Android apps through the same set up.

In the space of a couple of hours I had put together an app, given it content, designed and loaded the graphics and downloaded the resulting package.

I needed to sign up as an Android developer ( a one time $25 fee ) in order to load this to the Android Market place. I set up the upload and completed the information and a few more graphics and pushed the button.

I found my app on the Google Marketplace with half an hour!!!!!!!!!

All in all from start to finish I spent less than four hours. Yes this trial/promotional item is free so I didn't need to set up a merchant account, but I have every confidence that that will be as easy when I come to that.

Right now there appears to be an known issue with Samsung Galaxy SII so I am not able to use it on my own phone, but I am confident this will be solved shortly. At the start of this blog is a view of what I created. A search of the Android Marketplace using "Change Sponsors Guide) should give access to the app. If you do download the app and you have problems, please do let me know - I am still learning fast.

I am not claiming it to be the best app ever, but rather showing how easy it is for Joe Public to now create content (free or charged) for use on the smartphone and tablet platforms.

I will be signing up as an Apple developer soon ($99 I believe) in order to trial the app on the iphone and get the eventual iPad product loaded.

If anyone is interested the book is looking like this right now

As I said at the start I find it exciting and scarey how the world is changing and how easy it is to access these new mobile platforms. Of course it will get crowded and the finding ways to stand out will be critical, but the potential is enormous!!.

18 key questions a Change Sponsor should ask

There is little support for project and programme sponsors; certainly in comparison with all the training and tools available to project managers. This is something I am looking to address shortly, but by way of taster I thought I would share 18 key questions I think a sponsor should ask at different stages of a change project or programme. Of course there is a lot more to being a sponsor, but the answers to these questions will help determine and drive the other work that will be needed.

I have taken the simple story metaphor for a change project/programme ie a beginning, a middle and and end. In essence all change structured change methodologies use this even if it is iteratively (ie repeatedly).

The beginning is where all the parties involved are striving to understand what needs to be done and how they will go about doing it. It also includes the formative stages whgen teams form and work starts ie the project is mobilised.

The middle is where the heavy lifting is done. This is where the design is finalised the solution built and tested and the implementation planned. This takes a different focus and can take a long time. It is easy for the sponsor to take a step back at this stage, but this would be wrong. The team needs the sponsor to be a full part in this less exciting, but critical part.

The end is where the solution is implemented, the project brought to closure and the benefits start being realised (hopefully). It is good to be involved when things are going well, but it is more important to be there when things are not going so well.

The table below summarises what I believe are key questions; some to ask yourself, others to ask your project/programme manager.

	Ask yourself	Ask your project manager
Beginning	Do I understand and can I articulate clearly what success will look and feel like? What will be the key measures? Do I understand the key stakeholders and their positions vis the change? Do I trust the project manager and have time to support him/her?	What is your recommended approach to executing this change? What will you require to deliver this and why? What do you see as the critical path and key risks?
Middle	Am I confident that the project is on course to come in within tolerances? Are all the stakeholders still on board? Are there any new ones? Am I supporting the project team to my best?	What are the key risks and issues you are facing or expecting? Has anything changed that I need to know about or resolve? Will the business be ready to receive the change?
End	What does the team need from me to bring closure? What have I learnt and what will I do differently next time? How shall we celebrate and how will effectively communicate our success?	Is everything good enough to go; what are the risks involved in going live? What is outstanding and who will finish/resolve matters? What have we learned from this experience?

I hope you will find these useful.

The ebook I am putting together will expand on these and provide further insight and support. I hope this will be available in the next couple of months, but if anyone wishes to know more beforhand please just comment here or mail me.

Why Benefits need FOCUS!

The issue of benefit realisation is long standing and in my opinion is one of the prime reasons there is a pernicious perception of high rates of project failure. If there is no benefit to be relaised why invest the expense and effort in delivering change, yet despite many efforts to be smarter at identifying the benefits and managing their realisation, we are nowhere near where we need to be.

The fall back position is a focus on the products of change ie the systems, the new structures and processes, or even worse just on activity, meetings, reviews, workshops etc, to justify the allocated resources. I have seen this happen too often to be happy.

One of the reasons is that it is quite complicated to understand the mix of benefits financial and non-financial, tangible and intangible, discrete and synergistic (ie relying on the connected delivery of some other change or event). It does not fit into an neat, data centric framework that works in the "industrial" management systems most compnaies have and is frought with uncertainty and risk.

There have been a number of well thought out and rigorous frameworks for Benefit Realisation Management, that, while mandated by methodologies and some public sectors, have failed to engage the real business leaders and become an administrative exercise in their own right.

The old maxim that if it is not measured it does not happen is true, but before that if the motivation and understanding is missing then it does not even pass the starting line. Often in the white heat of trying to mobilise change the business glosses over the failings in our understanding of the benefits and then once they have initial approval try and forget the promises and hope others will too.

In the light of this challenge I don't proclaim to have the magic answer to the whol problem, but I have a suggestion for a simpler language and approach that will aid and enhance the initial and subsequent engagement with stakeholders. It is something I have called the Benefit Function, goes by the acronym FOCUS and use the slogan

Benefits need FOCUS!

The benefit function is a framework that helps prepare and plan for change, manage the con-
sistency of the components and assess the outcome. It is defined as


where

B is the realised benefit;
O is the opportunity to deliver benefit, eg increased revenue, improved productivity, better client satisfaction, etc;
C is the capability required to satisfy that opportunity ie what do you need to meet the opportunity;
U is the utilisation of that capability - how will the business embrace and use the new capability; and
S is the additional synergy or synergies that can be generated

The main element of the benefit function is a product; if any one of O, C or U are poor or
absent then the main part of  the function will also be poor or absent.

S, the synergy element, is the bonus that happens when this change works with one or more
other changes, but only then.

Why do we need a Benefit Function?

A project, and the project manager, are usually focused on creating an agreed capability, with no one really managing the other elements.

Programme managers or programme offices may have some handle on synergies, but these are often lost in the heat of project delivery. The development of programme management has certainly placed greater emphasis on benefits and, within that, a whole field of Benefit Realisation Management (BRM) has grown up.

This is usually based on benefit maps that  link benefits to enabling changes and through them the relevant measures in order to evidence success. The effort required is not trivial and requires a different mindset to that of project management. Despite this, it is still a project manager who is often considered responsible for delivering benefits.

In the UK, BRM has found greatest traction in the public sector through the mandated use of standard methodolgies (Prince2 and MSP).  In the private sector take up is poor with benefits often used to justify a project at inception then conveniently forgotten; the focus instead moving to managing cost.

In my experience, and despite claims to the contrary, most business managers and project sponsors understand “doing things” far better than “creating benefit”.

How is the Benefit Function used?

Successful and lasting change must be based upon a framework that is easily accessible to a wide stakeholder community and one that can quickly be seen as both pragmatic and effective, rather than difficult and ineffective.

The primary use of the function is to recognise that there are four discrete components that need to be owned and managed. We can then explore them in sequence, cycling back for if we need to, until the picture is clear.

• Opportunity relates to a need that exists, which, if satisfied, will result in a benefit. A benefit can be considered as any positive outcome, as perceived by a stakeholder.  Ownership of an opportunity must fall into the domain of“business”.

Usually this falls to the sponsor who needs to understand and be able to articulate the value (scale, scope and probability) of the opportunity as well as any influencing factors. The sponsor should also determine how satisfaction will be determined or measured. This will not always be financial, but should require real evidencing.

Responsibility to monitor and review the opportu nity, reflecting changes back to those concerned with governing change and/or building capability,also falls to the sponsor.

• The satisfaction of an opportunity will be delivered by a new or changed Capability. This may be a the new organisation (people, process and/or systems) required to satisfy that need ietake advantage of an opportunity. Responsibility for the detailed design and delivery of this capability usually falls to the project manager and requires a clear understanding of the sponsor’s vision, even as that changes.

Responsibility for changing the design and plans for delivering the new capability falls to the project manager.

• Utilisation is the use of a new or changed capability to satisfy the identified opportunity. Only when it is used can we realise the benefit. Utilisation needs to be planned, both the acceptance and transfer from the project into business as usual (or BAU) and the subsequent use within the relevant business process(es).

It is this latter element that is often lacking or poorly performed. It requires an identified and specific benefit owner. This person is not the project manager, but must work with the project if full benefits are to be realised with confidence.

The monitoring of utilisation will use the measures specified by the sponsor and may last well beyond the life of a specific project. There needs to be a body responsible for this; often it falls to a programme office.

The planned utilisation may need to adapt as the world changes, but there needs to be a steady eye on the expected results.

• The last element is Synergy and is the additional benefit derived from delivering more than one change in a way that one augments the other. This depends on both changes happening, the control of which falls outside the direct control of sponsor and project manager and needs separate oversight. This falls into programme and portfolio management where responsibility for the optimisation of total benefits rests.

Synergy by definition is not the reason to justify a capability build. If it appears to be the case then they two changes are probably merely two parts of the same change.

And at Programme/Portfolio level?

Well the same model will work, summing individual benefits, but removing any double counted
synergies.




where

PB is portfolio or programme benefits
B is a realised benefit;
S’ is an adjustment for any double counted benefit.

I have found that using language such as this is far more effective with most business managers and sponsors. By all means adapt it for your own environment.

If you are more interested in benefits and this function I gave a webinar for the Enterprise Management Association that can be found here.