It Never Ceases to Amaze Me

Today's rapid pace of change has aggravated the challenges of planning. Too many organizations are led by those who don't understand the importance of rolling up your sleeves and doing the hard work necessary to develop a project or product that will be successful. We are seeing it in all industries and, most recently, in education. The influence of technology has fed the illusion that there is no need to deal with the people and process elements of good education. I recently encountered a study that suggests that teaching needs to be adapted to the technology rather than the other way around. Though I haven't read the research, on the surface, this is just wrong-headed and only goes to show us how we are not leveraging technology; rather, we're letting it manage us. That's the lazy approach and is indicative of a culture that's about to relinquish its privilege of independent thought and creativity.

"Wow, that's hard work!" Yes it is. Developing process that support business objectives while, at the same time, engaging the support of those who have to live with the results, is INDEED, hard work. If were easy, anyone could do it. If it were easy, all corporations would be successful. If it were easy...well, you get the picture.

ROI - Rationalizing Our Insecurities

The way organizations look at project initiatives, one would think that no move, no investment decision, ever proceeds without a clear return-on-investment calculation. Such a calculation is then followed by the obligatory sign-off by everyone who might have something to say about how funds are spent, all to ensure alignment with organizational strategy. Is this really what is going on?

My guess, my suspicion, is it has more to do with paranoia than alignment. It has more to do with fear than leadership. Leadership sets the direction, crystallizes the vision, and rallies the resources for achievement. Return-on-investment is a necessary step but it is not, no, it should never be, the sole determinant of a go/no-go decision. Six Sigma rightfully rose in prominence because it provided a means to measure that which was thought immeasurable. The DMAIC framework provided assurance that improvement would translate to the bottom line. But Six Sigma's DMAIC approach demanded the rigor of:
1. Clearly defining the goals in objective, no-nonsense, measurable terms and,
2. Establishing a valid, valid reliable, and meaningful measurement system.

That there are no shortcuts to precision is the beauty of Six Sigma. It is successful today because it objectively and precisely addresses the paranoia that is present in many of our organizations.

Return-on-investment can be as valid and reliable if such objectivity and precision is used to identify the realized value of the effort. But too often we fall short in:
1. Clearly defining the goals in objective, no-nonsense, measurable terms and,
2. Establishing a valid, acceptable, and meaningful measurement system.

Look familiar?

ROI is no worse than any other criteria that might enter into the decision criteria. Unfortunately, ROI is used as a crutch. It is one of the necessary steps in any project plan and is too often hurried. Without the rigor of objectivity and measurement purity we see in Six Sigma, ROI may become a "check-in-a-box" of the project plan. If it is based on solely on assumptions that were uncovered in benchmarking other institutions, it has no relevance to our culture, our constraints, our challenges, and the way we execute projects.

That's when leadership comes into the picture. One has to have the courage of conviction that Service Management is going to be "the way we do business from this point forward." Can you benchmark others to see what they have accomplished with Service Management? Yes! Can you assume that what worked for them will generate the same return-on-investment for your organization?

You can only make that assumption if you can measure it. If it's the right thing to do, leadership must step up to the task of making a case for it.

Coordination of Beauty Takes Planning

Attending a concert this afternoon I was struck by the similarity between what it takes to produce a work of art and a successful improvement program, a Service Management program, or an attempt at organizational change. Just think, for a moment, about a musical work. It has a writer, composer, and an arranger. Those who play the musical score have studied their specialties be it the Flute, Oboe, Trumpet, Clarinet, or what ever the instrument might be. The artists have studied the music. They have perfected their instruments. Yet these individuals, regardless of how good they may be independently at their respective crafts, fail miserably playing together unless they have guidance: That of a conductor.

Now, the conductor has studied his or her specialty too. But they have also studied the instruments that will make up the piece. The conductor knows the musical piece and all its constituent parts thoroughly. The conductor understands all the parts of the composition, how it fits together, and how it should sound - the end state - once all the pieces perform together. The conductor understands too the intent of the composer, his or her history, and what was embodied in the fabric of the composition.

Yet, after all this, the piece is not ready to be heard. There must be rehearsals. The conductor must know the strengths and weaknesses of the artists who will perform the various parts. The conductor must coach those needing special assistance, subdue those who may be too earnest at one point or another, and encourage those who have the talent and skills but are reserved and subdued. This is important because all parts must work together or risk compromising the intended result. The conductor, seeing the system holistically, must ensure proper flow from one part of the composition to another. The timing, rhythm, and sequence of activities are critical. At all times the conductor must hold dear the end state, the intent of the piece, how it will sound, what it is intended to stir in the audience. To do this takes planning, preparation, training, practice, and character.

In our world we study formulas for success. We hear about critical success factors, risk analysis, project principles, process design, measurement, communication, service design, and control. We talk endlessly about vision, objectives, scope, sub-optimization, alignment, and variation. We have to study to understand all this. There is no denying this is important. But it must all work together.

Might it not just be easier to take an afternoon off, attend a concert? Take some time, perhaps to learn from the masters what it takes to bring individuals together to harmonize. I would challenge you to stop looking for the quick hit, silver bullet, fast track to driving improvement and acknowledge that it requires no less than the discipline exhibited by those who bring us art. There are no short cuts. If we can master that discipline, then our efforts are as worthy as those of a musician to be considered art. And our efforts will be as successful as a orchestration that moves the audience to tears.

What does flexibility really mean?

Considering the competitive environment today, companies KNOW they must be flexible and responsive, in-touch, and "on the grid" at all times. Yet it seems we have a problem achieving that. Here we are in the century Walter Cronkite hyped while I was a kid. Here in the age of instant communications, connectivity, and streaming video, we have the opportunity to leverage our own creativity to achieve the competitiveness that will differentiate us.

Yet, something gets in the way. I believe it's fear.

We put procedures in place that stifle responsiveness. We limit our creativity by ensuring we have all the "approvals" necessary to cover our butts. We can't be responsive because we have to have assurance that what we are doing has the blessing of our superiors. This attitude of minimal trust, and cover-your-backside behavior undermines customer service. It frustrates those who seek excellence.

Why does this exist?

Management has not yet learned to push decision making and authority down to the level of those who actually engage with the customer. They think they have to have the "final authority."

Let's ask why again. Why is this?

Vision, or the lack thereof. If vision is lacking, not practiced, or poorly understood, subordinates have no framework for, or context within which to make decisions. Thus, they "CANNOT BE TRUSTED" to make the right choices.

So, as to why, again let's ask...Why is there often a lack of vision?

I've always thought vision was the product of leadership. Does that mean we lack leadership? You tell me.

Quality is Still Valid

How about all this quality stuff? I am regularly asked how, or worse, "if" the essential components of quality are applicable to service. In fact, I amazed at how often clients challenge the underlying elements of quality. The usual objections falls into one of these three categories of myth:

Myth Number 1: Quality principles were born in manufacturing; they have no relevance to service.
Myth Number 2: We are different.
Myth Number 3: We tried that "quality stuff." It didn't work for us.

To this I have the following responses:

Quality is based in manufacturing; it has no relevance to service. Naturally I beg to differ. In fact, I insist on differing. I can show that the essential elements of quality are applicable to all customer-centric issues.

We are different. No you are NOT! You are no more unique, different, complex, or have any special conditions that exempt you from the benefits that can be found in the fundamental concepts of quality than anyone else, regardless of the industry or customer niche you are serving. If it makes you feel better to say you are different, great. Go ahead and say it. Just don't believe it.

We tried that quality stuff and it didn't work. You didn't do it right!

I won't go into the second two issues, but bear with me while I discuss the first point.
-The basic model of any product or service is based on understanding DEMAND which allows us to DESIGN to meet that demand, and then we put that design into PRODUCTION
-The Value Chain model of manufacturing parallels this same model.
-The IT service model, not surprisingly, follows the exact same model with slightly different terminology.
Everything comes down to customer demand, design of service or product, and production (followed by support / maintenance, etc.). By definition, quality is defined by the customer. The principles of quality are then applicable to any and all products or services that meet a customer need.

Now again, what was the objection to quality?

Consider this: Accountability and Entitlement

Given this statement on ethics... "Character — the willingness to accept responsibility for one’s own life — is the source from which self-respect springs," (Joan Didion, writer)...is it possible to conclude that, if an individual works in an environment or culture that robs them of accountability or responsibility for their life, does that also rob them of self-respect or perhaps the ability to develop self-esteem or self-respect?

Or, as a friend responded to the same question, is it the result of an environment that does not demand accountability or responsibility for ACTIONS, thus robbing them of self-respect and inhibiting the growth of self-esteem or self-respect.

Any way one looks at it, one must wonder if such permissiveness in our society has permeated business. Managers are afraid (?) to discipline. Are we really afraid to hold one another accountable for what is expected of them in their jobs? Is our culture communicating the idea that the road to prosperity is padded with shock-absorbers so, if you fall, you won't get hurt? That is NOT the way to build a business and if one does adopt this approach, it's not sustainable. It will fall apart at the first rough stretch of road. At the first sign of difficulty, the whiners emerge from the woodwork and begin the finger pointing. "It's not me; it must be YOU!

Any way one looks at it, one must wonder if permissiveness has permeated our business. Managers are afraid (?) to discipline. Are we really afraid to hold one another accountable for what is expected of us? Is our culture communicating the idea that the road to prosperity is padded with shock-absorbers so, if you fall, you won't get hurt? That is NOT the way to build a business and if one does adopt this approach, it's not sustainable. It will fall apart at the first rough stretch of road. At the first sign of difficulty, the whiners emerge from the woodwork and begin the finger pointing. "It's not me; it must be YOU!

Take a look at a recent New York Times article, "Student Expectations Seen as Causing Grade Disputes"

One HAS to wonder if this attitude is developed in the young, as a result of permissiveness, and is now impacting the very businesses that have provided the foundation of America's strength.

What does all this have to do with Service Management? Everything!

As a manager, tasked with the responsibility of making a change in the processes that make your operation work, you must be aware of this phenomenon. You have to identify all the possible elements - all the variables - that may undermine your efforts and deal with them through communications and training in which you clearly state your objectives, and, more importantly, why you are taking the organization down this new path. Ignoring the fact that we have such attitudes of entitlement will not make them go away.

If you think your organization is immune to such attitudes I encourage you to think again. Re-read the New York Times article I referenced above. Take some time to do a cultural analysis of your organization. If you find accountability is not highly regarded, is not encouraged and reinforced, you may find a lack of self-respect among some of your employees which will make the task of driving improvement ever more difficult. But at least you are aware of the the issue and can plan for such a liability as part of your implementation efforts.

Improvement is Everyone's Responsibility

I'm unhappy with what I'm seeing in this industry-the space in which I work- the industry that I CHOSE to serve - because I think it's a reflection of the sense of entitlement we are seeing in our nation. It has me concerned. My job is NOT to do FOR a client, but to show them the way so they may DO FOR THEMSELVES. Yet increasingly we are seeing a detachment from the law of physics: a failure to acknowledge that our actions today impact the results tomorrow. There seems to be a pervasive sense that one doesn't have to do anything, that one does not have to take responsibility for anything, yet by some magic, their processes and services should improve.

For some reason, many in this industry are of the opinion that it doesn't matter what they do; that someone will "bail them out" or there will always be time to "do it again". Well, there isn't. If an organization is looking to improve, it is the responsibility of EVERYONE in that company, not just the consultant, and not just the CIO, and not just the project manager. Quality is EVERYONE's business. Anything less is a waste of time, and effort. Quite frankly, anything less than universal acceptance of responsibility for our actions is useless.

Improvement is about changing the way we do things. The tentacles of change MUST reach across the organization, deep into the psyche of those essential assets, the PEOPLE, that add value in producing a product. It is in this state of entitlement that creativity, productivity, and success are stifled. There is no motivation to make the incremental improvements that, when aggregated under a focused effort, will lead to the improvement that is essential to success.

-- 

Well, We've Got To Do Something!

Our economic stimulus package is being justified by those promoting it as a measure we had to put in place because we couldn't stand idly by. Yes, something HAD to be done, but is it the right thing?

Many of today's organizations jump on the "program of the day", the favorite campaign of a new administration in organizational governance, with the same intent: "Well, it's as good as anything else. We've got to do SOMETHING".

OK, even if it's not the right thing?

There may have been a time when we could try something, stop, regroup, and then try something else. This is NOT that time. And why would we? Why do we have to learn the hard way? Today, we have countless examples of what doesn't work. But better, we have numerous case studies of what DOES! We have a framework within which we may drive improvement. We have time-tested guidance that goes beyond the "what" and directly addresses the "how".

The danger in doing "something" without thinking through the "why", "what", and "how" is the damage such reactionary, short-term actions may do to:

• Any current initiative
• The prospect of any future improvement effort
• The loss of credibility we will suffer in the process

Ask yourself, looking at the current state of the economy and the "stimulus package" do any of our representatives in Washington have any shred of credibility?

Service Management Won't Work for Us?

Many organizations do not believe common and centralized approach to processes will work for them. I find this particularly interesting. The underlying principles of ITIL and the concept of Service Management have been with us for a very long time. Prior to that, the elements expressed by the "good practices" framework were espoused in the principles of quality. The concepts are not new and, in fact, were used to manage mainframes years before the concept of distributed computing was ever developed.

Often resistance takes many forms but arises out of fear: fear of change; fear of accountability; fear of management. Regardless of the root of the resistance, it propagates unhealthy behaviors. Such behavior has the tendency to:

• Reinforce the perception that a given company is unique;
• Make individuals think their problems are unique to their business;
• Undermine the introduction of new ideas;
• Challenge the rationale of change;
• Promote activity that is incompatible with efficiency and effectiveness;
  
• Promote the sense that the road to success is an expressway.
  

Organizations that cannot come to terms with these issues will indeed struggle to be successful...but not just at implementing Service Management...they will struggle being successful in any endeavor.

Rather than focusing on all the reasons this "stuff" won't work for them, they should redirect their attention to understanding what might work and how IT Service Management can be used.

Are you Holistic?

One of the most popular terms that has emerged from the ITIL community is "holistic." Wikipedia says it is derived from the Greek word meaning "all," "entire," and "total." It's a term consultants like to throw around a lot. But let's face it, how many consultants actually believe it? Or the converse, how many companies listen to those consultants who do recommend a holistic, strategic, and program approach to IT Service Management? Consultants tend to live from gig to gig and rarely are they positioning themselves to provide holistic guidance for an ITSM implementation. Even more rarely, despite the barrage of holistic and enterprise-wide strategic planning pleas in the trade press, few companies look beyond the immediate process design project.

One might ask if one of the reasons for the initial slow adoption rates of ITIL in the United States is because of a short-term, project-by-project view of ITIL. Would the success rates be higher if the process projects were evaluated from a holistic, program perspective? Could we better quantify our success if the metrics used to evaluate our efforts were linked to the strategic goals of the organization? Would we better engage our IT folks if they understood how sitting through hours and hours of process design workshops actually supported how they, as IT people, add value to the organization as a whole?

Alignment - I couldn't have said it better...

Take a look at this article by Thomas Wailgum at CIO.com: "If IT Isn't Aligned with the Business By Now, CIOs Should Quit or Be Fired." The language is a bit harsh but the sentiment is on target. I worked for one of the best who understood this. Today, I am still amazed at the number of organizations that resist talking to their business customers and would prefer to be reactive to requests rather than responsive to business needs. The value-add is in a conceptual understanding of needs - which is realized in conversation - and providing guidance and counsel in achieving the business goals. Anything less relegates IT to the line item expense on the monthly budget statement.