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.

Due Dilligence?

Are we doing all we can to meet the needs and understanding of ITIL for our clients? I have to ask this now, after attending the itSMF Fusion event in Dallas this past week. The presentations were, in my opinion, better than previous years. We're seeing a lot of progress in applying ITIL concepts in the real world. But I am concerned that our training is not keeping pace. The reason? I overheard someone behind me in one of the sessions complaining that you can't do what the speaker was suggesting. He commented that change is not involved 'that' early in the process. Now I have no way of knowing if this individual had completed Foundations training. But I know, given the context of the topic of the presentation, this gentleman was wrong. He had a short-sighted understanding of the scope of Change Management.

Why does this concern me? As consultants, we work with customers to help them adopt ITSM concepts as documented by ITIL to drive improvement in their operations. ITIL cannot be force-fed. If our clients are not being trained properly, we, as consultants, have to deal with their lack of knowledge, lack of understanding WHILE WE'RE TRYING TO HELP THEM IMPLEMENT SERVICE MANAGEMENT! There are enough challenges in any ITSM effort without having to deal with educating our clients in the basics of Service Management as espoused by ITIL. It is both a distraction and an additional expense.

I made a point to raise this concern this past week with those leaders in ITIL who DO care. I did this simply because if one assembles a group of people to drive improvement one should expect that if those people have a specific level of qualification, they understand the basics. I recognize it is our job to help clients incorporate these concepts into a practical framework for implementation and in doing that we have to help them fully understand the key concepts. But if the basics are missing, or worse, if the basics were not addressed properly to begin with, some individuals fill the gap with their own interpretation(s). Once they integrate this in their minds, it becomes a barrier to being open and understanding the real facts. In a consulting situation it presents challenges, barriers, and possible embarrassment for the customer (imagine a workshop in which a key manager makes a statement that everyone else in the room knows is in direct conflict with the fundamental principles of a process!). It adds a level of complexity that may derail the entire service management initiative.

I find those individuals who received their certification through on-line training to have the greatest problem in understanding the concepts. They may pass the exam. But quite frankly, how valuable is the certification, really? If they don't fully understand the full scope of the concepts - an impossible expectation of on-line training - they are only making incremental progress in being good stewards of their company's processes.

One of the principles I offer to my clients is to use the same training organization for all of their training. That, at least, provides some level of assurance of consistency. In dealing with change, there are enough variable with which to contend without being concerned that "ITIL 101" is compromised.