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.

Operations Measures

Recently I was asked a question about a performance metric one might use to measure the performance of a NOC. Before responding I contacted my "personal network” of data center experts. This is a group I worked with in previous worlds all of whom have built data centers from the ground up. In the exchanges that ensued, all of us agreed on one fact: Everything really comes down to how one performs against the SLA as well as efficiency and effectiveness.

However, I have never been one to tie everything to a single metric without giving it some thought. There is a need for a balanced set of metrics; not just one. The real issue is to decide...
1. What is important?
2. Can we measure it?

Importance - What Is Important to the Company?
What ever metric we come up with we should think first about what is valued by the company. This presents an opportunity and it should be looked upon as just that: An opportunity to get some buy-in by management. Get them involved! Facilitate an exercise to agree how what we do in the NOC can impact the organization's strategy. Use this discussion to prioritize what is important to the company and to highlight those things over which you have no control! Management may never have given thought to the importance of measuring what is, essentially, their strategy. At the least they should recognize the value of aligning what is important to you with what is important to them and measuring that in some meaningful way. As a seed to what might be important, consider some of the issues that are typically important to management such as projects focused on the direction of the company, the company goals, strategy, and plans, or improvement efforts either internally with processes and internal transactions or externally with customers. And of course there is always interest in the improvement of the cost/value ratio.

Capability - Can We Measure It?
The relevant question is whether you have the capability, tools, and controls in place to measure. Most organizations struggle at this point. They are caught in a "rock and a 'hard case'" between measuring "what they can measure because they can" and measuring the wrong thing because the metric is there: convenient and available. While you don't want to measure the wrong thing, you also need to balance the investment required to measure the right thing. Rest assured that if there is some activity or transaction, there IS a way to measure it. But the rule that applies here is the K.I.S.S. principle. Just keep it simple for now. As your internal processes mature and your capability increases, you can always change the metric later. But don't get yourself in a situation where you have to measure something that is not measurable ("saved jobs" comes to mind) or a metric that requires labor and costs that exceed the value of the measure.

Other Considerations
A single metric is not ideal. One metric, taken in isolation, may reflect a bias or be based on a systemic fault that is not detectable in just one number. This could lead to decisions that are based on invalid assumptions. I would also have the following concerns:

1. We have already evaluated what we can measure. But are we sure we are measuring what we think we are? Challenge the metric and see if it answers the question(s) you are asking. Determine if this metric tells you or the target audience what they need to know to take action.

2. Are we sure our internal staff, who may become aware of how they are being evaluated or how they personally will be compensated, cannot distort the data? An astute NOC manager, engineer, or administrator can easily game the system to favor desirable measures.

3. If our metric is aligned with growth, what controls do we have over the sales cycle and growth? We need to think of what we are measuring in context of the system within which we operate.

Balance In Context of a Capacity Plan
For all of these reasons I would favor a critical few set of metrics balanced across the four domains (financial, internal, customer, L&G) that many will recognize as Kaplan and Norton's Balanced Scorecard. You may think of any number of measures:

• Improved time to market (getting the customer up and running)
• Costs balanced with growth and business need*
  
• Asset utilization balanced against spend*
  
• Ratio of staff to transaction volume*
• Revenue or profit growth versus investment in the data center*
• Capital preservation*
  
• Reduction in cost of operations (cost reduction over time indexed against customer or transaction volume)*
• Cost-effective delivery of service
• Revenue/ sq. ft.*
• Renewed contracts/repeat business

These may come together under four high-level domains. Essentially, whatever we come up with to evaluate performance should incorporate measures balanced across these four domains:

1. Financial - cost, savings, efficiency, capital preservation, asset utilization
   
2. Internal - effectiveness, total number of proactive actions or corrective actions
   
3. Customer - response time, customer satisfaction, SLA performance, trend analysis to prevent re-occurrence
   
4. Learning and Growth - staff certifications, staff retention, goals alignment
   

The asterisked measures in the above list might be identified in a capacity plan. In its fully developed state, a capacity plan is the STRATEGY of the organization – what’s important to management and/or ownership. Most successful organizations want to measure what is important to them. In turn, you want to tie the metric that is used to evaluate the NOC to something over which you have some control. And, if things change such as business direction, resistance to fund an initiative, recession, etc., you want to have a means to identify that variable early. The capacity plan does just that. It allows you to get agreement on what is important and gives you the control over how to measure the strategy.

The capacity plan outlines the current state, prospects for future state, and the recommendations and plans to meet the prospects for the future. This would allow one to work closely with the company management, ownership and sales force to measure how "the company" performs against the plan. Since, by definition, a strategy has to be signed off by senior management, it represents the stated goals of the organization and buy-in of all running the company. A capacity plan has to include both LEADING and LAGGING indicators. A policy to review regularly, would ensure the capacity plan was evergreen and your group's performance was aligned with the business conditions. If leading indicators suggest an issue, an adjustment is made to the plan.

In Summary
Whether a capacity plan is used or not, if a single metric is required, consider building a matrix of multiple functional measurement elements:

1. Agreed and documented responsibilities in NOC
2. Metric associated with each of those responsibilities – how they are being measured – if they can’t be measured, then they don’t go into this first round
3. Add a weight to the responsibilities based on importance to the organization (you’ll still need to get agreement here just as you would have for the capacity plan)
4. Do the math and come up with a score
   

Finally, I would revisit the metric(s) at least annually (if not more frequently - perhaps quarterly if the organization is young and undergoing dynamic changes) as your capability to measure will have improved, metrics may have evolved, and the company values may have shifted.

Paralyzed by Procedures

We often work with clients who have documentation in place. Of course, more often, we work with clients who DON'T! That aside, though, those who may have documentation, procedures documented in support of their processes, often wonder why, after all the investment in documentation, things still don't work. There are a lot of reasons for this but, simply said, just writing down your procedures will not guarantee a smooth running infrastructure. Questions we have to ask include:

1. Have you considered the hierarchical "Policy-Process-Procedure" model whereby they support a higher, overall, more holistic objective or goal?
2. Are your procedure truly written in support of the process?
3. Have you considered the interdependencies and interfaces between your processes and procedures?
4. Do you have buy-in for the processes?
5. Is your documentation formally published in a common and controlled repository, under version control and change management, and available to all those who need visibility?
6. Do you have defined process owners with authority to monitor, manage, and improve their processes?
7. Is there a chance your procedures are driven by the tool selected for automation rather than the process itself?
8. Have your procedures been tested?
9. Can you measure the performance of your processes and procedures and is there a feedback loop to drive improvement?
10. Do you encourage compliance to process and procedures?

Think about these questions in the context of the procedures our TSA personnel use at the airport security checkpoints. Here we have very well defined procedures ranging from what liquids you can pack in carry-on, the ID check, and the "stuff" one needs to put on the X-ray belt. However, ask yourself this one question: "Are we simply executing to the 'letter of the law (defined procedure)' to the exclusion of the objective of these procedures?"

I would submit that the procedures used by TSA actually get in the way of the overriding objective. If you have been through a European security check lately, you'll know exactly what I'm saying. While they have these procedures too, they haven't lost sight of the overall objective. They see the procedures as one component - critical component indeed - but just one component of an overall system designed to achieve an objective.

Put your processes to this test: "Do our processes and procedures effectively serve the overall objective?"

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?

Cost of Quality

What is the cost of quality? Six Sigma asks this question from a different angle. What is the cost of poor quality? If you're in information technology and just need an acronym, that's COPQ!

So let's answer that question. What is the COPQ (Cost of Poor Quality)? A major manufacturer which, for the past three years has been outperforming the market, just reported earnings at less than half what market analysts had been expecting. Needless to say, the days of "outperform" are over...for now at least. OK, so that's the cost. Now, what about the quality side of the equation?

Well, this company is citing "higher warranty liabilities" on its products. Why do we have higher warranty liabilities? The company goes on to describe higher repair costs have impacted warranty costs. OK, so why higher repair costs? Well, we could go on and on, asking "why" five times to get to the root, but I think you get the point.

Now, let's consider a solution that approaches this from the top-down.
1. First we want to understand the market we wish to serve. Obviously this company has done just that. Then, let's target that market with a product that will meet the needs of this market we've identified, and let's come up with product characteristics and requirements that will allow us to compete profitably while differentiating ourselves from our competition.
2. Now let's translate those requirements into technical specifications so we can design a product that meets the market segment we want to serve. We want to design this product with:
a. Clarity around how we will manufacture this product economically while still meeting the specifications we developed and...
b. An understanding of how we will produce the product so we can meet the quality specifications while controlling costs.
c. Quality designed-in so we can economically support this product in the market place once it is in production and distributed.
3. With clear strategy (Step 1) and and eye to quality requirements (Step 2), we can now transition the product into production. If steps one and two were done properly, transition into production should be relatively straightforward as long as we thought about the risks that may arise as during transition.
4. Finally, we have a well-designed product, with clear specifications of designed-in quality, and the foresight that included risks of production. If stages one, two, and three were done properly, we can now rest assured stage four, operation, will have few surprises for us. We can be certain that the product will operate as expected because we designed this product with the end-in-mind within cost and quality requirements to meet the demands of the market we elected to serve at a reasonable profit level.

Hmmm, what a concept. Not a new idea...this has been with us for over 75 years.

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.

-- 

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.

Not Every Organization Will Be Successful

I am constantly amazed by the number of organizations that operate with the belief that adopting this or that methodology or complying with a given standard or framework will make all their dreams come true and their problems go. There are a number of reasons not every organization that starts down the ITIL path is going to be successful. And those reasons go back to one of the quality gurus of the 40's and 50's. For your consideration I present the reasons in no particular order:

• Adopting a process framework requires change. An organization that is not open to change cannot be successful in adopting a standard or framework.
• Decisions require facts. Assumptions, soft figures, guesses, and "from the gut" intuition have no place in decision-making.
• Changing one element of a business process impacts other elements. Think of a water balloon. You cannot push down on one side of a balloon filled with water without displacing water elsewhere in the balloon and altering the shape and functionality of the balloon in general.
• The concept of constraints as they impact a system is very closely related to the above point. Regardless of where one may be in an organization, providing a service or fulfilling support, all individuals operate within a system. Ignorance of the reality of a system is just naive. One process, one individual, or one team can only be as good as the constraints placed on it by the system.
  
• Leadership, though vital to the successful adoption of any process framework, is not sufficient. Motivation for improvement must be integrated into the overall program and ultimately the fiber of the organization.
  
• Maintaining focus, momentum, and energy throughout an improvement program requires clarity. Clarity as to why we're doing this. Clarity as to what this means to me. Clarity as to how what I do today impacts the overall organization.
  
• Measurement is essential. You've heard the adage, now excessively over used. You can't improve what you cannot...what...?
• Uncertainty must be eliminated! How is it possible to eliminate uncertainty? And what uncertainty are you talking about? Process owners must feel they are working in a culture that is open to change, willing to support the entrepreneurial spirit, and will not condemn those who are working with a sincere commitment to the organizational objectives.
• Process owners must believe in and trust management. Sorry management. If your people do not trust and believe you, their efforts will lack heart and commitment. They will always be looking over their shoulder rather than forward.

Of Hoar Frost and Opportunity

I'm waking here as the lite fog of the overnight is beginning to dissipate leaving behind a subtle frost on the trees and brown high grasses. Such frosty mornings remind me of the fleeting opportunities I chased to capture the perfect photograph of crystal encrusted forests. Seizing these moments of beauty, one walks a fine line between just the right, contrasting light of the low morning sun and the impact that light has on the crystals of ice. A photographer has but a few moments to capture the ice castles in the forests before the energy of the sun begins to melt the scene.

Similarly, the agent of change has but a few opportunities to capture and communicate success of a transformation initiative. Management, quite rightly I might add, has limited patience for efforts that either fail to effectively communicate success or fail to demonstrate any results at all. As the sun brings into focus the delicate prisms of light in a frost-encrusted forest, management should bring the light of the organizational goals to a transformation project. Miss that narrow window of opportunity to communicate value or demonstrate success and you'll have to face the prospect of your hard work melting away under the purifying scrutiny of high expectations and results-oriented criteria.

$50 Billion Will Fix It

It's really difficult to look at world events passively. Any one who has ever run a project or driven improvement in an organization will see similarities and will have an opinion. As much as I hate to breach the subject of politics, there is a great deal for service managers and executives to learn from current events. The news media this morning is carrying a story about Hillary Clinton who signed a pledge for the next president to commit $50 billion to address the world wide problem of AIDS ( Clinton Signs AIDS Financing Pledge ). To be clear, I am not advocating one political party over another nor am I against eradicating AIDS. I am, however, very concerned that the good and reasonable knowledge we have learned about corporate and enterprise change and improvement is not being applied to decision making that potentially impacts our taxes, health or our standing in the world.

Several facts about the above article in the New York Times caught my attention:

• Ms. Clinton may have signed the pledge reactively or defensively to avoid a demonstration by activists in Philadelphia;
• The Clinton campaign released a statement that Ms. Clinton will be providing a formal AIDS policy that she will release in the "near future;"
• Candidate Bill Richardson signed the pledge;
  
• Candidates John Edwards and Barack Obama did not sign the pledge but do have AIDS plans which align with some of the pledge goals.

Let's apply these observations to an enterprise-wide improvement project. Ask any project manager which is best: to set the scope, objectives and goals first, gather the facts, design the key elements of a project plan and then seek funding to support the project's objectives, or to set a target budget first and then figure out how to "spend the money."

Put another way, which is likely to be more successful: a project plan with clear goals and objectives that seeks appropriate funding to support those objectives or a funding target that seeks a plan? In my experience, throwing money at a problem only creates more problems. This is particularly evident when we give in to political expediency to deal with complex issues.

Fable for Our Times...

The following was forwarded to me from an unknown source by my friend Mark (thanks Mark!). It captures the essence of the dilemma burdening our culture.

A Fable for Our Times

A Japanese company (Toyota) and an American company (General Motors)
decided to have a canoe race on the Missouri River. Both teams practiced
long and hard to reach their peak performance before the race.

On the big day, the Japanese won by a mile.

The Americans, very discouraged and depressed, decided to investigate
the reason for the crushing defeat. A management team made up of senior
management was formed to investigate and recommend appropriate action.
Their conclusion was the Japanese had 8 people rowing and 1 person
steering, while the American team had 8 people steering and 1 person
rowing.

Feeling a deeper study was in order, American management hired a
consulting company and paid them a large amount of money for a second
opinion. They advised, of course, that too many people were steering the
boat, while not enough people were rowing.

Not sure of how to utilize that information, but wanting to prevent
another loss to the Japanese, the rowing team's management structure was
totally reorganized to 4 steering supervisors, 3 area steering
superintendents and 1 assistant superintendent steering manager. They
also implemented a new performance system that would give the 1 person
rowing the boat greater incentive to work harder. It was called the
'Rowing Team Quality First Program,' with meetings, dinners and free
pens and a certificate of completion for the rower. There was discussion
of getting new paddles, canoes and other equipment, extra vacation days
for practices and bonuses.
The next year the Japanese won by two miles.

Humiliated, the American management laid off the rower (a reduction in
workforce) for poor performance, halted development of a new canoe, sold
the paddles, and canceled all capital investments for new equipment. The
money saved was distributed to the Senior Executives as bonuses and the
next year's racing team was "out-sourced" to India ...

Sadly, the End.

However, sad, but oh so true! Here's something else to think about:
Ford has spent the last thirty years moving all its factories out of the
US, claiming they can't make money paying American wages. Toyota has
spent the last thirty years building more than a dozen plants inside the
US

The last quarter's results:

Toyota makes 4 billion in profits while Ford racked up 9 billion in
losses. Ford folks are still scratching their heads.

Comment:
In the training and orientations I do for our clients I typically introduce the Toyota Production System as a tangible and real-world example of practical, applied efficiency improvement that has yielded bottom-line results. I then present the irony...TPS is based on the Deming improvement methodology (Deming Method). Edwards Deming was an American statistician sent to Japan under the Marshall Plan after WWII to help them rebuild the Japanese economy. Prior to going to Japan he approached the Big 3 but was rebuffed: "We don't need no stinkin' quality; we've got market share." Today, Toyota has the lowest defect rate per 100 vehicles manufactured among the major automotive manufacturers, has replaced Ford as number two in sales volume and is on track to displace Chevy as the single best selling brand in the United States. As to R&D: they're positioned to dominate NASCAR, an American tradition, in the next two years. Toyota listened, the Big 3 didn't.

These basic principles of quality, the underlying principles, such as efficiency, fact-based decision making, lean manufacturing and management accountability have been around since the 30's and 40's. Interestingly, of Deming's famous 14 Points concerning quality, half of them identify management responsibilities (or point to management's negligence) as critical factors in quality systems. In Deming's day, as today, corporations were blaming the production worker for defects when, in fact, in most cases it was the system within which the production worker operated. The production worker has no control over the system. Only management can change that.