Performance Perspectives

Category Archives: Change Management

Promises & Commitments- A powerful combination in driving performance excellence….

Posted on by

Promises, Commitments, and Peak Performance…

From a performance perspective, failures and breakdowns (whether they occur in operational  processes,  business negotiations, or our everyday relationships with colleagues, friends, or family) often fail for one simple reason:

“The failure to make and manage commitments effectively!”

That’s not just my opinion, but rather the opinion of many recognized “gurus” and thought leaders in the change management discipline. So much so, that “commitment based management” is now a well known and accepted approach to  managing change, and has developed what I would call a true “following of believers” within consultancies and companies who have used it effectively.

While, to many of you, this may appear to be somewhat “common sense”, it is based on a long history of research and hard work done by Fernando Flores and his colleagues over the past several decades. I’ve had the opportunity to work beside some of his students, and while I didn’t agree with everything they’ve preached, they did convince me (through a myriad of real life examples), of the enormous depth and breadth of impact deriving from this simple yet powerful concept. If you are interested in learning more about the model, and the research behind it, a little time on Google will give you more than you need. I have also included some links at the bottom this article, and would encourage you to take a look.

A simple yet powerful model for sustainable change…

There are a lot of complexities and nuances to the model, and I encourage you to take the time to understand its background, development, and evolution. As the attached articles indicate, much of it originated in Flores’ research into the intersection of linguistics, psychology, and biology: three areas only now being collectively explored outside this discipline as a highly dependent web of interrelationships and connections.

The Commitment Management Cycle as adapted by Vision Consulting (click image to enlarge)

But at its core, the model is, in fact, quite simple. It involves several aspects:

  • The transaction– Any transaction which involves commitments being made and delivered upon. This could be an interaction with a colleague, a transaction with an “actual” customer, a negotiation with a vendor, or any variant or sub-variant of the above.
  • The parties– Specifically, a customer and a performer, which I would encourage you to think about in a dynamic way. (i.e., roles can change in other transactions, or even within stages of this one).
  • The Customer’s condition of satisfaction – both tangible and intangible, with both clearly understood within the context of the transaction.
  • The 4 stages of the transaction itself- Preparation, Negotiation, Performance, and Acknowledgment of completion of the transaction.
  • The range of movements and interactions within the transaction -Manifestations of what the original research called “speech acts” – (Requests, Promises, Assessments, Assertions, and Declarations) – each manifesting themselves in the actual phases of the transaction through the words and behaviors of both the performer and customer.

Some would say I’m over-complicating a simple dynamic. But those at the core of the discipline would say I’m actually over-simplifying it. So I suspect this may actually be a fairly balanced representation, although I still encourage further reading and study to draw your own conclusions.

Nevertheless, with the right understanding, the lens that this model offers provides a very powerful view into how these transactions work, and where in fact many of them break down. While the notion of “customer and provider” roles is not new, what is unique is the range of dynamics at play and what is required to make it work.

In a nutshell, the model plays out through a series of interactions that form the basis of the commitment. It starts with an attempt to understand (though good listening and well-grounded assessments) the “customer” in the way that allows the performer to make a clear, compelling, and coherent “offer” to which the customer can either reject or accept in the form of a “request”. While this often results in an iterative conversation, one of the things that can emerge is what we’ll call “the promise”. If the promise does in fact manifest as a commitment, the process (specifically the coordination of action through conversations and behaviors) plays out until delivery is perceived, declared, and assessed.

Again, simple yet powerful in terms of applying a clear and measurable framework and specific actions to an otherwise common everyday occurrence. And it works not because we recognize the importance of commitments and the presence of this simple process, but because of a common awareness of what each phase entails in terms of key actions, required skills, necessary behaviors, and competencies that have either been absent, overlooked, or become unlearned.

The implications are significant and far reaching…

As I’ve worked within and around this model, with companies who have embraced it holistically (like many embrace Lean or Six Sigma initiatives), it has become clear to me that the tools offered by the approach have broad, sweeping implications. Here are just a few examples that point not only to the value of adopting this framework, but also the unique dynamics and behaviors at play that require significant leadership commitment and investment to instill within the organization.

  • Customer Service/CRM – This should be the most obvious and straightforward application for this methodology, since the roles of Customer and Performer are obvious from start to finish…right? Wrong. For one,  if you study the model, you will understand quickly that the roles are dynamic and change frequently “within the process”. But even without that complexity, there is the myriad of actions that occur within the transaction that many CS Organizations (performers) are simply blind to. For example, are your CSR’s aware when every time they make a “promise”? (Do they really? Be careful, as it could happen 10 times inside of one interaction!). Do they know what they are actually doing (and where in the interaction they are) when they say the words “I’m sorry”, and simply move on (see post on the “empty promise”) ? So much of this process could be improved with some simple and basic understanding of how this transaction works.
  • Leadership alignment – A major issue for many companies, and perhaps the least understood. Why? Because at its core, alignment issues are about trust. As a close colleague once told me, trust is made of 3 things: Sincerity (of the person your are making the trust assessment about), Competence (in their ability to perform in all domains of the transaction), and Reliability (your assessment of their ability to consistently deliver on promises). There are too many dynamics to explore in one short paragraph, but I think you’ll agree that working within a framework like the above would bring into focus much of what our leaders and managers are blind to (often not willfully), thus improving the overall trust and alignment of the group.
  • Managing Performance – This one may actually be the most direct application of these principles since the customer and performer are usually defined for the scope of a specific transaction. Save for team goals, they usually take place between leaders/managers  and their subordinates. And in those cases, it is a fairly straightforward negotiation. But the problem in most negotiations like this is that neither the customer nor performer play their roles very well, largely because they do not understand what their responsibilities are within the transaction. This ranges from”understanding the customer enough to make a relevant and robust offer”, to the ensuing “request”, “establishment of conditions of satisfaction”, a “promise to deliver”, the “declaration of completion”, and everything in between. I spoke yesterday to the variability in companies’ target setting effectiveness. This model would help address many of those concerns by improving clarity of roles and actions required of the parties.
  • Labor Negotiations – This is such a volatile situation for many companies that any resource used to address it has become such a specialized skill that it is almost a “self contained” problem within most organizations (critical, but viewed and resolved separately through other courses of action.) But I’ve also seen companies who have applied these skills (usually as a result of all leadership and even labor representation in the business having been taught how to operate within the framework), and their successes has been impressive. It doesn’t solve every breakdown easily, but just as with leadership alignment, these breakdowns are rooted in trust, and solving the trust problem is the fastest path to addressing the range of other barriers to a productive settlement and ongoing relationship.
  • Operational Process Improvement– I am not going to argue here about the best way to address process breakdowns or inefficiencies. I happen to be a strong advocate of tools like Lean and other supporting tools like Benchmarking, Dashboards, and other aspects of the Performance Management infrastructure. But one thing we can all agree on in “operational improvement space” is that process change requires people change, and without addressing the leadership and cultural dynamics, change will undoubtedly fail. One very powerful aspect of this model, is the degree to which it blends operational work-flow with human dynamics of managing commitments. In fact, one of the most creative and effective “process maps” I’ve seen to date did NOT include boxes, lines, and swim-lanes like we see on conventional flowcharts, but rather a series of connected “loops” like the one above, each of which spawned other “commitment loops, thus allowing the more critical human  breakdowns in alignment, trust and commitment management (often the real culprits and victims of process breakdown) to be more fully understood and addressed. Pretty powerful stuff!
  • Technology Development– Much of Flores’ early work resulted in a book called “Computers and Cognition”, and while I found that book, and his later works to be very in-depth and sometimes difficult reads, they have become like “books of the bible” for the many gurus that were born under his leadership. And so it is not hard to make some pretty clear connections between technology and software, and the implications of the above on their thinking and ongoing development. If you think about it, all the basic tenets of commitments are found in most applications we work with on a daily basis, from email and calendaring, to work planning and management systems…not to mention the plethora of implications emerging from the advent and rapid evolution of Social Media.

These are five examples for which I have either applied these principles directly (performance management systems, process change, and leadership alignment ), or seen them successfully deployed by others (formal negotiations (from unions to suppliers) and software/ technology deployment). But this list is by no means exhaustive and the approach deployed clearly has the potential to impact many other facets of business, government, and even our personal lives.

Again, my intent is certainly not to oversimplify the importance, or the manner, in which this approach can be deployed. But at the same time (at the risk of offending the true disciples of this methodology)  it’s not “brain surgery”, and it is possible to deploy with the right skills, talent, and understanding. But at the same time,  I’ve seen some companies (including some I have consulted and worked with) fail because leadership lacked the openness and receptivity required to learn, commit to, and develop the competencies required to effect the level of change possible.

Read the articles below and come to your own conclusions. If, after that, any of this strikes a real chord with you, and you want to learn more (specifically how this impacts areas like the 7 I mention above, and the degree to which they can be integrated into your existing performance management and operational improvement initiatives), send me a comment or drop me an email at bob.champagne@onvectorconsulting.com and I’ll be happy to connect you with some wonderful people who I call “the real brain surgeons” of this type of change.

HBR Article on Commitment Based Management

Fast Company article on Flores’ and his approach

Blog Post by Clarke Ching on “Conversations for Action”

Blog Post by David Arella on “Managing Commitments”

Coordination of Action: Implications on Customer Relationship Management (by Vision Consulting)

Change Management Perspective (by Vision Consulting)

There are, of course, many adaptations and improvements to Flores’ thinking that have emerged over the years, and this is just a small sample. If there are other articles you’d like me to add on this specific approach (and there are many good ones out there), just post them in the comments and I’ll be happy to reference them via an updated post.

-b

Author: Bob Champagne is Managing Partner of onVector Consulting Group, a privately held international management consulting organization specializing in the design and deployment of Performance Management tools, systems, and solutions. Bob has over 25 years of Performance Management experience and has consulted with hundreds of companies across numerous industries and geographies. Bob can be contacted at bob.champagne@onvectorconsulting.com

What a good preacher can teach us about accountability…

Posted on by

iPads, Insomnia, and Podcasts…

Sometimes, when I have trouble sleeping, I will find a good podcast or ‘sirius talk’ channel that looks interesting, and let the drone of the narrator “read me to sleep”.

I don’t know what it is about “talk radio” or short podcast subjects that do the trick for me (instead of music, for example), because some of the topics are really interesting and engaging and would keep most normal people “awake” rather then send them off to sleep. But not for me. 30 Minutes into one of these podcasts or talk shows, and I’m out like a light.

Who Knows. This phenomena probably has to do more with our childhoods, when we were “put to sleep” by our parents reading us  a good story book, than it does the level of topical ‘engagement’ of the content itself. But that’s a subject for another day, or perhaps my therapist.

Now, sometimes when you download a podcast, there is not too much background available on the host, but that usually doesn’t bother me because the vast majority of them on itunes are pretty much free. So, if it’s a bad one, so be it- it’s still usually enough to put me to sleep through the sheer value of their mindless droning. Last night could have been one of those nights.

Last night, however was about the content. I found a podcast dealing with the topic of “personal change”, something near and dear to me because so much of the consulting work I do involves cultural alignment, behavioral change and leadership skills. Invariably, all of those are in some way dependent on PERSONAL change, often of significant magnitude.

Rapture, repentance, and judgment day…

As the podcast opened,however, it was clear that I was in for a surprise. While the topic was “personal change” (which we all know can span a broad array of angles), this one had what one might call a “spiritual bent” to it, which clearly was not evident by the podcast icon and description.

Although it was not what I was expecting, I did listen on. After all, who can’t resist a little advice from a good “preacher man”!

As I am fading off to sleep amidst his messages of raptures, repentance and judgments, the word “ACCOUNTABILITY” popped out of my ear buds like a shot in the dark. And while it probably was his intention to pique my interest will all of his other words of prophetic wisdom, it was the word “accountability ” that hooked me.

Now, if God is reading this, I don’t mean to say that I didn’t internalize ALL of the other parts of the sermon. I LISTENED TO ALL OF IT!!!” It’s just that the subject of accountability is one that I have been working with many of my clients on currently, and so the mere mention of the topic grabbed my attention just A LITTLE more than the “end of days” stuff. But that was for one instant, until I returned to the rest of the sermon, at which point I paid perfect attention. (Ok- bases covered with God- check.)

What “The Preacher” says about accountability…

Good preachers have a few things in common. One, they are charismatic speakers. Two, they are usually great storytellers. And three, they have an uncanny ability to translate complex principles into very simple messages. So what was his simple message on the subject of accountability? Just tell someone!!

That’s right, tell someone. Such a simple act. Yet such powerful implications. Here was his four step process to accountability:

  • Make a decision to make a commitment
  • Set a goal
  • Write it down
  • And tell someone

Now before you conclude that it’s not that simple (and I am not suggesting it is), just think about this in various facets of your personal, spiritual and work life. Heck, think about something as simple as exercise and weight loss (yet another topic close to my heart- literally!). I know for me, the only time I take that seriously is when I do in fact ‘tell someone’. I don’t know exactly why that works, but it does. Probably, it has something to do with someone else “watching”. Or perhaps it is because you feel a commitment beyond just yourself. Whatever the reason, I find that it works.

It also works in other areas of my life. When I commit something verbally to my kids, it means more than just a superficial personal “intent”. Same with my spouse. And truth be told, as a “good Catholic” (subject to debate, I suppose), when I make a confession to a priest, I take the commitment of “doing better next time” more to heart, than if I just made that same commitment to myself in passing.

I think”writing it down” certainly helps too, since it is now part  of “recorded history”, and something you can go back to and look at. It becomes tangible.

Livin’ “The Gospel” in business!!!

Even if it’s just inside your own sandbox…

As I think about this in a business context, specifically with respect to performance improvement, it all makes sense, doesn’t it? I can’t tell you how many times those “personal change “rock-stars” (from Carnegie  to Covey) have preached these same principles in their books on ‘achieving success’, ‘positive thinking’, and the broad array of topics they wax so eloquently on. And no doubt, every consultant (including your’s truly) has developed some methodology for driving accountability and change that include these basic four steps in some way, shape, or form.

I know many of you are working on driving accountability into your business cultures, and have one point or another, been involved in that type of multi step, multi phase, “journey of change” that was no doubt complex. And for many of you, some level of reward was received from those efforts. Change management programs do work, and with good leadership commitment, can really mobilize and cement long term improvements to a results oriented and highly accountable culture across the business.

But there are other times, when a manager just wants to simply motivate an employee, change the attitude of a team member, or the shift culture within a small workgroup. But instead of moving ahead in their little “patch of turf”, they often get caught up in the narrative of “it’s all about leadership” and the inability to change things from within unless “the top dogs” are behind it. That’s unfortunate, because change can happen in small pieces if the managers of those parts of the business understand the simple behaviors required to catalyze that change.

So before you conclude that reaching an new or ambitious goal is not achievable with your current team and cultural environment, give the preacher man a chance, and try out his 4 steps. Make the commitment. Set a goal. Write it down. And tell someone.

Then come back in a few weeks and see if anything has changed. You might surprise yourself!

-b

Author: Bob Champagne is Managing Partner of onVector Consulting Group, a privately held international management consulting organization specializing in the design and deployment of Performance Management tools, systems, and solutions. Bob has over 25 years of Performance Management experience and has consulted with hundreds of companies across numerous industries and geographies. Bob can be contacted at bob.champagne@onvectorconsulting.com

“Lagniappe”- And its impact on customer satisfaction…

Posted on by

The Principle of “Lagniappe”…

Being a native of New Orleans, I have always been accustomed to the term “lagniappe”. For those of you who don’t reside in the deep south, lagniappe is a cajun term used to describe the “little bit extra” someone gives you as their way of saying “thanks” and/or expressing their gratitude and generosity.

And today being Mardi Gras in New Orleans, I can tell you, there will be a lot of “lagniappe” to go around, from extra servings of  gumbo and king cake, to the myriad of beads, cups, dabloons and  other “freebies” that are thrown to the crowds from the parade floats.

Yes, the concept of lagniappe is still quite unique and special to those who live day to day in the New Orleans culture. It is special mainly because it is so rare to see it applied these days, largely because of the many who view this concept as “over servicing the customer” and an unnecessary gesture that could hurt profitability.

Lagniappe- As seen through the eyes of  Purple Goldfish…

A few days ago, I stumbled on a twitter post by Stan Phelps that referenced the concept of lagniappe as it related to marketing and customer service. My interest was piqued for two reasons. First, it was nice to hear the term since I rarely, if ever, hear the term used outside of Louisiana. But more importantly, it reminded me of the “balancing act” that is essential when applying the “lagniappe” mentality inside a business.

On Stan’s blog, there is a  recent post relating to his “purple goldfish project”, an effort to collect the many examples of “lagniappe” experienced by their readers. And there are some great examples starting to emerge if you take the time to read through the comments and entries. What a great idea to expose those companies who do in fact understand the value of great service and going that “extra mile”! There are so many posts lately on the “bad experiences” (see my recent rant on CS storefronts), that it’s refreshing to see the other side of the coin every now and then. So I really applaud Stan for getting that project going. Great stuff.

Lagniappe versus the Almighty Dollar..

Although I am a native of New Orleans, and lived there for nearly 35 years, living in the Northeast for the last 13  has tempered my views on the topic a bit. While I still value and cherish “lagniappe” when I experience it as a customer, I am now more keenly aware what it can sometimes do to the cost side of the equation. Any time I consult to a Customer Service or Marketing Executive, I am always working to find the optimal balance where good service and profitability meet.

If we think about this balance, it’s helpful to acknowledge the two very polar ends of the spectrum that are often at play- The Customer Service and Marketing folks, who view their primary goal as Customer Satisfaction, and who will do “what it takes” to earn it. And the Finance side of the business who view every investment in CS as a highly discretionary investment that, while perhaps necessary in the long haul, will have negative impact on short term profitability.

Of course, few of us operate on either end of that spectrum. Marketing and CS Executives are rarely that pollyanna when it comes to “satisfaction at all costs” , and Finance Executives  are rarely that blind to customer dynamics.But the underlying biases are certainly there at some level. And anytime I hear discussion of going beyond a customer expectation, my “antennas” go up almost instinctively until I can see that a balance is present.

It’s all about Exceeding Expectations…Isn’t it?

Well that depends.

For starters, let’s look at what we mean by “exceeding expectations”. There are many ways to exceed expectations. We can exceed the customers expectation through the product itself. We can exceed their expectations on how the product is sold and delivered. We can exceed expectations on what happens after a complaint. The list goes on….In fact, the “Purple Goldfish” project has good examples emerging of all fronts.

However, while “exceeding expectations” on any one of those dimensions will generally score you points in short term satisfaction, it’s doing it in ALL of the zones that will generate “sustainable” levels  satisfaction and loyalty over the long haul.

For me, all of the dimensions I reference above can be summarized into two broad categories, either of which we are capable of delivering on effectively (by meeting or exceeding expectations) or poorly (by failing to deliver). These are:

  • The  PRODUCT ITSELF (or service) that is purchased- With respect to physical products, this generally deals with quality (does it work consistently without failure?). But with softer products or services, it could be the quantity provided ( for many, lagniappe is  that extra helping or side dish you get with your meal at a restaurant), or a “feature” that you’ve grown to expect in the core product (In flight entertainment, availability  and features of your bank’s ATM, Lobby services provided.)
  • The SERVICE EXPERIENCE (in terms of delivery/ and follow up support)- Here I’m referring largely HOW the service is delivered. It’s HOW you are handled by the sales, service staff, or even the automated channels when you interact with them. This could be during the sale itself, during the account set up phase, as part of a general inquiry or bill payment, or as a follow up to a complaint. For these purposes, I view service as “how the product is delivered“- before, during, and after the sale.

Winning with “lagniappe”…

As the chart below shows, a strategy to exceed expectation on any one of those dimensions, while failing to do the same on the other is a pretty quick recipe for trouble. The below chart shows the range of customer experiences (from below to above expectations) on each of these two dimensions (Product on the horizontal, and the delivery/ “Service” experience on the vertical).

Starting in the bottom left quadrant, few of us would argue that failing on both dimensions is a clear path to customer satisfaction HELL. While its a painful way to go, it’s often quick, unless you’re in a protected monopoly or some other type of “controlled market” that will prolong the agony. Assuming the product concept is good, and  it has a decent enough business model, someone may actually step in to acquire and/or turnaround the business. But short of that, the days are numbered for companies that live in this space. Utilities and  Municipal Services providers can often fall into this category because of their largely protected monopoly environment, although there are exceptions.

On the other end of the spectrum (top right) are clearly the “winners” in this game, the ones who are generating and sustaining high levels of customer satisfaction and delight. Great product. Great service. Interestingly, in more cases than not, they also have lower cost structures for servicing since good products and good first time service resolution actually results in fewer required interactions. The investment up front in product design and development of a strong service process has paid off. Apple is a great example of a company in this arena. The core product is well designed and it works without fail. It’s easy to set up, use and it rarely breaks. The service, wherever it is provided- store, call center, self help, etc…always surpasses my expectations.

(click to view full size)

And while, it’s not the “holy grail” on the chart above, operating in the cross hairs (“core players”) can actually be a pretty safe place to play. It won’t earn you much in the way of lagniappe or high levels of customer “delight”, but there is something to be said for consistently meeting both expectations ALL THE TIME. Customers value that more than we often think. Look no further than Southwest Airlines and McDonald’s for examples in this domain.

Being one dimensional often means trouble…

As with most things, failing to have a balance usually spells trouble downstream. The same is true here.

Companies in the lower right, are those who have a great product, but fail miserably on the service side. Interestingly, many of the quasi competitive utilities like Cable and Cell Providers operate in this space. Their service rarely goes out, and most of the time is truly fantastic (above expectation). But the sign up processes, inquiry resolution, and in store interactions are often pure hell. Auto companies (operating through a dealer network that varies in its performance levels) can also fall into this category.

The trouble here is threefold. First, bad service usually creates a spiral of its own spending (how many times have you had to call a second or third time to get resolution?) Second, whatever gain you got by having a great product, is at best neutralized because of the poor service. And third, given a way to get the same product somewhere else (think bad car deal experience), you’ll take it. Barriers to switch (for example, it’s not easy to mentally “uproot your TV and cable system” after you’ve gotten used to it) can certainly delay the defection. But when those barriers go away (e.g. time for a new car lease?), it’s a whole different story.

That all notwithstanding, I think the most interesting quadrant is upper left. Here lie the companies that are trying so hard, often spending out the wazoo to essentially buy their way to a desired  satisfaction level. You know the types- the incessant stream of discounts, give aways, apologies, follow ups, etc… that occur on the heals of buying a poor product or service and failing to have even your most basic expectations met. Nothing ticks me off more than someone “begging” for a survey score (sometimes overtly), knowing full well that you aren’t satisfied.  Its easy in this area for costs to spiral out of control because you’re fighting a losing battle from the start. Until the core service is delivered, the customer doesn’t (and shouldn’t) care about anything else. This is the one quadrant where lagniappe can in fact hurt more than it helps. Hotels that give me free cookies won’t earn my satisfaction if my bed is uncomfortable or my room is subpar. A happy stewardess does nothing for me if the inflight entertainment is down on a 10 hour flight. And an apology or free drink coupon does not help much if my flight is delayed because of a mechanical problem on a plane that has been sitting there overnight!

Get to the crosshairs, THEN move from there…

If I had to give advice to a company, it would be to first get to basic levels of expectations on both dimensions. Then worry about the lagniappe.

Define what your core product is. Go beyond just the basic product to all the things that customers expect about the service or product they’re buying. What’s your equivalent to the in flight entertainment system? or the TD bank coin counting machine? or the Chase check deposit feature (by capturing image on your phone)? even you’re pricing and rate structure/ plan options?  These are the things that have brought customers to you. And they must work flawlessly just to meet expectations. Introducing new features and tools will do nothing if they either dont work, or are layered onto a poorly functioning base product

Do the same for your service offering and channels. Don’t embed a new self service channel, or new IVR if your underlying process still has major flaws. There’s nothing worse than getting stuck in a 7 layer IVR system, until you recognize that the analog process wasn’t much better. These kind of things speak volumes about the nature of your underlying process and service infrastructure. Same goes for those new kiosks, mobile bill pay, social media interaction, online knowledge base’s. Nothing is more frustrating to a customer than watching a company invest oodles in technology when it consistently demonstrates little in the way of savvy when dealing with the most basic of interactions.

Once you have your baseline set in each of these areas, and get your performance to the minimum expectation for both, you can look for more and more ways to offer those “extras” that will really make a difference, while also raising the bar for your competitors.

Who wants a second helping of crap?

Look folks, lagniappe is a often a good thing, particularly when it is added to a solid buying experience.

But when it’s not , any effort you spend to provide it will at best be neutralized, and may  even cause the opposite effect. After all, who wants a second helping of a crappy meal?

Fortunately, for those who are spending Mardi Gras in New Orleans, there’s little likelihood of a crappy meal. And if you do happen to experience one, you’ll probably be to drunk to notice!

-b

Author: Bob Champagne is Managing Partner of onVector Consulting Group, a privately held international management consulting organization specializing in the design and deployment of Performance Management tools, systems, and solutions. Bob has over 25 years of Performance Management experience and has consulted with hundreds of companies across numerous industries and geographies. Bob can be contacted at bob.champagne@onvectorconsulting.com

Data, Metrics, and Information- Are we better off than we were 4 years ago?

Posted on by

Data, data…all around us…

Most of the projects I work on day in and day out involve data to varying degrees. I use data quite extensively in all of the assessments I do on organizational and operational performance. I use it heavily whenever I benchmark a company’s processes versus a comparable peer group. Data is at the very core of any target setting process. And, of course, data is (or at least should be) the beginning, and a continuous part of any gap analysis and any subsequent improvements that follows.

Today, the hunger that organizations have for good data has reached such unprecedented levels, that whole industries have developed in and around the domain of  what we now call “Business Intelligence” or BI. Having consulted to organizations over the last three decades, I’ve seen this hunger level increase steadily throughout the entire period. But no more so than in the past few years.

However, despite all the gyrations that we’ve gone through over the years, one of the first things I hear from C-Suite Executives is that they still feel  “Data rich and information poor”. So I’ll start this post off in the words of late President Ronald Regan by asking, “Are we better off or worse off than we were 4 years ago (in terms of translating data into useful and actionable information)?”

So are we better off than we were 4 years ago?

As any good politician, I would have to hedge a bit, and say yes, and no. And appropriately so I think.

We are most certainly better in our ability to “access” the data. If you’ve lived through the same decades as I have , you will remember the painstaking efforts we all made to extract data out of those proverbial “source systems” (when “SAS routines” had nothing to do with the SaaS of today). Everything from the data inside of our source systems, to the tools we use to access the data, to the ways in which we report and visualize the results has moved forward at lightening speed. And so, from that standpoint, we are, in fact, better off.

But on the other side of the coin, our tools have, in most cases, outpaced the abilities of our organizations and their leadership to truly leverage them. At a basic level, and in part because of the technology itself, we often have more data than we know what to do with (the proverbial “data overload”). Some would say that this is just a byproduct of  how wide the “data pipe” has become. And at some level, that’s hard to argue.

But I think the answer goes well beyond that.

“Data rich, information poor”…still?

In large measure, yes. The bigger issue in my view is the degree to which the organization’s skills and cultural abilities enable (or better said, disable) them to effectively utilize data in the right ways. Most companies have put such a large premium on data quality and the ability to extract it through their huge investments in IT infrastructure and financial reporting, that it has in some ways forced leadership to “take it’s eye off the ball” with respect to the way in which that data is operationalized.

So from the perspective of using the data to effect smarter operational decisions, I’d say the successes are few and far between.

Of course, you can google any of the “big 3″ IT vendors and find a myriad of testimonials about how much better their decision making processes have gotten. But look at who’s doing the speaking in the majority of cases. It is largely from the Financial and IT communities, where  the changes have been most visible. But it’s in many of these same companies where operating executives and managers still clamor for better data and deeper insights.

So while at certain levels, and in certain vertical slices of the business, the organization is becoming more satisfied with its reporting capabilities, translating that information into rich insights and good fodder for problem solving still poses a great challenge. And unfortunately, better systems, more data, and more tools will not begin to bridge that gap until we get to the heart of some deeper cultural dynamics.

Needed: A new culture of “problem solvers”

Early in my career, I was asked to follow and accept what appeared to me at the time to be a strange “mantra”: “If it ain’t broke, ASK WHY?” That sounded a little crazy to me having grown up around the similar sounding but distinctly different phrase: “If it aint’t broke, DONT fix it”.

That shift in thinking took a little getting used to, and began to work some “muscles” I hadn’t worked before. For things that were actually working well, began asking ourselves “why?”. At first, we began to see areas where best practices and lessons learned could be “exported to other areas. But over time, we quickly learned that what appeared to be well functioning processes, wasn’t so well functioning after all. We saw processes, issues, and trends that pointed to potential downstream failures. In essence, we were viewing processes that were actually broken, but appeared to be A-ok because of inefficient (albeit effective) workarounds.

“Asking why?” is a hard thing to do for processes that appears to be working well. It goes against our conventional thinking and instincts, and forces us to ask questions…LOTS of questions. And to answer those questions requires data…GOOD data. Doing this in what appeared initially to be a healthy process was at first difficult. You had to dig deeper to find the flaws and breakdowns. But by learning how to explore and diagnose an apparently strong processes, doing that in an environment of process

 

failure became second nature. In the end, we not only learned how to explore and diagnose both: The apparent “good processes”, and those that were inherently broken. And for the first time in that organization, a culture of problem solving began to take root.

Prior to that point, the organization looked at problems in a very different way. Performance areas were highlighted, and instinctively management proceeded to solve them. Symptoms were mitigated, while root causes were ignored. Instead of process breakdowns being resolved, they were merely transferred to other areas where those processes became less efficient. And what appeared to be the functioning parts of the business, were largely overlooked, even though many of them were headed for a” failure cliff”.

Indication, Analysis, and Insight

Few organizations invest in a “culture of problem solving” like the one I describe above. Even the one I reference above, deployed these techniques in a selected area where leadership was committed to creating that type of environment. But throughout industry, the investment in generating these skills, abilities and behaviors across the enterprise, pales in comparison to what is invested annually in our IT environment. And without bringing that into balance, the real value of our data universe will go largely unharvested.

There are a myriad of ways a company can address this. And some have. We can point to the icons of the quality movement for one, where cultures were shaped holistically across whole enterprises. More recently, we’ve seen both quality and efficiency (more critical to eliminating waste and driving ROI) get addressed universally within companies through their investments in the Six Sigma, and more recent Lean movements.

But if I had to define a place to start (like the business unit example I described above), I would focus on three parts of the problem solving equation, that are essential to building the bridge toward a more effective Enterprise Performance Management process.

  • Indication– We need to extend our scorecards and dashboards to begin covering more operational areas of our business. While most of us have “results oriented” scorecards that convey a good sense of how the “company” or “business unit” is doing, most have not gone past that to the degree we need to. And if we have, we’ve done it in the easier, more tangible areas (sales, production, etc). Even there however, we focus largely on result or lagging indicators versus predictive or leading metrics. And in cases where we have decent data on the latter, it is rarely ever connected and correlated with the result oriented data and metrics. How many companies have truly integrated their asset registers and failure databases with outage and plant level availability? How many have integrated call patterns and behavioral demographics with downstream sales and churn data? All of this is needed to get a real handle on where problems exist, or where they may likely arise in the future.
  • Analysis– When many companies hear the word “analysis”, they go straight to thinking about how they can better “work the data” they have. They begin by taking their scorecard down a few layers. The word “drill down” becomes synonymous with “analysis”. However, while they each are critical activities, they play very separate roles in the process. The act of “drilling down” (slicing data between plants, operating regions, time periods, etc.) will give you some good indication where problems exist. But  it is not  “real analysis” that will get you very far down the path of defining root causes and ultimately bettersolutions. And often, it’s  why we get stuck at this level. Continuous spinning of the “cube” gets you no closer to the solution unless you get there by accident. And that is certainly the long way home. Good analysis starts with good questions. It takes you into the generation of a hypothesis which you may test, change and retest several times. It more often than not takes you into collecting data that may not (and perhaps should not) reside in your scorecard and dashboard. It requires sampling events and testing your hypotheses. And it often involves modeling of causal factors and drivers. But it all starts with good questions. When we refer to “spending more time in the problem”, this is what we’re talking about. Not merely spinning the scorecard around its multiple dimensions to see what solutions “emerge”.
  • Insight– I’d like to say when you do the above two things right, insights emerge. And sometimes they do. But more often than not, insights of the type and magnitude we are looking for are usually not attainable without the third leg of this problem solving stool. Insight requires its own set of skills which revolve around creativity, innovation, and “out of the box” thinking. And while some of us think of these skills as innate, they are very much learnable. But rather than “textbook learning” (although there are some great resources on the art of innovation that can be applied here), these abilities are best learned by being facilitated through the process, watching and learning how this thought process occurs, and then working those skills yourself on real life problems.

Dont forget “line of sight”

A few days ago I wrote a post on the concept of “line of sight” integration of your performance management content and infrastructure. It’s important here to reinforce the importance of tracking all of this back to that underlying construct.

The process of operationalizing information, is but one of many in the “line of sight” chain from your company’s vision, to the operational solutions that manifest here. And this process of operationalizing change is only a beginning of the journey you will make to translating these gains into ROI for the business (what I’ve referred to before as “value capture” or “value release”).

So as you navigate your path through the above activities, its useful to keep it in context and remember that the desired end state is to enable your business to see that clear “line of sight” from the very top of the organization right down to the work-face.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

There’s not enough space in a post like this to elaborate as much as we could on each of these. And creating real cultural change clearly involves more than a few quick bullet points. But as has been my tradition in this blog, my intent is to introduce you to principles and techniques that can get you started on this journey, or increase the ability for you to navigate the road your on.

b

Author: Bob Champagne is Managing Partner of onVector Consulting Group, a privately held international management consulting organization specializing in the design and deployment of Performance Management tools, systems, and solutions. Bob has over 25 years of Performance Management experience and has consulted with hundreds of companies across numerous industries and geographies. Bob can be contacted at bob.champagne@onvectorconsulting.com

Apology Not Accepted! Beyond the empty words of a typical customer apology…

Posted on by

Sorry seems to be the hardest word…

Almost everyone, at least from my era, remembers that old song by Sir Elton John. While you may or not like his “style” of late, you’ve got to agree, the guy does make some good tunes!

But no, this is not a blog about music, or any other topic that could emanate from a reference to Sir Elton.This is actually a post about a serious condition that is infecting the culture of many businesses today. For lack of a better term, I’ll just call it “the propensity to apologize”.

We are all taught at a very early age to say “I’m sorry” any time we harmed another person. And throughout our lives, we say it often. We say it when we offend someone we like (or sometimes even those we don’t like!). We say it when we bump into someone accidentally on the street. We say it when we interrupt or treat someone inappropriately. Initially, the words “I’m sorry” had a quite literal meaning, often used after injuring or harming someone. But over time, they began to take on broader meanings, from expressing sympathy for someone’s loss to more general feelings of regret.

Real regret or “empty words”?

But like so many words that once had quite a literal meaning, the words “I’m sorry” are now used  for a wide array of purposes, and are heard repeatedly in conversations all around us. Just listen closely, and count how many times those words are spoken throughout a normal day. And while those words were once meant to “comfort” someone, they sometimes now have the opposite effect.

If you’ve ever spent time around someone in a 12 step recovery program, you know that the process of “making amends” are a big part of their journey. There is a whole body of literature on that very topic, but suffice it to say that anyone who really understands the concept of “amends”, will tell you that it goes way beyond the words “I’m sorry”. And while the spectrum of interpretation for the word “amends” can even vary widely; from the most literal definitions found in webster (“reparation or compensation for a wrong inflicted”), to a more fundamental willingness to do your part in ‘righting a wrong’, the principle remains the same. For those who take the words “I’m sorry” seriously, and who truly use them in the spirit that I believe they were intended, the words are more about ‘doing what you can to make the situation (or relationship) better’, than are about simply expressing regret or disappointment.

But today, those words seem to take on a much more shallow meaning and, more often than not, can actually have the opposite effect from “creating comfort” or “a commitment to repairing something that is broken”.

I was reminded of this when a family member told me of a recent trip he took. When sharing the details of his trip he said this to me:

“From the time I left my home until I got to my final destination, the words “I’m sorry ” were used 22 times…What the hell does that mean?”

In not one of those interactions did he feel that the words were sincere. He felt this mostly because they were expressed in such a casual manner that the “apology” appeared to him as simply a tactic used to get the customer to ‘move on’ in the process as it was designed. In other words, to him,  the expression ONLY meant that the agent (or whatever provider was saying the words) was telling him (the customer) something like this: ‘Look, I’m as inconvenienced by this as you are, but let’s face it, nothing is going to change the outcome, so lets both just move on’. Perhaps they were intended to be listened that way, or perhaps they weren’t; but they created that impression nonetheless.

There is a whole body of knowledge out there on how linguistics can generate a wide array of emotions, perceptions, and even somatic reactions in people. I won’t get into all that here, because we all know that we can be better speakers AND better listeners, and that doing so can often prevent these kind of interactions from ruining our day. So for the purposes of this post, I’m going only to focus on the “speaking” side of the equation, and perhaps a little on the culture of the organization behind the expression of the apology.

Ok, “you’re sorry”, now what?

In a business transaction,  the words “I’m sorry” are usually used after something in the transaction has gone awry- and a point at which the customer’s state of mind is, shall we say, “altered”. At this point, the customer often doesn’t give ‘one hill of beans’ about the words spoken, but instead just want the problem resolved. Sometimes that’s possible (often in more cases than not), and sometimes it isn’t. But when those words are spoken, there is often renewed “hope” (no matter how small)  that they will leave the exchange in “better shape” than when it was initiated. And when we look at it like this, that changes the game a bit.

So what would have to happen for the words “I’m sorry” to truly have a meaningful impact, and an outcome that both customer and provider felt better about?

Solving this problem is not an easy one. And it needs to involve things at the front line level in terms of the words, tone, and behavior of the person delivering them. But more importantly, it has to involve changes to the culture within which that person operates, and the way in which that culture views commitments. More specifically, the way in which commitments are made, managed, and delivered upon. After all, most if not all business transactions revolve around commitments.

There is a great body of knowledge written on the subject of “commitment management”, and I encourage you to spend some time exploring it. There are many practices that can help in this arena, all of which can be learned, shared, and embedded within the culture of your business. Some of them are referenced in my previous blogs, and I’ll make an attempt to consolidate those for you in the future.

Toward a “commitment based” culture…

But for our purposes here, let’s look at what those practices would look like in this specific example:

1. The tone and perspective from which the words were said, would come from a standpoint of “resolution” rather than that of a simple transaction. That is, there would be an intent to change something in the future, and yes, the front line rep would feel some accountability for making that happen, even if it’s simple escalation of the matter after the immediate transaction has concluded. While all of us want problems resolved in the ‘here and now’, we are certainly more “comforted” when we feel that there is an increased likelihood of a process fix, than we are when we are just serving as a ‘stopping point’ in a broken one.

2. The company and its leadership would have an effective process for seeking out (and acting on) feedback. At a minimum that means not punishing feedback, which unfortunately is what happens all too often (look to airline pilot protocols for some great practices here). But it also involves actually encouraging it, and acting on it when it comes to light. While feedback is often withheld out of fear of punishment (which there really is no excuse for in leadership these days), feedback is often withheld because the individual simply feels it will not be acted upon.

3. Acting on the feedback, and the results of fixes would become evident. Within short order, the employee would begin to see small changes in both the process and result, and would openly talk about what they were seeing. And ultimately, it would become visible to customers, little by little. And how would this happen, you ask?

4. It’s a little thing called measurement. In problem solving terms, we would call this the “M” in the DMAIC model (Define-MEASURE-analyze improve-control). It would involve an early action by leadership (perhaps initiated by front line management if necessary) to establish a baseline of the broken process, and a commitment to measuring and reporting future changes in performance. Only then will those changes have a chance of being noticed, and further improved upon.

It’s a big job, but start now!

Today, unfortunately,  the words of apology don’t even begin to scratch the surface of connoting real change. When they are spoken, they are simply an attempt by a provider to “get absolution” (in the form of a customer proceeding to the next step of the process) without having to do anything differently.

As I said in my last post, fixing a problem should start with solid leadership, as the basis for building a true “commitment based culture”. And the steps outlined above are only a glimpse of what is necessary to get there. But we can initiate change by recognizing what success looks like, and beginning to demonstrate these practices, even of they are only in the pockets of the business in which we reside and/or lead.

Next time you hear, or say the words “I’m sorry”...think bigger. Think less about it being a regretful end to a transaction, and more about it as a renewed commitment to excellence in delivery.

b

Author: Bob Champagne is Managing Partner of onVector Consulting Group, a privately held international management consulting organization specializing in the design and deployment of Performance Management tools, systems, and solutions. Bob has over 25 years of Performance Management experience and has consulted with hundreds of companies across numerous industries and geographies. Bob can be contacted at bob.champagne@onvectorconsulting.com