Friday, October 5, 2007

Imperfect People: Can Information Dashboards Help?

I started my career reading "In Search of Excellence" and "Reengineering the Corporation) - believing that all problems in organizations were the result of good people stuck in bad systems. I believed that re-engineered processes, good strategy, and even good BI was the solution to all ills.

Imagine my surprise and disenchantment when I discovered that organizations are actually limited by the psychosis of their inhabitants. Fear, greed, jealousy, self-satisfied superiority, self-doubt and uncertainty cannot be overcome by "good systems".

The common feature of all of these human attributes is that they are defense mechanisms designed to protect us from hurt. What if I lose my job? What if my colleague gets promoted and I don't? I could be more effective if only I weren't surrounded by idiots!

And these attributes have two unsatisfactory outcomes:
  • they encourage us to avoid reality - to refuse to see things as they really are
  • they prevent us from having healthy honest and fully open dialogs with our colleagues
A mature organization is one in which people have found themselves able to move beyond these issues, and address problems and opportunities as they are. The have the personal strength and fortitude to accept the truth, even if it hurts them.

Information Dashboards designed by fearful people will make the situation worse. However, those designed by mature people who are passionate about the truth even to the perceived detriment of their own careers in the short-term have promise to help others reach that level of maturity.

A mature manager can move to improve the maturity of her team. But a mature analyst can move to improve the maturity of executives far above.

As a junior analyst many years ago, I wrote a report setting out a strategy for the organization I was in, and using that strategy to inform the development of "MIS statistics" - what would now be called BI. My boss - a strong willed person who was afraid spent a morning reaming me out for overstepping my role. I've never been good with confrontation, but I stood my ground. My passion for truth outweighed my fear about losing my job. Fortunately, her boss agreed with me, and the result was a very happy story.

No matter where you work, or what your title is, I encourage you to have courage, take a risk, and do what is right for your organization today.
Add to: | del.cio.us | digg


Information Dashboard Success

Wednesday, October 3, 2007

Building a Better Information Dashboard

It's a sad truth that Information Dashboard projects frequently fail or get killed.

I've written a quick note to explain the reasons why and offer three essential steps you can take to build a better Information Dashboard in your organization:
Building a Better Information Dashboard

Add to: | del.cio.us | digg
Information Dashboard Success

Thursday, September 27, 2007

Logistics and Supply Chain Dashboard

Blue Sky Logistics offers a dashboard that gives insight into the logistics and suppy chain function.



The prominence of "Alerts" here is interesting - as I have observed elsewhere however, alerts should be qualitative information entered by humans. If machine generated, they can typically be represented in a different form - perhaps with traffic lights or other indicators of urgency.

Cash-to-cash is an important thing to measure regionally - I wonder how they would manage a very deep hierarchy of regions.

For order fullfillment cycle time, I would tend to use a bullet chart if horizontal display is desired. To my eye, its difficult to translate the bars into their meaning - another possibility would be to display them as columns. I find the Return on Supply Chain fixed assets column chart easier to read than the order fullfillment bar chart.

Hopefully, there are options to display periods with better labels than "1,2,3,4,5" on the perfect order fullfillment chart. I also want to see this broken out by facility etc. Sparklines?

Add to: | del.cio.us | digg

Information Dashboard Success

Monday, September 24, 2007

Real-estate CRM Dashboard

I came across Bluetree Direct today. They show a nice little CRM system for Real-estate agents. The dashboard portion of the product appears to have been created using xCelsius.I find it interesting how XCelsius dashboards show so much better in an interactive demo than in a screen grab. The engagement really seems to be about the animation of the charts - as a report writer, XCelsius is only average.

There is actually not much to like in this dashboard. Clicking on the "Source" pie chart likely changes the data shown in the other three charts, but this will cause you to have to remember the Email results in order to compare with the Direct Mail results which is what you want to compare. It would be much better to offer a view in which deal size, sales status and other information can be compared across the marketing "channels".

I do like Bluetree's full range service, including graphical template selection, automatic printing and direct mail along with email and other forms of marketing at the click of a mouse. The dashboard could use a bit of work.

Add to: | del.cio.us | digg

Information Dashboard Success

Thursday, September 20, 2007

Dashboard: Rear-view mirror or Heads Up Display?

Chris Carren who hails from Business Objects and is now general manager of Microsoft's Office Business Applications division (interesting in its own right) released an interview yesterday concerning Microsoft PerformancePoint. He says:

There's also been a huge evolution in how customers want to think about business intelligence. They are showing an eagerness to move away from the traditional methods of sharing information, like sending reports out via e-mail that capture what transpired the previous quarter or reporting period. Instead, they want a metric-centric view via a Web-based scorecard or dashboard that focuses more on what's happening now, and even more importantly, what likely will happen next week or next month.
That last sentence is interesting. Although predictive analytics firms have been around for years, they have achieved little penetration into the mainstream market. Witness Cognos's acquistion of a product "Forethought" about 7 or 8 years ago that was promptly buried.

Today, I think Chris is right on the money due to a few key shifts in the market.
  1. The demand for forecasting and enterprise planning solutions has picked up in recent years, as people try to move off spreadsheets and into something more integrated, accurate and controllable. Sarbanes-Oxley contributes to this among other things.
  2. Increased focus on data-based decision making. While many organizations do still struggle to get accurate data, a substantial number now have this under control and business intelligence is part of their management process.
  3. The "Competing on Analytics" trend is just beginning to take off. Companies are starting to realize the power of statistical analysis, experimental design and forecasting to improve their business results.
As the "quants" get involved, SAS and SPSS get a big push. But amateur quants also need tools - hence Excel 2007 SP2 in which users can run the data mining features of SQL Server Analysis Services 2005 from their desktops.

I first heard the phrase "driving by looking in the rear-view mirror" in one of the early Balanced Scorecard books. Kaplan and Norton used this as an analogy for managing your business by looking at past financial results only. They encouraged organizations to seek "leading indicators" that would drive future financial results.

Still, scorecards and dashboards typically only display the past, even if they include leading indicators. What Chris is talking about (and Thomas Davenport for that matter), is using the past to statistically predict the future, and display that on the dashboard.

I'm not sure dashboard is quite the right image for this trend. Instead, I think about the heads-up display. Managers are razor focused on the airspace ahead, with analytical and predictive information thrown up on the windscreen. A warning light indicates something bad might happen. A predictive chart validates whether the executive intuition matches historical projections. All in real-time with reaction times down to the hair trigger.

Compare that picture to the stodgy data warehouse and BI departments and vendors that litter our corporate battle field...


Add to: | del.cio.us | digg

Information Dashboard Success

Wednesday, September 19, 2007

XCelsius: Eye Candy for BO

I had the opportunity to sit through a Business Objects sales presentation earlier today. Here are a few things that surprised me:

First, I had missed the significance of their acquisitions in the data quality and ETL space. They now claim to be competitive with Ascential and Informatica for ETL, and to have acquired the number 2 player in data cleansing. I have no idea if this actually works on the ground - whether the products integrate, whether they are as good as they say, or whether BO actually knows anything about these areas. However, it does make for a compelling sales pitch.

Text analytics is an area I had heard they were making a foray into. The sales rep pushed that hard and talked about the capability to generate automatic reports containing structured and unstructured information. Again, no show - just tell, so I don't know how much is smoke.

XCelsius is a sexy product, though I have numerous concerns about it as an effective dashboard or analytical tool. I should not have been surprised that BO sales is leading 100% of their demos with it. They surf over the data architecture issues, and spend all their time showing the "interactive" Flash dials, charts etc. I couldn't believe they showed almost nothing else in their suite in a 1 hour demo!

Desktop widgets are cool. Essentially they can put any BO content into a desktop widget, which can then occupy portions of the user's desktop with updates in real-time. I had considered doing this with Google Desktop, but don't think they have much corporate penetration. BO's offering is again the kind of eye-candy that account execs can use to overturn any kind of real objections and get buyers emotionally involved.

Information Dashboard Success

Add to: | del.cio.us | digg

Tuesday, September 18, 2007

Information Dashboards for Collaboration

Information Dashboards are typically thought of as individual productivity tools. Stephen Few's popular definition of a dashboard implies this:

A dashboard is a visual display of the most important
information needed to achieve one or more objectives;
consolidated and arranged on a single screen so the
information can be monitored at a glance.

(from Dashboard Confusion Revisited)

But the real value of a dashboard is the change in the nature and quality of collaborative interactions that occur betwen managers and executives as a result.

Many executive meetings are spent in useless poltical squabbles over who has the correct data. An information dashboard which all agree contains the "single definition of the truth" ends this unproductive conversation, and allows a new and more useful conversation to develop.

Initially, the broad availability of data (even for detailed performance of other organizational units) can cause some fear and push-back. Yet when all agree to "see the world the way it is and not as they wish it would be", they become able to contribute their creativity as a team to improving the whole organization, and not just their individual silos.

The upshot of open collaboration around a trusted single source of data is that organizations can learn faster about what works and what doesn't work. Each action in a remote organizational unit can be considered an experiment - if it works, it can quickly be deployed to the rest of the organization instead of being blocked by parochial leaders looking to advance their own careers. If a failure occurs in one part of the organization, the diagnosed cause can ensure that it doesn't occur anywhere else.

Information Dashboard Success
Add to: | del.cio.us | digg

Monday, September 17, 2007

2 x 2 Charts for Vendors, Pipeline and Time Management

A 2x2 chart is an xy graph which is divided into 4 quadrants. Usually data points in the upper right quadrant are designated "good", while the others are some variant of "bad". Here's an example: The Gartner Magic Quadrant (from MediaProducts.gartner.com)
This is actually a useful view for certain Information Dashboard requirements. For example - it can be a useful way to look at the sales pipeline. Instead of just looking at probability of close, or dollar value, you can see both for each prospect. Those in the upper right deserve more focus than those in the lower left.

Stephen Covey used one of these charts many years ago in his time management system (see it here), arraying urgent tasks against important tasks. In this case, the idea was to make time for important non-urgent tasks. What a fabulous idea for all of us to be frequently reminded of...

Information Dashboard Success

Add to: | del.cio.us | digg

Sunday, September 16, 2007

7 Sins of Dashboarding

Here's the list - don't ever do them:
  1. Use gauges
  2. Use pie charts
  3. Use trend arrows
  4. Sort metrics based on status (e.g. traffic light color)
  5. Use radar charts
  6. Use bubble graphs (where the size of the bubble matters)
  7. Increase data pixel to non-data pixel ratio without a clear understanding of the "story" being expressed by the dashboard
More on this in the book: Information Dashboard Success

Thursday, September 13, 2007

BI Market grows by 11.5%

IDC reports that the BI market grew to $6.25 billion in 2006, with ongoing consolidation among vendors.

http://www.sas.com/news/analysts/idc_bi_0607.pdf

Interestingly, IDC concludes that the marketing messages used by BI vendors are failing to increase the size of the market.

IDC says that interest in advanced analytics (see Competing on Analytics) is growing, despite the fact that analytics as a share of BI revenue has actually dropped from 20.5 to 19.9 over the past 3 years.

Floyd
Author: Information Dashboard Success

Monday, July 9, 2007

Reinventing myself

Not been active as late - changes in my business afoot. For the moment, I am marketing myself only as a Cognos Metric Studio expert (obviously with other Cognos and BI strategy capabilities). This allows me to develop other parts of my business offline - you'll see more about this later.

For now, if you are interested in help on the Cognos toolset, please don't hesitate to give me a call.

Again: http://colperf.com

Cheers,
Floyd

Monday, February 5, 2007

Here's a blast from the past - Learning to Reperceive by Katherine Hammer of Fast Company. Her deeply personal examples aside, the essential message is an important one. You and each of your management team have a set of perceptions about the world, about each other, and about your organization and its performance.

I once heard about a leadership appraisal survey which contained the question "Does my leader speak with a loud authoritative voice?" - as if that had anything to do with the leader's performance. This may be an extreme example, but in a complex environment it becomes incredibly easy for your view of organizational performance to be coloured by your perception of the individuals responsible.

Katherine's point is that we need to constantly challenge our perceptions, and be courageous enough to "question your inherent assumptions and strive for a realization that may change your belief systems in a substantive way".

Undertaken constructively, a planning, forecasting and monitoring loop can facilitate this kind of inquiry on a monthly basis. Which KPI's actually reflect the important stuff about your business? What results are surprising? Why is this traffic light green, while another related one is red? Is the best dressed executive actually delivering the best results?

The power of this process is substantial, and Collaborative Performance can help. Call us today.

Saturday, February 3, 2007

Tom Peters on Talent

I just happened across this post on Tom Peters' blog In it Tom expounds the virtue of talent, and decries the exclusionist way in which we select top leaders - those from a few "top schools" with the "right backgrounds" and "right connections".

It makes me wonder, just how much talent is locked up in your organization - hidden within the silos of secrecy and dysfunction? How may stars are hidden beneath managers who are afraid to let their subordinates shine? What is the cost to your company, and our economy as a whole when the best and brightest are buried?

Managers in organizations with open and trusting cultures are not afraid of taking a chance or facing reality (to use Jack Welch's phrase). It takes both combined with a good deal of personal maturity to put someone untried on centre stage, or promote someone past yourself. But these kinds of actions are often exactly what is required - resisting that reality by putting your head in the sand only damages the organization and yourself in the long run.

Collaborative Performance is about helping you and your management team develop this kind of maturity and courage. Are you ready for the challenge?



Friday, February 2, 2007

Collaboration: The New Competitive Imperative

Over the past two decades, managers have extracted enormous gains in productivity by re-engineering and improving the efficiency of transactional activities in their organizations. Order processing, supply management, production and other routine activities have been optimized, with a resulting decrease in the number of workers in these categories. And these are the activities that are most easily deployed to geographies with lower labour costs.

Just recently, I did a mailing to about 100 contacts, and needed addresses scraped from the web and put into Excel. It took me about 20 minutes to go to odesk, hire an excellent data entry person in the Ukraine for $6/hr and get the work done there. Unbelievably convenient.

As more and more of our workers move from repetitive transactional activities to those which require judgement, creativity and "high bandwidth" communication, the new challenge is to improve the effectiveness of things that can't be done by machine. How can we improve the productivity of sales people, marketing managers, lawyers and others?

The first step is to get the right information in front of them. Consider the value of getting the right data in the right form at the right time in front of a trader working for an investment bank. A one second delay, an incorrect number, or data presented such that the trader cannot easily find what he is looking for could cost hundreds of millions of dollars!

So lets transfer that metaphor to salespeople, doctors, marketers etc. The promise of CRM is that a salesperson can turn their attention to a particular account and quickly get access to every bit of information about that customer. How well is that working today? Better than before, but lots of room for improvement would be my summary. Suppose that in addition to previous orders, previous conversations, names of the customer's kids and birthdays we could show industry news, trends, information about related companies etc so that the salesperson can anticipate customer needs before a sales call. This is about listening carefully to the customer before having a meeting.

Still, this approach is much like former efforts to re-engineer and improve the effectiveness of transactional activities. The real opportunity is in recognizing that what happens between the customer and the salesperson is really collaboration. How can we make this collaboration more effective?

There are those who profit by hiding information from their customers or suppliers, and that will continue to be the case for some time. But in the end, the hidden information will bite one or the other, and overall productivity will be lost. An open and trusting relationship maximizes overall productivity. Open and trusting relationships occur, when people collaborate over a shared view of the future.

Collaborative Performance works to this objective - assisting managers in collaborating widely in real-time on a shared view of future results. The outcome - significant productivity gains for the growing proportion of non-transactional workers in the workforce.

Reference: Competitive advantage from better interactions

Thursday, February 1, 2007

Selecting Key Performance Indicators

It has been said that what gets measured gets done. But this is not strictly true – managers today are deluged by a sea of metrics that are completely irrelevant to the task at hand. In fact, as early as the 1960’s, academic researchers were discovering that top executives rarely if ever used or relied upon the stacks of reports that were painstakingly produced and dutifully delivered to their desks each month. Instead they were much more likely to rely upon the news, hallway conversations, rumours and gossip in making business decisions.

The truth is that what gets managed gets done, and choosing which metrics to manage is the most highly levered strategic decision that an organization of any size can make. This indeed is “the hard part”. Choosing what is important is both science and art and requires attention to an uncommon mix of disciplines – psychology, business strategy, engineering, systems science, finance etc. And you must choose. As a rule of thumb, the human short-term memory limitation of 7 items plus or minus 2 is an excellent guideline. You should choose a total of somewhere between 5 and 9.

Too many measures

Focusing on between 5 and 9 measures does not mean that a management team should only look at or analyze fewer than 10 numbers. Analysis and learning should be encouraged on every bit of available data. However, the key focus – the measures that raise the questions to be answered by analysis must be limited to a set that the human mind can easily grapple with, and where the linkage to the overall vision and purpose of the organization is direct and clear. We’ve seen organizations who cannot clearly state their purpose generate scorecards with between 50 and 75 measures. It’s clearly impossible to keep all of these top of mind, or even to discuss them all in a collaborative management setting.

Too few measures

Selecting less than 5 measures indicates a lack of engagement with the process of improving performance. For example, focusing on profitability alone provides no guidance concerning the unique competitive advantage of the organization, and does not balance short and long-term considerations at all. Furthermore, profitability is a lagging indicator – providing information only about the performance that has been achieved to date, not what the organization is doing to improve performance in the future.

Side-effects

Like pharmaceutical drugs, measures have side-effects. For a worst-case example, consider a manufacturing process where quality control inspectors are paid for finding problems at the end of the line. Quickly, an internal economy appears where quality control inspectors share their bonuses with the people who can introduce defects. Almost all measures have side-effects. Selecting measures that avoid the worst of these is of critical importance.
Negative side-effects can also be exaggerated or mitigated by organizational culture and behaviour norms. A workforce aligned on delivering a quality product in an open and trusting culture would at once reject the compensation scheme described above.

Selecting Great Measures from the top down

Selecting great measures involves grappling with challenging questions. Those who have the luxury and burden of setting measures from the top of an organization have a particular responsibility to “go deep” when selecting measures because their impact will be wide and immediate, and will communicate much about the management culture, style and agenda in the organization. Some questions executives can begin with include:

  1. What business are we in?
  2. What is our strategy for growth?
  3. If we could choose only one aspect of our business to optimize, which one would be most consistent with our vision and drive the greatest results
  4. What single metric could we use as a proxy to determine whether this aspect of our business is doing well
  5. What single metric would predict whether we will do well in the next quarter or year?
  6. What important result does our team too often forget in the flurry of day-to-day management?
  7. Can we set a target for this metric that will energize and motivate our people
  8. What will we loose sight of by focusing on this metric? What aspects of our business will falter? What bad tradeoffs and negative behaviours might people engage in if we focus on this alone?

Selecting Great Metrics from the Bottom Up

Managers and analysts who are initiating a performance management program lower in the organization have the advantage of detailed knowledge of what issues are important “on the ground”. Frequently this perspective is useful in predicting the strategy the organization will later adopt, and thus the metrics selected at the bottom pre-empt large-scale top down programs and show results sooner. Questions to consider at this level include:

  1. Of all the data I receive or have access to, which metrics would be most interesting to analyze and learn from?
  2. Which of the metrics I have access to would be most useful in causing people to ask interesting questions and learn about what is going on in our operation?
  3. Are there any surprising metrics in my daily reports that merit further investigation?
  4. How would posting a graph of this metric on the wall affect my team’s morale and focus?

The bad and the good

The bad news is that even by answering these questions, you will still be likely to get it wrong – wildly wrong – like the call center in which support representatives are rewarded for increasing the number of calls handled, and thus hang up on their customers as quickly as possible.
The good news is that selecting and using metrics, whether right or wrong is a deeply instructive process over time. Each iteration of metric selection will uncover new fallacies in your thinking about and understanding of the business you are in, and create new opportunities to improve the performance of your organization. Set the example by holding the performance management process lightly yet persistently in your search for excellence. Encourage a sense of humour about what works and what doesn’t in the process. Remember that all metrics are just proxies for the truth – they are there to guide your thinking and learning – not to end it.

Disciplines to help you select great metrics

Truth telling: There are lies, damn lies and then there are statistics. Do not fall into the trap of choosing numbers that make the situation look better than it is. The more transparent a metric makes your organization, the better it is. Follow Jack Welch’ s lead and see things for what they are.


Systems thinking: Follow Peter Senge’s advice and look for the first, second and third order effects of optimizing your business around a particular metric. In the example above, if call volume is increased at your call center, what will the impact on customer satisfaction be? What will the effect of that change on customer loyalty? What will the impact of customer loyalty be on transaction costs? Etc.


Undying curiosity: Understanding why things “are the way they are” is the best way to figure out how to make them better. Sometimes you may want to choose a metric just so that people in the organization will become curious about it. Perhaps the best thing about choosing a particular metric to focus on is that it will inspire passionate debate amongst those who care about making things better.

Story telling: Selecting metrics is part of the process of creating a story that explains why the people in your organization should get up and come to work in the morning. It explains what they should do and why they should do it. The metrics you select become the most tangible, and repeated element of the story as you watch them and talk about them from day to day and quarter to quarter.

Strategic intuition: Often the route to success is not around optimizing an internal operation, but instead requires a complete change in the direction and focus of the organization to access some new dynamic in the external environment. Unfortunately, few people are good at this, a lot are bad, and most winners are simply lucky. Still, it’s useful to have this perspective as you select metrics. What is important is as much about what is outside your organization as it is about what is inside.

Tolerance for imperfection: Numbers will never tell the whole story; they are merely an approximation of reality. Still, these approximations are incredibly useful in focusing attention, and raising questions that drive organizational learning. As you choose your metrics, just be clear that you are looking for the best and most accessible approximation of reality. No set of five numbers will ever completely describe your business. Use them for what they are and move on.

Wednesday, January 31, 2007

Beyond the Balanced Scorecard

The Balanced Scorecard is like the Energizer Bunny. As a management fad it keeps going and going almost a decade and a half after its introduction. It carries on because the ideas it encapsulates have inherent merit in the management of performance. Namely:
  • Select some measures to focus on
  • Set a target and track progress against that target
  • Assign accountability for each measure
  • Ensure that measures reflect the strategic intent of the organization
  • Ensure a good representation of leading and lagging indicators – stop driving by looking in the rear view mirror
  • Take a balanced view of performance, focusing not only on financials, but on customers, internal processes and innovation.
These are without question really good advice for an organization who is engaging to improve performance. But we can do better. Balanced Scorecard projects tend towards the long, complex and painful. Consultants come in for the six month engagement. IT gets involved and needs hundreds of thousands of dollars in new projects. Managers disagree for months on what is important, then once a scorecard is created, it is quickly forgotten. Did you know that you can be named to the Balanced Scorecard Hall of Fame without once reviewing your scorecard?

What’s more, the data that your IT department provides for your scorecard may be anywhere from 24 hours to 30 days out of date. With the Balanced Scorecard, you are indeed managing performance by looking in the rear-view mirror.

Integrating an ongoing planning, forecasting and monitoring process into your Performance Management program can make the difference between an irrelevant, ineffective and backward looking process and an engaged, active, forward looking management tool. Here is one example of how it can work:

  • The highest ranking manager establishes top-down measures and targets for the organization for the next year.
  • Direct reports assess their individual targets and determine what they can and can’t achieve, and what it will take to get there, including commitments for each month during the year.
  • In a single meeting, the management team collaborates around these top-down and bottom-up views to come up with a single plan that everyone commits to.
  • Direct reports produce a 6 month rolling forecast every month based on current orders, knowledge of the local market, production capacity, supply, pipeline, initiatives etc.
  • The aggregate forecast is compared to the committed plan every month. Variances are addressed. If nothing can be done to eliminate the variance, it may be necessary to create a new plan and commit to a new set of targets. Once this is done, future forecasts are compared with the new plan.
  • Personal dashboards allow manager’s to track key metrics of interest, either comparing forecast or actual values against the committed plan.

Such a process takes many of the tenants of the Balanced Scorecard approach, and translates them into a tangible, active management process. Rolling forecasts help managers identify problems and collaborate on solutions before the events actually occur. Dashboards can make monitoring a daily activity rather than a once a quarter presentation by the junior analyst.
In summary, Balanced Scorecards by themselves fail to achieve three tenants of effective performance management programs:

Collaborative: There is no built-in collaborative process to determine, agree on and commit to plan targets and forecasts.

Future-oriented: By focusing on historical actual results, the Balanced Scorecard fails to provide information about the months and quarters ahead. By integrating rolling forecasts, the process becomes much more engaging and relevant.

Real-time: Forecasting also overcomes the delays inherent in a system based on historical actual values. Plans and targets can be created based on forecast values which are far more representative than actual values that are hours or days old. Instead of arguing about which historical number is accurate, manager’s can collaborate on what they are agreeing to at the time of the discussion, based on all the information they can gather about past, present and future from their unique position “on the ground”.

Building a High Performance Management Team

Some years ago I had the opportunity to provide BI support to the management team of a 400 person organization that was struggling with performance. This is the story of how we were able to use a Performance Management program to create a remarkable change in the culture and operational dynamic of this team.

I remember well the first meeting I went to, where the business unit head expressed his dissatisfaction, and then each of the regional managers went around the room in turn, making excuses for their poor performance. Some then left the room to get on the phone and shout at their staff. What a complete and utter waste of time!

It's tempting to think that these managers, or the millions of others like them that we meet every day are simply incompetent. But in this case, the problem was systemic. These managers simply did not have the information they needed in order to engage constructively with each other. In fact what had happened prior to that fateful meeting was that each regional manager had cobbled together their own summary of performance, and the business unit head had received the only organization wide view of the data the evening before. This group did not have shared perspective on the situation, and did not have detailed analysis that would help them ask the right questions of each other.

Six months later, this team was firing on all cylinders. They were accustomed to getting a detailed information package analyzing activity in every office in every region several days before meeting. During their monthly management meetings, instead of making excuses, they could collaborate together to understand why offices with similar characteristics in different regions performed differently. In fact, they soon began moving work around between regions to optimize the total organizational performance. It was a pleasure to meet, ask key questions and collaborate on productive solutions.

Of course it is not always this easy. Some information cannot be shared broadly for security or regulatory reasons. Some management teams will continue to behave in dysfunctional ways regardless of the information they have before them. But over time, persistent presentation of the best possible information about the true state of affairs has the potential to completely change an organization for the better. Why not try it in yours?

Evidence Based Management

A recent McKinsey study of 230 companies (Managing Your Organization by the Evidence) claims to have empirically proven that three key management practices are the best way to improve organizational performance. These practices are:
  • clear roles,
  • an inspiring vision, and
  • an open and trusting culture
McKinsey believes that these three practices play a mutually reinforcing role in supporting high performance regardless of the industry, and demonstrates a correlation between a subjective scoring on these practices and some form of financial outcome. According to their research, almost all other practices, “management fads” and initiatives implemented on their own will fail.

The study was performed by asking managers in these 230 organizations to complete a questionnaire assessing the organizations capability with respect to 34 management practices.
While they make outrageous claims about the ineffectiveness of other techniques, McKinsey covers all the bases by suggesting that “companies cannot afford to neglect any of the 34 practices… lack of success in any two or three practices makes it almost impossible for a company to do well”

Our experience at Collaborative Performance agrees that the three bullets above are indeed the most important organizational characteristics for success. However, interventions by management consultants, executive zealots or any other approach setting out to create such characteristics empty handed will indeed fail. What the McKinsey study fails to describe is how organizations came to achieve these characteristics, other than “senior executives instinctively know that any large company's people, processes, teams, and control systems require artful handling”.

Indeed, high performance relies upon a complex set of factors – there are a great many barriers to achieving clear roles, an inspiring vision and an open and trusting culture present in almost all individuals and organizations. Attempts to address these barriers by adding a charismatic leader, bringing in a management consulting team, or going away for an intense team-building event almost always fail, but for a few high-profile exceptions.

McKinsey claims that “Applied in isolation, KPIs and similar control mechanisms (such as performance contracts) are among the least satisfactory options for improving accountability.” By contrast, we believe that performance management is perhaps the only way to develop the three most effective management practices! How does this work?

  1. Selecting measures to focus upon is the most tangible way to engage with the question of what your organization is about, how it creates value for customers, the aspirations of its people. Southwest Airlines is an example of an organization that used the process of measure selection repeatedly over a number of years to focus and refine its vision, operations and alignment and created exceptional value as a result.
  2. Assigning ownership for measures is a very effective way to establish clear roles. Making a single person responsible for a desired outcome leaves no room for ambiguity about roles or responsibilities.
  3. Regular reviews of progress against measures, KPIs and numerical goals are the perfect opportunity to reinforce the “inspiring vision”, and foster an open and trusting culture
This last point merits special attention. Performance Management programs are prone to misuse. A management team committed to blaming, hiding information, or command and control practices will use Performance Management techniques to reinforce and enable these ineffective behaviours. Yet inspirational application of Performance Management techniques can be highly successful in changing these attitudes and behaviours. Making data widely available effectively eliminates information hiding. The intervention of a single person with the ability and commitment to examining results in order to learn how performance may be improved can stop blaming in its tracks. Command and control cultures are difficult to maintain when collaboration around improving performance begins to take hold.

Making a commitment to managing with clear roles and an inspiring vision in an open and trusting culture is absolutely the way to achieve high performance. Performance Management is the way to translate this from a lofty and noble goal to real change and tangible results in your organization.

Welcome!

Starting a new business is as exciting and fun as it is frightening. After 18 years in the software business as a consultant, and most recently development manager for Cognos Metrics Manager, I've named myself Principal and CEO of my new company Collaborative Performance.

Collaborative Performance reflects my career-long passion to see management teams and organizations work more effectively. Over the years, I've seen lots of dysfunction and a few examples of greatness. My talent is in zeroing in on the issues that are holding you back from greatness as an organization.

One of the best ways to open up potential is to change the availability and distribution of information. When hiding data is no longer a useful strategy, managers are often able to move towards a stance of learning, openness and collaboration.

I'm going to drop several previously written articles into this blog to get started - thereafter I intend to update on a semi-regular basis with new learnings and observations I encounter in the field. I hope you'll find it valuable to follow along, and that you'll take the time to engage in the conversation.