The problem with INTEGRATION

[PART I]

Our view on the fundamental problem with integration is that the word does not contain the 4Cs of essential successful outcomes:

  • Communication
  • Change Management effort
  • Control and Coordination
backdrop-blue-technology-gear
 
Effective COMMUNICATION strategies and plans
 
We know the word good or effective communication is banded around quite frequently, however, this brief analysis of the process will hopefully highlight the challenge we see in effective communication of the change effort required, in order to lead to a successful Integration project.
  1. Communication is multi-dimensional
  2. Communication is multi-channel
  3. Communication is a two way (one to one) or one to many process
  4. Communication requires time, an action plan and monitoring and control
  5. Communication requires a feedback loop mechanism to measure outcomes
The list above is by no means exhaustive, however, in the next article in this series, we will focus on each element of the communication process in turn.
Change Management effort
 
In the animal kingdom, if you stand still for too long, the chances are that some predator or other will catch and consume you.  In organisational life the same principles apply.  Those who accept the Status Quo for too long will become endangered and their organisations will suffer.  So, with change so endemic in organisational life, why are we still so bad at managing overall Change Management effort and process?
Even when we put Change Management front and centre in the INTEGRATION process; why does it still depend on a coin toss as to the likelihood of a successful outcome?
We believe that part of the answer lies in a fundamental misalignment and misunderstanding of ‘COMPETING PRIORITIES‘.
priorities
And this comes back to the communication processes and strategies deploy in the first place.
If we do not communicate what and why the urgencies exist and what the critical drivers for and against change are; do we believe we have any hope of a positive outcome?
People in organisations are generally very busy.  They consume, process, create, oversee, manage, do, etc., etc. a lot of information and tasks, constantly shifting priorities in an ocean of decision making and information flows.
If any Change effort and Change Management specialist does not understand and compensate for this factor, is it any wonder that INTEGRATION and Change Management efforts are less than optimal?
Control and Coordination
 
Like any process, control of the process itself and coordination and monitoring of the effort (resources deployed) is an essential part of driving the INTEGRATION agenda forward.
Deming’s Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle is a useful guide in this area of control and coordination.  The two words, however, do not mean the same outcome will be achieved in the end.
2000px-PDCA_Cycle.svg
A clear distinction needs to be made between Efficiency and Effectiveness when controlling and coordinating INTEGRATION projects.
We have all heard the ‘busy fools’ analogy and if not, we have to guard against efficiently doing the wrong thing.  Sometimes decision-making is carried out in an environment where information is lacking and if the ‘gut feel’ is not followed in favour of imperfect information, then sub-optimal decisions can be perpetuated by continuing to justify the original decision point.
We are reminded here of a phrase in a stanza from Felix Dennis’ poem, ‘How to Get Rich’:
 “Never be late 
to quit or cut bait
 
CutBait-home-page-2014
In our next article on the topic of INTEGRATION management, we will continue the conversation regarding COMMUNICATION and continue to delve down deeper into analysis and commentary on the 4Cs of the Integration effort, namely

Communication

Change Management effort

Control and Coordination 

 ….to be continued in part II

© theMarketSoul 2015

Tax and morality? The two should never meet…

caution-taxes-tax-370x229

The language, or rather political language de jour, is for the canvassing potential members of the next parliament (Parliamentary candidates in the UK) to merge two very different concepts into one, in the public’s mind. Those words are tax evasion and tax avoidance. We (at the theMarketSoul) believe we potentially know why, but the consequences might not yet be clearly understood.

Economic principle of creative destruction - joseph schumpeter
My PRECIOUS…!

At a recent televised debate attended by potential next Business Secretary representatives (politicians who would be in charge of the Business, Innovation and Skills [BIS] department) from the three major political parties, one of the candidates challenged the audience thus:

“You (tax advisers) know the difference between aggressive tax avoidance on the the one hand and tax planning on the other.”  No the question was actually this: “Please raise your hand in the audience if you do not know what aggressive tax avoidance is.” From the podium the verdict came that about half the audience raised their hands. And therein lies the problem: Are you making this a moral question now? Because until someone is able to clearly define and explain how morality and tax planning are linked; we at theMarketSoul cannot help but think:  Where next in this one sided ‘supposed’ quasi debate?

It really depends on how you ask the question:

Is taxation moral? Is paying tax moral? What level of taxation is moral? Is being moral, paying your taxes?  If you don’t pay taxes, are you immoral?

Hopefully, you get our drift…?

© theMarketSoul 2015 skelet

Moral Hazard PLUS – Part 2

Part 2 – Revelations
 Moral Hazard symbol utilized by theMarketSoul
In part 1 of this article we focused on the economic cycles and the underlying drivers for future Moral Hazard risks.
In today’s edition we will dwell a little on the revelations 2014 brought about in a series of disclosures and financial regulatory deals concluded.  As Tony Robinson put is so eloquently in a recent Twitter feed:  “In 2014 £1.4bn in financial penalties were paid by UK financial institutions. whenever has a legitimate industry acted so lawlessly?

 

Image used to convey the idea of currency conv...
Image credit: Wikipedia

 

What we notice is that only the financial institutions (and consequently their customers) bore the fines, no individual has yet been brought to justice and account for the near fatal financial collapse he 2008/9 Financial Crunch brought about.  Yes, individual traders who acted recklessly and outside of the bounds of their remits within financial organisations have been brought to account, however, the scale and ferocity of the collusion by Forex traders, the Libor scandal, PPI mis-selling, etc., etc., has yet to yield individuals sanctioned and barred for ever acting as officers and employees of these large financial institutions.  Do the regulators and law enforcers and criminal justice system believe that the market will be protected by not taking appropriate action?  The longer we leave punishment and sanctions off the agenda, the more urgent the growing threat for Moral Hazard PLUS will be.
Therefore, we have now had and will no doubt continue to have revelations drip fed to the consumer masses, but more importantly will we take the necessary steps to mitigate individual Moral Hazard risk, as a lot has already been done to tighten and improve regulation at the institutional level?
This is the biggest and most burning question we believe drives Moral Hazard PLUS today and not the near term future.
In the concluding part of this article we will wrap things up by concentrating on large scale corruption and unpunished collusion that fester and provide fertile soil for Moral Hazard PLUS to continue to grow and exist.
© theMarketSoul 2015