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

Our Lessons from 2011

 

We decided to summarise our learning from 2011 into two brief thoughts:

 

The May 1, 2010 cover of the Economist newspap...
Image via Wikipedia
  1. The pains and strains of the economic sovereign debt melt-down in 2011, should stand us in good stead to deal with even more debt and sovereign strain in 2012, as More and Bigger Europe continue to miss the point; this being that more bureaucracy and more government and regulation will not get the INNOVATION engine started again to Recapitalise Europe!

    Graphic "When Greece falls" presente...
    Image via Wikipedia
  2. Translational differences will matter.  The CLOUD is a huge business and business model transformation opportunity.  IT ‘Geekery’ and language could scupper this potential opportunity and we need to develop more ‘CLOUD TRANSLATION’ services so that a broader community and eco-system can get involved in an aspect of “INNOVATION ignition” in 2012.
Clouds over Tahoe HDR #1
Image by Bill Strong via Flickr

All the best and good luck in 2012.

 

theMarketSoul ©2011

…and here is some good news…

 

Adding further value to our conversation on The Market eQuation we introduce the concept of the:

RISKed RETURN on MARKET (RdROM) today on 11.11.11.

RISKed RETURN on MARKET adds a counter balance to the Efficient Market Hypothesis and Rational Market Theory, Black Scholes and CAPM, amongst others.

More detail to follow in due course…

theMarketSoul ©2011

Frameworks, frameworks, frameworks…

Today (26 October 2011) is an important watershed date (or not) for Europe.

Will our leaders and the politicians be able to agree an all encompassing Framework to rescue the Euro, or will we need to think about a more modular approach for the future?

We believe that it might be in the Euro’s short-term best interest to look for a more flexible, yet fragmented modular approach. However, the capital markets might not appreciate the continuous uncertainty and political wrangling whilst we keep on looking for a ‘best fit’ modular solution and what that might entail…

theMarketSoul (c)2011

In the Cloud, Structure is everything!

We have been having several conversations with colleagues and practitioners in both the Enterprise Strategy and Architecture space around both Cloud Computing and the Integrated Service IT delivery space.

Our brief conclusion is that Organisational Structure is everything.

We believe that you cannot effectively move IT Service delivery into the ‘Cloud’ and / or integrate some of the hybrid Cloud solutions and other architecture requirements, without fundamentally adjusting / realigning your organisational structure to fit the new model or modus operandi.

Therefore, the first item on the IT Change Management agenda should be a fundamental rethink and adjustment of Structure.

What usually happens is that once IT Services gets delivered into divisionalised organisations, the service quality and cost gets fragmented and ‘scope drag’ and loss of focus and control occurs.

This makes us conclude that maybe the same approach utilised in Natural Gas extraction, namely ‘Fraking’ should be utilised in IT Service delivery, in the absence of Organisational Structure change:

Go in deep and then cut across the silos in order to get to the core solution (service) delivery, because in the absence of structural service alignment, the only other option is to be as scientific and innovative as you possibly can.

theMarketSoul ©2011

Quantitative Easing – Here we go again

A reminder of what we wrote on 22 September 2011 about Quantitative Easing: “QE – Our take on the Bell Curve Effect” (Please click on the link for the full article).

 

Expect Mervin King to continue writing letters to the Chancellor to explain the Inflation target gap and the worsening economic landscape.   It begs the question:  Are the Central Bankers competent enough to sterr us through troubled waters again?

The key issue really is the lag effects before QE starts working…

theMarketSoul ©2011

Corporate Culture

This question posed in a discussion forum made us pause and think:

“Bosses think their firms are caring and “values-driven.” Their minions disagree. I think it’s hard from top-down, policy-driven firms to switch to values-driven because even the values are enforced top-down and bosses who have never listened carefully to their employees don’t suddenly start to do so – thus, they never know if their values have caught on or not. What do you think?”

Firstly we need to define Values – We will use it in this post in its economic sense, such as Economic Value Added, meaning that both value creation, return and risk evaluation is as such is ‘built into the value based system’.

Most corporate managers / leaders would probably understand values in terms of two different contexts:

  1. Values as guiding principles, morals, a ‘code to live by’, etc., shaping behaviours and norms
  2. Value in terms of the standard Du Pont analysisReturn on Investment (ROI) calculation methodology.

The third (and probably not last) way of viewing the values question is the economic value added approach, capturing:

  1. Economic Profit (including risk)
  2. Guiding principles and behaviours – the bottom up doing the right thing all the time view

Turning to values as a guiding principle, these are the ‘feel-good’ words and phrases we stick on corporate office walls, the intra- and internet “connecting” people inside and outside the organisation to the “emotional-side” and binding them together.

This is the way we believe the Value question has been posed.

Here we have the problem of the ‘generals in the tents’ versus the ‘generals in the trenches’ scenario.

The generals in the tents believe what their eyes and ears are telling tell.  “People look and sound happy, so they MUST be happy”.

The generals in the trenches believe what they ‘feel’ and experience everyday in their leadership roles amongst the ‘troops’ and employees they serve with are the real true values of the organisation.

This is where a disconnect manifests itself.  The two types do not see eye to eye or understand each other.  Charts, reports, statements, observations, facts separate the general in the tents from the raw emotions, feelings, qualitative experiences and ‘Values’ of the general in the trenches.

When they meet to talk, the language and behaviours each other uses and displays are different.  They don’t understand each other and each side leaves the conversation with a sense of an ‘unaccomplished mission’ and frustration.

To conclude and draw this ‘Values’ post together:

Right from the off, there is potentially a misunderstanding as to what is exactly meant by Values.  The corporate leadership may think, warm ‘fuzziness’ or hard numbers and return on investment, yet the employees and middle management layer think, “squeeze some more, but keep on smiling, here they go talking about values again and all I want is some certainty and job security…”

Finally, there has to be the recognition that culture and culture creation in organisations is not easy.  (We are not even talking cultural change here yet).

If it was, then it would obviously not be a problem.  There are many more factors and dynamics at play, so hopefully your question sets off an interesting discussion.

theMarketSoul ©2011