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

The Market Burden

Illustrates the intersection of supply and dem...
Illustrates the intersection of supply and demand curves as the free market equilibrium (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Today’s post is actually only a short sound bite for further conversations to be developed in the future:

The real burden of the open and free market is the fact that it does not always behave and act in the way the market participants anticipated. [In other words, the market might be open and free but not perceived as fair – a real challenge when the clearance mechanism experiences the odd bottleneck moment, because in the long run, the market should and will always clear and achieve equilibrium].
The burden the market then bears is in the form of interference and regulation…
Counter argument always very welcome.
theMarketSoul  ©2013

Symbolism and more…

Behavior change (James)
Behavior change (James) (Photo credit: James BonTempo)

A recent assignment at a customer in London made us sit back and wonder: ‘How important are symbols in corporate life to your experience or interactions in a corporate environment?’

A lot has already been written about the subject of symbols, rituals and culture in organisations. Our own contributions on [culture] and [behaviours] are embedded in the linked terms.

Gesture, attitude, behaviour
Gesture, attitude, behaviour (Photo credit: Marc Wathieu)

What we are focussing on today is a question of the small symbols and gestures individual participants in organisations make. A misspoken word in frustration, jest, malice or innocence can have enormous impacts on others, without us even realising it.

How often do you pay attention to these outward signs and symbols of behaviour that affects interactions with and behaviours towards others?

theMarketSoul ©2013

Behavioural Consequences – The UK Bond Market Rigging Scandal

Health Warning: The UK Bond Market rigging issue is all behaviourally driven. We express a personal opinion in this post and do not endorse or condone breaking any jurisdiction’s sovereign laws.

We would like to contribute a very short thought piece on this issue. Our premise basically goes like this and is grounded in behavioural theory:

2012 Behaviour Matrix copy
2012 Behaviour Matrix copy (Photo credit: Robin Hutton)

Take away any sensible incentive (by over regulating the market participants) and you create the disincentive for cheating behaviour to manifest. Simple.

It is a natural competitive behaviour to ‘cheat’ or try to cheat a system that becomes ‘badly’ designed, as in the case of the highly over regulated bond market and an environment of very low yields.

We find is amazing that the popular press only tend to focus on one side of the equation and distort the real issue and underlying drivers that lead tot cheating behaviour.

Illustration for Cheating Français : Illustrat...
Illustration for Cheating Français : Illustration d’une antisèche Español: Ilustración de una chuleta Deutsch: Illustration zum Schummeln (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The rule of law should be the overriding guiding principle and helping to design markets and market participant behaviours based on properly incentivised interactions is part of any regulatory system. In the recent past, we have forgotten to bear this in mind…

…and then we act surprised when market actors (participants) misbehave?

theMarketSoul ©2013

Related articles

Hidden ‘cost’ of Opportunity Cost

As economists (assuming that most of our readers have a vague interest in the subject matter we keep on harping on about most of the time) we should all be aware of, if not au fait with Opportunity Cost.

English: A production possibility frontier sho...
A production possibility frontier showing opportunity costs of moving between two of the points. (Photo: Wikipedia)

As a one line refresher: Opportunity Cost is the cost or value forgone by choice. Choosing one option or outcome over another, automatically leads to an alternative opportunity forgone, hence the cost element.

So the real challenge is to extract the ‘right’ amount of value or benefit from the chosen option versus the forgone option. This is the real difficulty when the counter-party does not share the same or a similar risk profile.

What is the answer then?

Well as vaguely competent economists our stock answer is: It depends!

Wieser coined the terms marginal utility and o...
Wieser coined the terms marginal utility and opportunity cost. (Photo: Wikipedia)

Lets peal this back one level and start with the this position: the very fact that you had a choice in the first place is a very good thing. A lot or market participants are never really afforded the luxury of this or any choice. They just have to lump it and get on with whatever activity keeps them sustained. Therefore, from this extreme position an answer might be that we should count our blessings and just accept the inevitable and get on with choosing and working through the consequences.

However, in a world driven by value maximisation, the fact that we have to make the optimum choice does become more significant and important. What tools can we employ in a world of Information overload, yet still Information Asymmetry to come up with the optimal solution?

Choices
Choices (Photo: Scarygami)

Answer on the back of a postcard please…

Are we all ‘Process Junkies?’

Our previous post on Transaction Cost Economics made us pause and think for a moment.

English: A design process.
English: A design process. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Why are we so fixated by process, yet so bad at the design aspect of the process?

By this question we mean the following:

Process design is focussed on capturing the greatest number of transactions or interactions and to efficiently and effectively ‘process’ them.

Yet all processes have EXCEPTIONS. If so, why are we so bad at designing Process Exception mechanisms?

Pareto efficiency is fine and there always has to be a cost benefit analysis of the value added in every process, but we miss or frustrate too many users by not moving beyond the confines of the cost-benefit, by just leaving the ‘Exceptioners‘ dangling, frustrated and bemused.  If the old adage holds true that one negative word of mouth feedback is the equivalent of 10 positive comments, then that 10% exception item begins to be of major concern.  Even at a lower tolerance threshold of say 5% exceptions and negative experiences, the risk and cost associated with negative customer / client feedback seems worth the effort to pay a bit more attention to managing the DESIGN and process loops to effectively deal with the exceptions.  We’ll leave efficiency at the front door for the moment…

theMarketSoul ©2013

Trust, Risk and stifled Innovation

In the light of the recent Citigroup’s settlement of mis-sold Hedge Fund investments, we issue this brief opinion piece on the interactions of Risk, Trust and Innovation:

Citigroup

We don’t think it is so much about TRUST or trusting institutions anymore but has always been about Caveat Emptor (Buyer beware).

No investor can or should trust institutions without conducting their own due diligence and risk profile / risk appetite assessment first.  In the past investors could possibly rely on professional ‘trusted’ advisors to help then navigate the due diligence part, at least in theory.  Risk and risk appetite assessment was the more tricky part and not even the professionals had sophisticated enough tools to help their clients through this quagmire landscape.

In some recent papers, researchers argue that ...
In some recent papers, researchers argue that the return from an investment mainly results from exposure to systematic risk factors. Jaeger, L., Wagner, C., “Factor Modelling and Benchmarking of Hedge Funds: Can passive investments in hedge fund strategies deliver?”, Journal of Alternative Investments (Winter 2005) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

We believe this is the unintended consequence of over regulation or an over regulated environment.  Relational trust has been eroded in favour of ‘legislative trust’ and therefore the impersonal ‘hand of public scrutiny’ is supposed to protect the innocents.

Trust
Trust (Photo credit: elycefeliz)

We need to ensure the pendulum swings back to a happy balance between relationship and legislative trust, unburden ourselves from the over regulated and expensive compliance environment we have allowed to engulf and overwhelm us, not adding any value, but stifling innovation instead.

theMarketSoul ©2012

 

Source Article: http://www.garp.org/risk-news-and-resources/risk-headlines/story.aspx?newsid=44034