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

Expectations: Mis-sold

We are picking up on a theme we have been experiencing and confirmed by this HBR article  published in 2012:

Job and Career seeker’s unfulfilled EXPECTATIONS

 

The word expectation has several meanings, amongst them words like hope, belief, prospect and even probability.  It is interesting that if you were to consider these four other words it is almost a continuum, stretching from the vague hope frontier and uncertainty right through to probability which is calculus driven and at least more certain statistically then mere hope…

However, the real focus of our analysis today is the mis-sold or rather mis-aligned expectations gap.

thumbnailcaqf5mz4

Factors driving the Expectation Gap in our opinion include:

We will begin to unpick each one of these factors or drivers (reasons why) in a multi-part series of articles to see how, why and if we can help ‘plug the Expectations Gap’.

Today we will begin to briefly cover the top item on our list:

Economic principle of creative destruction - joseph schumpeter

Disruptive Technologies versus Organisational Structure and Strategies

Agile and Adaptive seem to be the new buzzwords in the corporate planning landscape and lexicon.  But how do we change entrenched processes and ways of working to align to an agile and adaptive mindset?

Let us turn to certain inhibitors first.  Processes like preferred supplier lists, supply chain or other framework procurement agreements, Service Level Agreements and other longer-term contractual arrangement all help create the illusion of certainty and stability; yet are they?  Sometimes this flies in the face of agile and adaptive planning and operational processes.

Maybe the gap exists between a process reality and a mindset aspiration.  Flexible organisational structures, including resource pools like labour still have a long way to “move” in order to create the conditions in which agile planning and aligned to adaptive process realities.

How are our own personal aspirations and understanding of the current market aligned to the Shamrock Organisation mindset?

Story3_Img4

theMarketSoul ©2015

If only we could…

…[take] the human being out of the market entirely, then we should have a proper, effective and efficient market…?
So might go the refrain of Neo-liberal economics, or at least a slightly different take on the Neo-liberal ideal of ‘every interaction should be a market transaction‘.

inspiration

That Neo-liberal economic refrain is part of the inspiration behind the creation of the ‘Soul of the Market’ or rather theMarketSoul and this site.
With this last post of 2013, we thought a bit of reflection and a reminder of our inspiration and founding philosophy might be in order.
In order for a market to be effective, there has to be a few ripples in the ebbs and flows of the transactions and interactions making up the market processes.  Therefore, we have to be able to tolerate human frailties and flaws, or else the market becomes too mechanistic and dare we say it preordained.  This can naturally not be an effective outcome for any market.  Human failings and market failure are two sides of the same coin.  However, we should work together in order to limit the inevitable damage and negative consequences of both human and market failure.  This does not necessarily translate into more regulation, might we add at this juncture.
Let us never forget this and celebrate process frailty, failure, learn to develop and embrace tolerance, persistence and perseverance; basic elements of human nature
We should never forget our inspiration, put it to aspiration and strive to achieve our own unique and specific dreams.
Human Nature / Logo
Human Nature / Logo (Photo credit: Ars Electronica)
Go, Inspire, Aspire and Achieve…
theMarketSoul ©2013
Our final word of 2013 is:

CONSOLIDATION

Immediacy – Analysing the Behavioural Dimensions

The problem of getting too distracted by constantly fire-fighting in business settings

Français : Logo de Connecting Emotional Intell...

We might have heard it referred to as phrases such as “blinkered vision, short-term thinking”, possibly even “tunnel vision” or something similar; however the challenges of Immediacy is (1) the hidden cost and (2) damage it does to our organisations and culture within those organisations.

This is a behavioural consequence of a much more deep rooted problem.  It could possibly be insecurity or ‘over’ control, mistrust or some other behavioural issue.

However, we would like to make a bold statement that the problem is one of an over commented emotional connection to what we do. Too much passion and care in other words. This is not a bad thing in itself, but it must be tempered and balanced by its opposite twin, namely logic and deliberation.

Too often we let the Emotional Intelligence (EI) side of our personalities or just pure emotions (if we lack in the finesses of EI) rule the roost and we park logic and Business Intelligence (BI) at our peril.

What to do, in order to balance the equation:

When faced with the typical flight or flight scenario of a mini crisis at work or during a project;, stop or pause for a little while in order to achieve two very important objectives:

  1. Calm down the emotional roller coaster.
  2. Take stock in order to appraise and assess what would be the most logical course of action to take next.
English: Book Cover
English: Book Cover (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

As an experiment in BI versus EI today and over the course of this week, just think and apply these two simple steps and monitor and evaluate the outcomes and consequences.

You might be pleasantly surprised…

Feedback most welcome.

theMarketSoul © 2013 

The Value of the Synthesist (as opposed to the Analyst)

A walk back in time. #Thoughts from 2010. The #Value of #Synthesis versus #Analysis. #Tyranny and #Innovation

theMarketSoul ©1999 - 2017

We had some very rewarding conversations recently with business partners and peers regarding the Value of Synthesis versus Analysis.

Synthesis we believe to be a ‘higher level’ skill and experience set than traditional analysis.  Synthesis requires a natural ‘incubation period’.  Very few people are natural ‘synthesists’.  You grow and mature into a ‘natural Synthisist’.

Analysts can be taught.  In fact a very lucrative business education industrial complex has been built on the back of ‘creating a production line of analysts’.  We call them Business Schools churning out master’s level analysts with the three-letter MBA title behind their names.

Don’t get us wrong on this one.  We are not criticising MBAs or the Business Schools that produce them.  Far from it; because we believe that part of the ‘evolutionary process’ of ‘incubating a mature synthesist’ is having a deep and fundamental understanding of analysis and the factors that contribute to making…

View original post 796 more words

Some Questions for Europe

After the conclusion to what some pundits called a ‘tumultuous week’ for Europe (week ending 11 May 2012), we still find ourselves asking some important questions.

Europe Simulator
Europe Simulator (Photo credit: wigu)

We all know that the question is not around what growth, where growth or why growth.  The fundamental question in Europe now is:

How Growth?

For way too long Europe and its leadership had taken its eye off the growth ball.  They had taken their eye off that ball focussing instead on creating the conditions for a ‘stable’ internal market, forgetting that it was all actually centred on competitiveness and growth creation!

Too much needless bureaucratically driven regulation, not creating the sustainable conditions for growth, but rather the spiral into debt driven oblivion…and therefore leading to the volatility and the instability we currently experience!

So the choice now comes down to how do we drive growth, in the face of an electorate that favours public sector driven growth, rather than private sector led growth.

It must make common (or at the very least common enough) sense for private sector growth incentives being created, rather than debt fuelled public sector or even Keynesian focused supply side stimulus. But no, the discourse in Europe has not been around stimulating demand by creating the conditions for competitive led export fuelled growth!  Instead, the in-fighting and constant politicking around balanced budgets and debt to GDP ratio targets and endless pacts to patch the patient with half-baked policy sticky plasters has contributed to exactly the opposite outcome the leadership tried to create in Europe, namely a stable platform for internal market competitiveness.  They forgot about the world changing outside the ‘Chinese wall’ of an expanded 27 member union.

And now the electorate has firmly rejected the austerity programmes, in both Greece and France, because they have not been educated in the dangers of public sector excesses.  Nobody in Europe (except for maybe Sweden) realised that giving the “Engine of Growth”, namely enterprise and entrepreneurs an incentive to create businesses and employment opportunities, is actually tax reductions and not increases, combined with tempering public sector growth and reducing labour market inflexibility.  Most European countries have youth unemployment; the hungry, tech-savvy and street smart under 25’s, running in double digits, of anywhere between 15 – 50%, depending on which country or statistics you want to believe…

We beg you Europe

For the sake of yourselves and the rest of the world, we beg you Europe (and off course we mean the leaders of Europe) to think about the following key growth criteria, as part of any ‘Growth Pact’ you might negotiate in the coming months:

  1. Reduce the size of your bloated public sectors
  2. Introduce private property ownership incentives and pension reforms
  3. Lower your punitive tax rates
  4. Reform your burdensome and needless regulation, opting for streamlined market driven regulatory stabilisers
  5. Introduce labour market reforms and encourage flexibility and mobility
  6. Encourage and actually treat your citizens like the responsible ‘conduits of growth’ and employment creators they are and can be
  7. Encourage personal and community based accountability
  8. Be tough on crime, but fair on punishment and reform

And above all believe, think, do, act and (if you must) enact economic GROWTH!

theMarketSoul ©2012

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