Category Archives: consulting

Frameworks, trade-spaces, matrices: engineering thinking in management results in big, stagnant bureaucracies

25 Thursday Apr 2013

Posted by in complexity, consulting, human capital, management, Organizational Development, science, strategy, taxonomy, technology

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

The most important function of management, particularly executive management, is setting future direction. That implies decisions and choices about the present and future.

Because engineering thinking or more broadly speaking analytic thinking predominates in many executive and consulting circles, it is believed that decisions require a degree of rigorousness similar to that of the scientific method in natural sciences. And so, it is firmly believed that analytic tools empower managers to make sound decisions. The result is a myriad of tools reminiscent of engineering speak – frameworks, trade-spaces, matrices – packaged in neat Power Point slides.

This all very good, but, as philosopher of science Isabelle Stengers remarks  “tools are demanding – they do not confer the power of judging, they ask for the choice of the right tool for the right situation; in other words they oblige us to think and wonder”. The danger that Stengers cautions against is the rigid interpretation of the power of tools. Tool power should never be situated above human judgement. And when it does, this results in the tools getting a life of their own, and embedding the human element which is helpless to escape their hold. This ultimately results in a bureaucratic construct as the purpose of humans becomes not the seeking of meaning and validity, but rather the maintenance and upgrading of the tools. This also results in a proliferation of enforcer types at the expense of creative types, reducing the number and quality of choices about the future.

A more progressive view of management tools is as “enlightening abstractions, precious new tools for thinking” rather than “ready made instruments”. Also, in Stenger’s view, the relationship between user and tool is not one-directional; rather, “tools modify the ones who use them; to learn how to use a tool is to enter a new relation with reality, both an aesthetic and practical new relation”. In my experience, this dual directionality can also unfortunately work backwards: rigid tools can have a limiting effect on thinking.

Source of Isabelle Stengers quotations is “The Challenge of complexity: Unfolding the ethics of science – In Memoriam Ilya Prigogine”

Also check out Dave Snowden’s related blog entry.

The gold standard in business communication and the link between design format and thinking

18 Thursday Apr 2013

Posted by in business, consulting, design thinking

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

simplicity

I ran across this talk by Roger Martin which is, in my opinion, the quintessential example for a superlative presentation. One of my key criteria for “superlative” is that the audience is inspired and more importantly, there is a good chance the message will be remembered, i.e. that the speaker will generate an impact.

Here are the elements that make this great in my view: a single visual, a comfortable speaking pace with pauses, a few terms which are well defined as they are introduced, and lots of examples.

Unfortunately this type of presentation is the opposite of what we’re used to in the business world. The presentation norm from the likes of top consulting firms, business schools and even TED events is mind numbing data and graphics and a speaking pace rivaling that of auctions as undeniable proof of intelligence.

In his talk, Roger Martin contrasts analytical and design thinking. With a wonderful resonance between form and function, Roger Martin not only talks the design talk but walks the design walk. The format of the presentation presents a minimalist design that reinforces in form the semantics of the message.  By contrast, the 50+ slide presentations with dizzying graphics that none of us seem to be able to escape could also be said to follow in form the predominantly analytical thinking of the business community with an obsession for numbers and statistical proof.

In closing, I believe our leaders should have simplicity of form for communications as a goal. This would help avert information overload and facilitate richer dialogue and more effective decisions. Design format is not just a nice to have, it can have very concrete repercussions. As Leonardo Da Vinci has said, “simplicity is the ultimate sophistication” and we shouldn’t be afraid that a minimalist form takes away from the credibility of the message. The caveat is that simplicity can only be attained with a fundamental insight, and, in lack of a fundamental insight, many of our experts are forced to go for the volumes of data approach.

Do take 10 minutes to watch this video if you have a quiet moment, the message is as powerful as the format.

Additional pointers to the relationship between form and function:

Dr. John Gero presents a wonderful model for the relationship between function, structure and behavior in design processes.  

Dr. Elliott Jaques, inventor of the “midlife crisis” concept and the Requisite Organization Theory, developed a speech analysis method to probe mental potential.

Foundational thinkers vs. “how” teachers

12 Friday Apr 2013

Posted by in consulting, human capital, knowledge, learning, taxonomy

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , ,

Image

As the complexity of modern life grows, so does the number of seminars, workshops, coaching sessions and other “learning how to cope” events. Can there be as many “truths” as there are gurus?

To answer that question I introduce a distinction between “foundational thinkers” and “how teachers”. I see foundational thinkers as those advocating “why” models based on key notions associated with a particular issue. These type of thinkers attempt to capture the underlying cause. How teachers on the other hand concentrate on recipes for dealing with an issue, often in the form of steps, frameworks, etc.

In my personal experience and research I have come across much fewer members of the first category. This is also the category that I value the most. That is because “why” models allow and indeed demand that the student use his own problem solving skills to derive the “how” particulars for a given situation. In other words “why” models allow customization and adaption of the methods to the circumstances. “How” teachings on the other hand provide a recipe which the student is to memorize and repeat. This is bad for two reasons: memorization discourages critical thinking, and in a complex world no circumstance is likely to repeat exactly.

Many of the teachers (leadership coaches, high end consultants, etc.) I have come across wisely avoid the “why” question and go straight into “how”. “Why” questions are hard and can even be uncomfortable and what business-savvy teachers know is that many of the customers for these types of sessions come there to feel good and relax, rather than be mentally challenged beyond their abilities. Mental challenges create stress, and a stressed customer is not good for repeat business. “How” teachers are astute observers of human psychology, while foundational thinkers are scholars of knowledge and discovery.

Returning to foundational thinkers, they also come in different echelons of value. The most valuable provide complete and internally consistent ontologies for a pervasive issue. These individuals are a few a century. But in terms of generating a following, “how” teachers definitely hold the upper hand.

When going to the next seminar or workshop or coaching session, do ask yourself what category your teacher fits. If you feel too good about yourself and no hard thinking is required, you’re probably in the “how” teaching zone.

Strategy is…

21 Thursday Mar 2013

Posted by in consulting, design thinking, human capital, strategy

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

1974 Robinson's Wrap acrylic

Strategy is adding constitution to an ambiguous mess we call the future. Strategy focuses discernible choices from the fog of ambiguity by way of assertions and assumptions. It reduces the universe’s entropy. Strategy is deliberate choice. Strategy is awareness and self-awareness. Strategy is wisdom: it is a mirror. Strategy is integrative and convergent. Strategy is identity.

Strategy is not political correctness, nor is it group consensus. It is selective and competitive. It does not agree well with bell curves. Strategy is neither nice nor nasty. Yet it will be deemed heretic and non-compassionate, unfair. Good strategy is controversial. Good strategists will be called dictators, non-team players, naive, inconsiderate. Strategy is participatory only as a common pursuit of a better state of affairs. Strategy is fair to those who wish for better. It is unfair to those who hang on to the past. Strategy is change.

Strategy is creative. It is substantive. It is pleasing to the eye. It appeals to common sense and it is not information overload. It is a straight-forward perception of an in-achievable ideal: truth. It exposes cowardliness, laziness, hypocrisy, envy, falseness by denying them opportunity to hide behind the curtain of ambiguity. Strategy is accountability. Strategy is transparency. It is risk and courage. Strategy is sacrifice. Strategy is long term and it makes things worse before so they can be better. Strategy is responsibility. It is leadership. It is patience and self-control. Strategy builds character and nourishes morality and ethics.

Strategy is narrative. It is forged of convictions and ideals and desires. It is biased. It is ideological and not technocratic. Strategy is subjective and incomplete, but not superficial. Strategy makes leaps of fact and logic. Strategy is not planning and it cannot be proved. Strategy is not a simple process with discrete steps that spews guaranteed and repeatable results – it isn’t an algorithm (sorry Professor Porter, HBR, McKinsey and others). Sustainable strategy is not imitation. It isn’t bench-marking, performance, metrics and measurements (sorry Accenture, CapGemini and others). Strategy isn’t statistics. Strategy is not business process re-engineering. It is discontinuous. Strategy is organic. Strategy is adaptive and resilient. It is educated trial and error. Strategy is real and surreal: surreal because it describes what does not yet exist, real because the future is always born of the inference between what is and what could be.

Strategy is personal and quintessentially human. Strategy is enlightenment and fulfillment and wisdom. Sustainable strategy is the ambition to better oneself while not wishing others ill. Sustainable strategy is not playing zero sum games. Strategy is humbleness. It is observation, empathy, comparison, categorization. Strategy is artful design. It is meditation and self-reflection. Strategy is play. It is fun and thrill and adrenaline. Strategy is loneliness and hopelessness. It is pain and failure and rebirth. Strategy is cumulative. Strategy is a liberating journey. It is a quest for purpose and meaning with no room for regrets.

The business performance consulting model: a mediocre way to seek progress, or a good way to seek mediocre progress (Part I)

02 Sunday Dec 2012

Posted by in business, consulting, taxonomy

≈ 1 Comment

Image

Many of today’s management consulting firms promise business performance. “High Performance. Delivered” assures the motto of one of the top business management consulting firms in the world.

And just how do these consultants prove the success of their methods? They benchmark existing performance and then demonstrate a performance increment after their intervention. Straight forward and hard to argue against. Or is it?

How about asking a next level question: how is the benchmark itself derived? Well, let’s take a quote from the same company with the motto: “XYZ draws upon research and our experience across industries and business functions to help our clients improve their business performance”. And so, to paraphrase this consulting company’s approach, an average of indicators associated with high performing enterprises in a certain market sector is used to create “best practices” benchmarks.

So, in this consulting model, what does the client really pay for? Well the client pays the consultant to help them emulate the best in the client’s respective market sector. But a successful outcome is dependent on a few assumptions: first is the assumption that the best do not move forward, and second there is the assumption that the emulation effort is designed and executed flawlessly. Even if ignoring the validity of these assumptions, the “performance” consulting model is at best a mediocre way to seek progress, or a good way to seek mediocre progress. That is because the “emulation” model is not just flawed in terms of its underlying assumptions, but also presents a logical paradox: how can progress be even possible in a model where all everyone does is benchmark? Eventually entire market segments would converge to a set of religiously accepted best practices and progress would stagnate to a halt. And we know that’s not true: we know that markets are not that predictable and well behaved and that disruptive new entrants can unseat established incumbents. So this “linear” model of increasing one’s performance by emulation is at best incomplete and at worst flawed.

And yet, why is it so successful? Well maybe because as a global society we have a deeply embedded quantitative mindset bias. What is abstract and not easily measurable is deemed as not rigorous and not actionable, and so, not necessarily as valuable as the concrete and measurable. In other words performance trumps creativity, even though markets have repeatedly proven that significant leaps in business value are usually based in a disruptive innovation itself inspired by creative insights.

In Part II of this post I will present a model based in personal experience that sheds light into how increments in qualitative, hard to measure attributes can lead to significant leaps in performance, not otherwise achievable through the benchmarking model. I will look to elucidate the connection between some of the most abstract attributes of an enterprise such as its identity and vision and its overall capacity to produce and leverage value. Please stay tuned…

Manifesto against the “5 steps to [topic of your choice]” recipe to success

27 Saturday Oct 2012

Posted by in business, Communication, consulting, human capital, Organizational Development, problem solving, society

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

image

Let me start with a telling quote from Russell Ackoff: “the appeal of gurus lies to a large extent in the simplicity of the doctrines they put forth. They are simple no matter how complex the problems at which they are directed. They provide a life raft to those who are incapable of handling complexity.”

In today’s fast paced life, the “5 steps to…” recipe for success is pervasive. This type of headline template dominates both mass media and social media.

I will pick just one of the many examples to make a quick argument for the “5 steps to…” template being intellectual noise at best, and dangerous advice to follow at worst. One of the newly minted “thought leaders” on the LinkedIn social network recently posted the 6 lessons he lives by. Number one on his list is: “surround yourself with people who are smarter than you and move out of their way”. My assertion is that this basically tells us nothing. It is an incomplete statement devoid of context. It sounds great but doesn’t provide any meaningful path to wisdom.

I picked this one example because I usually take issue with the “people smarter than you” leadership anecdote. It’s insufficient in that it doesn’t tell what the leadership still adds to the mix. Your employees can be “smarter than you” in terms of information, knowledge, and even understanding. The leader still has to supply the wisdom, which is synthesized knowledge and understanding, and it is future oriented. Russell Ackoff proposes a clear hierarchy of mental content value going from data to information to knowledge to understanding and finally to wisdom, which is the hardest to acquire in life. These simple classifications of reality that start with “5 simple ways to…”, “the ten traits of…” and so forth are counterproductive to understanding the full beauty and complexity of life. In Ackoff’s words, they provide a false life raft. The modern world, not unlike the ancient world, is full of false prophets. The problem of calling their bluff remains.

Russell Ackoff: the Albert Einstein of Management

24 Wednesday Oct 2012

Posted by in consulting, knowledge, learning, management, problem solving, strategy

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

image

Russell Ackoff is likely the Albert Einstein of management. The reasoning is this: he created what is in essence a Generalized Ontology of Problem Solving just as Einstein created the Generalized Theory of Relativity.

By comparison,  most management gurus, consulting principals and executives only master a special case problem solving heuristic. Lower level managers and consultants are only able to reproduce a priori defined special case problem solving algorithms.

Professor John Geto of Krasnow Institute of Advanced Study cautions that without an ontology we are liable to continually reinvent new terms for existing knowledge, making it difficult to achieve a strong foundation on which to build. Management in general and management consulting in particular can in large part be paraphrased as problem solving common sense; yet, the generalized problem solving ontology carefully crafted by the genius of Ackoff has not been widely adopted. In a hierarchy management masters Ackoff’s generalized and universal thinking pedestal is permanent and situated on significantly higher ground than the altars at which most of us currently worship: innovation and Clayton Christiansen, Design Thinking and Roger Martin, Gary Hamel and Management 2.0, etc.

As in the popular “Matrix” movies, Ackoff is “the one”. But, it appears we may need a Morpheus character like advocate within the management discipline. And we need to overcome our latest infatuation with progress only possible in teams; the Theory of General Relativity could not have been a crowd sourced innovation on Facebook. Sometimes it takes “the one”.