Digital Transformation: how to know you’re successful? (here’s a tip, if you use the words Digital and/or transformation, you probably aren’t)

Digital Transformation falls into the most desirable category for consultants, namely; something for which there is no agreed definition, something for which there is a huge appetite for investment and something for which there is no clear definition of success. In consulting, we love waves of programs or even better ‘ages’ – information age etc. because it creates a case for change for every organisation which leads to large programs, investment and therefore revenue.

As a corporate though, this is what you want to ask yourself.

Do the best companies at Digital call it digital? The answer is a pretty big no. If ‘Digital’ is endemic in your business and it’s how you operate it’s not a choice, a channel or even a principle to align to. It is the core operating logic for how you do business. The real change in the market has been the reduction in barriers to entry which mean you can engage with customers, manage your people and manage your ecosystem (the huge investment IT costs to do this no longer being the same issue).  People love to point out that of the top 50 US companies of 10 years ago, there are very few that are the same today but what this highlights is that it has been much harder to manoeuvre something traditional into something ‘digital’ than it is now to change something digital into some more traditional. Amazon and Whole foods, Facebook becoming a media company, Apple becoming a bank. Perhaps we shouldn’t call it transformation and start calling it resurrection. Maybe you need to fundamentally change the Digital DNA of a organisation first before you try to transform anything. A lot of banks have their online only, people centric brands which they create and then try to roll the best ideas there into their big brand. Why not try it the other way and allow the big brand to die slowly as they blend into a completely new organisation?

Is it transformation when you do it all the time? I have spent a career designing and planning transformation, it is on my CV, my title and I’m proud of the time and investment I’ve put in to trying to ‘transform’ organisations. However, the frequency with which I’ve run strategy sessions, built operating models and customer journeys shows that there is an obsession with perpetual transformation. One program connects with another program which overlaps with the new one which is the second part of another one. Most are named something of the genre ‘Phoenix, Genesis, Apollo, Jigsaw or anything with First in the title; CustomerFirst, PeopleFirst, America First etc. etc. There is a trend at the moment to not call programs ‘transformation’ because people have become bored, blasé or generally tired of the term. If this is the case then either they haven’t been transformative or they haven’t been successful. By the very definition, people need to know they are in a very different world because of something that has happened and they can pinpoint the changes. Again, the companies who are best at transformation don’t call it transformation. It’s not because they are bored of the title rather they see change as a constant and valuable force. Although I am loathe to use the word agile, the core of being flexible, agile and adaptable is built into how they operate. The rise of Chinese Tech firms is a quite remarkable case study but before anything, it’s noticeable that you can’t define what type of company they are; tech, media, transport, financial services, communications etc. These would not be successful without a constant and embedded capacity for change.

What happens when Digital is Business as Usual? – it’s likely that we’ll look back and consider even the term ‘Digital’ to be old fashioned. We are already at the point where it’s not an option, it’s the way we do business. ‘Digital’ penetration might be varied by industry and by country but it’s a question of when rather than if the entire world sees Digital as the standard. Even more so, it’s increasingly the Digital part driving the non-digital part. Your shops are there to market your products with the sales and service online. Your call centre is to support your online presence and so on… As it stands, there are lots of cases of the online service being much better than the traditional channels; (don’t believe me, next time you want to complain about a phone company or an airline, make sure you put it on Twitter the same time as you start a phone call and see what happens.) As this changes, organisations will need the scalability to handle the majority of their cases Digitally rather than looking great managing a small number which is easy. You can already see the lag on ‘click to chat’ growing but you can also see the huge investment going into AI Chatbots.

So then, have a think about your own companies approach to Digital Transformation. What they call it can tell you almost everything you need to know.

As for the next buzzword after Digital Transformation I am putting my money on a return to the old days of consulting; a block of How consultants Design People, Design Services, supported by a raft of What consultants – SMEs in industries, capabilities, tools. What I don’t think we’ll have is anything called Technology or Digital or Customer because that will be so obviously core skills that we wouldn’t need to mention it. My previous job title Keith Logan; Head of Digital Customer Experience Transformation.

http://www.thecorporatefuturist.com

Super-agile-project’s-fantastic-culture’s-still-atrocious: Mary Poppin’s guide to mandatory fun at work

In every job that must be done, there is an element of fun. You find the fun, and – SNAP – the job’s a game!. You want to get some fun into the office; start by not planning it, nominate your Mary Poppins and ensure that there’s always a spoonful of sugar to help the medicine go down.

Mary Poppins is the original Culture Transformation consultant. She came into an organisation with some major staffing challenges (unruly, messy, children), a dysfunctional executive board (Mr Banks being only numbers driven, Mrs Banks focussed on other projects) and operations managers struggling with the scale of their job.

Her first task in the house, rather than to define a framework or strategy for culture was to focus on practical operations concerns (e.g. tidying the nursery). Her first change was not to recommend huge expenditure on a new environment, on training or new processes but rather ‘In every job that must be done, there is an element of fun. You find the fun, and – SNAP – the job’s a game! ‘. She very successfully changed the mindset of the everyday task into something fun e.g. tidying up by singing a song with some characters (and granted with some magic).

Looking at Mary Poppins, she isn’t a naturally ‘fun’ person (even if she is practically perfect in every way). She is very serious even with the fun, she smiles rarely, she is hugely strict in management and on timescales, and is incredibly inflexible. After a few short weeks though, even though her focus was on the lowest ranks of the organisation (the children), she made a huge change to the whole organisation; including the bank of the children’s father

What would Mary make of today’s corporates?

There is a recognition that the way we are all working is changing. Projects are shorter and more intense, Agile etc, people are working harder in shorter timescales. We are increasingly blending together people of different working backgrounds; designers with testers, analysts with accelerated workshops, digital native grads with 30yr veteran CFOs. There has been huge investment in working spaces; activity based working, collaborative spaces, innovation centres etc. This is all worth nothing unless there is single thread of culture you can weave throughout. The simplest thread that everyone can connect to is ‘fun’.

The only problem is, corporates are typically pretty poor at being fun and consultants are even worse. Here is what Ms Poppins thinks.

Not about planned fun – there is an obsession with having launch ‘parties’ or quarterly meetings with a ‘fun’ element. These things are usually heavily planned and agreed in advance, typically watered down to be acceptable and usually run by HR. Mary has a simple rule for this; if you put an agenda item called ‘fun’, it’s not going to be fun. People will go to these events partially because they have to and partially because ‘why not’. However, the Christmas party does not make up for a whole year of boredom and it’s madness to try. I once watched the senior leadership team dress up as the ‘supremes’ and sing a karaoke number; the memory haunts me to this day. Fun needs to be a way of working, not a reward. It’s like a bonus, if you come to expect it the value is reduced and can actually work the other way. Examples of my own include; an all day connect 4 match where a move is played only at 15 minutes and 45 minutes past the hour; the Susan Race, where the team had the time to complete a deliverable as long as Susan took to run 10k which we monitored online. (name changed to respect Stef’s identity); the Wednesday afternoon British vs Australian Dairy Milk taste-off (controversial victory to Straya). Mary would build fun into the fabric of the day to day and you should too.

Nominate your Mary Poppins – don’t underestimate what a few people can do to a working environment. An office is like a party, there will always be a few people which make the difference between okay and great. You can still have a quiet conversation in the corner but you remember the person singing cover songs of Frank Sinatra into a banana and wearing a tea cosy. You get the strange effect of fun osmosis where the atmosphere spreads to people who aren’t involved. You need some people to be like casino concierges, walking around having chats, handing out free fruit/chocolates, showing some interest, tell a few jokes. Mary was constantly thinking up new ideas, new people, new adventures.

Micro fun – a spoon full of sugar helps the medicine go down – in most organisations, you give big carrots to people for big achievements. There should be more little carrots for little achievements and they should not be financial. Take a process like doing your expenses. If that could be improved just a little with some fun, you would vastly augment the experience. Working on something big can be reward itself but it’s the little jobs everybody hates. You work a 60 hr week and it’s the 90mins on the expenses you complain about all week. E.g. completion of an expenses report entitles you to one spin on the roulette wheel which could win you a coffee or an iPad or half a banana; anyone completing expenses is allowed to sit on the special massage chair with an expenses only laptop to do the work. Little incremental changes have huge benefits. Mary made the small boring tasks the most fun, this is a great place to start.

So before you spend a fortune on rewards and environments have a think about how you put some fun into the workplace; get onto it before the wind changes

http://www.thecorporatefuturist.com

For all the reasons why fun is important and for some much smarter writing, have a look at these.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/lizryan/2014/08/18/how-to-have-fun-at-work/#502686c473c9

https://hbr.org/2017/07/stop-putting-off-fun-for-after-you-finish-all-your-work

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/animal-emotions/201405/the-importance-play-having-fun-must-be-taken-seriously

The curiously high cost of McDonald’s coffee and how it’s very McClever

For customer experience, we love to focus on what people ‘love’ and what people ‘need’ but maybe thinking about the lowest acceptable experience might help us even more.

To understand this blog, you have to comprehend Australian’s love of coffee. If you are not Australian, please read the postscript first. Let me also state that this is my opinion rather than an evidence based customer analysis.

‎McDonalds or (Maccas) as it called in Oz has in the past 5 years rolled out the McCafe which is essentially a café put at the front of the store. It has ‘barista’ made coffees and various pastries, muffins etc. To all intents and purposes, it is a café. It is also more expensive than most of the 400 other cafes in the immediate area, the coffee is not as good and the atmosphere is rather ‘McDonaldsy’. McDonalds therefore loses on almost all measures of customer value or experience but the McCafes are still there.

‎Here’s one of the reasons I think why

‎If you are choosing to have your hourly Cappuccino like most Aussies, it is very unlikely that you going to choose McDonalds as the number 1 coffee destination. However, I don’t think McDonalds care. This is because they have the awesome power of the Egg Muffin and the Big Mac in their arsenal. 5 years ago a customer with a real urge for a sausage sandwich at 10am would typically weigh up their options and decide that the need for a good coffee outweighs that of the McTastysnack so they would choose the bacon roll from the local café with their double shot extra foam Macchiato.

‎Today with the option of half way decent coffee at McDonalds, this allows people to focus on getting their Egg McMuffin and removes the reason to not go to McDonalds. It’s worth mentioning that Maccas don’t sell the McCafe products at the normal counter so this is probably where they are aiming anyway. McDonalds want to influence your decision making before you go in, not because they want to sell you coffee but because they want to get you in the door to sell you a sandwich. I think it’s very similar with salads which I’ve never actually seen anyone order; if you are out with 3 people, one absolutely wants a salad which would normally exclude McDonalds, but if the option is there, you take away the reason to say no.

‎Okay, so what.

‎We put a lot of effort into defining the ‘what good looks like’ in customer experience and on understanding what people love and what makes them happy. What we typically produce as consultants is a target customer experience journey with a supporting service design. We look at the delta between that and the current state and that becomes the customer transformation plan. The aspirational journey can often be just that, an unrealised wish.

‎Perhaps then, we need to consider the ‘just about good enough experience’, what is the journey which will keep people on board just long enough to not leave? If we test the lower level of expectation then we will know how far above we are aiming. With all the data and insights becoming available, we have the ability to see what triggers for behaviour will influence decision making. Rather than using this information to provide a universally better customer experience, why not develop the personalised ‘minimum viable experience’. There is obviously more to it than just this, but we could be thinking a little differently.

‎I know that my personal cut-off for waiting for a bus is 45 minutes before I’ll look for a taxi. If you build the system to charge me half price after a wait of 30 mins then I’ll probably wait longer. I know that I’d give up a weeks salary to avoid going to Ikea on a Saturday so offer me bookable parking and a free hot dog. I also know that I like a coffee at 10am but I’d probably quite like an Egg-McMuffin too.

I don’t need a reason to go, I need the excuse removed for why I can’t go.

‎www.thecorporatefuturist.com‎

‎PS People may try to convince you otherwise but the best coffee in the world is in Australia. It is treated with the reverence and respect the French treat a late harvest Chardonnay, or the way the Italians consider a tomato sauce. If you ask people where serves the best coffee they will often give you the location but only with a caveat about needing a specific barista. I know people who do not drink a coffee unless it can be confirmed as ‘single origin’. If you give Australians the choice to lose coffee forever or sacrifice barbecues for all eternity. It will be the double lattes which remain. If you are British and enjoy the coffee at a chain, you will be treated with the contempt you deserve.

The magic circle: how to consider potential and performance in 10 seconds

In only three measures; charisma, smarts and hard work, you can assess potential in the time it takes to read this blog. (including looking at yourself).

‎There has been substantial change in measuring performance, interviewing and recruitment, providing feedback and identifying potential. Some corporates have moved to no formal reviews with ongoing and systemic feedback and others are trying to push Digital Transformation – gamify, system driven and managed.

‎The problem with either is that what’s a good idea on paper needs to translate to something which works. Take a example of a three year cycle where feedback in year 1 says you were too quantitative and numbers based, and too precise on defining what good looks like. In year 2 you go too far into the qualitative side where it is harder to defend some decisions and feedback is that you weren’t specific enough. In year 3 you have a blend of the two which is cumbersome to deliver and feedback is that it takes too long.

So…..

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122426318874844933

Get Rid of the Performance Review! It destroys morale, kills teamwork and hurts the bottom line. And that’s just for starters

https://hbr.org/2015/04/reinventing-performance-management

Reinventing Performance Management ‘We found that creating the ratings consumed close to 2 million hours a year’

‎Both articles are well worth reading and have great suggestions but there is always that tinge of over-consulting about them. Hundreds of interviews supported by the strategy work and a hefty spend on external marketing. One of my biggest challenges is the idea that you assess the people in your team about what you would ‘do with them’. e.g. would you work with them?, should they be promoted right now? do I like them on my team? Whilst I like the notion, can you remove enough of the politics and the objectivity to make that fair? Or do you risk removing some diversity; I’ve worked with a lot of people I’ve struggled with and haven’t seen their value. In another project they’ve been reported as superstars. Is their new manager wrong or am I wrong? Or is there something in the middle?

To get to that middle, you have to align the different views. Create a way to calibrate the decision making and recognise the range of personalities, skills and approaches. That process needs some rigour and thought or alternatively, you have to have a very homogenised management team (very not 2017).

But if you only have 10 seconds so here is a nice simple one based on my experience.

Magic circle

‎1) Charisma – not just extroverts!, what does the person do to a conversation, what do they do to a room? Do you get a sense of enthusiasm or wonder from them? Do you learn anything?

‎2) Smarts – not just intelligence!, what do they know, do they have connections and ways to use them, do they have a massive brain? Are they devoted to a particular subject and just love it? Is there something clever in what the say?

‎3) Hard working – not just the hours! How much do they care, work hard for their time, do the extra?

To tread water, you need to be good at one. To be really good, you need two. To be remarkable, you need all three. There are very, very few people who are great at all three. The most charismatic people are not typically the hardest workers, the really smart/really hard working people don’t often have loads of charisma.

So, think about your team in the context of the above. Think about yourself, if you are all three please give me a phone and offer me a job.

http://www.thecorporatefuturist.com

Kindergarten Con(sultant) – developing corporate creativity

The world economic forum have published a fantastic article about how 98% of children are ‘creative geniuses’ when they are in kindergarten but that this skill is reduced dramatically as they go through the formal schooling system where at age 25, only 3% remain ‘creative;. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/09/skills-children-need-work-future-play-lego/. This is even before they join a consultancy company and spend their first year on a PMO engagement and I doubt the trend improves for directors updating weekly pipeline reports to astounding levels of pointless detail.

What the article also says is that the skills required for jobs as early as 2020 has ‘creativity’ in the number three spot after complex problem solving and critical thinking. The big loser in the list from 2015 to 2020 being ‘quality control’ which disappears completely. Now, there is loads of investment in education going on to try and build those skills better in children – see children in Finland starting school only when they are 6 or in New Zealand where tests show that kids who learn to read at 7 have better coFuture skills.pngmprehension skills aged 11 than the ones who learn aged 5 so children will be fine.

So Please will someone think of (someone other) than the children!

My concern is not for the future generation of workers but the current ones like me aged 37 who are still going to be around in 25 years time. I worry that I’m a coal miner in the 80s or a horse manure extraction specialist just before Henry Ford. We need to be looking at ways to teach us old dogs new creative tricks or we’re destined to be overrun by Burning Man visiting, co working, boat shoe wearing, hipsters called Rafi.

Before my skills are completely redundant though, let’s do some consulting on this issue. Starting with identifying the problem

1) SEE WHAT YOU HAVE – The results above for children are based on the application of ‘Torrance Tests of Creative thinking’ for kindergarten students – read this : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torrance_Tests_of_Creative_Thinking. We should run the tests for corporates to judge where the pool of talent sit against a creativity score. This score will at least give a baseline for a Corporate Creativity Score CCS(TM, Patent Pending- Keith Logan). What you want to do is to get a sense of how people approach creativity and having ideas, because once you know that you’ll be able to have the evidence to do something about it. (which is required is any corporate to gain any meaningful support).

The simple test given to children is to take a simple paperclip and ask them what you can do with it. The score is then based on;

Fluency. The total number of interpretable, meaningful, and relevant ideas generated in response to the stimulus.

Flexibility. The number of different categories of relevant responses

Originality. The statistical rarity of the responses.

Elaboration. The amount of detail in the responses.

Take a practical example of how this is applied day to day with design thinking. As part the ideation phase, we commonly ask adults for a large volume of ideas and then wonder why not everyone is good at it.

2) CREATE AN ENVIRONMENT FOR CREATIVITY – there has been a huge amount of money invested in Innovation centres and corporate co-working spaces but they commonly fit into a few categories;

1) a beautiful shiny, technology space run by militant ‘ innovation types’ the whole room humming with the raw processing power of the live demo equipment no one uses more than once a week and kept immaculately clean in case clients come in

2) A trendy spot with a funky name ‘the junction’, ‘the jungle’, ‘the ideas jetpack jamboree juice bar’ always with a ping-pong table than is only used once a week on a Friday when people book it or

3) A repurposed couple of walls with white board material usually stained from the ERP project plan that was written on it 3 months ago and no-one bothered to rub it off.

What you need is a ‘Corporate Kindergarten’ where the activities are constantly moving around and where people can invest time that they choose in the things that interest them. They can be engaged entirely in what they are doing both individually and with others. After a while, anyone with children will testify that these spaces are rarely tidy and organised. So why not create a space with games, puzzles, music, water, plants, toys where there is no objective to be met, you have to leave your phone outside and the environment is constantly changing. You create an adult ‘creche; where you are essentially dropped off by your manager to spend some time? Children learn by playing and we shouldn’t be any different, if you’ve ever had a good idea in the shower it’s because the brain helps itself when it’s focussed on something else.

3) INSERT THE MADNESS (AND SOME STRUCTURE)- To be avoided is the ‘invasion of the Creatives’; the UX/UI, creative teams almost always move themselves into the place in the room which looks the most collaborative, visual or visible. If you have high-desks and comfy seats, they will soon be overrun with people in t-shirts with large noise cancelling headphones and no-one else gets a look in. You want to care about the whole group not just the people who already are creative and imaginative. What if all the training budget went on people who already knew the subject? Accordingly, you do need some process behind using the space. Time by team, by project, nominations for individuals, rules about phones, work, clearing up etc. Rather like a kindergarten, it might seem messy after a while but the start of everyday is neat and tidy (and different). There is also a rough plan to what the children do, it’s not a complete free for all whether it’s ‘animals week’ or ‘naptime’.

There does need to be some ‘madness’ added to the mix. People have the have the psychology safety to be creative which means you have more fun and have more ideas in a pub than you do in a library . Furthermore, if you want to create an atmosphere where anything can be imagined, you have to create something wild enough to set the range. If you see your CEO playing twister with the leadership team, you give everyone permission to be braver, wilder or ultimately more creative.

There is a point for most of us where the desire to play, be creative and to have fun is eroded by process and structure. If there is a change in what’s important in work towards creativity, Emotional Intelligence and problem solving then perhaps we all have to go back to Kindergarten and start again.

http://www.thecorporatefuturist.com

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/09/skills-children-need-work-future-play-lego/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torrance_Tests_of_Creative_Thinking

 

Judge Dredd: Judge, Jury and Execution of leading practice Agile

In a future world with increased urbanisation, huge disruption due to climate change, a series of ‘judges’ double as police, jury, judge and executioner to make immediate decisions on crimes and conduct immediate remediation up to and not limited to instant execution with a range of exotic weaponry. They are supported by an huge AI engine with all information on each individual delivered through a Google glass type device which supports the ultimate decision. An ethereal Siri type voice provides the information direct to Judge Dredd who then makes the decision.

‎Now, it might seem like a leap but this is basically the perfect description of good Agile management (without the executions). Here’s why;

‎With the risk of being controversial, Agile is increasingly the de facto project delivery approach but it is commonly poorly delivered or is morphed into a hybrid which doesn’t help anyone. It all sounds so good to start with; flexible and quick delivery of outputs, visible and engaging, easy to see progress and all you need are two core principles;

‎ 1) that you don’t know exactly what you are going to get at the end and 2) You have to have the ability to make quick decisions of some importance.

‎This is where the cunning plan can fall down, the client needs some clarity of the outcome and some decisions are delayed to get the right group. It is very quick to end up with a series of small waterfalls against a big project plan. A simple test for your project is to count how many people are in the PMO or PM team and to have a quick look at your project plan. From a consultant’s perspective, you can be in the position where the length of a Sprint creates a hugely increased level of bureaucracy and actually restricts the ability to be flexible because you are constantly defending small changes or delays. Most of us never work harder than on Agile projects and you know what; it’s not always the consultants fault.

‎In the comic, Judge Dredd came about because of the slow speed of the decision making process in ‘Megacity One’ to deliver justice. Decisions were stacking up, cases were overwhelming the Steering Group (Megacity Courts) and nothing was getting done. So, they armed the Judges with authority to make decisions immediately, stuffed them full of information available and put in some checks to measure their performance. Judge Dredd even went around with a deputy who provided an ongoing psychology summary e.g. the voice of the customer embedded right there in the decision process.

‎It’s time then to apply some Judge Dredd to the corporate Agile process as part of the governance. Each member of an overall program steering group could be nominated as a Judge. Each are armed with a Judge’s visor (or an iPad would probably do) loaded with all the decisions, strategies, an overall Judge Yammer group and any project document. They are supported by a Deputy Judge who represents the customer (they too could get a cool uniform). Decisions are made in the moment and are recorded into the central store. You could even use the Judge Dredd story to explain the process for Agile and actually build it into the project lexicon. I’d love to go to a Sprint start-up, close-down when dramatic music herald the feared arrival of the ‘Judge’.

‎What’s even more important is to consider the impact of Agile on overall project delivery. The biggest change in IT project delivery in the past decade has been the reduction in the time from idea to execution. My first project as a grad was a 3 year ERP implementation (in fairness, it was meant to be 2 years) but a typical cycle now can be 16 or 20 weeks. Back then when things were more customised and bespoke, you still spent half the money on the change and business piece. Now you are talking about an even bigger change for people in a hugely reduced time period.

‎So you have to be quicker, more visible and more direct. Send for the Judge.

‎www.thecorporatefuturist.com

The avocado munching, living with the parents, future makers: a new approach to graduate

‎There is a now famous line in Australia where the suggestion was made that the real reason young people can’t afford to buy a house is because they spend all of their money eating smashed avocado for brunch ($20) when they should be saving for a deposit (Sydney median house price about $1,000,000). Everyone had a good laugh at this but it is reflective of a new type of corporate graduate; the live at home, no risk, avocado munchers.

‎Alongside the house price growth, we have created a world which is more short term, more connected to opportunities and with increased expectations of what is possible for people in their twenties. When I joined a consulting firm in 2004, the was still a typical trajectory to follow; start at the bottom, compete heavily to learn, save enough for a deposit on a house, marriage/kids, pressure to maintain mortgage e.g. need to stay with consulting firm at higher wage point. I’ve been lucky to have worked with a lot of graduates over the years and there is a definitive trend (certainly in Australia) where they increasingly live at home, they are given opportunities to move employers earlier (and not just the high flyers) and they see their learning pathways not just in terms of their employer but as a wider system of opportunity.

‎Essentially, a graduate of 23 no longer sees risk in the same way as we did even 10 years ago. If the chance arises to do something fascinating outside of the corporate world, to set-up a business selling socks or move fields completely I believe they are much more likely to do so now than ever before. Contrast this with the core corporate ethos for graduates namely; graduates are a cost, VP’s and directors are a cost, the objective is to invest in graduates to get them to Senior Analyst/Consultant or Manager grades where they make the real money and add the most value.

‎This approach no longer matches up so I’m calling for a new approach to managing grads in the corporate world

‎1) Holistic rewards – we typically see rewards as money and then benefits as a cheap film tickets and vouchers for the supermarket. For graduates, what we typically don’t appreciate if that they’ve come from a word where they’d paid lots of money to learn (University). When they come into a graduate position, the dynamic shifts completely. Rather than see salary as $100, why not see it as 100 units where units can be exchanged for external learning, trips to labs in San Francisco, exchange programs, increased holiday. If we change the dynamic away from a purely financial transaction, we will be able to better fulfil graduate’s expectations of value. Put simply, if you are living at home with no chance of getting house, your salary is probably not the major driving force in your life right now.

‎2) Long term incentives – corporates are terrible at thinking in medium to long-term for resources. I can usually tell within a couple of months whether a graduate is going to be great, average or mediocre. For the ones that we think are going to great, why don’t we try and lock them into NBA style long term contracts. We are going to give you a $100k in cash right now, your 2018 H2 is planned to be in our offices in New York, Singapore or London, in 2020, you will have this salary and this job title if you meet the following objectives. We should be applying a total cost of ownership calculation to our grads over 5 years and invest accordingly.

‎3) The Avocado Café Start-up mentality – every graduate knows of 10 people their age who are billionaires and 10 people they’ve heard of working in start-ups in Melbourne or design agencies in London. Almost all of them are convinced they would be just as successful if given the opportunity and a number of them try. They should be celebrated for this mentality but they should be channelled into making that a success for the business. We should be putting some skin in the game in allowing the graduates to try. Why not create a real commercial venture within the corporate and put the grads in charge with equity and profit share. An increasing number of grads join with ‘entrepreneur/euse’ written on their CV and they either immediately give it up or run it on the side which is then the thing they’d rather be doing. They could be running the Avocado Café outside your office

‎We are operating in a world where expectation and potential is a quantum jump away from what it used to be. It’s time maybe to think a bit smarter .

‎www.thecorporatefuturist.com

Thinking fast and travelling slow – designing the Gold Bus Customer Experience

There is a magical bus in Glasgow, Scotland called the Citylink Gold bus (http://www.citylinkgold.co.uk) which links the city with its neighbour Edinburgh, 40 miles to the east. It is much slower than the train and the arrival time is inconsistent, it is just as expensive as the train, it’s start point in the city is more awkward than the train station and it is extremely popular.

‎What…..

‎Stop for a moment and have a look at this great Ted talk from 2012. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iueVZJVEmEs.

‎As the talk explains (much more impressively than I), perception is a an incredible driver of a positive or negative customer experience. If you expect your parcel to be delivered in 2 days and it takes a week, it’s a disaster. If you expect it two weeks and it arrives in 1 week it’s great. Imagine if it’s your wedding day in one week… The prevailing view is that if speed improves people will be happier; quicker mortgage, quicker delivery, quicker trip etc. In the corporate world, it is also driven from the need to create a business case where the tangible benefits in looking at time can be easily understood and accordingly easily signed-off.

‎This is especially true of transport where fantastical sums of money are being spent on improving the time it takes to get from A to B. In Sydney, the Westconnex (western road network) is going to cost $17b or more relevantly around $3500 per man, woman and child in the city. The whole investment is on the perception that increases to volume will require investment to maintain current journey times (some incremental improvement is likely to be cancelled out by the increased journeys as the city grows). Even more fascinatingly is the investment into the northern beaches of Sydney (a traffic Armageddon) on a new bus line with lots of double decker buses at an increased frequency (increased capacity) with new parking lots right beside the stops (increased incentive not to drive). Here’s the rub though; tolls and parking already mean it’s a $40 a day expense to get into the city by car so there will actually be an increased incentive to drive to the bus stop . So there will actually be more traffic on the road with the new buses and as a bonus, double decker buses also take longer to get in and out.

So then, in essence, it’s a multimillion cost to possibly improve the chances of getting a seat on the bus and improve the customer experience a touch?

Leave it then to Scotland to show us in Australia what to do. The above mentioned Goldbus which is slower and just an expensive as the train has done their homework in looking at customers  and have created an experience to match it.

On the train, you can’t get a seat, it’s busy, uncomfortable and impersonal, wifi is ropey but it doesn’t take too long. On the Goldbus, you prebook a seat, you get a free breakfast and a cup of tea, a free newspaper, decent wifi and a steward/ess who manages the tickets and food/drink, and because it’s Scotland no doubt provides some additional banter. You are therefore given the choice to sacrifice some time and convenience for a hugely enhanced customer experience which leaves people with the option to travel as per their own perception of value.

When we design Customer Experiences then, we have to look past the easy answer and start to ask questions which challenge core perceptions of value. What if your commute took 3 hours each way every day and you still chose to do it? What would that look like?

To quote from the Citylink people – ‘it’s more than a journey’

www.thecorporatefuturist.com

http://www.citylinkgold.co.uk

 

Darth Vader’s approach to a two speed Digital corporate culture

‎Say what you like about Darth Vader, he ran a tight ship. He was consistently results driven and he delivered feedback (usually fatal) in a timely manner rather than wait for the Death Star half yearly appraisals. I also never saw him punish a stormtrooper, not one single lower level employee, Darth reserved his ire for the senior members of the team, make changes quickly to improve performance and always, always promoted from within. I’m sure he was seen as a wonderfully charismatic figure by the rank and file and he was always diligent in applying the wishes of the Emperor. He is therefore, a fine example of a CXO in modern corporate business.

‎He is a strong symbol externally to the market, he works his leadership hard but never seeks to micro-manage. It is also impossible to challenge the remarkable political and technological achievements made by the ‘Empire’. The creation of a seriously killer app (literally) and the subvention of the entire system of government without military intervention. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/30/google-silicon-valley-corporate-lobbying-washington-dc-politics, http://www.news.com.au/technology/online/social/speculation-about-a-mark-zuckerberg-presidential-run-refuses-to-die/news-story/e42cb11b82f8a527709c61349de2eae8.

‎This year perhaps more than in the past 10 years; conversations about moving corporate culture have been more prevalent. There is a general realisation in the power of the force (culture) being required to adapt to a digital, customer centric world as a pathway to Digital Transformation. If you add the technology of the empire and the scale of managing the galaxy without getting the people right. You’ll never defeat the rebellion.

‎However, with all the will in world you aren’t going to change everyone to the right culture in the time available before the next wave of innovation and progress arrives; so do we have to take advice from Darth?

Your clone army

‎You need to respect your clones – the basis of the stormtroopers was a clone army which was superior to the robot equivalent as the power to think creatively was preferred. These clones are easy to manage due to training, repeated performance and a strict adherence to orders. All due respect to them, they aren’t going to progress up the ranks and actually, you don’t need them to. You need to keep them focussed on tasks, reward them well for performance (shore leave on Naiboo maybe). You want them to focussed on details, rigorous and engaged. Success is commonly it’s own reward and pride at every level in the organisation’s performance is hugely powerful.

Your leaders and your leading edge

‎You also need some charisma and some fun as you live your values – https://hbr.org/2017/07/stop-putting-off-fun-for-after-you-finish-all-your-work. All of the lead bad guys in Star Wars are gloriously compelling – gravel voiced with masks, red spiky faces and cool double lightsabres, giant worm things or Christopher Lee. They all have their gimmicks, their specialist skills and they all have charisma and people willing to fight for them. Perhaps even more importantly, the top, top guys all have a messianic pursuit of a single corporate value – the force. Every action is set and measured against the instinct and the strength which comes from this single unifying spirit.

‎Allow Darth and the bosses to lead the way but where you need to put the money is in the culture is in the ideas people? The person with the crazy idea for the Death Star would have had some challenging early steering group meetings in the concept phase. How much steel? How much power? How many special explosive crystal things? How long? There needed to be the culture in place to allow for such an idea to be brought up in the first place and then to get the support behind the project…… There is also the remarkable autonomy given to the lead engineers so that such a creation could be made even when it has a major design flaw (single shot to the exhaust vent blows it up – even though it’s probably not https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agcRwGDKulw), and goes into Beta testing when it’s not finished (Return of the Jedi – geeky reference this one).

‎So, perhaps it’s time to accept that a balanced utopia in the your corporate culture is not what you need in the first instance. You need to create a 2 speed culture which allows one group to focus on what they are good at and another group to be the (Death) Star team. In time perhaps you can move everyone, but success brings it’s own challenges. Don’t believe me – look at how Google has split their business into the money making bit and the ideas bit and their corporate motto was just one word away from the Empire’s – Do(n’t) be evil!

‎Thecorporatefuturist.com

Design Thinking; an obituary in advance

Design-Thinking-01I am a management consultant of 15 years and in that time, there is only one immutable truth. That which says that everything can be structured, rolled up into a framework, split into a method, repurposed as training materials and then sold onto clients. You can’t sell an idea but you can sell the process to get the idea.

Each consulting epoch (2-3 years) has it’s own special flavour. Lean went from manufacturing through the sausage machine into desks at public sector offices and faded into standard operations. Agile started with software developers, scrums mutated into sprints and now gets applied everywhere and nowhere (especially in proposals). Design thinking is the current chef’s special and the signs are all there that it’s about to begin it’s process of becoming commoditised and therefore go gently into the good night.

Let’s examine the signs.

1) Training – I sat in a lecture from a well known consulting firm who were extremely proud that they were rolling out training to everyone in the whole organisation on design thinking; through a 1 hour online mandatory training course. Hmmmm

2) Use of the term Design Thinky – as in, we aren’t going to run design thinking but we are applying a Design Thinky approach

3) Certification – once real saturation point is reached, the only way forward is to propose a tiered system of accreditation to support multiple layers of training and expense; green belt, master user, 4th dan. It’s only a matter of time before we see a linked in profile extoling a person’s role as a 4th Level grandmaster Design Thinker – with proof of 400hrs of Design Thinking led work supported by 5 testimonies and a formal exam.

Here is what I find wrong with this. Design Thinking relies on some real skills which aren’t built by learning the process. You have to have people instincts which allow you to run interviews and assessment based on building rapport, applying psychology and to create real empathy. You can’t do this from a pro forma spreadsheet. You also have to have the imagination and insight which enables you to manage the creation of ideas. This requires facilitation skills which come from experience and again applies a lens of psychology into how you get the best out of people. To develop the ideas, you need the ability to prototype past the point of drawing some lines on a page or building a model with some sticks; there is dev ops, UX/UI right, process/op model, supply chain right behind which needs some specific skills. To run a linear process, you look at inputs and outputs/outcomes as points of certainty to progress. By definition, the approach should go back and forward, up and down to get the best out the people and the process.

Design thinking is not a new idea. The HBR published a article about it in 2008 and even that came 30 years after a book on visual thinking – idea-sketching, seeing, and imagining which formed the basis for the psychology behind the approach. Each element comes from having years of experience and range of people who can support and deliver the method. Ironically, if you have these people together then you wouldn’t need any process or model to get good outcomes, you would rely on the group genius and the skills to bring out the insight and the answer.

Should we not abandon teaching design thinking as a method and teach psychology, facilitation, customer centricity, dev ops, product design? Sounds a lot harder right?

I am therefore declaring Design Thinking dead just as I did that social media site when my Mum signed up; all the cool people would leave and find something new, no-one would use the full access to the facilities and surely there would be other better options. (Facebook I think they were called).