Tag: Decision Making

  • Running Across an Open Field: Strategy for Disruptive Technology?

    Running Across an Open Field: Strategy for Disruptive Technology?

    Several weeks ago, as an amateur history buff, I was watching a documentary about World War I.  During one segment the commentator discussed the apparent fact that if soldiers refused to charge out of their trenches across an open field into the teeth of waiting machine guns they would be shot.

    The brutality of such a command by (so-called) leadership is appalling.  It may have been one thing for Alexander the Great’s armies to engage in open battles with sharp pointed objects as weapons.

    It is quite another for General Pickett’s infantry at Gettysburg to charge cannons and 50+ years later to repeatedly try the same tactic (by both sides) at horrific costs.  Generals always fight the last war, so the saying goes.

    This blog is not about some of history’s follies, it is about learning so as not to repeat the mistakes of others.  These lessons apply to readers’ daily business world as well.

    When New Technology is Deployed

    New disruptive technology can tear the societal fabric.  Some old jobs and companies disappear, and new ones thrive.  This process has been repeated since antiquity.

    Our culture is having this dialogue today regarding digitalization and its suite of technological driven change, i.e., Blockchain, AI, etc.  Principal issues that must be addressed include Human Factors Engineering (HFE).

    “HFE places the human operator at the center of the complex operating environment.  HFE recognizes that this individual or set of individuals is the puppet master and is responsible for the entire show.”  In other words how do we interact with the new technological reality.

    Reliable and valid HFE is the key to successful digitalization initiatives.  It will be the vital to whatever is next as well.

    Tyranny of the Minority

    From political science, “For centuries, theorists have worried about the potential of unrestrained democracy to lead to a tyranny of the majority, in which majority groups ride roughshod over the rights of minorities.  What we often see today is instead a kind of tyranny of the minority: a system in which a particularly extreme and motivated fraction of the populace can wield outsized power in the face of a majority which is either too indifferent or too scared to oppose it,” (italics added).

    In most organizations, there are fewer leaders than those who fabricate a ‘work product.’  The responsibility of leadership is to set the vision, mission and goal as well as enabling the organization with the tools and support necessary to reach targeted stakeholder value.

    But what if this minority group is the slowest to come to grips with disruptive forces?  In the face of newness, they may ‘keep doing what they have always been doing.”  In such an environment, the organization will likely not reap the same reward as in the past.

    Does too indifferent or too scared describe your organization’s ecosystem workforce?  One suspects It would be good to know.

    Fast Fail

    In our last blog we discussed the rapid assessment of technology and when to drop it if it does not appear to be working out.  Perhaps, we should treat managerial processes the same way.  After a horrific and visible failure in leadership, conceivably one preserves best by looking for alternative?

    If charging head long across an open field leads to disaster, why keep doing it?  While a counter argument might be that we had no tools to defeat those equipped with the new technology, to this writer, that logic is suspect.

    Flanking an enemy’s line or using guerrilla tactics, et. al. are as old as human confrontation.  Unconventional warfare has a long record of documented success.

    The business lexicon is loaded with military terminology.  We often speak of business as if it is warfare, when of course it is not.  There are lessons to be learned about human and organizational behavior, however.

    Decades ago, the concept of Guerrilla Marketing was the rage.  With the advent of social media, it has advanced, and the methodology is available to all.  Huge budgets and massive media campaigns are no longer necessary.

    Head-to-Head the biggest ‘guy’ usually wins.  So, if you’re not him/her, DON’T DO IT!!  However, the small mammals may displace slow moving dinosaurs.

    Agile is not an IT term.  It should be the state of mind of leaders at all levels.  To charge across the open business landscape into technology designed to destroy your organization remains folly.

    How Are You Leading the Charge into the Future?

    For More Information

    Please note, RRI does not endorse or advocate the links to other materials.  They are provided for education and entertainment only.

    See this 3:15 minute clip for more information on living in a World War I trench.  Pathetic way for leaders to force those under their command to live.

    For more information on Cross Cultural Engagement, check out our Cross Cultural Serious Game

    You can contact the author as well.

    End Notes

      https://consult2050.com/job-disruption-due-to-digitalization/

      https://therrinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/HRM-in-Process-Industries-Sustained-by-Human-Factors.pdf

      Ibid.

      https://areomagazine.com/2019/04/02/the-tyranny-of-the-minority-and-how-to-prevent-it/

      https://therrinstitute.com/lessons-from-the-seventies/

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

  • Lessons from the Seventies

    Lessons from the Seventies

    At lunch the other day and for whatever reason, the history of the 3M Post It Note became a subject of our conversation.  This technological marvel unveiled in the 1970s is still widely used today.

    As with other new or disruptive technologies, the ‘sticky note’ was panned at first and for some time.  According to Wikipedia, the technology was first developed in 1968.  It was not until 1974 that it gained some internal company support.

    When finally introduced in 1977, the pilot results were unsatisfactory.  However, things started to change in 1978 when a small (focus) group of consumers were positive about the product.

    The United States roll-out began in the spring of 1980, followed by Europe and Canada in 1981.  A bit of trivia, the reason it was originally yellow was because yellow colored scrap paper was readily available at its inception.

    Earlier the day of our lunch meeting, a discussion revolved around how long it might take an idea to become a fundable start-up company.  Several participants argued that with proper guidance, the process still might take up to two years.  This pundit argued that many entrepreneurs would see that as too long and become disinterested.

    The legacy of the Post It Note suggests that this pundit might be incorrect.  The lowly sticky note did not even begin its journey to become a Unicorn until twelve years after its technology was discovered.

    In 2015, we penned a blog, Titans of the 1940s Today.  The basic premise of that piece was when commenting about the Internet of Things (IoT) and its complexity, individuals such as Richard Feynman and John von Neumann (father of the 1945 computer architecture that is the basis of modern computing) had developed solutions for today prior to this author’s birth.

    We stand on the shoulders of these and other giants.  The challenge of every generation has been to build on what those who came before advanced.  So it remains today!

    Body of Knowledge

    Human kind has developed a rich body of knowledge in all areas of endeavor.  It is readily available for entrepreneurs as well as those employed by all types of organizations.  This knowledge base has been addressed in this blog and other writings by the author.  Interested readers are invited to review my blogs and newsletters dating back to the last century.

    Our march through history provides all of us a ‘go-by’ that can shorten our learning curve.  One example this author often cites is the depth of historical knowledge of management.  Contrary to many gurus, humans have managed others and processes for many millennia.

    Fail Fast, Fail Often?

    If 3M or Feynman et al practiced this technology development model as most interpret it, our world might be a lesser place.  Give up and move on to the next?

    One interpretation suggests, “Originating from Silicon Valley and its ocean of start-ups, the real aim of “fail fast, fail often,” is not to fail, but to be iterative.  To succeed, we must be open to failure—sure—but the intention is to ensure we are learning from our mistakes as we tweak, reset, and then redo if necessary.”

    This same article goes on to state, “Thomas Edison, by example, ‘failed’ 9,000 times before he was successful with his light bulb invention.”  Perseverance can be a lonely quality!

    Don’t lose heart.  Great ideas abound but must gestate.  It is often said that we find our soulmate when we least expect to—I know I did.  Progress is an iterative process fueled by creativity and critical thinking.

    Is Your Idea a Unicorn Waiting to be Born and Mature?

    For More Information

    Please note, RRI does not endorse or advocate the links to other materials.  They are provided for education and entertainment only.

    You can contact the author more information as well.

    End Notes

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-it_Note

      https://therrinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Titans-of-the-1940s-Today-April-20-2015.pdf

      https://therrinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/1993-Management-Theory-Evolution-Not-Revolution.pdf

      https://www.forbes.com/sites/danpontefract/2018/09/15/the-foolishness-of-fail-fast-fail-often/#1db35b0e59d9

  • Want – Like – Need

    Want – Like – Need

    Years ago, as part of a never-ending series of company reorganizations, a team of our change management consultants headed to the ‘field’ to interview users.  Upon their return, they presented an extensive list of technology investments deemed necessary to remain competitive.

    Their list focused on technology and not business concerns.  Wondering, I asked who they interviewed.  Proudly, they proclaimed the “field engineers.”  When queried–did they talk with district managers, regional engineers and others with P&L or other managerial responsibilities, the answer was “no.”

    This very expensive process by a major professional services organization simply generated a wish list of junior employees.  It was what they thought they WANTED.

    In our current jargon, “cool stuff.”  Needless to say, none of these projects were funded.  Wasted time and money by those not familiar with our business!

    Today, we are driven to LIKE everything!  CRM systems demand input before we have even procured the product or service.  Log on to any given website and the request to complete a survey will hit you before you read the first line.  Five stars or thumbs-up emojis appears to be the goal.

    Do wants and likes add value?  Perhaps a like is a statement of preference, but perhaps the consumer wants the digital driven question to just go away without the hassle of someone begging for a higher ranking like.  Fibbing to surveys has become a national pastime.

    Business should be most concerned about what a prospect or returning customer NEED.  What pain point or problem does your product/service solve?  If you can’t answer that question, no amount of wants and likes will add to your bottom line.

    I may want a hamburger and go to a fast food restaurant with lots of likes.  However, if I am in a hurry and their preference is clearly to move cars via the drive-through faster than those of us waiting inside, my need to eat quickly will not be met.  I may leave without my meal or most likely not respond to a survey seeking likes.  Then never return!

    That lost customer will never surface in any analysis—not even one star.  Enough of those responses and the business will be in jeopardy and management my not even know why.  Collecting likes should never be a Key Performance Indicator (KPI).

    Finding the Pain

    In a recent Global Energy Mentors leadership meeting, an investment group recounted their business model as one that focused on identifying organizational ‘pain’ points.  Once a specific pain was articulated, the search for new technologies that would address/resolve that pain was undertaken.

    This model flies in the face of Steve Job’s, “A lot of times, people don’t know what they want until you show it to them.”  That may be and sometimes unknown needs are uncovered.

    However, in critical infrastructure sectors where failure is not be an option because it can be very expensive solving a known need is usually most important.  Without exception, this entrepreneur’s success has been focusing on addressing industrial client known pain points.  As an example, our EVPM modeling process demands input from customer groups.

    In this blog series, we have referred to successful change management that comes from addressing the—what’s in it for me question.  From a customer perspective; freeing ‘me’ from known pain is often more valuable than alleviating pain I did not know I had.

    Does Your Value Proposition Solve a Need, Address a Want, or Simply Generate a Like?

    For More Information

    Please note, RRI does not endorse or advocate the links to other materials.  They are provided for education and entertainment only.

    You can contact the author more information as well.

    End Notes

      http://globalenergymentors.org/

      https://www.helpscout.com/blog/why-steve-jobs-never-listened-to-his-customers/

      https://therrinstitute.com/brand-your-digital-oilfield-culture-internalize-its-transformation/

  • It’s the Economics Stupid!

    It’s the Economics Stupid!

    Since it was first uttered in the early 1990s, the phrase “It’s the economy stupid” has been used and misused extensively.  Let’s squander the lexicon one more time.

    The US ‘silly’ political season is well underway and forecast to last almost 13 more months—no telling what voodoo economics will emerge.  Those of us with our business noses to the grindstone must ride this stormy weather to a safe port next November.

    Most have an interest in the macroeconomic policies nation states put forth but other than voting and perhaps lobbying, there is little many can do to materially impact the economy.  What we can do is focus on the economics of our business—CAPEX.  Hence, our daily mantra should be, “It’s the Economics Stupid.”

    What Is Your Value to the Customer?

    For over the fifteen our organization has been, “Helping Clients Achieve Organizational Agility, Resiliency and Sustainability.”  Assisting clients develop and articulate a viable economic value proposition has been one of the most elusive and vexing challenges.

    There is a strong tendency to make statements that are Overstated, Not Demonstrable, and Not Defendable.  Declarations such as, “Enhanced credit control system for partners through increased information visibility” are effectively meaningless—yes, this is an actual quotation from a software company.  Customers are left with the question, “What does that mean for me?”

    Translate Technology into the Language of Business

    If you leave your customer with the above and/or other questions regarding your value to their enterprise, likely the sale will not close.  Probably, a more coherent competitor will leave with the deal.

    CAPEX always undergoes extensive scrutiny; even at the Board level in some cases.  While new and cool technology may ultimately be disruptive and of extremely high value, peddlers must speak the language of the Chief Financial Officer and her staff.  These are ‘green’ deals!

    Those tasked with generating revenue from technological solutions must also take on the role of translator.  Bridging the cultural differences between cool stuff and the bottom line requires a Rosetta Stone.

    The Economic Value Proposition Matrix® model (EVPM) was originally developed with a Super Independent oil and gas operator at the first part of the century to become that Rosetta Stone.  Working with customers, technology providers can now prepare for the inevitable decision by the CFO.  Usually, the vendor will not attend said meeting but preparing the customer staff to make the case is mandatory.

    This video tells the whole story in less than 43 minutes.  Is winning your next deal worth an investment of three quarters of an hour?  If not, keep doing what your doing and hope for a different result.

    The video makes the case that technology offerings often seems similar.  The same buzzwords and euphemisms often confused clients and make it appear that since the solutions are basically the same, just go with the low dollar.  Rising above this clutter is required to be successful.

    How is Your Value Proposition Better Than Your Competitors’?

    For More Information

    Please note, RRI does not endorse or advocate the links to third party materials.  They are provided for education and entertainment only.

    You can contact the author more information as well.

    End Notes

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_the_economy,_stupid

      https://www.forbes.com/sites/briandomitrovic/2018/12/02/george-h-w-bushs-voodoo-rhetoric/#26f9ad21798a

      https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/042415/what-difference-between-operating-expense-and-capital-expense.asp

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

  • In Defense of Humans—Machines Are Not Ready Yet

    In Defense of Humans—Machines Are Not Ready Yet

    I recently submitted an internal organizational document that was spellchecked in addition to my review; several times.  One sentence where there the intent was to say, “that which is …” was change to “that witch is …”

    Did I type it wrong or did ‘auto correct’ take over the decision process?  In any event spellcheck did not perform adequately against minimal Quality Assurance standards.  And how many of us ‘fat finger’ text messages?

    Is this is the technology that is going to drive me to work safely over 200 days a year; round trip?  I hope not.

    One pervasive message—technology gets better with time (more mature).  Is this true?

    How old is spellcheck?  By some accounts it dates to the 1960s.  Most believe by the late 1970s.  So close to half a century.  Yet!

    Usually a spellchecker is not used in a life or death situation.  That is unless it’s for your resume or job application!  However, what about software that is utilized for critical processes, i.e., medicine, process control, etc.

    There are many examples where apparent software failures have negatively impacted human life.  This pundit has written this subject including a look at Man Machine Codependency.  In another blog we commented on problems associated with valid and reliable analysis of Big Data.

    In this author’s opinion, software is getting better and while most likely will not be perfect, will change our daily processes.  The human overlords will need to be trained and/or retrained for the digitalization era.

    This cautionary tale is not about this writer’s inability to use word processing tools.  As we depend on these tools for critical decision making, we must have the core knowledge of the subject we are tackling.

    During a class on digitalization for my master’s level students, I put forth several examples where errors were made by various software applications.  Most had a level of comedy to them, but ALL have potential real-world consequences (bold font).

    • All People in Canada are the Same AgeDemographics for Census or Marketing
    • In Excel 2007, multiplying 77.1 times 850 yielded 100,000 instead of the accurate answer 65,535—Accounting or Engineering
    • The Making of a Fly, a classic work in developmental biology, was listed on Amazon.com as having 17 copies for sale: 15 used from $35.54, and two new from $23,698,655.93 (plus $3.99 shipping)–Procurement
    • Finally, Airline Disaster on AutopilotSafety for the Traveling Public

    This writer has authored books, articles, speeches, presentations, and blogs for many years.  Arguably, he can claim some experience as a writer.  Subject Matter Expert?

    In one instance, the ‘witch’ word won over my intent.  Did the technology cause this error?  Probably, as the goddess of Halloween is not something I typically pontificate about—not on my radar, so to speak.

    Humans can rule for the foreseeable future.  That is unless we seed to the technology.  Most importantly, algorithmic errors can lead to cataclysmic business and even life events.

    Finally, I spellchecked this blog before publication, and it caught the ‘witch’ word this time.  Go figure.

    How Prepared is Your Organization to Oversee the Digitalization Transformation?

    For More Information

    Please note, RRI does not endorse or advocate the links to other materials.  They are provided for education and entertainment only.

    You can contact the author more information as well.

    End Notes

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

      https://therrinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Man-Machine-Codependency-September-22-2014.pdf

      https://therrinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Big-Data-Revisited-December-15-2016.pdf

      https://consult2050.com/job-disruption-due-to-digitalization/

  • Systemic Reasoning Errors: Stink’en Think’en

    Systemic Reasoning Errors: Stink’en Think’en

    The April 13-14, 2019 edition of the Wall Street Journal featured an opinion piece by Holman W. Jenkins, Jr., Russiagate and the Media’s News Denial.  The author makes the point, “Judgement is teachable.  Long ago, in relation to the Enron debacle, I pointed to the work of Harvard’s Max Bazerman and Northwestern’s David Messick, who theorized how systematic reasoning errors can lead to unethical business judgments.”  He goes on to discuss how the journalism sector may be suffering from this problem, vis-à-vis the Trump Administration.

    Cognitive bias errors impact the way people process and interpret information.  Our attempt to simplify can lead to nonobjective, illogical and poor decision making.  So, do these poor judgement issues concern me?

    The emerging digitalization model to attain and sustain Operational Excellence by definition is systemically complex.  A highly integrated ecosystem coupled with tens of thousands of data sensors and quasi-independent processing systems support field operations.  Moreover, risk mitigation models in such an environment are themselves complex.

    Human decision-making processes in this new environment will necessarily change from the traditional management of automated systems and data analysis.  Extensive training must be part of the transformational process.

    Additionally, Governance models may need revision as well.  What is the role of the Board and ‘C’ Suite (CIO vs. COO?) with the digitalization of the organization?

    Clarification.  The term ‘stinking thinking’ refers to tactics either unintentionally or insidiously used to create expectation biases.  The title uses a colloquial term Stink’en Think’en as a function of lousy thought processes; nothing more.

    The challenges we face are much more than technology driven.  As always, human Behaviors are at the core and Conditions in the near future may be dramatically different from the present.

    New Relationships will emerge as well.  We have previously discussed the R B C model.  It is good guidance for this transformation.

    How Does Your Organization Mitigate Systemic Reasoning Errors by Its Decision Makers?

    For More Information

    How Cognitive Biases Influence How You Think and Act is a very good article on this subject.  Interested readers may want to check it out.

    You can contact the author more information as well.

    End Notes

      https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-media-psychology-effect/201311/stinking-thinking-and-expectation-bias

      https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00U0JKMT0/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i1

  • Elevator: Going Up or Going Down?

    Elevator: Going Up or Going Down?

    True Story!  A couple of decades ago when I was the sales manager of a technology line of business that was part of a much larger organization, an excited young sales representative rushed into my office.  He just had to tell me that he just rode up the elevator and an older gentleman wearing a suit who had asked him about his business.

    He explained in the short time it took to get to our floor he had essentially ‘cored dumped’ everything he knew to this stranger.  When asked if he got his name, the answer was no.  Turns out the individual was the CEO of our division.

    While this was a discussion in an elevator, it was far from an elevator pitch.  Talking fast to get as much as you can in a short period is usually not an effective sales pitch.

    Plus, as always qualify who you are talking to and why they have a need to know.  Could have been a competitor!

    Unfortunately, we see this all the time.  Individuals try to jam in as much as they can in funding Pitch Competitions and political pundits in the media feel the same pressure to talk fast and then talk all over each other.

    However, and perhaps the worst of all selling transgressions.  We had attained a long-coveted meeting with a senior decision maker at a process plant.  We completed the pitch for our solution.  The customer team asked a couple of good questions which we apparently answered satisfactory.

    Then the senior director said words to the effect, “I can see how this can help my problem. . .” but did get a chance to complete his statement before one of our technical people ‘talked over him’ to explain blah blah blah.

    The classic, don’t wait for the customer to complete his/her question before answering it.  This usually means that it will be answered incorrectly.

    The subject changed, and the meeting ended shortly afterwards.  We never did discover how our solution could have helped in the mind of that individual.

    In our zest to close deals, we often are our own worst enemy.  When presented with an opportunity to state your case to a buyer, state it succinctly and quickly.  Then shut up and let the individual respond!

    Elevator Pitch

    According to Wikipedia, “An elevator pitch, elevator speech, or elevator statement is a short summary used to quickly and simply define a person, profession, product, service, organization or event and its value proposition.

    The name “elevator pitch” reflects the idea that it should be possible to deliver the summary in the time span of an elevator ride, or approximately thirty seconds to two minutes.  The term itself comes from a scenario of an accidental meeting with someone important in the elevator.  If the conversation inside the elevator in those few seconds is interesting and value adding, the conversation will continue after the elevator ride or end in exchange of business card or a scheduled meeting.”

    Mark Twain famously quipped, “I didn’t have time to write a short letter, so I wrote a long one instead.”  It takes time and thought to succinctly and quickly state something that is very important to its writer.

    The tendency is to say as much and as fast as we can.  Surely, everyone will want to know what I know and in detail.  This is such an important subject!

    However, if a deal is on the line what is the Return on Investment (ROI) of the time it takes to develop and refine an elevator pitch?  Like any business deal, if it will be profitable then do it.  If not, then why do we have the product/service!

    The ‘I didn’t have time’ comment is insulting to those who you explain it to in this regard.  The sales representative’s livelihood and firm’ profitability depend on you the rep’s team’s time.

    How Do I Develop an Elevator Pitch?

    To develop an effective elevator pitch, one must understand the product/service they are selling and have a ‘compelling value proposition’ already developed.  Write down every major item you want to get across and then continue to refine it until it meets the criteria above.

    What are the three most important points a customer would care about?

    Pitch it internally and then to outsiders such as mentors.  Update it as you receive additional input, both positive and critical.  Then Practice, Practice, Practice.

    It must come across effectively, not stilted nor leave the listener with the feeling they have been the subject of a ‘core dump.’  Let them respond, answer questions and ask them, “What’s the Next Step” sort of closing question.

    One caveat, since you do not know who you are talking to be careful about providing any proprietary information.  So, unless you have publicly available market or financial figures leave them out.  They can come later at follow up meetings.

    However, in the appropriate setting such as a Pitch Competition non-proprietary market and financial information will most likely be required in the elevator pitch.  Use your good judgement.

    For most of us the so called ‘blank sheet of paper’ can be intimidating.  It helps to have precedents.

    An Example

    The following is an actual elevator pitched developed a few years ago—targeting 20-30 seconds in a public setting.  It has been redacted as noted within it.

    _______ is an __________ “Enterprise Platform” that addresses _________-issues in sectors with complex ______ and ______ requiring many ____ parties and their _____.

    It seamlessly incorporates _____ and ______ enabling a _______, efficiency and effectiveness in operations—including an automatic and comprehensive ______ process.

    This cloud-based collaborative ____ solution provides ____ engineers, technicians and ______ personnel with the data and information necessary to perform their tasks in compliance with all __________________.

    There are also several examples available on line that address different requirements, i.e. sales, investor, etc. and industry sectors.  A good pitch will pay significant dividends and is well worth the time and energy necessary to develop.

    How Effective is Your Elevator Pitch?

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

  • You Have 10 Minutes: Maybe

    You Have 10 Minutes: Maybe

    Over the past couple of weeks this writer has been part of several conversations regarding the value proposition of technology for established as well as startup companies and how to articulate it.

    This remains a tough subject and we have been addressing it over the years.  However, there is an approach that is successful when properly executed.

    As part of master’s level course, one graded test for my students goes along these lines.  You have been given the opportunity to ‘pitch’ your CAPEX/Technology Sale to the Chief Financial Officer.  In the current market environment, she is skeptical about new capital investments.  She is the economic buyer, very busy and has allocated no more than ten minutes for this meeting?  How will you close the deal?

    Students are offered the opportunity to select their own project or sales initiative, so they are very familiar with the background.  This also allows them the opportunity to ‘rehearse’ with the instructor before the actual meeting with the CFO.

    First, What Not to Do

    Sadly, many sales representatives/internal project advocates view the selling process through the following lens:

    The merits of this project or technology solution are obvious.  After all, everyone agrees we must move forward.

    The Return on Capital Employed (ROCE) or Net Present Value (NPV) is clear on the chart presented.  The justifications (spreadsheets) support our plan.

    Moreover, senior executives only want the single PowerPoint slide and high-level risk overview.  After all, she doesn’t want the details and has been briefed by her staff.  How much can be discussed in ten minutes anyway?

    Hit–Lost Deal Button!!

    If this scenario sounds far fetched, it is based on reality.  At an Internet of Things conference, one panel moderator from a major professional services firm advocated that IoT investments must be made to remain competitive because everyone else is doing it.  When this attendee asked about project governance and risk mitigation planning, was told it was outside the scope of the discussion.

    What Drives Decisions?

    One of the first things this sales guy does when preparing for a meeting with senior executives is to read the Letter to Shareholders in the customer’s Annual Report.  Typically, the strategy, challenges and priorities of the firm are easily discerned.

    If the project/solution is not aligned with business, success is much less likely.  Also, how does it fit in the firm’s portfolio of projects/technologies?

    Often risks are not as well understood as they could be with simple models suggesting exposures are low and unlikely.  Many sale representatives do not even think about the governance issues associated with the ‘spend.’

    Expect a senior executive to be engaged and ask insightful even tough questions.  They have to be answered—with authority!  Can’t wing this, only homework will prepare for this meeting!

    Finally, what drives her?  Not the company; the individual.

    Hit–Won the Deal Button!!

    Is this in the ‘too hard to do’ category?  Not at all, and processes and means are available to guide this course.  Several tools are available such as our Economic Value Proposition Matrix® and the white paper Asset/Equipment Integrity Governance: Operations—Enterprise Alignment.  These can help guide your closing efforts.

    Not a typical sales model but it works—several billion dollars later!

    Lessons from the Classroom

    As might be expected in an academic environment, many students struggled to reduce the data into a ten-minute compelling pitch.  Mark Twain is credited with saying “I didn’t have time to write a short letter, so I wrote a long one instead.”

    It takes significant effort to succinctly address complex multi-faceted problems.  A classic; when tasked to write a one-page executive summary one student submitted a multi-page report with appendices.  His retort was that the subject was too important to only write one page on it.  This response defeated the learning objective of the exercise.

    CFO’s do not make trivial decisions.  If you would have her take time to listen to you.  Be prepared!

    Is the Deal Worth Winning?

    For more information check out our Value Proposition Matrix® and the Digital Oilfield Case Study.

  • Decision Making in the Digitalization Age: Who Decides?

    Decision Making in the Digitalization Age: Who Decides?

    “Ergonomics (or Human Factors) is the scientific discipline concerned with the understanding of interactions among humans and other elements of a system, and the profession that applies theory, principles, data and methods to design to optimize human well-being and overall system performance.”

    According to Gartner, “Digitalization is the use of digital technologies to change a business model and provide new revenue and value-producing opportunities; it is the process of moving to a digital business.”

    The concept of the “Human—Machine Interface” is well established for Industrial Control Systems (ICS) and is the way the human being directs the machine.  One wonders; however, if in the age of the Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) whether this linear relationship is still true?

    If the Behaviors of quasi-independent systems are different than that of an ICS, the R B C model suggests that in these new Conditions, the Relationships between the Humans and these new Machines (digital business) will be different as well.  If this hypothesis is true, what are the implications going forward?


    We routinely let machines make life and death decisions.  Common examples include, airliner autopilots, automobile cruise control, and more recently the forthcoming self-driving cars.  Moreover, medical procedures are increasingly automated.  Boundless other instances exist as well.

    When it is appropriate for the human to intercede in automated decision-making processes?  What happens in a business setting if the human is wrong?

    High Reliability Management

    Management is evolutionary, not revolutionary.  Each generation and business model builds on thousands of years of human experience.

    The current High Reliability Management (HRM) model seems to address these emerging decision problems well.  The model consists of five traits:

    • Sensitive to operations
    • Reluctant to accept “simple” explanations for problems
    • Preoccupation with failure
    • Defer to expertise
    • Are resilient

    Applying these traits at the operational level allows the human to focus on the overall set of processes while allowing the machine to make its appropriate decisions.  With supervisory expertise coupled with an understanding that failure happens, policy can be set that enables the human to intervene as necessary without career repercussions.

    Moreover, IIoT is complex by nature and largely focuses on operational processes.  Implicit is the need to respond quickly to events, i.e., resilience.

    At the dawn of digitalization, management is already equipped with the tools to manage the largely automated enterprise.  How these tools are deployed is the difference from adding shareholder value vs destroying it.

    Do Intelligent Machines Have a Culture(s)?

    Hollywood has long presented cyborgs and other robotics as human like.  While we may be some years from truly independents machines, they do exhibit certain behaviors based on a given set of conditions.  This generates a relationship with human administrators.

    So, if organizational culture is the ‘way we do things,’ then one can surmise machines do have a culture (somewhat dependent on the human programmers).  If this hypothesis is supported, then the era of digitalization must add one more culture to its multi-cultural engagement processes.

    What is your Firm’s Decision Model in the Age of Digitalization?

    For more information on Cross Cultural Engagement, check out our Cross Cultural Serious Game


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

      https://www.gartner.com/it-glossary/digitalization/

      Shemwell, Scott M. (1993). Management Theory—Evolution Not Revolution, Proceedings of the 11th Annual Conference of the Association of Management, 11 (2), pp. 74-78.