Posted by admin on August 18, 2010 under Customer Focus, Operational Performance, Process Improvement | 
Business performance excellence relies on performance consistency - consistency in process execution, as well as consistency in communication. In order to accurately predict and achieve your revenue, market share or other goals, executives must be able to rely on reasonably predictable levels of organizational performance.
The same holds true with communications – both internal and external. A clear, consistent message must be presented to internal stakeholders (employees, partners) so everyone understands what is expected. Perhaps more important, however, is the communication messages sent to your marketplace – customers, potential customers, and competitors. Particularly in these hyper-communicative times, consistent communication is critical to cut through all the noise in the marketplace. A small slip in consistency can make all the difference in gaining and keeping customers, impacting revenue and market share.
Let me give you a couple of real-world examples – both of these situations happened to me last week, and on the same day!
I needed to have some work done on my car. Now, I am pretty mechanically inclined and often like to do the work on my car. This time, however, I just didn’t feel like taking on this particular project. Additionally, there was some other work that I wanted to have done at the same time. So…. I called my local Mazda dealer to obtain a quote on the bigger piece of work. I was transferred to the Service Department and spoke with a gentleman about the work I wanted performed. He quoted me $110.00, plus tax and the environmental fee – “about $115.00”, he said.
That seemed pretty reasonable, but I didn’t make the appointment on the spot. Two days later I made the appointment, and arrived the following day to have the work done. When I checked in for the appointment, the Service Agent printed the estimate – they were going to charge me $160.00 for the work! I mentioned that I had received a quote a couple of days prior, and the Agent actually told me I was wrong, and that I couldn’t have spoken with anyone because no man worked in the Service Department! She even expected me to have the name of the person with whom I had spoken! (Do you ask the name of everyone you speak with at a store so you can justify your conversation later???)
The inconsistency in communication between the phone quote and behavior at the Service Department cost that dealership a sale – a sale of about $225.00.
Later that same day, I decided to have lunch at my local Domino’s Pizza shop. I didn’t want to have pizza because of the bread, but according to the menu there were pasta dishes available. The menu showed several photos of the various pasta dishes – pasta in an au gratin-style dish – for a price of $5.99. That seemed like a pretty good deal, and just what I wanted – no bread. Well, wasn’t I surprised when the counter clerk charged me $6.99 (plus tax) for the meal, explaining that their prices on the menu were wrong! Can you imagine the prices being wrong on the menu?
The next surprise came when I received my order – a huge bread bowl filled with the pasta I ordered – not at all what I expected from the menu photos and item description. While I did walk away with the meal, the inconsistency here in communication regarding the product and its price was a big surprise. Will I think twice before going back there? You bet – there are lots of other options for lunch, and without the surprises.
Remember, consistency in communication is critical in setting expectations – of employees, partners, customers and others. Be sensitive to the communications in your organization – they could be impacting your overall performance much more than you think!
Posted by admin on May 7, 2010 under Enterprise Architecture, Process Improvement |
A couple of weeks ago, I posted a comment (http://ow.ly/1Ifgm) on an article published by McKinsey about a failed Enterprise Architecture (EA) initiative. I wanted to follow up on this topic because of EAs increasing popularity and importance in organizations.
What is EA? Quite simply, it is a holistic view of the components of an organization, and their relationships to one another. This, of course, implies alignment and connectivity throughout the organization which is one of the reasons EA is becoming so popular. Documenting an organizations enterprise architecture highlights any disconnects in an organization. Further, the potential impacts of strategic decisions are readily apparent when viewed in the context of the organizations architecture.
While EA is a powerful and useful tool, organizations must enter into EA initiatives with “eyes wide open”. If you have ever tried documenting a current business process, you can appreciate the complexity of documenting a high level architecture across an entire organization. This exercise is not for the faint of heart! However, the insight it provides is well worth pursuing. With a few “ground rules”, an organization can be successful in implementing EA.
I have just released an article commenting on on the McKinsey case study, and a few success factors in undertaking an EA initiative. I’d be interested in your perspective on this subject.
Posted by admin on April 1, 2010 under Leadership, Process Improvement |
For several months now, we have been talking about moving forward with our strategic plans, and implementing the right technology for the job. We have talked about why technology projects fail, pointing out that organizations tend to get the “cart before the horse” by selecting technology without necessarily considering how it will impact the business processes it is designed to support. There is an additional element that needs to be considered when enabling change through the implementation of technology…
Often, organizations are reengineering processes and implementing new automated systems to address business process challenges, whether automating manual processes or enhancing existing software applications. Unfortunately, organizations tend to make one very large mistake during these efforts – they make change management decisions in the context of a single silo – solely within their own departmental boundaries.
It is a rare team, indeed, which considers how to improve operations across a full business process. For example, a customer service organization might consider how they can more quickly respond to and address customer calls. They might implement call center software or other technology that allows customer service representatives to answer calls within X number of rings, and enter a sales order within X number of keystrokes.
However, has any thought been given to the “upstream” or “downstream” processes, and the impacts on those process “handoffs”? It is likely that our customer service organization is thinking only in terms of its own organizational silo, and how those “internal” processes are being performed.
Granted, those metrics and operational functions are critical to the organization. However, what about the downstream process of order fulfillment, for example? When considering the technology or business process change, are you considering how to more effectively provide the inputs needed to fulfill that customer order?
What about product development processes which (should) rely on customer feedback in order to develop products customers will purchase? How are these processes impacted by the changes made in the customer service department? Is there an opportunity to improve the information being collected in the customer service department so it can be provided to the product development team?
I think you would agree that all departments play a key role in the operational capabilities of an organization. Each must work together in a synchronized manner in order for the organization to be most effective. If one of those processes gets out of whack, the “wobbles” are felt throughout the rest of the organization.
When considering making improvements to your functional area, consider the following:
- Identify the specific information, documents or other inputs you are receiving into your departmental business processes. Can they be provided in a more useful manner or format? Are they being provided often enough? Too often? Is there anything missing from the input that causes rework, delay or additional effort in order to execute your own business processes?
- Evaluate the outputs of your business process – the product(s) you provide for the “downstream” process. Are you providing the input in the right format? Often enough? Too often? How could you make your work product better so it can better be utilized by the recipient (whether internal or external)?
By considering the inputs and outputs from your own business processes, you are improving operations not only in your corner of the world, but potentially in other areas as well. Further, you are demonstrating to others how to affect the best kind of change – change that allows the entire organization to work more effectively and efficiently.
Posted by admin on March 5, 2010 under Process Improvement, Technology |
This week I was watching an early business news show on which one of the announcers made a comment about how companies had cut costs so deeply in order to survive, they were concerned about hiring employees back too soon. Profitability is still somewhat elusive, and the cost of hiring staff (especially considering the high costs of health care benefits) poses too much of a risk on the tentative nature of our corporate recoveries.
Instead, according to the reporter, companies are turning to technology investments to streamline and optimize their performance rather than rely on the “human factor”. After all, technology does not require a health plan. Or, does it?
I certainly understand the apprehension about hiring - the economic realities are still too uncertain to invest heavily in staff. However, it is just as imperative that organizations fully consider the significant investment that will be required when implementing or upgrading technology in an organization.
Even a moderate upgrade requires a significant investment in hardware and software resources, as well as human capital resources. And, without staff involvement in the project, success may truly be challenging.
One way to ensure success of your next technology project is to conduct a thorough analysis of your needs. Start by understanding your current environment, and what you plan/need to achieve. An in depth understanding of your people, current capabilities, technology, and your expectations is critical in determining where to invest. After all, if you make a bad decision by rushing into implementing technology, your technology will require a health plan of its own - a costly one in terms of time, money and wasted opportunity.
Several years ago I wrote an article on this topic. I think the ideas are still relevant and timely.
I’d like to hear your comments on this subject.
