Dave Gardner’s “Thank God It’s Monday” 08FEB10

February 8, 2010

This week’s focus: innovation

On cold mornings here in Silicon Valley, birds flock to the top of the tallest tree to capture the earliest rays of sunlight to warm themselves after the winter night.  They are not attracted to the shorter trees–they only want the tallest.

Isn’t that the way of the marketplace? Don’t some companies dominate their competitors to the point where the others are treated as a large mass of indistinguishable companies?

Apple dominates–the world can’t wait to see what they are doing next. Netflix and video-on-demand are putting Blockbuster out of business.  Amazon.com is the place where I buy books to the exclusion of other online resellers. How many of you flocked to Bing and abandoned Google?

What are you doing to become the tallest tree?

Note: Read my complete Fast Company blog post here.

Thought for the week:

“Products are made in the factory, but brands are created in the mind.” — Walter Landor: Legendary branding and design pioneer.

___

Dave Gardner, Gardner & Associates Consulting

http://www.gardnerandassoc.com


Lessons Learned from Birds and the Tallest Tree

February 5, 2010
It is one thing to be a player in a marketplace and yet another to dominate that marketplace.

I arrived at my Silicon Valley office at 6 a.m. on a cold (42 degrees Fahrenheit), dark, winter morning. Our humidity was nearly 100 percent. With that temperature and humidity, 42 degrees is cold.

About 30 feet from the elevator, I spotted a lone bird sitting on the cement sidewalk in a state of suspended animation. I checked the creature—it was alive but clearly bewildered. I would not wish that experience for myself or the bird.

I took the elevator to my second floor office to start my day and enjoy the sunrise. As we entered civil twilight, I noticed that, one-by-one, small birds flew to the very top of the tallest deciduous tree to just sit there on spindly little branches waiting for the sun to rise and warm them up. An adjacent, slightly shorter tree was completely ignored by the birds. As I watched the sunrise unfold, I was reminded the sunlight hits the top of the tallest trees first as the sun rises.

I don’t know if it is instinctual or just a bird’s common sense that they head for the top of the tallest tree day after day. It’s not just a morning phenomenon—this behavior is often repeated on cool, sunny evenings as the sun begins to set and the process reverses itself.

Isn’t this natural phenomenon paralleled in the business world? Isn’t it often the case the most prominent player is heads and shoulders above its rivals?

I’m a fan of Amazon.com—the only website I frequent to purchase books online. I’ve never bothered to go to barnesandnoble.com or borders.com—I got into the habit of doing business with Amazon. Amazon is my tallest tree.

Google is my search engine. Microsoft introduced a new search engine: Bing. I looked at Bing—once. Did I give Bing a fair shake? Probably not. The truth is I’m not dissatisfied with Google. Google is my tallest tree.

Alex L. Goldfayn, The Technology Tailor, offerings the following insight in a blog posting:

Apple’s iPad announcement yesterday has a number of lessons for consumer electronics manufacturers. The biggest one is this: Once again, Apple will make a boatload of money on a product it is perfecting, not creating. The tablet PC has been around for ages.

There were many MP3 players before the iPod perfected the device. And there were hundreds of smart phones before the iPhone perfected the category. And now, Apple is doing it again with the iPad.

It is not necessary to invent new products, or even functionalities, to be perceived as the best. It is only necessary to improve dramatically upon what’s already on the market, so that you can argue reasonably that you are the best.

Apple may have just grown a taller tree in this space.

So, what are the shorter trees going to do to attract the birds? They can’t. It’s just not what the birds want.

If you aren’t the tallest tree, what can you do to grow so you become someone else’s tallest tree?

Dave Gardner, Gardner & Associates Consulting

http://www.gardnerandassoc.com

//


Collaboration: Shift to the Future podcast

February 2, 2010

This podcast has been created in collaboration with David Coleman of Collaborative Strategies (www.collaborate.com).

To listen this podcast, please click the link below:

Collaboration-Shift to the Future

Dave Gardner, Gardner & Associates Consulting
http://www.gardnerandassoc.com


Dave Gardner’s “Thank God It’s Monday” 01FEB10

February 1, 2010

This week’s focus: mass customization

Customized products can be the royal road to greater market share and increased customer loyalty.

“Customizers” do not enjoy the same efficiencies as “mass customizers.” Inefficiencies destroy profits. Imagine a gross profit of 1% or less on millions or even a billion dollars in annual revenue.  The inefficiencies suffered by customizers cost 1-3% of revenues and, in some cases, even more.

Mass customization is a different business paradigm with its own requirements for success–it’s not a slight mid-course correction from what you are doing today.  Product configurator software, like most enterprise applications, plays an essential role but does little by itself to ensure the outcomes you are looking for.

Here’s a self-diagnostic assessment to help you understand your current situation. Isn’t it time your company thrived?

Thought for the week:

“The three great essentials to achieve anything worthwhile are, first, hard work; second, stick-to-itiveness; third, common sense.” –Thomas Edison

Dave Gardner, Gardner & Associates Consulting

http://www.gardnerandassoc.com


Dave Gardner’s “Thank God It’s Monday” 25JAN10

January 25, 2010

This week’s focus: strategy and execution

What is more important? Strategy or execution?

A failed strategy can keep your company or department from thriving just as can failed or poor execution.  Both are essential to thrive in your marketplace.

More executives “leave for personal reasons” due to failed execution than bad strategy.

Do you have the right strategy?  Is your execution on par with expectations?  If you are concerned about either of these, are you taking appropriate corrective action?

Thought for the week:

“Laugh at yourself, but don’t ever aim your doubt at yourself. Be bold. When you embark for strange places, don’t leave any of yourself safely on shore. Have the nerve to go into unexplored territory.” –Alan Alda

Dave Gardner, Gardner & Associates Consulting

http://www.gardnerandassoc.com


Entitlement and the Danger It Represents

January 19, 2010

Few things frustrate me as much as working with entitled people or organizations.  I see this played out by individual employees and teams as, “It does not matter whether I do a terrific job, a mediocre job, or a horrible job–I’ll still have a job!”  It does matter. There is no need to reward mediocrity or less.

Common examples we see every day:
  • Customer service people with no sense of enthusiasm for their customers, their products or their company
  • Wait staff who treat customers with indifference
  • Manufacturing folks put vehicles in the delivery center for customer pick-up that aren’t built properly or have obvious manufacturing defects
  • A few government employees we encounter at the Department of Motor Vehicles or the Internal Revenue Service

There is a wonderful example of entitlement being played out in Massachusetts just today: the election of new U.S. Senator to replace the seat Ted Kennedy held for 46 years.  [Note: This newsletter is not about politics--it is about entitlement, so please stay with me.]

I lived in Massachusetts from 2000-2002 in a community named Marlborough just outside Boston.  Though I knew little about the politics of Massachusetts before moving there, this is a dominant Democratic state. I should have suspected that this was the case given the stature of the Kennedy name.

When Ted Kennedy died, there was little doubt in my mind that this U.S. Senate seat would continue to be held by the Democrats. Ted usually won elections with more than two-thirds of the vote.

And, that is what the Democratic candidate, Martha Coakley, believed as well.   According to a 16JAN10 Boston.com article called Amid Tight Race, Coakley’s Campaign Goes Full Bore:

After Attorney General Martha Coakley sailed largely unscathed through the Democratic Senate primary, her aides set a course for the general election that fit her status as the perceived front-runner: protect her statewide popularity, and ignore the little-known Republican opponent.

Off the record, Coakley campaign officials now say in the same Boston.com article:

…they were convinced that Brown faced too many hurdles to be a viable challenger in the race to replace Edward M. Kennedy. His political profile signaled no threat. They felt he was too conservative for Massachusetts, and that his legislative career had been unremarkable.

Mistake: Coakley believed she won the U.S. Senate seat the day she won the election primary and never mounted a serious campaign to aggressively secure her victory.   Boston.com calls it complacency–I call this entitlement.  She thought she had this one in the bag.

Entitlement in business is just as dangerous:

  • Employees treat customers with indifference
  • Employees treat other employees with indifference
  • No sense of urgency to address customer and market needs
  • Employees don’t see a connection between the how the experience a customer receives today influences their feelings about buying from the company in the future
  • The company culture is resistant to and/or impervious to change

Michael C. Hall, winner of Best Actor in a Television Series Drama for his role in “Dexter” at the Golden Globe Awards last evening, said something during his acceptance speech last night that really gets to the heart of an organization that does not suffer from entitlement:

“It’s really a hell of thing to go to work at a place where everyone gives a damn.”

While the language may be a bit rough, Michael nails it.

So, what to do about entitlement?

  • Watch for the signs of entitlement and let it be known that the behaviors associated with entitlement will not be tolerated.  Executives and employees need to show up everyday with their game faces on ready to give their teams and their customers the very best they can.
  • Companies cannot feel entitled about their position in the marketplace.  Market leaders work every day to improve their standing in the marketplace and earn their ability to continue to do business with their customers or they risk becoming irrelevant.
  • Excise the cancer of entitlement–it will not get better on its own.

If there are people on your team who are not willing to give up their sense of entitlement, they need to understand that there are people who are willing to do just that.

Dave Gardner, Gardner & Associates Consulting

http://www.gardnerandassoc.com


Dave Gardner’s “Thank God It’s Monday” 18JAN10

January 18, 2010

“Thank God It’s Monday” is intended to help businesses thrive!

This week’s focus: leadership

Do employees who are continually working through disruptions do their highest and best work for the organization and its customers? Certainly not!

In the business world, there is far too much emphasis on correcting disruptions—the things that aren’t working for us or serving us well—and not enough emphasis on doing things that create excitement.

Leaders owe it to themselves and their teams to constantly evolve their organizations to a future state focused around excitement. Excitement is uplifting for the entire organization and contributes to higher employee loyalty, higher customer loyalty and reduced churn.

If there is no excitement, what is the point?

Thought for the week:

Southwest Airlines recently advertised that they loved their passengers’ checked bags and didn’t charge extra for the first and second checked bag. They showed video of excited baggage handlers longing for the return of the bags.

This week United, Delta and Continental announced the increased fees they would begin charging for passenger’s checked bags. How do you think their customers feel about this? Excitement? Not! Which airlines continue to struggle financially?

___

Dave Gardner, Gardner & Associates Consulting http://www.gardnerandassoc.com


Dave Gardner’s “Thank God It’s Monday” 11JAN10

January 13, 2010

Dave Gardner’s “Thank God Its Monday” is to help companies thrive!

This weeks’ focus:  business execution.

Business does not have to be complicated, especially for companies that are thriving.

  • Your capacity to get the things done that matter to customers is meeting the needs of and enhancing relationships with your customers.
  • Your employees are excited and enthusiastic about coming to work.
  • Your company’s profitability is meeting or exceeding your expectations.

If one or more of these attributes do not characterize your business, you would be well-advised to identify and resolve impediments that are keeping your business from thriving. You could even seek outside assistance!

Thought for the Week

“In the successful organization, no detail is too small to escape close attention.” Lou Holtz

Dave Gardner, Gardner & Associates Consulting

http://www.gardnerandassoc.com


Boeing and Airbus in 2009

January 12, 2010

I’m certain the Boeing and Airbus sales departments are thrilled that 2009 finally ended.

The Associated Press reports on 07JAN10 that Boeing’s new 2009 aircraft orders were 142 (about 1/10th the number of orders back in 2007) while Airbus received about 194 new orders.

Boeing delivered 481 commercial aircraft during 2009 and Airbus is expected to announce that it shipped 437 new aircraft.

Boeing’s total backlog is about 3,375 aircraft.  I don’t have the figures for Airbus at this point.

Healthy backlogs will help these companies weather these challenging, global economic times.  I expect many additional orders will be pushed out as the airline industry struggles with weak demand, lower profits and the effect of the recent terror attempt on Northwest Flight 253 over the Christmas holidays.

Dave Gardner, Gardner & Associates Consulting

http://www.gardnerandassoc.com


How to improve the Department of Homeland Security

January 10, 2010
The Department of Homeland Security is not securing our safety from terror as we should expect. How should they approach this challenge to improve speed, accelerate collaboration and improve efficacy?

The unsuccessful Christmas Day terror attack (a.k.a. the underpants bomber) involving Northwest flight 253 from Amsterdam to Detroit has highlighted inefficiencies and process breakdowns that a reasonable person would have thought would have been eliminated years ago.

In spite of receiving what should have been considered actionable intelligence from the terrorist’s father, critical information was not acted on appropriately or in a timely fashion by governmental agencies. This breakdown could have caused the death of 288 people on the aircraft and perhaps more on the ground.

The American people deserve better. This predictable event was an entirely avoidable business execution failure on the part of those charged with protecting us.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security[i] (DHS) was established on March 1, 2003. Its stated goal is to prepare for, prevent, and respond to domestic emergencies, particularly terrorism. This cabinet-level department’s mission is to protect the U.S. from terror attacks and to respond to natural disasters. This cabinet-level department was created after the September 11, 2001, terror attack by the Bush Administration. The Department of Homeland Security works in conjunction with other federal departments.[ii] Homeland security policy is coordinated at the White House by the Homeland Security Counsel.[iii]

A Simple Solution

I am for simplicity in business process and system design. I prefer speed and agility over elegance. From a simplistic viewpoint, here’s what should have happened after any human being in any government agency receives a report about a real, possible or potential threat.

  • DHS is immediately notified by any government employee about any potential threat,
  • The individual(s) is/are added to the terrorist watch list and no-fly list,
  • A report dispatched to all federal agencies and international partners who need to be aware of this intelligence,
  • Any outstanding U.S. visas are immediately revoked,
  • Appropriate post-report actions are taken

If it turns out the report is a mistake or a hoax, apologize and move on.

Political correctness, not having sufficient details of a threat, etc., is no reason to not immediately escalate our response to a potential threat.

How Anti-Terror Processes Should Be Designed

The business processes should consist of a series of business process modules with each module reflecting a likely scenario that may be encountered.

Example: Human #1 advises Human #2 within a government agency that Human #3 represents a specific threat. The response to the specific scenario should consist of very simple business process steps that can be executed with a minimum of delay and minimal need for training. The process described under “A Simple Solution” above could be adopted very quickly.

Information technology availability always lags the needs of the organization. Therefore, information technology may not take a lead role in a solution. As information technology becomes available to tie together the modules together, this can be implemented. It is not, however, acceptable to wait to eliminate gaps and breakdowns in current business processes until information technology is available. There can be incremental improvements over time.


Impediments to Change in the Federal Government

Forming the Department of Homeland Security has not immediately resulted in business process improvements or improvements in business execution. Lesson learned: we cannot legislate improved business execution.

The biggest impediments to improving business execution are leadership and culture.

All governmental departments are led by political appointees. The career employees in each department know that they need only stall for 4 years, 8 years or sometimes even less, and this new political appointee will be gone, they won’t have to radically change what they do or how they do it, and they can pretty much be impervious to all but the most minor amounts of change.

Whenever people want to push back on major change, one of the first things the change agent will hear is, “Well, you just don’t understand.” And, by the time the person does understand, the gig is up, a new department head comes in and the process starts all over. Net impact: almost none. The “line in the sand” barely moves.

image

Why is Change So Difficult?

Most people start with the details rather than the view from 20,000 feet, get clear on the required objectives or outcomes, and adjust the processes to fit the objectives or outcomes. It is so easy to get mired in details that one loses sight of the desired outcomes.

Making required changes to existing processes requires intense, laser-like focus on specific objectives and outcomes that have to be achieved within a rapid time frame. It is important to remember that, all the while, the culture is pushing against change.

The leader must keep pushing back to make sure that changes are not being undermined for the sake of delaying or denying change. The leader must also overcome the inertia and resistance to sharing information outside of agency silos.

Roles and responsibilities need to clearly defined for employees in each scenario. Employees need to be held accountable for executing the process in accordance with expectations and need to understand that there are immediate and dramatic consequences for non-compliance.

There is never a viable excuse for not being fast. Just as readers here are looking to become fast companies, government processes must become fast as well.  And, please, if you think I don’t understand, help me understand how you would make change to improve the efficacy of this critical need, not why change is not possible.

___

David Gardner is a management consultant, speaker, author, blogger who specializes in eliminating business execution problems that threaten profitability and growth. He can be reached through his web site at www.gardnerandassoc.com.


[i] The Department of Homeland Security has over 200,000 employees in federal organizations that include:

  • United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
  • U.S. Customs and Border Protection
  • Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
  • U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
  • Transportation Security Administration (TSA)
  • U.S. Coast Guard
  • National Protection and Programs Directorate
  • U.S. Secret Service

[ii] Several key federal departments that are also charged with protecting the U.S. include:

  • The Department of Health and Human Services
  • The Department of Justice
  • The Department of Energy
  • Central Intelligence Agency
  • Department of State

[iii] The Homeland Security Council is chaired by the President of the United States. The statutory members include the Vice President of the United States and the department heads from treasury, justice, defense, homeland security, health and human services, federal emergency management agency, FBI, and the homeland security advisor. Other cabinet-level secretaries may be called upon to participate as well as the chiefs of staff for the President and Vice President, and other key members of the executive branch.


Manufacturing grows at fastest pace in 3 years

January 4, 2010

The Associated Press reports today:

The Institute for Supply Management, a trade group of purchasing executives, said its manufacturing index read 55.9 in December after 53.9 in November. A reading above 50 indicates growth.

That is the fifth straight month of expansion and the highest reading for the index since April 2006.

The ISM report said new orders, a future of future production, jumped last month to 65.5 from 60.3 in November.  Indexes measuring production and employment also rose.

A very positive trend indeed for the start of the new year.

Dave Gardner, Gardner & Associates Consulting

http://www.gardnerandassoc.com


What is undermining job creation in the USA?

December 31, 2009

I recently attended a Silicon Valley executive networking meeting. Here’s what the participants concluded:

  • People can’t wait for 2009 to end; 2009 just can’t end soon enough.
  • Many want to close additional business before the end of 2009 to have strong momentum going into 2010.

The US needs job growth. Many economists are predicting a “jobless economic recovery” meaning there won’t be much hiring going on for some time to come. When people leave their positions either due to normal attrition or layoff, there is often no intention to replace them. This isn’t what the US needs.

Unemployment in California just hit 12.5%. The effective rate of unemployment may be understated by as much as 5% due to furlough days, temporary shut-downs, people who have given up looking for work, etc.

I see many factors undermining job growth; 2 of the most critical structural impediments are:

  • Out of control health insurance premium increases
  • Access to capital

Out of control health insurance premium increases

Health insurance costs have been spiraling out of control for at least the last 5 years and, realistically, much longer. The insurance companies are passing along double-digit premium increases year after year. Mine went up 16% this year, I’ve heard of many others in the same situation, one business owner in Massachusetts saw a 30% increase with no discernible rationale or explanation.

A woman in the insurance business tried to say, “Well, Dave…you don’t understand…” Frankly, I don’t want an explanation—I want a solution. What came next was some diatribe about how the insurance companies are just passing on costs, how we need to get people to eat differently and exercise so the system can right itself in 30 or 40 years, etc. Yada, yada, yada.

When did it become acceptable to pass on double-digit premium increases year after year? When did it become acceptable to have premium increases that are 5 times or more the rate of inflation? I get incensed just writing about this. And, of course (as we have been warned), it will only get worse if and when the insurance companies have to cover people with “pre-existing conditions” who are denied coverage today.

Business leaders need to be “mad as hell and not take this any more!” America seems to be the only country in the world that looks at this issue with such complacency. America is also one of the few countries in the world that allows people to be driven into bankruptcy due to lack of insurance coverage.

We’ve got Congress fiddle-farting around trying to balance the needs of their constituents with the needs of the special interests that fund their getting into office. This is the height of absurdity. I’ve heard that if you ever saw sausage being made, you would never eat it. I’m beginning to feel that the health care reform legislation is similar—it’s not going to be palatable.

Ever-increasing health care costs are a deterrent to hiring people at a time when job growth is badly needed. So, what were ideas the group had to overcome this problem?

  • I suggested we start with the assumption that American does not have the best health care system in the world (contrary to some talking points). We don’t have the best system by a wide margin—we are actually ranked 19th in the world. I suggested everyone read T. R. Reid’s book “The Healing of America.” We should look for best practices from all around the world and incorporate changes here in the USA as quickly as possible.
  • One person offered we should stop hiring people and put everyone on a 1099 so there will be no obligation to offer health insurance. Wow—great idea! Is the IRS going to change the rules to treat “real employees” as temps? Or, do we just allow people to work a few months; take a few months off, rinse and repeat?
  • Outsource the jobs internationally to avoid the negative deterrents to hiring domestically. That’s going to really help with USA job creation.
  • Suck it up—just recognize that increasing health care costs are our future and there’s nothing that can be done about it.

Sorry, but, I’m a change agent—change agents do not embrace the status quo when the status quo is so obviously unacceptable. The insurance industry must be far more than a pass-through point—they need to drive their own structural changes that decrease costs and undermine fraud. Right now, they are not incented to do that. They just pass it on.

Access to capital

I “romanced the past” by reminding people of what Silicon Valley was like back in the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s:

  • Entrepreneurs came up with seemingly viable business ideas
  • Venture capitalists funded the ideas with equity financing realizing that there wouldn’t be an instantaneous return on their investment
  • Employees worked their butts off trying to deliver top value to the marketplace driving company growth, revenue and market valuations
  • IPO’s were a frequent occurrence and were a reason for people to work so hard looking for a “big payday”
  • Go find the next great business adventure and create excitement

Did the formula always work? No. But it was the driver of what made Silicon Valley Silicon Valley. I can tell you—people were excited about going to work everyday. Can we say that today? No. Why isn’t that happening today?

  • Insufficient capital undermines the formation of new companies and the expansion of existing companies both of which negatively impact job creation. What incentives can be offered to get investors out of the bleachers and back on the field of play?
  • People lending money are offering terms that one could only imagine as having originated from loan sharks. It is harder and harder to get equity investment; money lent in today’s world is debt with high interest rates and short timeframes for repayment.
  • The dot com bust in 2001, Enron and then ensuing Sarbanes-Oxley audit requirements have dramatically altered the availability of capital and desirability of taking companies public. Is the US and investors getting any return or benefit for the cost of SOX? Is the value commensurate with the cost?  I think not.  There will always be white collar crooks—we see evidence of that everyday in the news.
  • IPO’s are a rarity today; getting acquired seems to be the stronger exit strategy and apparently is not as attractive an exit strategy as IPO’s used to represent.

One gentleman in our meeting suggested an approach the San Jose Mercury News has just today (22NOV09) referred to as “extreme bootstrapping”—finding unemployed people, letting them work for free with the hope that there might be a job in it for them someday or some royalty payment, etc. Call me crazy, but, that’s not what we need either. Hope is not a strategy.

Summary

There is no question that access to capital and health care insurance costs are undermining job creation. Removing structural impediments to job creation isn’t just desirable—it’s key to turning this economy around. Job growth will come from small, entrepreneurial ventures. More attention must be paid to small companies, getting them financed and giving them incentives to create real jobs.

What do you think?

Dave Gardner, Gardner & Associates Consulting

http://www.gardnerandassoc.com


Economic recovery in manufacturing and jobs

December 30, 2009

There are some encouraging economic signs just announced the 24th of December, 2009:

  • the number of newly laid-off workers fell more than expected last week
  • the four-week average for unemployment claims fell for the 16th consecutive week
  • U.S. factory orders for “big ticket items” (durable goods) rose in November and, while less than expected, were double what economists had predicted.

Are we out of the economic woods yet?  It is a bit early to declare victory, but, I appreciate goods news as we leave 2009 and move into 2010.

Dave Gardner, Gardner & Associates Consulting

http://www.gardnerandassoc.com


Homeland Security Fails with Airplane Bomber

December 27, 2009

I think it’s high time we get mad as hell and let the Department of Homeland Security know we are not going to take it anymore.

As everyone now knows, on Christmas Day, another extremist (by his own admission) attempted to blow up an international flight between Amsterdam and Detroit.  This event will spark outrage by Congress and result in all the inevitable hearings.  We are so great at being reactive but can’t seem to be proactive in heading off threats until after they have occurred.

One thing is painfully clear to me:

The homeland security system is not working and it was only because of an unlikely failure in a bomb ignition device that hundreds of innocent people were not killed.

This incident was so avoidable. The father of the young man went to the U.S. embassy in Nigeria to report that his son is a threat. His son’s name doesn’t find its way on to the “no-fly” list allegedly because the threat was not specific enough.  Are you kidding me.? This is a problem.

The Associated Press reports this morning that Janet Napolitano says “the system worked.”  Excuse me?  How does she arrive at that conclusion?  Here’s the official position of the White House as reported in the Associated Press:

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs says investigators are looking at the system for placing potential terrorists on travel security lists to see if procedures were properly followed and what can be done to make them more effective.

What is it about politicians who just avoided a horrific calamity that makes them make statements like this?

Just say it:  The system failed and failed big time.  People failed to execute their jobs properly.  Those who are responsible for designing and implementing this business process will be immediately terminated from their jobs.

And, get ready:  You’re going to hear the U.S. Embassies are run by the State Department whereas the Department of Homeland Security is a separate department and that fact alone  means that the system can’t be lean and agile.  Really?  Do we have to accept this?  Or, does our command and control mechanism build firewalls around these 2 functions that preclude timely and effective collaboration between these groups?  If you’ve got a “.gov” email address, there should be no barrier to collaboration.

I’m also not in favor of political correctness.

Those of us who travel extensively know that even when you see something suspicious, those who are responsible for protecting us are hesitant to investigate suspicious behavior to avoid charges of  “profiling.”  This is obscene.  It’s not 80-year old white women and 5-year old kids who have a history of blowing up planes.  More profiling and less political correctness could go a long way in protecting us.

Back when the shoe bomber tried to bring down a plane, I joked that it was a good thing that he used his shoes and hadn’t stuffed something in his underware.  Otherwise, we would have to remove more than just our shoes as we went through airport security.  Well, guess what–this latest guy just stuffed his underwear.  I hate to think of what the implications will be for us.

It perturbs me to no end that the failure of those charged with protecting us will now cause great inconvenience to the millions of travelers who aren’t breaking the law and trying to bring down aircraft.  All this because the current system that could have prevented this failed.   Will it make us safer?  No.  But, it will certainly create the illusion that we are safer.

The Department of Homeland Security needs to come to grips with the notion that things are not going well for them.  This department owns the Secret Service–the agency that allowed 2 reality TV wannabees to have full access to the President of the United States, the Vice President, the Speaker of the House, etc., at the recent state dinner.  If this latest execution failure is not further indication of the need for a wake-up call, then I don’t what is.

What do you think?

Dave Gardner, Gardner & Associates Consulting

http://www.gardnerandassoc.com


Jazz Improvisation and Consulting

December 18, 2009

Those of us interested in getting involved in the school music program were summoned to the elementary school cafeteria to speak with the music teacher, Mr. Whiteside.

Mr. Whiteside looked at each of us carefully—almost as if he was going to purchase a horse at auction.  We had to show him our teeth and mouth so he could determine what instrument he deemed would be best for us.

When my turn came, he looked at me and said, “So, what do you want to play.”  I responded, “Trumpet, Mr. Whiteside.”  He looked carefully at me and declared, “With an embouchure like yours, I think clarinet would be best.”

I informed him in a rather matter-of-fact matter that my natural father had died before shortly before I was born, that he was known for being quite the trumpet player and I wanted to follow in his footsteps.  I told him that I had his horn and was ready to start.

Mr. Whiteside said, “Well, okay, but I don’t think you’ll ever amount to much of a trumpet player.”  It’s not good to tell me (or anyone for that matter) that I can’t achieve something for which I’ve set my intention.

I started playing trumpet when I was in the fourth grade.  When I entered junior high in the 6th grade, I wanted to be the first chair trumpet.  The guy who had held that seat for a couple of years was in his fourth year at the junior high school and didn’t expect some kid right out of elementary school to come in and take first chair—his chair. After all, I had only 2 years experience; he had 5.  I challenged him for first chair early in the school year and won on my first attempt.

The lesson: In music and in life, you can never become complacent; there is always someone who can come along and replace you.

Thanks to great teachers, inherited talent and hard work, I excelled at playing trumpet.  In junior high, I performed with high school groups. During high school, I performed with college groups and adult big band jazz groups made up of professionals who had toured with the likes of Stan Kenton, Woody Herman, Buddy Rich and others.

When it comes to playing trumpet, I’ve pretty much done it all. I played lead and jazz trumpet in big band jazz groups, had my own small jazz groups to earn money going through undergraduate school, performed with pit orchestras for musicals, marching bands, symphonic bands and symphony orchestras, etc.  Mr. Whiteside and I even played a few gigs together.

Please don’t ask me about one horrible January when I had to play for one month in a Palo Alto, California, German beer house polka band each Friday and Saturday night wearing lederhosen and a silly felt hat.  Thankfully, there are no photos of this—I would have to buy them.

So, what does playing jazz have to do with consulting?

When you play a jazz tune, the tune itself provides the framework or essential structure within which you live for the duration of that tune.  A tune is played in a certain key, with specific chord progressions, etc.  The tune sets the context; it is the target that you have to stay within the entire time you are playing it.

As jazz musicians, we play the tune, several of us take improvisational solos within the context of the tune, and we conclude by replaying the original tune in its fully-recognizable form—bringing it home as we say.  The start and ending are completely predictable; it’s the middle that holds the mystery.

In many respects, consulting is a lot like playing jazz.  You know what the outcomes are that you are intending to produce.  What you don’t know is all the twists and turns that project will take in the middle as you seek to create the outcome(s).  But, just as in music, you know what the ending has to look like to successfully conclude the effort.

Here is a story about an improvisation I made with a client in mid-Michigan back during the year 2000.

Powell Fab is a capital equipment manufacturer located in St. Louis, Michigan, a town of about 4500 people.  The company employed 43 people at the time.  The culture in mid-Michigan could not have been more different from what I was used to in Silicon Valley.  The majority of the team members were not very keen about me being there to implement changes to the way this 35-year old company had done business.  Here’s a bit about the situation I faced:

  • I was helping the company implement a small ERP system that the president had invested in but had not been integrated with any of the core business processes.
  • There was an open stock room accessible by everyone.
  • The president rejected the idea of installing a cage around the stock room to secure the inventory.
  • The inventory record accuracy was deplorable.

The challenge I faced was getting the employees to:

  • Transact all inventory consumed or returned with the person who oversaw the stock room to properly account for inventory and improve inventory accuracy, and,
  • Ensure that the parts were properly charged to the jobs they were used on.

In my gut, I knew I could never sell them on the idea of “transacting inventory.”  Those words would hold no appeal.  I’d be laughed at.

So, given my music background, I challenged myself to define a powerful metaphor that would change the behavior forever and ensure that my client got what he wanted: compliance with the new processes.

As I drove by the Wal-Mart in a neighboring town, it dawned on me:  None of these people would ever think of going into the big open stockroom called Wal-Mart and bypassing the cash register going out the door.  That would be shoplifting.  Nobody wants to get caught shoplifting.

When it came time to train people about the new process, I told them that if they didn’t stop by the check-out stand as they left the stock room on their way to the shop floor, that action would be the equivalent of shoplifting.  The team connected with that immediately.  They got it and we had instant, enduring compliance.

When people would come out of the stock room with one or more parts in hand, others would immediately look at that person, point and ask, “Did you shoplift that?”  They held each other accountable.

I help clients implement appropriate, sustainable solutions to their business execution challenges.  Sometimes, you have to improvise to create enduring change.  It works in jazz and in business.

Dave Gardner, Gardner & Associates Consulting http://www.gardnerandassoc.com


AT&T Business Execution Failure

December 10, 2009

AT&T’s CEO has taken to blaming customers for consuming too much cellular bandwidth and, in effect, hogging capacity.  AT&T’s CEO has nailed it!  It is the customer’s fault.  Thanks for clearing that up.

So, while it’s the “customer’s fault,” is it salient that AT&T’s network has historically been behind actual demand? Why should we be surprised now?

My memory is that cell phone voice mail was created because networks could not support demand…there was no contractual commitment that calls needed to get through on the first dial.  So, as much as we’d like to think cellular voicemail was for our convenience, network capacity drove this feature.

The iPhone has certainly exacerbated the network problem for AT&T.  That and Verizon’s new advertising campaign in the US illustrating the lack of robustness of their network.

AT&T is talking about rate changes for heavy users of the iPhone.  I liken it to drug usage–inexpensive to get started but expensive to keep up now that you are hooked.

But, will paying more get you a better network?  Not in the near term.

AT&T is hoping you will use your iPhone less because of the cost premiums customers want to avoid which will increase their network bandwidth because they have a constrained supply.  It might help, but, it’s not an answer.  And, they’ll be degrading service at the same price, not a good strategy for creating a wonderful customer experience.

AT&T entered into an agreement with Apple that meant AT&T would realize no profit from the iPhone for 17 months after launch.  If Verizon offers the iPhone with a better service plan, AT&T customers will move in droves overnight.

As a devout Verizon customer, will that be a good thing for me?  Too early to tell.

What do you think?

Dave Gardner, Gardner & Associates Consulting http://www.gardnerandassoc.com


Not failing? Not trying!

December 2, 2009

Enjoy!

What do you think?

Dave Gardner, Gardner & Associates Consulting http://www.gardnerandassoc.com


U.S. Secret Service Business Execution Failure

November 29, 2009

It was not too many years ago when we watched Jennifer Garner play the part of Sydney Bristow on the ABC television network thriller drama series Alias. Week after week, she would  insert herself into very high security, international events that one would say it would be impossible to penetrate.

Sydney Bristow was always dressed to the nines, attractive and captivating and able to get into whatever event she needed to.  Surprisingly, she managed to elude capture.  Our minds allowed for this unlikely circumstance week after week because it was a fictional TV show where it is alright to suspend belief.

Now, we see two aspiring reality TV wannabees (whose names I’m not providing as I do not want to give them more publicity) literally stroll in the front door of the White House to attend President Obama’s first state dinner.  The attractive woman apparently so captivated the Secret Service Agents that they lost their judgment, their sense of purpose and mission and situational awareness.  This is an amazing business execution failure.

All the top U.S. government officials were present at this event, including the full line of succession to replace President Obama.  If these people had had bad motives, Senator Robert Byrd could have become the President of the United States (he did not attend the event).

The good news:  Nothing nefarious happened.

The bad news:  The U.S. Secret Service suffered a major business execution failure on an international stage.

We have heard that when the couple reached the first security point, they were passed onto the next even though there names were not “on the list.”  We have heard that the individual who made this decision “assumed” that the irregularity would be handled at the next check point.  It was not.

How can the U.S. Secret Service have a process that allows for a single point of failure?  The mere fact that the agent allowed the couple to go to the next check point is a single point of failure.  This is completely unacceptable.

What should happen next?  Some want to charge the couple with whatever crime they can be charged with to “send a message.”  From my perspective, this is a way to deflect attention from what really happened–a security breach that could have had potentially horrific consequences but, thankfully, did not.

We should be grateful that these publicity-seeking people only wanted publicity.  Perhaps we should thank them for exposing the security vulnerability, a vulnerability that a junior high school student could have easily anticipated.

Should people in the Secret Service lose their jobs over this?  Yes.  This breach should be career-limiting for one or more people.  If we want to send a message, it should be that the U.S. Secret Service will not tolerate single points of failure, especially points of failure as idiotic as this.

Your thoughts?

Dave Gardner, Gardner & Associates Consulting

http://www.gardnerandassoc.com


Jimmie Johnson Enters Business Execution Hall of Fame

November 22, 2009

Today, Jimmie Johnson won his fourth consecutive NASCAR Sprint Cup Championship.  As an aficionado of this NASCAR, I can tell you this is an incredible achievement and warrants entering Jimmie Johnson in the Business Execution Hall of Fame.

While Jimmie’s name goes on the championship trophy, it is critical to recognize that NASCAR is a team sport.  So, this Business Execution Hall of Fame recognition has to be shared with Hendrick Motor Sports, Jimmie’s brilliant crew chief, Chad Knaus, and approximately 600 other folks involved in driving such superb execution.

NASCAR racing is big business–a business of incredible detail where fractions of second can make the difference between winning and losing.  Few drivers out of the 43 that start a race each week are able to win over the course of a racing year .  To come out as the best driver for four consecutive years is, well, absolutely incredible.

The other 43 teams aren’t slouches in this sport.  One of the biggest stars in the sport, Mark Martin (also with Hendrick Motor Sports), has been racing 27 years and has yet to win a single championship.  He came in second in the Sprint Cup Championship this year.

My hat is off to Jimmie Johnson, Hendrick Motor Sports and this team for this achievement in business execution.  Congratulations!

Dave Gardner, Gardner & Associates Consulting

http://www.gardnerandassoc.com


Why Does Everything Have to Be So Complicated?

November 18, 2009

I’m a straight-shooting, pragmatic person who thrives on making the complex simple. The systems and processes I assist people with are not for my use; they are for the stakeholders daily use.

This month, I’m taking a look at business simplicity.  It’s easy to take the simple and make it complex, but, far more difficult to take the complex and make it simple.  That’s my passion.

Many companies (and, sadly, many consultants) seem to go out of their way to make things complicated.  Sometimes, I listen to people and say to myself, “What the heck does that mean?”  If you need a decoder ring, something is just not right.

The following graphic is profound in its simplicity. Take a moment and ponder it.

I wish I had created the preceding graphic, but, I did not. This visual was created by Jessica Hagy under a blog post titled “Needles and Haystacks and Such” for a blog located at http://thisisindexed.com.

Confusion is a function of how much information is available: too little information promotes confusion just as too much information promotes confusion.

I was recently involved with a Fortune 500 company and noticed that the marketing people across the enterprise were just pounding the sales people with new product and service information, new promotions, etc.  I wondered how a sales person could do their job with this constant bombardment of information. After a while, it has to feel like spam, turning people off rather than turning them on.

If I had been in sales, I’m sure I would have ignored it–it was just too much information for a person to absorb while still being able to execute their jobs. I’m certain they respond to the priorities set by their management–that would be the safer course of action.

One marketing person I knew had some 40 projects on her “to-do” list all destined to go to the same group.  I asked her if she ever sought feedback about how well the information she created was being received or assisted sales to be more successful.  She looked at me like I was nuts.  Okay, call me crazy! If you don’t seek feedback, how will you ever know?

The optimal point in this process visual diagram is where the curve is at it’s lowest point.  After that, the economic “law of diminishing returns” sets in. Incremental information promotes more confusion and overload as it is added to the mix. The challenge is finding out where the point of optimization is for the people who are expected to execute.  The best way to find that point is to simply ask the recipients for feedback.

Americans are terrible dealing with people in foreign countries who don’t speak English.  We say things louder and in a more animated voice thinking that this is the royal road to communication success.  It’s not.  The same is true with confusion and information.  Just as increasing the volume is ineffective with someone who does not speak English, more information is not more, but, actually less.

Improve business execution through simplification.  If processes or systems are not being followed or no longer serve the essential needs of the business, change and simplify them.  And, if your role is providing information, validate that the information you are publishing is serving the strategy, not confounding or adding to confusion or overwhelm.

People who are confused or overwhelmed with information are not going to be efficient or effective.

What is the best practice?  Find the balance between information and confusion.  The people using the systems and processes to do their jobs are the best judge of how well the balance has been achieved.  Consider what you can do to create simple, effective solutions.

And, certainly, don’t be shy about reaching out for help from a dispassionate third-party like me.

Dave Gardner, Gardner & Associates Consulting http://www.gardnerandassoc.com