Optimize

Another favorite term used very loosely in an organization. "Optimize" the process. "Optimize" the system. "Optimize" the strategy and so on. Everyday we hear this and act upon this.

So when do we say we have "optimized" enough and cannot optimize any further. How do you decide this? Who decides this?

A favorite term that us used to answer this question is - "Industry Benchmarks". You always try and optimize a process / system to line up with the industry benchmarks. But having said that, it does not always articulate into defined deliverables that can line up with the industry benchmark.

I see this happening a number of times - "Let us optimize our process to match that of Motorola" (since they invented the concept of Six-Sigma). Very well said. However, we as strategists need to also understand the pain that underwent in making it happen (see my bog on Simple). They want to go to a place with no pain and frustration however they forget that "Change" is the most painful thing for an organization.

So, we embark on a journey to achieve optimization and the team in the trenches feels the pain - the strategists are oblivious of this in their ivory tower. The optimization process continues at a price of employee morale / job-loss etc. etc.

Then comes the moment of truth - the strategists realizes the pain that the company has already undergone to achieve the most optimized process which by the way is far more elusive than what it was at the start of this project. That is when he / she realizes and say "We have optimized enough"

So, the next time around, one of your employees comes to you with a suggestion for some level of optimization without tearing apart the walls of the organization -please embrace that and support it. Such small optimization activities are are better than some large optimization projects - think about it !

Leadership

There is plenty written about what is leadership and who is a leader. We are not going to go there and reinvent the wheel. Have you ever sat and wondered what does it take to identify a leader? What are the qualities on needs in order to be able to identify a leader?

Take the example of a typical work-place, irrespective of the size of the organization, with a manager and a few teamleads and of course a lot more employees. How does one go about identifying a team-leader - is it just by virtue of the time spent in an organization? Or, is it just by virtue of qualifications / trainings an employee has? Or is it by the respect an individual earns from others?

A logical answer is - the respect an individual earns from others. A realistic answer in almost every organization is typically based on the time spent in an organization or experience..

So how do you go about identifying a leader? What do you look for? Every employee is out to prove his / her worth so they are all performing to their 100% effort. They are all trying to overcome challenges in their respective work areas. They are all delivering on-time, on-budget and in-scope. So what is the differentiator between an employee and a potential leader?

The key differentiator is Proactive Ownership.

A leader always has a keen sense to see the end-to-end picture, foresee problems and takes ownership of issues as they arise. Once they take ownership of issues, which are many times outside their expertise domain, deliver resolution to the satisfaction of the stakeholders. Over a period of time, these individuals are transformed from being a deliverable oriented to initiative oriented, in a way, become the go-to person for all issues. This is what we need to search for when we look for a potential team lead. This is the REAL leader.

There is an unsaid rule - a leader spots a leader. If you spot a great leader a number of times, go with your gut-feeling. You know your traits. I am sure, your traits would equate to something like what I have written above, search for them. You will find that the potential leader matches the way you work and deliver.

So, the next time around, you are looking for a team lead, are you go to butt-heads with HR in appointing a team leader based on the number of years in the company or you will appoint a real team-leader - think about it?

Innovation

What is so special about Innovation?

Everyone "innovates" something or the other every day. Imagine an organization with 100,000 employees. If each of the employees "innovated" (if there was such a word) one thing every day there would be 100,000 innovations per work day. Employees innovate a new shortcut to open a program on their computer, they innovate a new process to pay the vendors on time, innovate a new process to manufacture their products and so on and on. These things happen every working day.

Then what is so special about innovation that companies feel the need to devote special departments to "innovate"?

They want to be able to answer the question - "What Next"? In order to enable the quest for that answer they, go on an innovation spree forgetting that there are simple things that can be leveraged and turned into killer-products or cash-cows. Take Apple Computer (as it was formerly called) - they did not completely innovate the iPOD - they leveraged an existing product and innovated a few changes and turned it into a cash-cow for the company.

The main issue with "Innovation" is that companies usually want to stick to their area of competency and want to be able to successful in their innovations. However, what happens is that over a period of time, every industry reaches a level of maturity and therefore the "killer innovative product" becomes a distant dream.

On the other hand, there are companies like 3M (Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing) that have moved from their core competency to "stickies". Nokia is another example of a company that has travelled a long long way from lumber to cellphone leader. How did they do it? The did it because they took small innovations which were outside their core expertise and turned them around into world changing products.

So, would you rather attend a session on "How to Innovate" or use your existing little innovation to change the world...think about it !

Simple is Complex

How many times have you said or heard - "It is so simple". Well, maybe it is !

Have you ever wondered how complex it is to make things simple? When I say complex, I mean the engineering involved in making an entity simple.

Take the example of the iPOD. MP3 players existed before the iPOD. However, they were complex things to use and operate because they did not show the song being played (as an example). What did the engineers at Apple do? They put a highly complex piece of hardware and software which made using a MP3 player simple. Let the team who developed this product tell you - was it complex or simple?

So how does one go about creating something simple?

There is no cookie-cutter template that will help. However a simple set of checks does help the team focus on creating / developing something simple. It is called KISS - Keep It Simple and Stupid

Want to design a new business process? A new piece of software? A new project plan? For every box in the process flow or for every line item on the project plan - ask yourself just two questions
1. Does this add any value to the end product and if the answer is YES ask yourself another question
2. Will you need more than one statement to explain this value add? If the answer is YES then you are not designing anything simple

Think about it !

Coopetition

There has been so much written about "Coopetition".

Coopetition or Co-opetition is a buzzword coined to describe cooperative Competition. There are well-known examples of companies working together in order to limit competition. However, in contrast, co-opetition focuses on cooperation between companies in imperfectly competitive markets. Examples of coopetition include Apple Computer and Microsoft Corp.

What has not been talked about or written about is coopetition between employees on the same team in companies trying to establish themselves.

Think of it like this, you have a set of highly talented individuals with similar job experience / qualification etc. staffed on the same project. Now, both of these individuals want to prove their worth to the management chain. Also, at the same time, they are responsible for the delivery of the project. So what does that result in?

It results in coopetition.

Of course, there are no legal documents signed, no big press releases, no kick-off parties but these two individuals in their own little ways moved forward into a coopetition mode where they are agreeing not to compete beween themselves in order to achieve success for their joint project. Needless to add, when it is time for the project / annual appraisal they will list their own contributions thereby moving away from the coopetition mode into a competition mode.

Is coopetition amongst the team healthy? Definitely yes. If nothing else, it ensures that there is work delivery as per plan.

Should coopetition within the team be encouraged by explicitly stating as much? No. I say this because as a Leader one is expected to lead the team to the same vision and goal - not to have more competition because then the focus of the team would move from the explicit goal to their individual goals.

What is the take away from this article? When you hear coopetition think of coopetition between companies and also between individuals on various teams.