Organizational Deja Vu?

The first PDMA/IIR Corporate Portfolio Management Conference in Clearwater, Florida in February had speakers from the financial services, medical device, computer, and consumer industries sharing their portfolio management experiences. It was full of great speaker presentations and opportunities for me to network. Reflecting on my experience there led me to a curious observation. Have you ever noticed the commonality of business stories regardless of industry? It got me thinking about that famous quote from management guru Yogi Berra, "This is like déjà vu all over again."

The challenges are so similar in fact that you could replace the company name and industry with just about any other one. For example, "Company XYZ was faced with faster business cycles due to globalization, commoditization, and aggressive competitors. Our current way of doing things wasn't getting it done. To drive the new change we had to make business improvements and change the XYZ culture. We fought and succeeded after a lot of hard work and support from senior management. Now company XYZ is performing better than ever!" Turn the crank and the cycle seems to repeat itself. Those that don't make the next turn of the crank become fodder for the press. Over and over again. Does this sound familiar? Shouldn't we have learned how to do this better by now? After all we have the insight into solutions for organizational change. The same can be said with respect to voice of the customer, stage-gate (tm), portfolio management, quality improvement, project management, etc. There's not that much new under the sun when it comes to process, methods, and tools for quite a while. So why is it always like major life-threatening surgery versus a routine medical procedure?

I believe there are many factors to be considered. The first is that business and product development are socio-technical systems and very complex ones at that. It is difficult to understand all the unintended consequences of change despite what we know (Murphy's Law is alive and well). Second, we can't ignore the human factors. We are unpredictable beings who need boundaries (such as process and discipline) but still want to do things our way (the famous "Not Invented Here Mentality"). A third point is that the corporate culture and reward systems focus on the short term results and not on taking the long term view. I heard someone once refer to this as organizational ADHD. Fourth is that while automation is an enabling element for change it has been known to trip up many an implementation. One has to avoid changing the focus from fixing the business problem to managing another IT project. Last, but certainly not least, organizational change requires leadership which is a quality that cannot be bottled and mass produced. It’s been chronicled in books, magazines, and case studies time and time again where good or bad senior leadership has changed the fortunes of an organization.

Despite all this we still seem to succeed (sometimes in spite of ourselves). The common themes for success companies share at these conferences regarding their journey to implementing change are often what we come to conferences to hear. They include senior management commitment, getting others buy-in to the vision, piloting efforts in an interested group, providing the right incentives, and lastly making sure there some recognized business benefit to the organization (though this is often hard to get results in the short term). The most important thing I want to know is "will it stick?” That part can't really be answered by any presenter.

So why do we come to conferences? I think the success of others gives us hope and inspiration that we can also succeed in our own efforts. The business of change taxes our resolve and energy at a personal level. It's comforting to draw some hope and inspiration. Such significant undertakings require both insight and inspiration to succeed. Those that have succeeded are also great to commiserate with because they have the same battle scars.

Do you agree or disagree with me? Please share your real world experiences…

Comments

Amen! I see the same issues

Amen!

I see the same issues at companies ABC, DEF, and XYZ… The processes, tools and methods that help with performance are there for those who want to use them effectively. Perhaps if companies shifted the billions that are wasted on R&D activity that isn’t producing results into developing their staff so they can learn about and apply the voice of the customer, stage-gate ™, portfolio management, quality improvement, project management, etc., we wouldn’t have the epidemic that you describe as déjà vu.

In my interactions with clients over the years, there is strong consensus that senior managers in general don’t really acknowledge the complexity of product development. I don’t believe they need to understand the details, but management at least needs to realize that R&D / product development is extremely complex, and the human factors indeed contribute heavily to the complexity.

At one of our client companies, a VP/GM of a major business unit said this when asked why he doesn’t provided more guidance to his team regarding portfolio management – “It’s too difficult.” A pathetic answer from an executive making 2-4 times more than the average person working in his business unit. Eventually he was removed from his position, but not until after years of mismanagement.

This is an example of the human factor being a major impediment to success, and when it’s near the top of the management chain it can be especially destructive. Normally we see plenty of leadership, management and interpersonal communication issues across a business that are interfering with productivity. Combine this with lack of knowledge or discipline related to product development process, and it’s no wonder high levels of success are rare.

I recently developed a workshop that helps with R&D performance measurements using a balanced scorecard approach that is broader than the conventional Kaplan/Norton method. It puts emphasis on the human factors such as teamwork, leadership and communication. Hopefully this approach will have significant impact.

http://www.auxilium-inc.com/RDMeasurement.htm

Yes, the success of others often provides inspiration, but what about all of those struggling business that don’t send people to conferences, workshops, etc. to give them the opportunity not only to learn but to be inspired? How can businesses (U.S. companies in particular) be influenced to invest more in their people and long-term success? The short-term focus seems like a fundamental cause of long-term struggles.