Discipline makes Daring possible.

Ecosystems

Ecosystems

The thing that makes ecosystems different from machines is that they are made up of autonomous, interdependent and loosely coupled components, which may themselves be ecosystems.

Autonomy allows evolution in the component.  Loose coupling means that the ecosystem can tolerate a good deal of evolution before it breaks.  Interdependence gives feedback to evolving components, constraining or encouraging variation, and, in the end, allowing the ecosystem itself to evolve.

Actually, it’s not really possible to break an ecosystem, but it can evolve into something that becomes hostile to one or more of its components.  So the question for owners who want to build an ecosystem rather than a machine, is how to keep it in balance, without stifling creativity?

Maybe the answer is to explore something between a machine and an ecosystem?

Building precision

Building precision

When you’re putting together a machine that needs to run without you, precision engineering is key.  Each component must fit tightly to the next, in exactly the right position in order to perform a single highly specific function, and no other.

The upside of this approach is efficiency, durability and a kind of austere beauty.  Standardised parts are simpler to mass-produce and easy to replace.  You can reach a much larger market.  And the whole thing runs as we say, ‘like clockwork’.

The downside is that building a machine takes a lot of upfront investment, and when new technology comes along, that highly-engineered investment turns itself into a pile of scrap.  This is true of software machines too.

So maybe the answer is to take our cue from nature and build ecosystems instead?

Devolution

Devolution

Often, when we think about delegation, we’re thinking about merely handing over execution to someone else.  We’ve already worked out what needs to be done, all they have to do is reproduce that.   This somewhat mechanical form of delegation works well for really simple and generic tasks such as answering the phone, booking meetings, or filling in forms, or even for generic functions such as preparing annual accounts, fulfilment, distribution, even marketing.

But for what really weighs down a business owner, delegating execution doesn’t help much.

I remember my mum telling me, when as a child I offered to go shopping for her “The shopping is the least of my worries – I still have to think about what we’re going to eat, plan the meals, and write out the list.  That’s the hard bit.” 

What we really want to be delegating is the thinking, the decision making – in other words, the management.  And that’s hard, because it means giving up power, entrusting business outcomes to other people. It means devolution.

But devolution is what really pays off.  If my siblings and I had all taken turns to ‘manage’ the household, or taken responsibility for different parts of it, I’m sure that our family horizons and opportunities would have been broadened. 9 heads – even childish ones – are always better than 1.

The good news is that as business owners we have an advantage over mum, in that we’re dealing with adults we’ve selected for shared values, principles and beliefs.  Who will welcome the ability to step up and lead.

Especially if given a score to follow while they (and you) get used to the idea.

Fractals

Fractals

I was delighted to see Matt Black Systems feature again in this week’s Corporate Rebels blog.  I’ve told their story so often, since I visited them back in 2012.

I’m even more delighted to see that they offer consulting on how to apply their fractal model for businesses.

The fundamental thing that makes that model work, as I discovered on my visit, is responsible autonomy.  Enabled by process.  Rewarded by profit.

That makes it a natural model that can work in any business.

They’ve also published a book.   It’s been ordered.  Of course.

The problem with empowerment

The problem with empowerment

The problem with ’empowering’ people, is that it implies a transfer of power from someone who has it to someone who doesn’t.

Why don’t they have it already?  How come you have it to give?  Where did yours come from?  How is it maintained?

Everyone has power.  They don’t always have the autonomy to exercise it.

Autonomy is much more powerful than empowerment.  Which is why it’s scary for the currently powerful.  And it’s a fairer bet for everyone.

HT to Gustavo Razzetti for the prompt.

How to capture a business process: Step 1

How to capture a business process: Step 1

The first step in defining a business process is to work out where you want to be at the end of it.   More precisely, where do you want the person you are serving to be at the end of it.

This involves stepping up a level or two from your usual narrative – from the minutiae of how it gets done to what it is you are really trying to achieve.   This helps you identify ‘what’ has to happen, which in turn can open you up to different ‘hows’ for making it happen.

Write down (or better still get someone else to write down) the process you want to think about as a narrative.   Then ask yourself these questions:

  • What things should be true after this process is completed?
  • Which of those things is truly meaningful to the person you are serving (your prospect, client or customer)?
    • What is it that matters to them?
    • What difference will they notice?
    • What is it that they are paying you for?
  • How could you best sum that up in a two-word phrase, composed of a verb followed by a noun?   This phrase should be binary, it’s either true or it’s not.  You’ve either done it or you haven’t.

Now you’ve found the point of your process.  It’s probably much bigger than you thought.

A technology for thinking

A technology for thinking

One of the great reasons for reading so much on so many subjects (a fact which is being brought home to me as we bring our books back into the house) is that you stumble across stuff that helps, that you would never have gone looking for.

Aeon and it’s sister-publication Psyche are two of the my favourite places for stumbling across interesting things.

This week it was this article from Nana Ariel:

Talking out loud to yourself is a technology for thinking

It’s obvious once you think about it.

And it’s why a good first step for capturing a process is to try to explain it to someone else.

Inclusivity

Inclusivity

The 11th principle outlined in this brilliant book by Lou Downe “Good Services”  “A good service is usable by everyone, equally”, follows on from the previous one, and similarly, gets broken when companies don’t think hard enough about who their users are, and what the circumstances of that user might realistically be at the time they need to use the service.  Nowadays it’s very hard to get a decent job without having a bank account, and impossible to get a bank account without having somewhere to live.   That makes getting a proper job much harder than it should be for someone who is homeless – even if they have just become homeless and jobless through no fault of their own.

I’m exploring these principles from a different perspective, that of a business that delivers through other people.   From this perspective, your team are your users, and services are the processes you build to help them share and deliver your promise on your behalf.

Looked at this way, it seems to me that principle no 11 is hardly ever applied inside companies.    We expect every employee to conform to an impossible ideal of whatever is ‘normal’ for us – perfectly fit, permanently healthy, well-balanced and educated.  We expect them to behave as if they have nobody to consider except themselves.   We assume they are willing and able to fit their home-life around the demands of the business.

A little reflection on how your own life has changed over the years should make it obvious that this is unrealistic and unfair.  And coronavirus has made many realise that it isn’t that difficult to put right.

So, as you design the services through which your team will deliver, thereby earning their living, make sure they are able to do that whatever their circumstances.   Enable flexible working, remote working, part-time working, job-sharing.  Make the process adaptable, so that each person can adjust things to suit their abilities and working style.  Measure results instead of attendance.  Make admin and reporting a side-effect of the process and ensure feedback is sent when and where it has the best effect.

The brilliant thing is that by making your services deliverable by anyone, you make it easier for everyone, and give yourself a wider, deeper pool of talent to draw on.   By making the job easier for your team, you’ll deliver better results for your clients, and your business.

 

Dead ends

Dead ends

Arguably, my experience with Screwfix the other day was due to breaking this 10th principle of service design: “A Good Service should have no dead ends.”

When the local store had to close unexpectedly and temporarily, whoever was responsible for closing didn’t have authority to update the main company website.   They had reached a dead-end in the process for closing a store, which in turn led to a dead-end for me, the customer.

When you’re designing a service or process it’s a good idea to start with the most straightforward and most frequently occuring case.  But as soon as have this, you need to consider likely exceptions, and include them in your documentation.  One important exception many forget, is that your product or service is simply ‘not for’ the person trying to use it.  This is a legitimate ‘dead end’ in a way, but helping them to make an orderly and elegant exit will do no harm to your reputation.

Often, dead-ends occur when you haven’t fully considered who your users might be.   Not every shopper is 100% fit and able-bodied.  Heavy doors and steps become dead-ends for the disabled, frail or heavy-laden.  Small print makes a web-page a dead-end for someone short-sighted.  Small buttons or too-precise hand-movements create dead-ends for the arthritic or shaky-handed.  As my husband found out recently, 2-factor authentication makes online banking a dead-end for those who don’t have a mobile phone.

Of course, you’ll never be able to predict every possible exception or variation, so you need to make sure your service or process always has an ‘escape route’.  A good start is to enable a user (whether customer or team member) to talk to a human being with sufficient experience and authority to handle anything.

If you find this backstop is called on regularly or too often, you’ve discovered another common exception you didn’t allow for.

As long as you learn from the times the backstop is called for, your organisation will quickly learn to minimise the need for it.

How to really annoy your customers

How to really annoy your customers

Here’s why keeping your service consistent across channels matters.   Yesterday I drove down to our nearest Screwfix trade counter, to collect stuff we needed to start laying the floor.   I’d ordered these things online a few days earlier and chosen to collect rather than have it delivered.   I’d dutifully waited for the SMS messages that would notify me it had arrived at my chosen store and was ready to collect.  But when I turned up, the store was ‘temporarily closed’.

After navigating the labyrinth of phone messages designed to prevent you ever speaking to human being, after 10 minutes, I got through to someone, I explained my predicament.   They consulted their manager.

“That store closed a few days ago.  It should be open again soon.”

“The website said it was open.”

“If you google it, it says it says it’s temporarily closed.”

“Why on earth would I google it, when I’ve already ordered and paid for everything on the main website?  Why would I google it when I know where the store is, and I’ve received 2 separate SMS messages telling me that my order is ready for collection?”

“Oh.”

We got it sorted after a bit of nudging.  The person on the other end of the phone found me the next nearest Screwfix that had what I wanted in stock, and cancelled my order.   But a slick and easy service was totally undermined by a lack of consistency.

And, I suspect, by a failure of delegation.