Satyam Computer Services grew from its 1987 roots to become the face of India's IT juggernaut with tens of thousand of staff spread across the globe. It all came crashing down early in 2009 when Satyam founder and company chair, Ramalinga Raju, revealed that, in essence, the books had been cooked.
His oft quoted observation, "it was like riding a tiger, not knowing how to get off without being eaten,” is somehow comforting. We can understand it...what a fearsome, lonely ride, we might think. Well, celebrity continues with a cover shot on Business Week and the inevitable "India's Enron" seen in The Economist.
Deeper truths: humans make up systems
There is a collusion, conscious and unconscious, that is required to deliver the kind of catastrophe seen at Satyam. The human capacity to choose what to see, believe and act on is probably what keeps us sane in the daily struggle to navigate through the workplace...but it also destroys the soul and enables malfeasance.
We see this every day at the water cooler... the subtle sniping at "them", justifications for injustices small and large, the fatalism that in turn justifies petty ways to get one's own back. This provokes disgust and disappointment in those that hold one viewpoint; from another, the revulsion is reserved for those known to be opposed to such behaviour. They are painted as uncooperative, weak or not one of the team.
Both views coexist and often both groups step into their "member of the larger group" mindset to shut out the minutia that reveals the truth of an organization in favour of the prettier and well marketed picture that is adopted to cloak reality.
Behaviours within organizations are often miles apart from the image presented in vision statements and governance models, development programs, international award receptions and campaigns to sell that image. The image is, after all, good for business. The reality is...awkward.
In my view, the greatest and the riskiest thing is to build capacity within the organization to recognize the incongruities at the smallest levels of human interaction as well as the systemic level as forces in the business as well as impacts on human beings. Then, take that consciousness and engage in trustworthy development of corrective action--individually and collectively.
Too much "growth" today is built on the specious (but very lucrative) notion that mergers and aquisitions represent value. Businesses aimed at growth through merger and acquisition for their own sake rather than sustainable profit based on value production are unlikely to take the gamble. This is a time for us to reconsider what value is and what part each of us has to play in it. This is a time to start thinking of organizations as intellectual capital and managing it accordingly.
I'm working on a book with coleague and partner Robert Tornack and trying to find the language that can inform on this level while also providing a roadmap to achieving the knowledge-focused enterprise. It is a challenge in part because, like any new approach, until it is so ingrained that one can focus on outcomes, the system is focused on process. The old bromide, "the operation was a success! but the patient died" is a factor of exactly this focus on process.
Know what it takes to deliver quality outcomes
My advice is to focus on outcomes, constraining process only to the degree necessary for accountability. This takes a different kind of governance model to ensure transparency and a recognition that contemporaneous record-keeping is at the core of authenticty and reliability in performance.
Community also means shared accountability
A recent question focused on what can leaders do after such a catastrophe. Certainly, it may be appropriate that a top leader to take the wrap for the organization as a whole as Mr. Raju has done. But, despite protestations to the contrary, the organization knows better.
Organizational culture is the outcome of collaboration and every individual is accountable for influencing it. Mr. Raju's censure is important, but does not absolve the culture that enabled it.
Northumbira's Impact Calculator launched
Northumbria is certainly engaged and that is wonderful to see. I'll be taking a deeper look at the Impact Calculator tool soon--a first look reveals that the Business Process worksheet is blank for some reason.
The guide does not indicate that this should be so, so I'll bring that to the attention of someone involved, perhaps Steve Bailey who introduces the tool in his blog, Records management futurewatch.
While applauding (loudly) the development of tools for use in practice, I admit to a concern that RIM practitioners lose the opportunity to gain deep knowledge (e.g. Deep Smarts: How to Cultivate and Transfer Enduring Business Wisdom
)
The process of developing such a tool is something that builds knowledge and capacity in ways that merely adopting a tool cannot. Sadly, when we adopt tools rather than build them, the focus shifts toward making the tool work rather than on devising a means to achieve an outcome. This is directly related to "the operation was a success! but the patient died" syndrome that seems to characterize so many organizations today.
A promising sign, however, is the guide itself and need for users to devise meaningful indicators. That is no mean feat...indicators are easy enough, but making them meaningful in context is another thing altogether.
Kudos to Northumbria...and more kudos to the RIM practitioner who uses the tool to build personal capacity to adapt it for use in situ.
The guide does not indicate that this should be so, so I'll bring that to the attention of someone involved, perhaps Steve Bailey who introduces the tool in his blog, Records management futurewatch.
While applauding (loudly) the development of tools for use in practice, I admit to a concern that RIM practitioners lose the opportunity to gain deep knowledge (e.g. Deep Smarts: How to Cultivate and Transfer Enduring Business Wisdom
)The process of developing such a tool is something that builds knowledge and capacity in ways that merely adopting a tool cannot. Sadly, when we adopt tools rather than build them, the focus shifts toward making the tool work rather than on devising a means to achieve an outcome. This is directly related to "the operation was a success! but the patient died" syndrome that seems to characterize so many organizations today.
A promising sign, however, is the guide itself and need for users to devise meaningful indicators. That is no mean feat...indicators are easy enough, but making them meaningful in context is another thing altogether.
Kudos to Northumbria...and more kudos to the RIM practitioner who uses the tool to build personal capacity to adapt it for use in situ.
A question about the practical value of bonding staff and contractors relative to intellectual property and knowledge resources brings to mind earlier experience when responsible for the management of captured knowledge within a Canadian government entity.
As someone involved behind the scenes in the development of British Columbia's Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy statute, I was conscious that the results of proclamation and the inevitable interpretation of law by implementing organisations sometimes caused unexpected consequences. I explored with risk management experts the impact of privacy legislation on bonding of staff for risk, insurance and security purposes.
The experience drawn from the effect of Canadian national legislation may indicate implications for other jurisdictions in the Pacific Rim and Asia, especially those sharing a foundation in the parliamentary system of government. Of course, every organization should seek its own legal counsel in any specific regard. That counsel should be considered in context.
In this case, we found that:
As someone involved behind the scenes in the development of British Columbia's Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy statute, I was conscious that the results of proclamation and the inevitable interpretation of law by implementing organisations sometimes caused unexpected consequences. I explored with risk management experts the impact of privacy legislation on bonding of staff for risk, insurance and security purposes.
The experience drawn from the effect of Canadian national legislation may indicate implications for other jurisdictions in the Pacific Rim and Asia, especially those sharing a foundation in the parliamentary system of government. Of course, every organization should seek its own legal counsel in any specific regard. That counsel should be considered in context.
In this case, we found that:
- The Bond process is typically used when staff of Company A handle monies and funds for Company B. If the staff of Company A should steal the funds, the bonding organization will pay Company B for that loss.
- The bond process, as described, is considered cost effective for bonding one's own staff against the risk of internal theft or loss.
- As a result of various privacy protections under law (variable across jurisdictions) it may be impossible for a bonding firm to perform a thorough security check. Therefore, these firms may bond individuals without an adequate knowledge of whether they are "bondable" in the sense of the general expectations understood prior to the advent of privacy laws.
- Contrary to management belief and instruction, it is not cost effective to bond individuals hired as temporary back-fill for staff on leave (or due to other staffing need) or to bond the outsourced service staff of other companies that handle one's own valuable goods as is increasingly common.
- If the security of bonding applied to temporary or sub-contractor staff is deemed necessary in relation to valuable itmes, cash or negotiable instruments, then such temporary staffing or back-filling may be pursued through a placement agency or sub-contractor which takes on responsibility for bonding. Then, it may be established through contract that the agency is required to supply bonded workers and that the agency is in any case liable for any losses. These losses would presumably be reimbursed through the agency's bonding agent, a separate matter of direct concern to the agency).
- Easily overlooked implications of such action include limitations of union and workforce agreements, judicial assessment of processes to monitor sub-contracted resources, the actual arrangements and financial coverage available to a sub-contractor through its bond agent, etc.
- What value can be ascribed to information?
What is sustainability in business?
This question has come up a lot of late. In response to it in a LinkedIn QA, I observed that:
It's an exciting area of thought-work. In my interactions internationally, I sense both a coming together of thinkers and a great divide. It would be too easy to conclude that division fits political views, economic and class distinctions, even national origin.
Can we transcend difference to create a critical mass that moves globalization from exploitation to mutuality?
Sustainability in business means just that...keeping the business viable over time. There was a time when everyone got this. Change in thinking around what constitutes an acceptable profit have created confusion in what is, really, a rather straightforward and pragmatic thing.
If your profit is based on acquisition rather than productivity, it is not sustainable. This is a smash and grab, "do harm" philosophy. It is concerned more with marketing the hype and eventual sale/purchase/merger than delivering value. On a personal level, it is self justifying as the trappings of financial success are comfortable, cushioning reality in very nice surroundings among those who similarly want to justify an approach that essentially takes a winner-loser viewpoint. "The other" must give up something so that "we" win. "We" must protect against "the other" to avoid losing.
If your profit is based on productive engagement, it is necessarily based in notions of how to sustain that (or you cannot remain profitable and cannot sustain yourself). This philosophy breeds a concern for quality, integrity in relationship, commitment to mutual benefit. It leans toward "the other" as opportunity for growth and/or sustainable profit through recognition of mutual interest.
There seems to be a growing dichotomy in these schools of thought. I am working to express how managing knowledge resources (people plus information recorded into multimedia containers) grounds the development of intellectual capital (as an indicator of sustainable profit far more reliable than last year's balance sheet).
It's an exciting area of thought-work. In my interactions internationally, I sense both a coming together of thinkers and a great divide. It would be too easy to conclude that division fits political views, economic and class distinctions, even national origin.
Can we transcend difference to create a critical mass that moves globalization from exploitation to mutuality?
On records
When I learned that the internet seminar I developed and offered in collaboration with ARMA International had attracted 551 registrants well in advance, I was delighted, and curious. When that number icreased to 1100 by September 28 and closed at 1186 by October 6, I felt honoured, and still very curious. Why had this seminar attracted such interest? What might have caused such a record number of participants?
ARMA International has been gracious enough to put it down to my professional renown, such as it is. It seems a stretch to think that my own reputation is so wide spread as to draw such a crowd from across the globe. So, I conclude, it is the topic that resonates.
Seven Questions Guide Records Management Strategy & Implementation. Seven uncomplicated questions provide a framework for uncovering all the information necessary to run an enterprise, and to manage its corporate memory. Presented with insights into how recorded information management fits within a senior management perspective, the presentation invites records management professionals to embrace the complexity that is part and parcel of describing and management the corporate brain. It is a topic for our time.
Authentic, reliable, transparent and accountable.
The decisions of government, enterprises large and small must be all of these. And, as the world comes to grips with the smoke and mirrors that represent, drive and misrepresent the global economy, we who understand the professional domain of recorded information management know that ultimately, everything rests on accurate recordkeeping. It is the foundation of knowing.
Recently, I contributed a module on knowledge captured in multi-media containers (records) for a graduate course, Knowledge Management in Health Care, for the University of Victoria in British Columbia, Canada. Mid-career professionals from a variety of health related enterprises: public, private and non-profit sectors from across Canada. Like their counterparts in every sector, they are knowledgeable and skilled at the running of organizations. And, like their counterparts in so many industries, some spoke of record keeping and the activities that might derive from the existence of recorded information as "maybe a good thing", but essentially not "the real work" and perhaps a distraction and drain on resources that could be put to better use. It's a refrain oft heard through my own career of over twenty years.
And yet, I know that if we care about quality and repeatable performance, we must know it is not achievable without the record. If we care about integrity in business, we must acknowledge that it is not discernible without the records. If we care about transparency in governance, we must demand authentic, realible records as evidence.
Those who claim that they are too busy doing "the real job" to ensure adequate record-keeping, in fact, are not actually finishing the job.
The failure to create and effectively use captured knowledge as a guide for action, basis for evaluation and means to defend decisions is a choice to abandon good management.
Knowingly or not, it's a choice too many have made. The results speak for themselves.
ARMA International has been gracious enough to put it down to my professional renown, such as it is. It seems a stretch to think that my own reputation is so wide spread as to draw such a crowd from across the globe. So, I conclude, it is the topic that resonates.
Seven Questions Guide Records Management Strategy & Implementation. Seven uncomplicated questions provide a framework for uncovering all the information necessary to run an enterprise, and to manage its corporate memory. Presented with insights into how recorded information management fits within a senior management perspective, the presentation invites records management professionals to embrace the complexity that is part and parcel of describing and management the corporate brain. It is a topic for our time.
Authentic, reliable, transparent and accountable.
The decisions of government, enterprises large and small must be all of these. And, as the world comes to grips with the smoke and mirrors that represent, drive and misrepresent the global economy, we who understand the professional domain of recorded information management know that ultimately, everything rests on accurate recordkeeping. It is the foundation of knowing.
Recently, I contributed a module on knowledge captured in multi-media containers (records) for a graduate course, Knowledge Management in Health Care, for the University of Victoria in British Columbia, Canada. Mid-career professionals from a variety of health related enterprises: public, private and non-profit sectors from across Canada. Like their counterparts in every sector, they are knowledgeable and skilled at the running of organizations. And, like their counterparts in so many industries, some spoke of record keeping and the activities that might derive from the existence of recorded information as "maybe a good thing", but essentially not "the real work" and perhaps a distraction and drain on resources that could be put to better use. It's a refrain oft heard through my own career of over twenty years.
And yet, I know that if we care about quality and repeatable performance, we must know it is not achievable without the record. If we care about integrity in business, we must acknowledge that it is not discernible without the records. If we care about transparency in governance, we must demand authentic, realible records as evidence.
Those who claim that they are too busy doing "the real job" to ensure adequate record-keeping, in fact, are not actually finishing the job.
The failure to create and effectively use captured knowledge as a guide for action, basis for evaluation and means to defend decisions is a choice to abandon good management.
Knowingly or not, it's a choice too many have made. The results speak for themselves.
The false security of methodology
John Owens' observations on simplicity and complexity in the Project Management Hut resonate. In many organizations, there is a slavish adoption of one or another "proven" methodology. In fact, there are certainly requisite stages: analysis, planning, execution, i.e. build+implement, and review. But the real key is not bureaucratization of process, but developing capable participants.
Whether you use a highly structured methodology or a more fluid and iterative "agile" approach, the key to success is effective collaboration among capable people working to achieve agreed, meaningful outcomes.
Not long ago, I experienced (yet another) PRINCE2 project in which observers could not get their heads around the how and way of project difficulties when it was, after all, a Prince2 project!! Isn't the PRINCE rationale exactly the avoidance of such problems through a structured approach?
Any project needs the right people demonstrating key attributes. They must be willing, able, knowledgeable and sincerely interested in the success of the project. I can hear some of my former colleagues agreeing. Yet, it takes a bit more effort and insight to suss out the reality.
In this case, assigned project members were unhappy with the organization in general and assigned leader in particular. That is, they had a point to make and were handed a vehicle through which to make it. Internally, the group was widely known to be more interested in a failed project that could serve as a platform for other greivances than a success that might undermine their vested position.
The project focus was well beyond the team's experience. So, not only was the group unhappy and itching for a chance to demonstrate failed leadership, they were not fully capable delivering even in areas that they were agreeable.
Knowledgeable? Well, even in their professional domain, observers noted that long standing practices were observed to be not current, some even harmful.
How does such a team end up with a multi-million dollar project assignment? Easy!
When an organization is trained to believe that form, rank and process are sufficient to achieve results, very structured processes (such as, in this case, PRINCE2) are meant to ensure that all the pieces fit in a tidy set of (many) binders and the messy realities of human interaction can remain off the table.
Not entirely blind to risk, senior decision makers provided additional support--in the form of administrative "experts" whose IT experience was limited to several months' installation of desktop software. This loosely related skill set was augmented with a contract IT technician who was to report to the problematic group. Not surprisingly, the vendor team was mystified. Eventually, the vendor's project management felt so badly burned by the behaviour of the client's staff that time lines began to slip as the focus shifted more and more to a defensive documentation of client team failures instead of progress. The accountable project sponsor found that senior support for addressing internal HR problems shrank as the disruptions grew.
Sadly, the scenario is not so unusual. No methodology, per se, can substitute for conscious assessment and realistic determination of factors that will shape the progress of a project. In fact, formulaic methodologies may include processes in which a problem is identified, recorded and reported and the process ticked off without notice that the problem itself is not resolved, enabling giving the old "operation was a success, but the patient died" argument.
It is rare to find direct reference to the kind of machinations that surround projects within organizations.
Scary as it may be, "getting real" around issues of workplace culture, power dynamics, competencies among relevant stakeholders and attitude is a necessary project design stage. They say that as many as 70% of IT projects fail to deliver the forecasted benefits. When the enforcement of process obscures context and a focus on outcomes, is it any wonder?
Whether you use a highly structured methodology or a more fluid and iterative "agile" approach, the key to success is effective collaboration among capable people working to achieve agreed, meaningful outcomes.
Not long ago, I experienced (yet another) PRINCE2 project in which observers could not get their heads around the how and way of project difficulties when it was, after all, a Prince2 project!! Isn't the PRINCE rationale exactly the avoidance of such problems through a structured approach?
Any project needs the right people demonstrating key attributes. They must be willing, able, knowledgeable and sincerely interested in the success of the project. I can hear some of my former colleagues agreeing. Yet, it takes a bit more effort and insight to suss out the reality.
In this case, assigned project members were unhappy with the organization in general and assigned leader in particular. That is, they had a point to make and were handed a vehicle through which to make it. Internally, the group was widely known to be more interested in a failed project that could serve as a platform for other greivances than a success that might undermine their vested position.
The project focus was well beyond the team's experience. So, not only was the group unhappy and itching for a chance to demonstrate failed leadership, they were not fully capable delivering even in areas that they were agreeable.
Knowledgeable? Well, even in their professional domain, observers noted that long standing practices were observed to be not current, some even harmful.
How does such a team end up with a multi-million dollar project assignment? Easy!
When an organization is trained to believe that form, rank and process are sufficient to achieve results, very structured processes (such as, in this case, PRINCE2) are meant to ensure that all the pieces fit in a tidy set of (many) binders and the messy realities of human interaction can remain off the table.
Not entirely blind to risk, senior decision makers provided additional support--in the form of administrative "experts" whose IT experience was limited to several months' installation of desktop software. This loosely related skill set was augmented with a contract IT technician who was to report to the problematic group. Not surprisingly, the vendor team was mystified. Eventually, the vendor's project management felt so badly burned by the behaviour of the client's staff that time lines began to slip as the focus shifted more and more to a defensive documentation of client team failures instead of progress. The accountable project sponsor found that senior support for addressing internal HR problems shrank as the disruptions grew.
Sadly, the scenario is not so unusual. No methodology, per se, can substitute for conscious assessment and realistic determination of factors that will shape the progress of a project. In fact, formulaic methodologies may include processes in which a problem is identified, recorded and reported and the process ticked off without notice that the problem itself is not resolved, enabling giving the old "operation was a success, but the patient died" argument.
It is rare to find direct reference to the kind of machinations that surround projects within organizations.
Scary as it may be, "getting real" around issues of workplace culture, power dynamics, competencies among relevant stakeholders and attitude is a necessary project design stage. They say that as many as 70% of IT projects fail to deliver the forecasted benefits. When the enforcement of process obscures context and a focus on outcomes, is it any wonder?
On Organization and Re-organization
Somewhere around the year 60 A.D. Petronius Arbiter observed that,
The more things change, the more they stay the same...
"we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing. It can be a wonderful way to create the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralization".
The more things change, the more they stay the same...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
