Last week I participated in a meeting of the CSCSC’s board of directors, which brought together an impressive cross-section of stakeholders in Canada’s supply chain community. In addition to hearing reports and updates, attendees participated in a group exercise, led by Linda Lucas, to build on information from pan-Canadian information-gathering sessions conducted earlier this year. The exercise involved three steps:
- Identify sector-specific priorities (in a given overall segment);
- Map actions to further those priorities; and
- Assign tasks to people (bonus marks, I think, for time lines).
From my experience doing similar work with clients and groups, all the steps are important, and gauging consensus (rather than happiness) along the way is essential. Success or failure can hinge on the Number 3 point, above; failure is still in play even if Numbers 1 and 2 are clear and garner group support.
My group was focussed on issues under the umbrella of “Attracting and retaining talent in the sector.” Among the priorities we determined was getting other business functions to recognize the strategic importance of the supply chain function to make it a desirable area to pursue.
Note: The theme of the undervalued supporting function is rampant. “Supporting” roles never get the respect that they should. Individual egos (and we all have them) are no small part of this. At varying times, I have sat in meetings where those from other supporting functions (PR, Communications, HR and IT, for example) bemoaned the fact that they deserved more respect in the organization.
Having identified this priority, we suggested that the appropriate action is to “bang the drum” about the importance of supply chain. We then dutifully took aim at assigning the task, but concluded that this one – perhaps like others – is everybody’s job.
Some specific examples for the rollout might look like this:
- Leaders in organizations: celebrate successes in supply chain innovation internally (to reinforce the changes) and in other companies (to demonstrate the opportunity).
- Educational institutions and designation-granting associations: foster pride in being involved in 21st-century value creation (profiling successful graduates), and provide skills to communicate that value to different areas of the organization.
- Workers in the sector: take every opportunity available (and create opportunity) to share successes with all related functions internally and externally; praise and foster internal collaboration that helps generate innovative solutions.
- Consultants in team and stakeholder communications: provide awareness as to the importance of selling your functional and individual value; train skills on effectively communicating the value of supply chain to the wider stakeholder group.
Much of this is already underway, I know. According to information gathered in the Council’s activities, the work is far from done to further this priority to the extent that the sector needs to realize its potential. Consider yourself tasked, and stay tuned for the timelines.
This originally appeared in the June 2009 newsletter for the Canadian Supply Chain Sector Council (supplychaincanada.org)
The last day of public school reminded me of my youth when late in the school year, my grade 7 English teacher, Mr. Williams, gave us a quiz on a series of short stories he had assigned to read. The front page was a combination of short answer, fill in the blank, and true/false questions. On the back, there was on line on which we were to record “the number, between 0 and 6, of stories that you actually read.”
Does self evaluation get any better than that? I can’t remember what I wrote or his reaction, but I remember pondering whether to gamble in looking “studious, yet forgetful” or being “honest and, perhaps, lucky.”
Look for a letter to the editor that I submitted on two articles in today’s National Post commenting on peer evaluations in university. The issue being, is it progress to use a software that allows peer grading for short written assignments? Dangerous move toward blind leading the blind, or novel way to bring technology and dialogue into new millennium academia?
I will share the actual submission, if printed, but the gist of my argument is that most post-secondary education should be about discussion to gather support for an argument, and practice in presenting arguments effectively. This view reflects my bias in working in a business school, and away from the “black and white” numbers side of things (although you learn to use numbers in such a way to support your intentions).
The article writers on opposite sides of the issue both do a poor job in supporting their case. The software vendor quickly refers readers to the vendor site for objective support for the value of the software. You have to do better than “if you don’t believe me, then look at this thing that I wrote.” Where is your third-party endorsement?! The teaching assistants make a noble attempt to evoke an analogy, which I find very effective. Their problem is the hyperbole (it’s like peer-delivered medicine) followed by a quick “All joking aside…”
When operating out of the realm where you have no “benefit of the doubt,” that kind of support won’t cut it!
I spent the morning working with a client to “bullet proof” a proposed project direction that she will presenting over the phone to a task force. We were meticulous about the clarity of ideas and the relevant support to back them up. Since the group meets every 6 to 8 weeks, getting buy-in next meeting could mean accelerating the project schedule by two months. Not bad for 90 minutes of prep work: for the numbers people, it is almost a 1000-fold return on minutes spent. I will suggest it is worth spending the time, and worth getting help.
Toronto city workers are striking, because they can. City management and union representatives, hopefully, continue to negotiate, because they have to. I am expecting final class assignments devoted to analyzing this situation:
- what went wrong?
- how could it have been better?
- what should they learn for next time?
I always enjoy the perspectives and the biases that come out in the analysis. Likely because he shares my biases, I enjoyed Howard Levitt’s legal perspective on the situation in today’s National Post.
As an additional perspective, my MBA class (Negotiations) this week tried to deal with ethics as practically as possible. With the assistance of some readings, excersises and discussions, we arrived at some criteria that can help inform ethical decision making. (I don’t like to think that it always “depends;” there are some more biases for you!) One of the criteria was “It is unethical to maximize your own interests with a disregard for shared interests.” You can argue the semantics of any of those words, but the point, as I see it, is look out for number one, but stay attentive to shared interests.
Under this criteria, in nature, a parasitic relationship becomes unethical if it threatens the survival of the host. Does that mean the Bernie Madoff was unethical because he failed to create a sustainable Ponzi scheme? Maybe. Remember, this is one of four criteria.
Do city workers violate this ethical code by holding out for, specifically, sick day banking and pay-back for half a year of sick days upon retirement? I think the answer is, “Yes.” The shared interest is in a sustainable system whereby reasonable tax revenues cover reasonable city services. As Mr. Levitt illustrates, the status quo union agreements have progressed to being unreasonable (evidence by the fact that you don’t see similar benefits in the private sector).
The checks and balances of the private sector are not perfect–and certainly do not guarantee ethical behaviour–but can help. Uncompetitive wage burdens were part of GM going bankrupt. Unions, workers and pensioners live with the consequences. Pushing a business to unsustainability is unethical if your plan is to continue working there (as it appeared to be for many workers) or to bank on retirement income from the company (as it appears for many pensioners).
If today’s City of Toronto workers are in it for anything other than short-term gains, they are not behaving ethically, I will suggest. Anyone who makes such a claim, better have a strong ethical leg to stand on (or had best make it on a blog whose readership is limited to like minds… we will see.)
Yesterday afternoon, I had the pleasure of listening to Michael Porter speak about value-based strategy in the health care system. (Since then, two people have asked me, “Who is Michael Porter?” Answer, for non-MBA types: “He is the Wayne Gretzky of business strategy.” Think 1980s and substitute Harvard Business School for the Edmonton Oilers.)
Having previously only read Porter, I was delighted at his level of passion and engagement with the audience. From the second to front row, I got a great view of all he did well. I would argue that this was not entirely necessary. As I mentioned to a fellow attendee: when your name is Michael Porter, with that particular crowd, you could count on the audience doing some work to understand you.
My take on the top-level was likely the same as everyone else’s. The current system is not set up to allow practitioners or patients to succeed. Too many people are asked to do the impossible. (That those in the system continue to do toil is a comment on very human-centric motivations!) The answer is to let people/system pieces excel in very specific areas. The success of niche players in business (Apple specializing in “cool,” Wal-Mart doing “cheap,” and Starbucks continually polishing their “experience” are all well-known examples). There is a German health centre that specializes in “headaches.” That is the future of health care.
We all have our “things” and Porter’s is “value-based competition.” Given that my “thing” is “getting the right ideas implemented,” I smiled (then cringed) when Porter glossed over the need for a “broad consensus” required to implement any of these changes. He quickly alluded to all the egos that prevent people from “stepping back and thinking rationally, ” and half-heartedly urged any board members in the audience to use their influence to champion attention to patient-outcome value.
I am unsure if others picked up on the importance of this point. It is a huge barrier to the right conversations ever beginning. Porter is right that it has to start somewhere: indeed, it has already begun. “Broad consensus” may be a challenge, but a good dose of “couldn’t this be WAAAY better” from various places in the system can help. I will continue to try to do my part. Intolerance is good.
This month I was working with groups at the PMAC in-residence week. This event pulls together a large group of individuals with mixed backgrounds, geographies, industries and issues. The task was to fill a half day in developing useful skills and awareness about communicating, collaborating and negotiating better solutions. The challenge from my perspective is getting beyond very general concepts (e.g., consider the other parties’ interests), while maintaining relevance to the group: the common denominator of “manufacturing” is long gone from purchasing and supply chain.
Is There an 80-per-cent Rule?
My economics professor from an undergrad class at McGill told us students an anecdote, from which I will share the first 80 per cent:
After a shipwreck in the North Atlantic, three survivors wash up on a rocky island. They are a chemist, a physicist and an economist. From their vessel, they recover a crate filled with canned tuna. This appears to be the only food they will have until they are rescued. Anticipating hunger, all three set about to address the challenge of extricating tuna from the cans.
The chemist immediately starts tasting the water to gauge the salinity, and then begins calculations to determine how long the cans would have to soak before corrosion weakened the can to the point it could be opened with bare hands.
The physicist begins to look for the highest point on the shore, and starts gathering loose rocks of different sizes. This will determine the optimum “height of drop” and “weight of rock” necessary to open the can without spilling its contents.
The economist begins arranging rocks to resemble three chairs and an eating surface. The others shout, “Hey, we need to open the cans first, friend,” to which the economist replies: “Oh yes, but my assumptions are (1) negligible inflation and (2) that we have a can opener.”
My professor went on, in the next 20 per cent of this discussion, to lecture on the necessity of assumptions in simplifying issues. His conclusion: including all the complexities from the real world will limit valuable economic analysis.
I have used the first 80 per cent of the above anecdote as an illustration for many clients. My conclusions vary based on the situation. Sometimes I stress the importance of teamwork, the value of shared objectives, or the danger of assumptions. (I enjoy the irony of the latter given my professor’s original version.)
Many of the approaches that come from business research and experience (in soft skills, as well as in process improvement and strategy) take clients 80 per cent of the way. That could be only 80 per cent or a full 80 per cent, depending on your individual lens. There is a balance between the desire to reinvent the wheel (e.g., to tailor-make solutions) and to apply an “off-the-rack” approach. The responsibility for finding this balance is shared.
Shared Responsibility
People like me, who consult to industry, have to be ready to bring the tools of “good thinking” the rest of the way for clients. Eighty per cent won’t cut it. I will admit that this is difficult in large groups, but it is an area of continual focus in my client work.
The supply chain is a perfect example of where those actually wrestling with complex problems can absorb the value from successes in other areas and functions.
- A services supply chain is different from a hard-goods supply chain, but there will be some relevance from one to the other.
- There are similarities between the not-for-profit and for-profit worlds.
- The Maritimes and the GTA are not completely different.
In the collision of business ideas and human beings, enabled through multiple communication touchpoints, there is a lot that can be termed “common sense” and “generic.” As a friend of mine likes to say, “until common sense becomes common practice there will be a lot of work for consultants.” I would like to add, “as long as they deliver on that 20 per cent!”This originally appeared in the May 2009 newsletter for the Canadian Supply Chain Sector Council (supplychaincanada.org)
I was out with a friend this month who is embarking on a new phase of working life. (To be fair, he is embarking on a lot of new stuff: just moved, recently married, starting a new family… he even has a new haircut.) I was recounting some of my experiences moving back to Canada after working in Japan for several years. In such situations, through sheer necessity, one gets good at answering the question “What do you do?” This is a very portable skill and directly applies to working in cross-functional teams.
So, what do you do?
Sometimes roles can be clear in cross-functional groups. I was working with a client recently to organize a program evaluation meeting that was to include national-level, provincial and local representatives within the organization, as well as bringing in experts from education and training, volunteer management and technology support tools. Members are tasked with bringing insight from their unique perspectives. The hope is that a comprehensive review will bring about sustainable changes; this provides the answer to “Why are we here?”
“Why are you in this group/on this team?” is a question that is likely considered more than it is articulated. Proactively expressing your “expertise” can enable a group to function well together. Imagine if a project team started off with a series of self-proclamations like:
- “I am here because of my product expertise.” (from Product Development)
- “I am not here to provide input; I am here so that we know where the decisions came from.” (from Marketing)
- “I am here to say ‘No’ so that we out forward solid proposals to senior management.” (from Finance)
- “I am here to reinforce the point that forecasting is impossible.” (from Sales)
- “I am here because I have not been involved before and I have the courage to ask stupid questions.” (from the Intern)
Clarity on roles (with oneself, as well as with others) increases the chance that any conflict can remain productive and task oriented. In the real world, some people’s “roles” may seem more like:
- “I am here to get attention.”
- “I am here because I already have the answer.”
- “I am here so that I can say ‘I told you so’ in about 3 months.”
Fine lines
It can all sound very much like a wanna-be self-help meeting: “Hello, my name is Chris, and I am here to defend the client interests.” Without being corny about it, I will suggest that clarity on “our job” and “my job” can help a cross-functional team to fully function. I have found it useful to tell clients to simply state, “I wouldn’t be doing my job if I didn’t ask [for example, ‘is that really the best way to provide value to our clients?’ or some other potentially challenging question.]”
Many of the lines between “helpful and hurtful” or between “team-oriented and affected” come down to relationship equity and benefit of the doubt, which needs to be fostered. Assertiveness over your or the group’s role can help to keep you on this side of that line.
“This column is here to provide insight on issues that can create distracting interpersonal noise.”
THIS ORIGINALLY APPEARED IN THE NEWSLETTER FOR THE CANADIAN SUPPLY CHAIN SECTOR COUNCIL (www.supplychaincanada.org).
One of my children got an invitation to a birthday party this week. On the invitation was a handwritten addition indicating that my child was invited to sleep-over after that party. We later confirmed that this “after party” was a bit more “exclusive” than that described on the invitation.
You could tell me to lighten up, but I have a fundamental issue with this approach. I envision the conversation (because I have first-hand experience) between the parent and the child.
- Child: “I want to have sleep over for my birthday.”
- Parent: “Great. How many kids are you planning on inviting?”
- Child: “Let me see…. (verbal list of names each prompting a finger to extend). Twelve.”
- Parent: “You can’t have that many kids to sleep over.”
I can understand the motivation to sidestep a conflict/tempter tantrum. Such forks in the road exist. You can invite twelve people, OR you can have a sleepover. You can’t do both.
But hold on a second. In the spirit of Negotiating… What if we invite a large group of kids to the party, and then keep a select few back to sleepover. Is that not a good compromise? Out of the box, eh?
Not to make too much of a big deal out of this, but I think it is unhealthy to fail to select (or fail to make the child select) “one of the other” from the above options. If pushed to further explain, which I was, my argument extends to the quality of the first party. How much fun can it be if the “sleep-over group” has to keep suppress the “wink-wink-nudge-nudge” temptation of the after party? Isn’t there an inherent risk that the “go-home group” will learn about the after party and feel (rightfully so) like a second-tier friend?
This specific trade-off approaches an ethical question. Select between the two party streams OR do both and be deceitful to at least half of your “friends.” (This is all happening in the context on an ongoing conversation with some fellow Schulich faculty on ethics and decision making among business school students. E.G. Is it wrong to gain competitive advantage through exploiting a legal loophole?)
So, yes, you can “have your cake and sleepover, too.” You may find that this type of “compromise” ends up compromising the integrity of those involved. The risk-return will be an individual call, but I can certainly tell you I will take on a conflict with my child to avoid treading into ethically murky waters.
We are all familiar with the adage: “Don’t bring me problems, bring me solutions.” If this is your mantra, please accept my apologies. I am actively working to change that mindset—in a supply chain function—one evening at a time. I am recently involved in delivering training for the Supply Chain Awareness Program for Employment (SCAPE), whereby people with international training and experience can receive courses toward designations recognized in Canada.
In the overview material and cases, much of the focus is on tools and frameworks to identify problems… not just our problems, but within and beyond the organization (e.g. from supplier’s supplier to customer’s customer). The level of complexity and the breadth of the analysis pretty much ensure a grab bag of problems. In my experience working in various industries and countries, a different perspective (e.g. international) provides an increased ability to see “new” problems. Stopping every time to ponder solutions would be paralysing.
I am not at all suggesting that solutions be ignored. The better solutions to these complex problems demand participation from other stakeholders, who may require some help understanding the importance of the problem. Credibility and flexibility are necessary ingredients in this communication. The SCAPE training at Micro Skills will provide part of the credibility, as will Canadian work experience as it accumulates. Flexibility is addressed through the material in “translating” problems to different audiences. We tend to practice the following languages:
- Profit impact on dollars tied up in, for example, inventory (business language);
- Customer service impact of slowdowns and delays (sales language);
- Risk impact of uncertain forecasting (finance language); etc.
The plan is to involve all the necessary people to contribute to a better sustainable solution that almost always involves complex trade-offs. One perspective will not deliver the insight required.
Rather than bring solutions with problems (or not bring problems because we can’t find the solutions on our own), the line should be “Bring me problems and a lists of potential collaborators!” I think that those with other language skills and experiences could be part of this shift.
THIS ORIGINALLY APPEARED IN THE MARCH NEWSLETTER FOR THE CANADIAN SUPPLY CHAIN SECTOR COUNCIL. www.supplychaincanada.org
This CAW/Chrysler/Fiat item is a great study of clashing negotiating strategies, and Ken Lewenza and C0. are very likely looking back instead of looking forward (which seems to be common with U.S. automakers). I confess that my perspective is shaped by this article in today’s Financial Post, a conservative (anti-union?) publication. For full disclosure, my education is heavily in business, and I teach in the MBA program at Schulich Business School.
If everyone has it in for the CAW, as Lewenza claims (”[the Canadian Government is] interfering in our negotiations [with Chrysler), then he needs to fight back with some pretty powerful evidence. The fundamental premise of the “other side’s” argument is that CAW workers are paid much more than Toyota and Honda workers, so the wages need to come down to competitive levels.
Lewenza challenges that argument directly (although it is at the very end of the article; damn right-wing editors!). He says that “Canadian executives at Toyota and Honda have described many times their strategy of essentially matching wages, pensions and core benefits to those paid in CAW-represented facilities.” So, I guess, it is just a shell game, and CAW workers and workers at Toyota and Honda are ALREADY paid the same wages, right? If that is the case, then there must be another reason that Chrysler is so unable to compete. Such as, no one buys the cars. This is not good news for CAW workers in Chrysler facilities.
This situation is a clear example of an entity (CAW) or at least a person (Ken Lewenza) so heavy with history that they cannot shed a combative/competitive mindset that has no place in competitive industries where stakeholdes (including government) need to work together to beat the real competition. I feel sorry for the people who are being mislead so badly by Mr. Lewenza. This will be a powerful lesson for organized labour.
You won’t need a link to find references to Ken Lewenza’s response to Fiat’s “take-it-or-leave-it” offer (on April 16, 2009). This story is moving quickly, so my thoughts may quickly be irrelevant. Mr. Lewenza cried foul that Fiat CEO Sergio Marchionne was not taking the time to “build the relationship” with Chrysler and its employees before embarking on this joint venture.
I am all about the “relationship” side of the business. There is a place for relationships in the Fiat/Chrysler landscape, and I think that Mr. Marchionne is familiar with the value of relationships, as well. I suspect, he has simply opted to put results first. If my guess is right, this is a strategic direction given that his company is operating in a fiercely competitive environment and cannot afford to make any concessions that are disproportionate to added value. I think that his shareholders (and business partners) would applaud that.
Relationships are absolutely necessary, but in some instances, it will have to be compromised. I think this is one of those situations. Maybe it is a dose of “tough love” to an entity who no longer has a competitive wage structure.
- Recent Posts
- Blogroll
- Meta
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Feb | ||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
| 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
| 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 |
| 29 | 30 | 31 | ||||
