1. List a number of recent problematic projects (typically 10 – 15)
2. For each project, list the causes that contributed to the projects’ problems
3. Prioritize the contributory causes, in terms of frequency and cost
4. Focus on the most common, highest cost problems in order to have the greatest impact on the system

Historically, much of change management theory has been based on Frederick Taylor’s teachings that organizations are like machines and that their systems can be optimized by creating efficient processes that are executed precisely and without variation. Common Cause Analysis is consistent with this view.

While explaining the Common Cause Analysis approach to a colleague in the healthcare field, she brought an article to my attention that made me reconsider my approach to systems change.

The article, A Promising New Approach to Creating Change, by Anthony Suchman, David Sluyter and Penelope Williamson was in the Hospitals and Health Networks Daily. It touched on some of the ideas in their new book Leading Change in Healthcare: Transforming Organizations Using Complexity, Positive Psychology and Relationship-Centered Care.

The authors suggest that organizations are made up of patterns of meaning that are content related (e.g., work methods, knowledge, processes, etc.) and patterns of culture that are context related (e.g., relationships and behaviors). Change comes from upset to one, or both, of those pattern groups.

The article explains an alternative approach—Appreciative Inquiry—that is much more effective at causing long-term organizational change. Based on positive psychology, Appreciative Inquiry turns Common Cause Analysis on its ear. It assumes that there are underlying competencies rather than deficiencies. As a result, it looks for causes of successes, not problems. Positive deviance is used to focus on innovative solutions and best (or at least better) practices.

As business leaders and advisors, we will gain by looking to other industries and other thought leaders for ideas that can be adapted to improve our practices. In this instance, Appreciative Inquiry added balance and versatility to my process analysis toolbox.

Of notable interest to me were the discussions of current trends and their impact on leadership and management requirements through the end of the decade.

In Houle’s view, the conditions that affect business today include:

1. Obsolescence of information gatekeepers: All significant information is now, or very soon will be, easily accessible to anyone with a smart phone. Result: Trying to withhold or contain critical news and information will not be possible.
2. Disintermediation: As information becomes broadly accessible, the role of (information) middlemen will disappear. Result: Consumers will be able to circumvent what were closely held databases (e.g., Multiple Listing Services, airline schedules, etc.)
3. Power shifts to the people: With more complete access to current information, consumers have more control over if, when and how their transactions take place.  Result: Revenue streams become less reliable as sales channels shift overnight.
4. High touch/high tech workplaces: Millennials and “digital natives” (those born into a world with computers, wi-fi, cell phones and instant access to information via the internet) are more comfortable with collaborative (versus hierarchical) decision-making and they have greater technical fluency. Result: The nature of management will change from plan-driven to collaboration-supported responsiveness while at the same time life (as well as the tools of business) will increase in technical complexity.
5. Intellectual Property (IP) becomes the differentiator: In a world where consumers migrate quickly to changes in price and terms, IP (brands, trademarks, and unique, localized, or customized products and services) will draw and retain market share. Result: Relevant IP, that consumers both need and can identify with, becomes the dominant barrier to entry and the only way to build and protect an organization’s revenue streams.

These points have powerful implications for successful companies

Houle sums it up with the term “The Morph Corp.” Fixed corporate structures, business plans, and forecast-driven decision-making will be replaced with company structures characterized by on-going, collaborative reorganization. To be resilient and flexible, companies will respond quickly and absorb changes in the marketplace. The leadership will be far more in touch with customers in order to make sure that the company’s IP is, and remains, a key factor in customers’ behavior.

Most importantly, owners and senior managers will embrace, include, nurture and empower the rising talent of the millennials and digital natives. Their skills, interests and attitudes will be needed to successfully lead highly flexible, highly connected enterprises.

If you are not already doing it, look inside your organizations and find significant and meaningful projects that young, rising stars can own and execute. Keep them engaged and committed. Learn from them, and lead with them.

At the Outdoor Retailer Winter Market tradeshow, the Outdoor Industry Association hosted a panel discussion of boutique investment bankers who answered this question. I found their top ten list worthwhile to keep handy . . . just in case. Experienced fund-seekers understand that the items in this list are necessary, but not wholly sufficient, for securing funding. Equally, if not more important, is persistence!

1.  Brand name
2.  Addressable market vs. the specific product offerings
3.  Who the target customers are
4.  Distribution channel(s) being used (or proposed)
5.  Competition
6.  Revenue size and growth rate
7.  Profitability (or the horizon to free cash flow)
8.  Management team and infrastructure
9.  Intellectual property
10.  Solid business plan, backed by a workable business model that is constantly being improved.

I often hear questions about how to better and more effectively implement them. A recent inter-company survey sheds some interesting and objective light on the subject. I think you’ll find the results compelling—I certainly did.

Here are the findings in a nutshell

1. Use a well-defined, transparent, documented process to manage the projects. Phase-Gate works, but don’t go overboard on hoops and procedures.
2. Balance the product development portfolio with long- and short-term projects that are linked to corporate strategy. Prioritize the portfolio, track progress and review the status regularly.
3. Pair a good process with seasoned, trained project managers that are allowed to focus on driving the projects to completion.

Take the time to review your internal processes, see how they measure up to these three simple guidelines, and think about how to modify your product development process to come more in line with them. It will save you time, money and frustration.

Here’s a summary of the data

The study surveyed 18 well-known, successful northwest companies in the healthcare, software, aerospace, utilities, biotechnology, and manufacturing sectors and was conducted by Weyerhauser and presented at a local Product Development Management Association meeting.

• 100% companies were found to use a Phase-Gate process; 61% were defined and prescriptive processes and the remaining 39% had elements of flexibility. 94% of the systems used were developed in-house.
• 100% used defined deliverables for each phase and 94% use specific templates for gate reviews.
• 100% agreed that proper gate-keeping is key.
• 100% felt that “enough but not too much” process maximizes success.
• 100% agreed that the process and gate reviews must be transparent to employees.
• 100% agreed that the process must be driven by highly trained, successful project managers and in fact required PMP certification for project managers.
• 100% employed a balanced portfolio of long-term and short-term projects and used a common database to manage them.
• 100% stated their projects were aligned with strategic initiatives and were reviewed at least monthly.
• 94% had defined, centralized education, training and mentoring programs in project management and felt that learning from post-project reviews is invaluable.
• 89% felt a prioritization scheme for allocating resources was necessary for success.
• 83% felt that project management experience is more important than Phase-Gate process experience and that not all business and technical people make good project managers. 100% felt that project managers needed “soft skills” (communication, influence and negotiation, team leading) to be successful.
• 78% paired project managers with technical specialists in order to separate project execution from technical support.

Every product and brand manager should know, understand and live his points about brand building and messaging—it isn’t about the product, it is about the customer, how the customer feels, and how the brand (or product) helps manifest and reinforce that feeling.

The most interesting part for me was how the content was developed and delivered: sourced from, and selected by, the participants in the morning just before the start of the conference. This approach resulted in sessions that focused on the current needs of the attendees and, in my opinion, was largely successful. The quality of the presentations I attended and those I heard about ranged from OK to excellent. Another huge benefit? The conference was free to attendees and attracted hundreds of professionals working in the product management field.

Contrast this with the Product Development Management Association’s 35th annual global conference in Phoenix that was happening on the same weekend. As late as a week before this conference, the organizers were scrambling to offer deeply discounted travel and accommodation deals to try to fill seats at the $3,000, 3-day event. Sure, the speaker line-up was impressive, and concurrent sessions were the traditional and familiar format for networking and gaining knowledge and skill. Downside? Expensive to produce and attend.

Issues of relevance, value, timeliness and grass-roots involvement are changing the professional development landscape. My most meaningful takeaways for your clients? I noticed that there was more energy, involvement, and spontaneity than in traditional venues and the connections made were with specialists that will be easy to contact and integrate into local projects in the future.

With this tool, hours and expenses are updated at the end of each day. The dashboard is used internally by all project managers, and reviewed weekly in an all-company meeting. It is reviewed as part of the normal client/Carbon project review meetings. The reporting frequency can be increased if the client desires, but it is typically done on a weekly basis.

This sort of reporting out tool is exactly what a client needs—the status and health of the project is immediately and intuitively obvious. According to Jim, it has been very well received by clients. Additionally, it has been used as a sales tool to indicate one of the tools Carbon’s PMs use to communicate with the client.

I now clearly understand two things: (1) how to get more work done and (2) how perusing LinkedIn updates can result in aching fingers (yes—I’ve felt the laptop lid slam.)

Ed Easterling of Crestmont Research did just that when he mapped return rates for investments made and withdrawn during all years between 1920 and 2010.

Ed Tufte would love Easterling’s work. One can spend hours studying this matrix of information. In the end, it pretty much comes down to getting lucky about when you were born. Well—that or hold your investments for about 60 or 70 years. Wonderful.

I’d like to think I have a pretty good collection. Of visualization tools.

This table was created by Ralph Lengler and Martin Eppler at the Visual-Literacy.org. Along with organizing the methods, the table shows examples of each by hovering over the method “element” in the table. This is some nice work—fun to explore and thought-provoking.