Tripp Babbitt's Blog

Connecting the “IT” Dots

Tripp Babbitt — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 21:10:35 +0000

Information technology has become like one of those “connect the dots” workbooks I got as a child to keep me busy and not bother the adults. Except, this book has no numbers . . . just the dots. Makes it more difficult to connect to make a meaningful picture.

However, this is the world of IT. Sell or solve a solution to an organizational function that doesn’t understand the root cause of what they are trying to fix. Doesn’t matter whether the dots connect into a coherent picture, it depends on your view. Like the optical illusion of whether you see the old or young lady. I see only the old hag when I see IT.

The pursuit of answers require systemic solutions. Yet, what I see in organizations are a mismatch of unconnected dots that secure the wasteful designs they are supposed to enable. IT is like duct tape for organizations. The functions and work design weren’t optimal to begin with and IT manages to entrap and disable the mess even more, resulting in additional waste and complexity.

Designing exceptional performing organizations doesn’t need IT to lead. The dots must have numbers and a coherent picture has to emerge before IT can be pulled in and enable the work design. Otherwise, we just have a bunch of dots.

Tripp Babbitt is a speaker, blogger and consultant to service industry (private and public). His organization helps executives find a better way to make the work work. Read his articles at Quality Digest and his column for CustomermanagementIQ.com. Learn more about the Vanguard Method for service organizations. Reach him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/TriBabbittor LinkedIn at www.linkedin.com/in/trippbabbitt.

Continual vs. Continuous Improvement

Tripp Babbitt — Sat, 07 Jan 2012 23:25:09 +0000

Image via Wikipedia

Coming from a W. Edwards Deming background, I have been sensitized to the word “continual” when it comes to improvement. It served as a code word for those that where true followers of Dr. Deming vs. “the pretenders.” I always knew who really understood the philosophy and those that just sounded good.

Even today, I still find myself talking to groups about the difference between continual and continuous improvement. I like to describe “continuous improvement” as always making improvements and moving forward – I have never seen this happen over the long haul. “Continual” improvement” implies that sometimes you have to stop or even take a step or steps backward to achieve improvement – improvement is discontinuous in nature.

Management doesn’t understand continual improvement as their impatience only allows them to embrace continuous improvement. Always forward, the next quarter must be better than the last. Growth, no matter what the reality or the foolishness of the pursuit.

Studying systems requires a stoppage to understand the underlying thinking that dictates the current performance. With solid understanding, experimentation with method may lead to improvement or knowledge of what doesn’t work. For a scientist, this is a victory as they come one-step closer to discovery.

The road to continual improvement is a rocky one with many ups and downs. Understanding this allows one the opportunity to begin the journey.

No Big Surprise – Another Over-Budget IT Project

Tripp Babbitt — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 20:44:42 +0000

Image via Wikipedia

Public sector, private sector . . . it really doesn’t make much difference. The continuing saga of IT projects that run beyond their budget and don’t deliver continues to grow. Maybe we should be asking what IT initiated project actually ever works. I have seen claims of improvement, but it is like a football replay – upon further review I have yet to see an IT victory.

Go to an IT vendor website and you would have to believe the opposite were true. Sorry Charlie . . . but that’s a can of sucker you are reading about on these sites. Procurers need to be asking for evidence and this is something not promoted in marketing-speak. A little research will tell you otherwise and don’t trust other fools that have had their share of gullible pie.

You need to go to the work and see the effect on the design and flow of the work. Management to management communications are full of assumptions and not fact. And please don’t trust the IT salesperson, they are paid to embellish . . . can you say lipstick on a pig?

The latest is the cost over-run is with the FBI. This one was originally be slated for 2009 to be ready. The inspector general found “deficiencies” in the program. Oh, and the FBI may go over the $451 million budget. Noooo, really?

IT vendors love to use the favorite words like antiquated, modernization, automation and even sophistication to sell their wares, so be weary. Any IT pushed on organizations is a dead end. Your system is unique in customers, design, management etc. and need solutions unique to enabling the work of YOUR organization. Customization to get what you need that works is better than a cheap solution standardized by what others believe is best. Common sense? Yes, it should be, but it is rarely present

The Oops Factor

Tripp Babbitt — Wed, 28 Dec 2011 21:24:32 +0000

Image via Wikipedia

Reading Governor Mitch Daniel’s book, Keeping the Republic, he mentions the Indiana Welfare Eligibility modernization. This modernization was a ten-year deal worth $1.3 billion to IBM and its partners. It is an important story for all of government because everyone has the same mindset.

This mindset is characterized by anecdotal evidence to support an ideology. In this case, privatization. The old welfare system was labeled as the nation’s worst according to the US Department of Health and Human Services back in 2005 – these are the same bureaucrats that Governor Daniels laments about earlier in the book. The system was rife with error, delays, fraud and unhappy people with the status quo.

Further, the welfare offices were described in the book as “a chaotic mess. Antique, green-screen computers from the 1970s sat amid the floor-to-ceiling stacks of boxes stuffed with paper. I asked our researchers to take pictures. Otherwise, I knew no one would believe later how bad the system was.”

This is the death sentence for governments assuming old manual systems with old technology is always bad. Government management has embraced modernization because it doesn’t feel “modern.” However, the old systems are never evaluated for flow or knowledge, just that things looked old. This is the mentality that wastes taxpayers billions of dollars. IBM and others wait like wolves ready to pounce on the gullible and naive.

Governor Daniel’s calls the attempt an “oops.” The re-engineering to modernize and privatize the welfare system wasn’t begun with knowledge but ideology and assumption. When ideology and assumption are in the decision-making costs increase and service worsens. Politics has a hard time separating reality from fantasy. Evidence without preconceived notions is always best.

Modernization and privatization – which I am not against – really need to begin with knowledge of the systems we are trying to improve. Governor Daniels does not challenge the back office design when describing the improvement effort, yet, here is a huge opportunity for improvement. Most believe in the front-back office design that handicaps the design of work. Different thinking and better method are required to improve work.

Governor Daniels has brought fiscal discipline to Indiana, but fiscal discipline by itself is doing the wrong thing, righter. Indiana and other government entities can find dramatic improvement (another 30-70%) from changing the thinking about the design and management of work.

Management – A Little Neglect

Tripp Babbitt — Mon, 26 Dec 2011 14:04:56 +0000

A little neglect may breed great mischief…for want of a nail the shoe was lost; for want of a shoe the horse was lost; and for want of a horse the rider was lost. – Benjamin Franklin

Image via Wikipedia

Benjamin Franklin had wrote many an interesting article or letter during his day. His bemoaning of neglect provides insight to the nagging nature of management.

Management has long wrestled with making things better, only to making things worse. And so, we have neglected management in moving our thinking forward. The industrialized, backward thinking of management has created a large chasm to cross in the pursuit of improvement.

We have neglected management as part of the problem for so long that improvement efforts have become focused on the front-line. This has become an acceptable place for improvement to begin . . . and end. The inches between the ears of management avoided as not to make waves.

It is true that work represents the place to make improvements, but if management is completely separated from the work there can be no real improvement or learning. Management designed the work that workers do, workers can make some improvements but dramatic improvement requires management participation to understand. You can not lead or fix the design from from behind.

The Right Attitude to Improvement

Tripp Babbitt — Sat, 17 Dec 2011 20:20:59 +0000

Working with a new company that has the right attitude going into the effort, one can only be optimistic. The management is begging to be challenged, it is encouraged. However, I am caught in a world between realism and hope. There will be a roller coaster ride of emotion for my new client – management and workers alike.

Many prospective customers struggle with what the Vanguard Method (tVM) is about and try to fit it into their existing paradigm. This makes the conversation awkward as the expectation of many is that I do process improvement . . . and I don’t. Managers with this thinking want to do things better, tVM is about doing better things. This is one of several reasons why improvement is so dramatic for those executives that understand that this means them too – when it comes to change.

Executives become participants by design. Other improvement efforts embrace “sponsorship” and “support” which to me is completely lame and leaves too much improvement on the table – not empirical, but something like 30 – 40%. Sustainability improves dramatically when executives understand – they are less likely to undo the good things.

The reality is that too few executives want to be challenged. Ego and position in hierarchy play a role in this thinking. Executives making the big money should have the answers in their mind and being challenged is – therefore, viewed as confrontational. Nothing wrong with confrontation, but only when it is invited in.

Most people that know about the Vanguard Method know they will be challenged when we are invited in, the reputation of our successful work with clients often precedes us.

Where Learning Happens

Tripp Babbitt — Sat, 03 Dec 2011 20:01:53 +0000

A question posed quite often by folks interested in learning the Vanguard Method is, “can you put on a class to teach me the Vanguard Method?”

The short answer is “no.”

Do we do training? Yes, all the time, but it isn’t of the sort that you sit in a classroom and become inspired by anecdotes and case studies. You have to be in the work, understanding and coming to grips with seeing things differently. Only a steady diet of learning how to ask good questions and unpacking what you learn after manageable bites are taken can you slowly unlearn bad habits and embrace new better ones.

The toughest people to engage are always those that believe all they need is a little change . . . and that is most I encounter. Or worse, they try to start with the things they know like plans. Always, my response is predictable you begin with “get knowledge” and not plan or even scoping. Planning and scoping – as traditionally done – fall well short of getting knowledge.

You see, understanding a system is much broader than traditional approaches. Improving a system as I have stated before requires workers and management to change. Workers and managers can redesign the system together while management thinking must change to sustain the improvement.

Frustration mounts when speaking to those folks seeing the fantastic improvement from the Vanguard Method, but try to engage keeping the same mindset that caused the waste and sub-optimization in the first place. The best way is to begin to work together without preparation. Going to the work and learning allows you to see for yourself the opportunity for improvement.

Bureaucrats – Getting a Bum Rap?

Tripp Babbitt — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 20:44:05 +0000

Image via Wikipedia

“. . . an astonishing amount of the laws created today are not made by elected, and therefore recallable, representatives, but by unelected bureaucrats and judges.”

- Governor Mitch Daniels

In Keeping the Republic, Governor Mitch Daniels laments how unelected officials (bureaucrats) make policy and law. I was once a bureaucrat and so was Governor Daniels – lest he forget his time at the OMB. However, Governor Daniels has a view of a right way and a wrong way to be a bureaucrat . . . and so do I.

Much of Governor Daniel’s view has to do with having a favorable cost-benefit ratio and making sure a law didn’t already exist. This seems reasonable, especially considering Governor Daniels staunch fiscal discipline that he has embraced as Governor of Indiana.

For me, the issue is the same I have written about in posts many times before. The question becomes, “by what method?” Setting our cites on costs alone – always increases costs. The method to improve government requires method.

I have long been an advocate of the virtues of the Vanguard Method. Getting knowledge is always the best first step to improving service organizations. The problem is that it is a rarity to find executives or elected officials willing to get in the work to get knowledge. Instead, they rely on reports, anecdotes and others to do this for them. Bureaucrats are in a position to be in the work and make decisions based on knowledge.

This doesn’t mean elected officials should abdicate the responsibility, but the reality is they do. Elected officials are too busy embracing political ideology, and creating new laws to be bothered with facts. As a bureaucrat, I remember being more hand-cuffed by dumb laws than wanting to create new ones. Plenty of opportunities to do what makes sense than to pass a law.

Bureaucrats need good systems to work in too. What I have seen in government is the influence of ideology over evidence that dictates the design. Each new government has a different ideology and the learning is skipped in favor of ideology. Misguided laws and ideology make government systems run poorly. Blindly running down the privatization path is as faulty as embracing government to do things. Better design of government is in order, but that is not what we get.

Bureaucrats are stuck in systems that are poorly design. Not by choice, but by laws and ideology that rule thinking. Government management and workers have been marginalized. If we are to fix government, we need everybody engaged and the bureaucrats are in the best position to see the problems and identify ways to fix them and help fix the systems they work in.

Software Scope Creep

Tripp Babbitt — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 14:53:18 +0000

Embarking on Fatal Maiden Voyage" src="http://blog.newsystemsthinking.com/wp-content/uploads/RMS_Titanic_3-300x221.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="221" />In years past, I consulted with a large information technology company in the banking industry. No hotter topic in a software development organization than scope creep. Management was constantly trying to either limit scope creep or charge for it. Better requirements were demanded or tighter contracts -addressing the symptom won’t stop the cause.

I decided to write on this topic because my recent Quality Digest article, The Information Technology Conundrum was critiqued on their weekly talk show Quality Digest Live! The moderators pointed out that IT projects were failing – as pointed out in my article – because of scope creep. No, the reason is because the design of the work was flawed before the project was even conceived. The project should never have even started.

Scope creep is smoke, but the real fire is work design and management thinking.

Fixing scope creep is like rearranging the chairs on the Titanic. The ship is going to go down whether the chairs are moved or not. Waste begets waste. However, don’t plan on your IT software provider sharing this with you or even understanding the problem. It is much more profitable to get paid to rearrange chairs than the harder task of saving the ship.

I have seen more IT projects get launched that should never have left the port. The ship was never sea-worthy to begin with, but launch they do with a doomed destiny already sealed. Just remember that scope creep isn’t the problem – your thinking is and service design is a product of your thinking.

The Whole Vision Thing is Overrated

Tripp Babbitt — Mon, 14 Nov 2011 21:27:12 +0000

Image via Wikipedia

There was an election recently in Indianapolis between incumbent Mayor Greg Ballard (R) and challenger Melina Kennedy. A reporter for the Indianapolis Star (and the Star) put their endorsement behind the challenger because she had better vision . . . and we aren’t talking about eyesight.

I consider myself an independent, so there things I like and don’t like about Republicans and Democrats. However, I found the whole “vision thing” to be pathetic. I’ve seen it in business too.

Too many executives with “vision” running companies into the ground. They need to understand the business first and not just bullet points and anecdotes. They need to understand what it takes to do the job and interact with constituents or customers that use the service. Visionaries often gloss over the “understand the business first” piece.

Mayor Ballard won despite the endorsement of the Star falling to his challenger. Why? Because he and his staff did the things that matter to the voters. Do the fundamentals well and reelection will follow. The “vision thing” can wait for the basics to be mastered and knowledge to be gained. If you aren’t doing the things that matter to customers and constituents than you aren’t going to win an election or make profit.

Vision and political ideology in government seemingly go hand-in-hand. More government, less government, privatization . . . how about “what works” for a change. This requires knowledge, not plans or policy. This is completely counter to the “big picture” people we too often see in government.