Scaled Agile Framework

Using agile in a scaled up mode is yet another way which can help organizations build and constantly improve upon large and complex products and services.

By definition, large and complex products require cross-functional teams of engineers working for long durations.

Use of agile in a scaled up mode also necessitates the right kind of culture to be instilled and the right kind of roles and reporting to be put in place.

The cultural challenges that ail organizations trying to use agile also ail those trying to use scaled up agile, in fact far more severely.

There are many scaled frameworks that have been proposed and are available for an organization to explore. Some of the scaled agile frameworks are:

• SAFe (scaled agile framework)
• Scrum of scrums
• IXP (Industrial eXtreme Programming)
• Nexus
• Nexus+
• DAD (Disciplined Agile Delivery)
• LeSS (Large Scale Scrum)

Out of the above, SAFe currently appears to the most popular one. The support ecosystem which includes the availability of reference material, consultants, training, certifications, etc. around SAFe has helped greatly in this cause.

SAFe 4.0 for Lean Sotware and Systems Enginering is the most latest version of SAFe that is available to interested organizations.

Versin 4.0 was released in Jan 2016. The previous version, version 3.0, is slated to have its end of life in Dec 2016.

SAFe is purportedly based on and leverages the following frameworks:

• Scrum
• XP
• Lean

SAFe defines the following levels, where each level builds upon the levels below and serves a higher purpose from a business point of view.

• Team (iterations)
• Program (program increments, agile release trains)
• Value Stream (lins of businss, typically)
• Portfolio (capital allocation decisions)

The foundational elements in SAFe include:

• Lean agile leaders
• Communities of practice
• Core values
• Lean agile mindset
• SAFe principles
• Implementing 1-2-3

After the Release of ISO 9001:2015 is Preventive Action No Longer a Part of ISO 9001 Standard?

The answer is not yes as some people might think, it is actually a "No".

Preventive action is still very much a part of ISO 9001 standard.

What used to be earlier called as CAPA (Corrective Action and Preventive Action) in ISO 9001 parlance can now be termed simply as CCA (Correction and Corrective Action).

It is also true that correction was there earlier also but was somehow not highlighted to that extent. So that way the term CCA is a welcome move as it recognizes the importance of correction.

Understanding the terms C (Correction) and CA (Corrective Action) are important at this stage.

In case of a non-conformity, at times it will be required that it be corrected especially when it is not only feasible but also crucial to ensure there is no adverse impact of the non-conformity.

A good example of above is the recall of cars sold in a particular batch by a car manufacturer. If upon analysis, the car manufacturer concludes that there is a case for it, recall will be and should be called.

Corrective action, on the other hand, pertains to what can be done to prevent the non-conformity from happening again.

In the above example of recall of cars sold in a particular batch by a car manufacturer, after the correction is decided and done with, things should not end just there.

The car manufacturer should analyze what can be done not to allow that problem to ever get reported.

And not only that, the scope of this analysis can include "similar" problems which in some sense is "preventive action" as per the 2008 version of the ISO 9001 standard.

However, that is not all that is there to preventive action in ISO 9001:2015.

The big thing is this - the whole concept of risk-based thinking is nothing but preventive action.

Risk management is about identifying what could go wrong and take proactive steps to either prevent the occurrence of what could possibly go wrong and if that is not possible, mitigate the impact when something goes wrong.

The above explanation also captures the fact the risk management is a much more elegant concept as compared to preventive action. It accepts the fact that prevention is not always possible.

In addition to that, risk handling strategy in the ISO standard recognizes risk acceptance and risk transfer as valid actions. This again is a powerful way to look at preventive action which is subsumed by risk management.

Risk acceptance is a beautiful management concept. There are instances where there is no way to handle a risk but to live with it, what someone might call as "entrepreneurial mindset".

Risk transfer is another beautiful management concept. There are instances where one would recognize the risk but instead of handling it by oneself move it to another agency for handling it.

It is clear from above that preventive action is now subsumed by risk management.

So yes, preventive action is is still very much a part of ISO 9001 standard.

Why Senior Leaders Should be Strategic about Operations to Achieve Operational Excellence?

Senior leaders in some organizations may not truly be in a strategic role. They may be senior in terms of their position in the organizational hierarchy but their role is more operational than strategic.

One example of the above would be the delivery head in a small services company. Due to the size and scale of the operations the delivery head would have a large operational focus in her profile.

There may be account executives or business unit heads under the delivery head but the delivery head would be pulled into many routine affairs and hence would operate mostly in an operational role.

Achieving operational excellence in such organizations thus becomes a challenging proposition.

However, for any small company to become a large company and not only that but a truly world class company at that, things need to be different.

The delivery head and head of the organization in such organizations need to deliberately adopt a strategic approach to operations to lift the organization to a higher trajectory.

Senior leaders are supposed to retain a strategic outlook despite the pressures on them to operate using an operational focus.

Being strategic in such a context to achieve operational excellence would mean the following:

• Senior leaders should not say that delivery folks should only focus on delivery. Delivery folks have to necessarily deliver but also work in parallel to analyze and improve how they work. Of course, the improvements would be facilitated by an excellence group but you can't expect operational excellence by discouraging time spent by delivery folks with the excellence group
• Senior leaders should go all the way to encourage people at all levels to energetically participate and proactively contribute in improving and evolving the organization's systems and processes by being an active member of task forces, councils and committee's (which may at times be virtual in nature) formed for such activities.
• Senior leaders should provide visible and vocal support to improvement initiatives. Of course, smooth functioning of delivery operations is essential but then the faster the organization starts looking at operations beyond its day-to-day dynamics of today to how it needs to be evolved over a longer term, the better it is for the organization's tomorrow.
• Senior leaders should maintain a positive and professional outlook while chartering the excellence group. One of the way they can ensure the excellence group meets its charter in helping the organization to achieve operational excellence is to drive culture and change management. Unless the senior leadership is capable enough to lead manage changes and be the primary change catalysts nothing much with change.
• Senior leaders should focus on operational excellence with a constant view of the need to continuously and continually improve, evolve and align the systems and processes with the changing business needs. They should deem operations to be important but also know that operational excellence also has to run in parallel, and in hand-to-hand with the operations.

It is clear from above that strategic focus can help the organization to secure its tomorrow. Senior leaders should be concerned primarily about the tomorrow.

They should focus on systems and processes that not only ensure operations are conducted smoothly today but also bring about operational excellence so that operations are conducted smoothly tomorrow as well.

Software Size and Effort Estimation

Software size and effort estimation has been a keenly debated subject since the last few decades in the IT/software industry.

The concept of size is related to the "amount of work that needs to be done" and not "what it would take to get the work done", which is actually related to the concept of effort.

The "amount of work that needs to be done" is a reflection of the output whereas "what it would take to get the work done" is a reflection of the input.

Many a times this distinction is either misunderstood or forgotten as an estimator goes about estimating.

Estimators, especially the star ones, are certainly experts in a specific domain.

However, this expertise, makes the estimators think of themselves as technical wizards and masters of engineering magic. And therein lies the core problem.

One challenge in estimation is related to the process or the method aspect.

Star estimators would directly estimate the effort using a task or work breakdown structure. Putting effort against the various line items and then adding it all up they come with the effort estimates.

So what's really wrong with this?

There is not one thing that is wrong with it, there are several things that are wrong with it. Here are some of the major points to ponder about:

• How can anyone say how long it would take to go from point A to point B if they don't know the distance (size attribute in this case)?
• Of course, the time taken is not only a function of distance and depends on other factors too like the traffic conditions, mode of travel, driver skills, etc. but they vary unlike distance
• The "amount of work that needs to be done" shouldn't change at a fundamental level but "what it would take to get the work done" can change with changes to the climate variables
• Effort for creating a size depends both on the size as well as the conditions under which the size is getting created which includes factors like complexity, productivity, team competency, dependencies, assumptions, etc.

The other challenge in estimation is related to the people aspect which is worryingly much more influential than the process aspect.

Estimation in any organization is done by the the supposedly "wizards of technology". These are folks who are the blue-eyed boys of the management.

After all, they are the ones who help win business deals. Only they can create estimates and proposals and bedazzle prospective customers with their technical and domain skills to bag the project.

So who would question such estimators? Anyone? Did you say the management? Well you know the answer, you really do know. No one!

So unless the star estimators take lead in using size estimations, it will not happen. And they will not do it because it will force them to adopt a scientific and structured method and expose them to a lot of necessary criticism.

Keeping things fuzzy helps them maintain their star status.

In some organizations, the proposal-time estimates are not tracked throughout the project along with the revisions on the way that are necessitated by change requests.

And the most surprising thing is that in such organizations the star estimators have no compulsion to or interest in asking for the actual data on size and effort at the end of the project to compare and analyze the deviations against the estimates of size and effort.

Only when a project goes horribly wrong does the management say something. Of course, they can't say anything to the star estimators directly. Why? What if they leave?

So the management puts up a committee or task force to  improve estimation practices. None of the star estimators is made the head of this task force.

The head is made from another group so as not to ruffle the feathers of the star estimators. Why? Again, what if they leave?

Unless the people angle to estimation is not addressed the maturity of size and effort estimation practices will continue to remain in the state it is currently.

Why the Person Accountable for Business Excellence and Process Improvement Should Report Directly into the CEO?

The reporting of the person accountable for business excellence and process improvement program in an organization is an important factor in determining how much benefit it is able to derive from such a program.

If an organization has an excellence group with the person heading it not reporting directly into the CEO the benefits to the overall business are not as much as what is truly possible.

In several organizations the reporting is into the global delivery head. This situation allows the global delivery head not to collect feedback from the really unhappy customers. That would mean the customer satisfaction ratings may continue at high levels but with poor customer retention ratio. Clearly something is not right.

Also, in several organizations the person accountable for business excellence and process improvement is forced to report into someone even lower in the hierarchy than the global delivery head, and funnily enough to someone who can't even spell the word excellence!

And that someone will then play politics to keep his position strong in the eyes of the global delivery head and also the CEO. This situation becomes utterly ridiculous when this person reports into the  global delivery head not as a professional but as a die-hard stooge and as a staunch defender of his own wrongdoings and that of his peer stooges.

Stooges ruin the professional fabric of any organization. They will meet people behind the back and even though they are incapable of adding any value in the context of the business excellence and process improvement program in an organization, they get invited by the manipulative peers and the global delivery head to such meetings.

A common thread binding all the peers who report into the global delivery head is their loyalty to their master and camaraderie with the peers which is based on manipulation and maintaining the coterie culture.

That's why the person accountable for business excellence and process improvement program should report directly into the CEO. He has to be a peer to the global delivery head and not the stooges reporting into the global delivery head.

It is easy to imagine what happens when the reporting of the person accountable for business excellence and process improvement program is not into the CEO but into the global delivery head or even worse into one of the stooges of the global delivery head.

In such organization the business excellence and process improvement program serves as an example of what is generally know as "lip service". The CEO gets a talking point that the organization is deeply focused on  business excellence and process improvement but that is really not the case.

That makes the person accountable for business excellence and process improvement program an outsider. He is supposedly in a strategic role with accountability but no authority.

And as is expected the person accountable for business excellence and process improvement would never feel motivated and engaged to be able to help the organization. In fact such a person would be on a lookout to move on as soon as a good opportunity presents itself!

Why Resource Management is the Name of the Game in Project-based Companies?

Project-based companies get work as an outcome of a successful bid for the customer's work beating other players in the fray to finish as the winner.

And by the very nature of the business model in such companies, the key to operational success is resource management.

At times getting work is easy but executing it is tough!

Here are some reasons why resource management is so crucial:

• The company may not have the right quantity and quality of people needed to execute the project so they may have to hire people in quick time or move people from elsewhere and then back-fill them. As hiring is done "just in time" cost of hiring may be much higher than usual.
• In case the positions are billable by hour or week and they remain open for long, the delay in hiring has a direct impact on the revenue.
• In case of a fixed-price project if the positions remain open for long, the delay in hiring creates pressure on the existing team as they will need to stretch. This may, in turn, lead to team motivation and productivity issues and even attrition which increases the pressure even further.
• The people deployed on the project may not have the needed skills so they will need to be trained on that skill at a fast pace. Not only will the accelerated competency building not really that useful it also pulls people away from working on the project during the time they are away in a training.
• People engagement and motivation is important in projects especially in those projects where the skills are rare and/or the schedule commitments are very tight. Loss of a team member can easily put a well-running project into a major crisis.
• Getting and retaining people in certain skill-sets may be tough as the prospective candidates and existing employees in that skill may realize that the project they are being hired for or working in respectively may be a one-off project. So the question on their mind would be - "what will I do after this project?"
• There is always a conflict between the organizational and individual interest in respect of skill development. Company would encourage employees to go for a very high level of multi-skill and cross-skill development.
• On the other hand, for an individual it  makes no sense to be a "jack of all trades and a master of none" as that will dilute his value in the job market. The positive side is that the individual can multi-skill and cross-skill to a certain extent so as not to remain a "one-trick pony" which can jeopardize the career in case the one skill the individual has looses its demand in the market.

In such companies, putting people into a project the very first day billing starts and taking out on the very day billing stops is the ideal situation be in. This leads to zero revenue loss.

As this may not be possible in reality, the goal should be to minimize the delay in putting people in and in taking people out from the project.

Maintaining the current allocation of people across the various running projects and "on bench" and the plan for moving people across projects in the next few months is a sine-qua-non to even survive in such a business.

The farther it can be planned the better it is, though the plan needs to be updated constantly. And that is so, since resource management is the name of the game in project-based companies!

How Starting a Project on a Bad Note Impacts an Organization?

Project failure is defined as either delivering late, or delivering with too many issues or delivering somehow but with abysmally low profit margin (or even at a loss, at times).

Failures happen too often in project-based companies that need to bid against the others in the fray.

The lowest bidder gets the preference assuming it is at par with others in respect of technical and other considerations. The company may win the bid but ends up loosing money eventually.

The above is a result of the winner's curse.

Bidding involves sales teams whose only motivation is to bag an account. So they may undercut the real estimates by making wayward assumptions related to actual execution capability.

The person handing the execution may be incompetent in not knowing when the execution capability, work estimates and customer commitments are grossly off the mark.

Also there may be organizational dynamics where the execution lead is not able to push-back the sales lead.

Starting a project on a bad note means one or more of the following:

• People with needed skills and competences are either not available at all or in the right numbers
• Estimates are too aggressive and not based on correct set of assumptions
• Commitments made to the customer are not grounded in reality
• Organization is forced to accept any and every work even when it lacks the execution capability
• Execution arm of the organization is forced to take up work as they are weak as compared to the sales arm

Starting a project on  a bad note may prove to be disastrous for any organization.

It may lead to major losses on account of such projects and erode its overall profitability.

Here are some ways it impacts an organization:

• People are forced to take short-cuts and may not follow defined processes
• People would indulge in blame games within the project team and with the others outside
• Sales and execution arms remain at loggerheads throughout the project
• People have to work much harder than usual to cover-up for  the follies committed before the execution kicks in
• People are assigned to project even if they do not have the required skills and competency
• Skills and competency enhancement exercise is carried out in a fast-track mode which is generally not at all effective
• People are told to get things done, somehow and due to excessive pressure some of the team members may even leave mid-way
• Management starts demanding more and more data and reports from such a project which puts additional burden on the project team
• If and when the project is able to get the delivery done there may be congratulatory email from the big-shots who only created the mess in the first place
• And finally, such a project becomes a natural choice for the best project of the year! 

Such a project getting the best project award is an absolute irony.

The best project award is supposedly given to recognize the project team's commitment but is actually meant to cover-up the incompetence and lack of systems approach at the management level. 

Who Should Own Compliance to Organizational Processes?

The question around ownership of compliance to organizational processes is a seemingly simple yet a very complex and involved question.

It is important to note here that this is a very pertinent question for any organization. It provides a clear reflection of the culture prevalent in the organization.

What happens on the ground in respect of compliance to organizational processes tells a lot about the way the organization operates and how effective and efficient its operating model is.

So coming back to the question - Who Should Own Compliance to Organizational Processes?

• Should it be the team or group (management committee) which is the executive sponsor of the organizational processes and chartered their usage in the first place?
• Should it be the team or group (process group) which is supposed to author and maintain the organizational processes (as part of a QMS or BMS or some equivalent)?
• Should it be the team or group (practitioners) which is supposed to be using that process to perform their activities?
• Should it be the team or group (compliance group) which is supposed to be internally auditing the practices actually followed by practitioners as against what was supposed to have been followed?
• Should it be the team or group (external auditors) which is supposed to be auditing the practices followed by the organization as against what is required by the applicable standard?

An important point at this juncture to think about is that ownership of compliance to organizational processes is indeed very pertinent but is a direct derivative of the actions of two groups primarily - management committee and external auditors.

External auditors mock at the fact that the organization doesn't deserve the certification on the first day but hand the certificate to the (grinning) head of the organization on the last day.

If external auditors were really so upright and ethical, they would not give the certificate to an organization they think doesn't deserve it. But they have no choice but to give the certificate to the organization.

In addition, the external auditor and the consultant assisting him would have visited the organization and should have supposedly helped the organization plug concerning gaps. And only when there are no concerning gaps would the external auditor perform the final audit.

Not giving a certificate on the last day and even mocking the organization on the first day is, in fact, the failure of the external auditor and the assisting consultant in doing their job!

The other aspect is related to the management committee. They would hire the external auditor keeping only one consideration in mind - certificate will come not matter what, we have long-standing relations with the external auditor.

Will the management committee anytime show the courage to hire someone who has the reputation of denying a certificate? Never.

It is clear, on the face if it, that the above two - management committee and external auditors - do not own compliance to organizational processes. They own just the certificate part of it.

One hires the other only if the other would give the certificate.

What about the process group?

Process group would lay down the process and then have no concern with its implementation. The point here to think about is the pragmatism used by process group while defining processes.

If the defined processes are too cumbersome and difficult to follow then it will have a direct impact on the compliance to organizational processes.

So process group has indirect ownership of compliance to organizational processes and limited to the extent that processes are usable and easy to use (tools may help too in this cause).

What about the compliance group?

Compliance group would just assess whether the defined processes were followed or not.

If, in an organization, people follow processes only because they don't want any adverse findings in the audit it indicates towards the culture being too much "push driven".

This is like someone following the traffic rules only because there is a traffic cop standing ahead!

If a person doesn't want to follow the traffic rule and doesn't mind putting his and others life at risk, then there is hardly much any compliance group can do other than flagging this as a finding.

Lack of compliance should not be seen as a failure of compliance group to find that gap. Audits, by definition, are based on sample. In addition, people should follow processes as a general practice.

Audit should focus on providing assurance that processes are indeed being followed and not at all on what is not happening.

So compliance group should not have any ownership of compliance to organizational processes. They are basically acting like a mirror and only reflecting what's going on.

And finally, what about the practitioners?

Good organizations believe in pull factor as far as ownership of compliance to organizational processes is concerned.

In other organizations, the driving force is push factor.

In such organizations things are done by pushing it down people's throats. And that happens because people are not enabled and empowered with adequate amount of resources, time, training, tools, etc.

Who works with the pull factors and push factors? The practitioners.

If they are enabled and empowered with adequate amount of resources, time, training, tools, etc.they will be willing to pull and, in fact, push may not be needed at all.

So practitioners should have direct ownership of compliance to organizational processes.

Right? Yes, but there is something more to it as well!

Practitioners should have the ownership only when they are enabled and empowered with adequate amount of resources, time, training, tools, etc.

And who ensures the above? It is the management committee. Is that not right?

They set the cultural fabric. The create the environment for the organization to move from mostly push factors getting used to mostly pull factors getting used.

They external auditor and the process and compliance groups act as catalysts.

They help the practitioners use the organization processes to provide products/services to the customers in line with the management committee's vision and overall direction.

So in that sense it is the practitioners and the management committee who should own compliance to organizational processes.

What happens though in reality is completely different.

The primary ownership for compliance is put on the head of the compliance group (how come they did not find this gap? why are same issues being reported again and again? why are the gaps coming back again and again?) and the process group (why are the processes not easy to follow? why are the processes not automated? why compliance is low because process is not clear?).

Part of the above paragraph is true. However, it hides the uncomfortable truth conveniently. One who charters the organizational processes (management committee) and one who follows them (practitioners) are the direct beneficiary and hence who should own compliance to it.

What is the Concept of Confidence Interval in Statistics?

Consider a process that is generating a certain output (like cycle time) that can be characterized by a certain statistical parameter (like average cycle time).

Suppose you are interested in determining the value of this parameter for the entire population. So how would you go about it?

You start with selecting a sample and measuring the value of the parameter using the sample data.

The question that arises then is how to estimate the population parameter from the sample parameter value.

That’s where confidence interval can come to your rescue.

Confidence interval is a statistical interval estimate of the population parameter that is derived from the sample parameter value.

Type I / Alpha Error or Producer’s Risk and Type II / Beta Error or Consumer’s Risk

Think of a manufacturer that supplies certain electronics component to its consumers. The components, before they are shipped, undergo final inspection by the team assigned for the purpose.

This team needs to make the call whether to ship the component or not by doing an inspection.

This situation can be viewed as being similar to a test of hypothesis. The null hypothesis (Ho) in this case is that the component is not defective.

Ho: Component is not defective (and hence good)

H1: Component is defective

Suppose the team can make error in their judgment in determining whether the component is defective or otherwise.

Why Genuine Commitment to Operational Excellence is Crucial?

First of all, genuine commitment is as different from commitment as the sun is different from the moon.

Genuine commitment is like the sun which has its own, real shine unlike commitment which is like the moon which doesn't have its own shine.

Like the shine of a moon is fake, so is the shine of commitment which is not genuine.

In many organizations the sponsors  lack genuine commitment but try to fake it.

This is evident through the following:

• Person charged with operational excellence is forced to report into someone who doesn't even know how to spell operational excellence
• Adequate resources and budgets are not allocated to the operational excellence leader and she is made to work with skeletal resources
• The organization is managed by a coterie which takes zero accountability of compliance and operational excellence in their respective areas
• Some of the people in the coterie go and say funny things to the top man behind the back of the operational excellence leader
• Some of the people in the coterie instead of reaching out to the operational excellence leader for help make immature and unprofessional statements regarding support they want
• The pet stooge of the top man in such organization is like a monkey to its master, a silent politician, an immature professional, a scheming expert in sending negative emails and super defensive of his lack of competence
• The pet stooge is a also a master of loyalty, chummy with other chipmunks like him roaming the corridors of the organization for many, many years
• The coterie comes across as a gang of retirement home residents who cannot move out but think they are the most accomplished people in their areas, forgetting that no one knows them outside the premises of their organization
• The coterie operates in a sly, immature and unprofessional manner, goes out to lunch together, and walks together while talking silly things

Such organizations are ideal breeding grounds of fake commitment.

The top man and his coterie try their best to fake the genuineness of their commitment but its easy to make out what's underneath their facade. Just commitment but no genuine commitment.

Culture of genuine commitment is crucial for operational excellence to be successful in any organization.

Such kind of culture building is a gradual, slow and evolutionary process and an important ingredient of operational excellence initiatives in an organization.

And unless the commitment is genuine, operational excellence initiatives will not have much chance to succeed.

Why Mere Lip Service to Improvement Initiatives is Not Enough?

Many leaders and heads of organizations speak passionately about improvement initiatives and therein lies the problem. They merely speak and do nothing beyond that which is concrete enough to carry the momentum forward.

Mere lip service to improvement initiatives is not enough due to several reasons.

• First and foremost, employees in general and those charged to drive the improvement initiatives in particular can see through and beneath the fake facade put up by the leaders.
• Secondly, unless leaders solidly and sincerely stand behind such initiatives and act as cheerleaders for the change agents not much would actually happen on the ground. 
• In addition, leaders must not just expect progress but inspect the progress like what Louis V. Gerstner, Jr. advocated (see the note below).

Note: Louis V. Gerstner, Jr., probably the most renowned of all former chairmen of IBM so aptly said "People do what you inspect, not what you expect." in his book "Who Says Elephants Can’t Dance? (2002)".

So unless there is a sincere follow-up from leaders and executives, their words remain just that, mere words.

In organizations where the leaders are not really professional but maintain a hands-off approach and run the organization through a close-knit coterie, improvement initiatives have even lesser chance of success.

The coterie would typically be highly defensive of its power base and hence protect its turf with needless aggression. The coterie will have high reluctance and resistance to any improvement initiative and also the change agents and will label the change agents as outsiders and create distance between them and the leaders.

The leaders in such organizations develop a comfort zone around themselves where no one in the coterie will challenge the leaders (and in fact some will act in a typical stooge-like manner), but instead leave no chance to show their absolute loyalty to the leaders.

Lip service in such organizations is very common. Evey quarter a new initiative is started with lot of fanfare and after few quarters no one even talks about it. The leaders are good at providing lip service with a lot of passion getting displayed but most of it would really not be real but fake.

Leaders in such organizations  are experts in uttering words and more words. They seem to firmly believe in the following lines from the famous song "Words" by Boyzone:
"It's only words
And words are all I have
To take your heart away"

Unfortunately such leaders cause a lot of damage to the cultural fabric of the organization.  The damage is, even more unfortunately, compounded by what is additionally caused  by the stooges who are a part of the close-knit coterie.

Why Improvement Initiatives May Not Succeed?

Many organizations start improvement initiatives with a lot of fanfare. The top people speak the right words at the start. Someone is brought into as the leader of the improvement initiative. Resources are promised to be provided. Budgets are assured. Awareness sessions and campaigns are organized. External consultant may also be hired. Lot many emails are floated left, right and center. Lot of documents are generated as well.

However, after some months or in certain instances some years, the improvement initiative may come to a slow and grinding halt as it is not successful. The people concerned go through some motions at the end of it all to fake a semblance of success. The initiative is toned down, rephrased and some inconsequential actions are taken to give it a logical resting ground.

So why improvement initiatives may not succeed?

• The primary reason is lack of true support from the management. At times management has to show to the board that they are busy doing something to improve. Such initiatives serve the management's ulterior motives pretty well.
• One reason is to have someone lead the initiative without a formal structure supporting such an unfortunate leader. Management talks about arcane stuff like influencing skills, cross-functional teams, synergies etc. which sound terrific on a presentation but are terrible on the ground.
• One more reason is to do with the pressure that the operations people are under on a day to day basis. Their main concern is to somehow build the product or service to deliver to the customer. For them improvement initiative is an intervention unless it is made their performance objective.
• Another reason is that the relevant stakeholders are not involved in the appropriate manner. This may be due to cultural and political reasons where those who lead and drive the improvement initiative want to make sure they get the credit at the end. They fail to realize that ignoring relevant stakeholders may actually result in the initiative failing.
• Lastly, another reason is that the people chartered to drive the improvement initiative may not be the right people in terms of competence and acceptability. At times, such initiatives are started to provide some work to an otherwise redundant senior person in the organization. When such a thing happens failure is not a probability it's a certainty.

Organizations need to address the issues around sponsorship, leadership, resources, budget, road-map. reporting structures, performance objectives, competency building in case they would like to improve the likelihood of success of any improvement initiative.

Why Strategy, People, Process and Tools All Matter For An Organization To Succeed?

Successful organizations are those which are generally market leaders in some sense.

They have a good hold over certain market segments and serve certain customers as their preferred vendors.

They also have a sustainable revenue earning model along with a proven template to keep the cost of operations under a desirable range.

So what is needed for an organization to succeed?

What is really needed is that an organization should be able to operate in a manner where strategy, people, process and tools all come together in a synergistic manner to create magic.

In some sense people, process and tools need to be aligned and directed through strategy for the organization to succeed.



Strategy

This is the key piece that drives the other pieces. 

Strategy means all the following and more:

• What kind of products and services would the organization offer?
• What kind of customers it would serve?
• What kind of revenue and pricing model it will use?
• What kind of marketing and sales tactics it will use to attract new customers?
• What kind of people it will need?
• What kind of processes it will need?
• What kind of tools it will need?

People

This is a piece that is driven by the strategy question "What kind of people it will need?"

This in turn means all the following and more:

• What staff size will it maintain?
• What kind of competencies are required currently and in future?
• What would be the organization structure?
• What would be the hiring policy?
• Where would it position its compensation and benefits as against the market?
• How would it ensure ramp up and ramp down of staff size?

Process

This is a piece that is driven by the strategy question "What kind of processes it will need?"

This in turn means all the following and more:

• What system and processes would be used to acquire customers? - Sales
• How will products and services be created and delivered to the customers? - Operations
• How will customers be charged and money collected? - Finance
• How will the physical and computing infrastructure be maintained? - Facilities and IT
• How will people related activities including hiring, training, etc. performed? - HR
• How will the processes managed, complied to and improved continually - Process/Excellence

Tools

This is a piece that is driven by the strategy question "What kind of tools it will need"

This in turn means all the following and more:

• What tools will be used to ensure people productivity?
• What systems and processes like hiring, travel, etc. will be automated?
• How will the tools be maintained and enhanced?
• How will the tools be aligned with changes to the organization's processes?

In summary, it is crucial that an organization is able to operate in a manner where strategy, people, process and tools all come together in a synergistic manner to create magic.

And this magic once created will automatically lead the organization to succeed.