Why Freelance Auditors and Consultants Act in an Immature and Silly Manner?

You get an immature and written in a "not so good taste" email from the auditor or the appraiser.

He is seemingly upset because someone happened to challenge his jumbo-sized ego.

How dare anyone question him?

His ego gets hurt when someone questions him.

Since he thinks he is the only auditor around who has intellect and smartness.

And if that auditor or appraiser or consultant is a freelancer it compounds the effect in the totally wrong direction since there is no one above the freelancer to whom matters can be escalated to.

When you are working as an auditor or consultant with an organization, you need to adhere to certain policies and norms as well as reporting requirements.

So, if you have concerns with an auditor or appraiser or consultant, there is always someone above you can reach out to and get things corrected in respect of the behaviour and / or expertise of the auditor or appraiser or consultant.

However, the freelancer has no organizational polices to adhere to or no reporting requirements and hence tends to act in a very imposing and dictating manner.

And that's the primary reason, in several instances and quite often, freelance auditors and consultants may tend to and do act in an immature and silly manner.

So, what does the freelancer do in a discussion progressing around technical aspects offered by the different stakeholders?

Instead of focusing on responding with reason he responds with a complete lack of maturity.

He says you have no right to offer suggestions to change anything.

He says he has spent couple of hours so it cannot have any issue.

He says let me do my job but forgets that the other person asked questions because that other person is also supposed do his job.

He says not to cross the boundaries which shows complete lack of application of mind while writing and shows lack of any understanding of the situation.

The key thing here that comes up strongly is the auditor is not open-minded.

He is immature and writes and acts accordingly.

He is having a bloated ego which he is trying to massage by acting in an immature and childish manner.

He is also vulnerable.

Probably because he also knows deep within that the kind of work he is doing is not that value-adding.

And how do you show you are doing something of value?

You would write immature emails.

You would throw child-like tantrums.

You would like your ego to be pampered.

You would feel powerful by dropping names.

You would call and then discontinue the discussion quite abruptly.

You would tell that I am the auditor so better listen to me!

You would use the words like "I get irritated “which really displays lack of maturity on your part.

Since in a professional set-up you need to address disparate points of view amicably and not react in a childish manner.

In addition to that, 

• You and your consultant are not in sync and you don't even want to accept that.
• You make several mistakes and offer apologies but are not really interested in making the changes required and throw the ball in the other's court by citing reaons which will not find any place in a professional set-up.
• You, in several instances, say something earlier, something else now and something totally else later.
• You have a closed mind and are not at all open to any questioning and suggestions from others, even your own clients!
• You consultant refers to you condescendingly akin to a demi-god and has a reason since he gets his morsels from you.

The smart thing to do in such cases is to massage the big-sized yet so very vulnerable ego of the auditor.

Auditors like to be pampered.

Auditors like to be made to feel great.

Auditors like to see them being seen as adding value.

So, you should do all that.

Do not think too much beyond that.

You know for sure that when you are talking to such an auditor or appraiser you are, in fact, talking to a scum.

Just smile at the immaturity and vulnerability that you can clearly see through.

And carry on like a professional.

And yes, never ever mind.

CMMI Model and CMMI Appraisal in CMMI V2.0 - Some Interesting Thoughts

CMMI model and CMMI appraisal have undergone several changes in CMMI V2.0, the latest version of the CMMI product suite.

How effective these changes are and how much thought has gone into these changes is anyone's guess.

The key point, however, is that the CMMI V2.0 is being projected as a bettered version of the CMMI suite, which again is open to debate.

CMMI V2.0 or, for that matter, any other model or framework are essentially benchmarking tools and are as good as the business value they create for an organization.

CMMI V2.0 has laid strong emphasis on business objectives and business performance, and rightly so.

So, changes and improvements that can further improve and deepen the alignment of CMMI V2.0 with business priorities would make it even better.

This post dwells upon two such aspects that can help in doing that.

CMMI Model Online Portal

The first aspect is related to the CMMI model online portal.

One of the key things in CMMI V2.0 is that the CMMI model is available as an online portal which is probably getting updated very frequently.

This is being cited as a strength.

Unfortunately, that view is not logically sound.

Any model or framework serves as a reference and can be used to benchmark its usage in a specific situation against the accepted base which is the model or the framework itself.

Models can change and do change but the changes should get introduced in a thoughtful manner and only at periodic intervals separated by a reasonable time gap.

The new version of a model should come out only as per the above principle unless there is some problem or "bug" in a particular version of that model, making an immediate "rectification" release necessary.

Frequent changes lead to a situation of trying to hit a moving duck, which is never a good idea as far as benchmarking is concerned.

Interestingly, one of the types of CMMI appraisal is now called as "benchmarking" appraisal.

So, in a way, the above is apparently a crucial structural challenge with CMMI V2.0 appraisal.

An organization starts its CMMI V2.0 implementation with CMMI model around a certain time duration.

When it is time for appraisal, let us say after 2 years, the extant copy of CMMI model might be different.

Incidentally, the CMMI model portal has the provision to download a pdf copy so it is possible to store a copy of CMMI model, as it was, at a given point in time.

The question that is but natural to be asked is:

"Which copy of CMMI model should be used for appraisal - the one from two years back or the one which is there now?

In case the changes introduced are significant, then ensuring all of them are adequately incorporated will be a logistics and coordination challenge for the organization.

But in case the changes are not significant, then this is not an issue per se.

That, then, brings up another point.

If the changes are not significant, why to change frequently?

Would it not be better to accumulate the change requests and improvements from actual experiences shared by the users and other sources and bring a new version?

And do that as a strategic event and not as a routine procedure.

The earlier arrangement, where a model version used to get released at a certain time interval was a better one for the model users and implementers.

The online portal would still be useful for the model developers and model maintainers as they can use it as a work in progress copy of the next version of the model.

Change requests and improvements can get constantly incorporated by the model developers and model maintainers.

And just like code-freeze in case of software development, there could be a content-freeze in the model development cycle, where the next version is baselined and formally released.

CMMI Appraisal Sampling

The second aspect is related to CMMI appraisal sampling.

The sampling now is done using a method that is called as a randomly generated sample (RGS).

In this case, any project can ger selected.

In CMMI V2.0 there is heavy emphasis on business objectives and business performance.

Given that, sampling should also reflect the same line of thinking.

What should happen ideally is that those projects which are critical to business should be a part of the appraisal.

The factors that typically govern “critical to business” are:

• Importance of the customer of the project - this is influenced by both current earned revenue and future projected revenue from that customer
• Size of the project - large projects are more complex and challenging and their success has a proportionately higher impact on the organization's success
• Project in a new vertical or a new domain - such projects can help create huge, sustainable revenue streams in the future
• Strategic value of the project - this would be driven by the view of the executive management in terms of the long-term survivability of the organization

In case the above factors are not being considered in sampling, then the final sample would not be aligned with business priorities.

But in case the above factors are already being considered in sampling, then this is not an issue per se.

And the final sample would still be the same.

That, then, brings up another point.

If the final sample would still be the same in both cases, why to have this new method?

Would it not be better to let the sample be aligned with business priorities and in fact, bring in, or further improve the mechanism to ensure projects that get selected are critical to business?

Why a Clear Understanding of Convergence is Key for Enterprise Survival?

Enterprises comes into existences to address certain basic needs of the society.

However, if an enterprise fails to match the changes in the society, step by step, it will not survive.

What is the key competency that ensures an enterprise will survive?

The answer is convergence.

Beneath the different ideas and trends that become popular in the society at different points in time, there is something more fundamental to the way society functions.

There are certain basic needs of the society that have been like that since ages and will remain so forever.

What are these basic needs?

These basic needs are related to physiological and psychological needs of human beings.

After all society is nothing but human being put together.

The physiological and psychological needs operate at the most fundamental level.

The way to fulfil them have changed over time and will continue to evolve but these needs will never go away.

It is a fact that the ideas and trends that have been used to address the basic physiological and psychological needs have evolved and will continue to do so.

If that be the case, how can an enterprise survive this change?

That is where the principle of convergence kicks in.

What is the meaning of the term convergence?

Convergence means focusing on the fundamental essence of something.

The fundamental essence is nothing but the physiological and psychological needs of human beings.

Since they never change, if an enterprise can link the exact physiological or psychological need behind an idea or a trend, it will prove to be an asset for its survival.

An enterprise which has a clear understanding of convergence of ideas and trends will be willing to not only change if needed to keep up with the change forced upon it but also bring changes to the table.

The above will ensure enterprise survival.

For tomorrow.

And forever.

Busting the Hype around TQM and the Continuum of Enterprise Excellence (EEX)

TQM is a concept that originated in the 1950s in Japan.

However, it has its roots in the American way of looking at things since the founding father of TQM, Deming, was an American.

In the beginning, total quality management or TQM was meant to take care of certain aspects in an enterprise.

Unfortunately, over last several decades, TQM fans have tried to project it as something more than it was meant to be.

That is one of the key reasons behind the problem with TQM’s positioning.

For the fans, the key principles of TQM are like biblical truths.

These principles are, however, not original, or innovative.

They have their basis in the concepts and theories related to general management.

Like there is nothing original or innovative about following a process-based approach, using data for decision-making, etc.

Also, the use of the terms total and quality in TQM is quite misleading.

Total in TQM means all parts of the enterprise and the focus is on how the individual parts support quality of the products and services.

That is a problem since for an enterprise to succeed the various parts need to focus on many other aspects much beyond the quality of the products and services.

Quality in TQM pertains to how well something functions and how every process in every part of the enterprise should work at its optimal best.

That is another problem since it extends the scope of the term quality to mean everything under the sun beyond its core meaning, where quality means quality of design or quality of conformance to the design.

The core need of any enterprise is first to survive and then to grow, organically or otherwise.

The way to achieve the above is quite simple - remain competitive and stay profitable.

For example, Nokia or Kodak were probably doing perfect as far as TQM principles go.

What was missing was the lack of right strategy due to serious misreading of the shifts in the competitive landscape and market dynamics.

At this point, TQM fans will jump and say, "doing that is also a part of TQM".

Well, not really.

That way everything that goes right is due to TQM and everything that does not go right is due to lack of TQM!

That is quite ludicrous.

Achieving enterprise success is hard. 

And sustaining the success achieved is even harder.

The key thing for enterprise success is to focus on enterprise excellence (EEX). 

Achieving and sustaining EEX is inextricably linked to and profoundly dependent on two broad aspects:

• Enterprise Strategy - Setting and calibrating the direction and strategy the enterprise will follow in the near and distant future which includes markets the enterprise will operate in and product/services it will sell
• Enterprise Operations - Adjusting and optimizing the effectiveness and efficiency in the operations of the enterprise at the overall level as well as in its various parts which includes the quality of products/services it will create

It is certainly true that application of TQM is beneficial to ensure quality of products/services.

However, there are many other aspects that can impact enterprise success.

For example, the way the enterprise does cash flow management is very important to ensure its profitability and solvency.

Ask any CEO or CFO and they will tell the same.

But that has nothing to do with TQM.

As a matter of fact, the overall use of TQM is limited to specific aspects of the continuum of EEX ecosystem.

It can be said that TQM is more of an engineering and technical thing that uses lot of general management practices to strengthen itself.

It should, however, not try to become overarching like EEX.

Many enterprises focus on blindly putting TQM in place while missing the larger EEX context.

Focusing on TQM for TQM sake may be a good idea for TQM advisors, TQM consultants, TQM trainers, TQM program in-charges, etc. but not for EEX and certainly not for the enterprise.

Like TQM talks about customer first and primacy of process.

There is a lot that is wrong with that.

Sometimes customers may not be reasonable and fair and need to be dealt with accordingly.

From EEX standpoint, the enterprise may even refuse to continue its association with such customers.

Using standardized processes is fine as far as the routine operational activities and transactional tasks are concerned.

However, for innovations and strategic initiatives there cannot be standardized processes.

From EEX standpoint, for such things the enterprise may employ certain philosophies and principles and not be hung up on using a defined process because there would be none.

Unfortunately, the TQM fans think that TQM is the be all and end all of everything.

That is not a correct view.

Like the other methods and tools, TQM has its place in the continuum of EEX ecosystem and can be effectively leveraged when used in an appropriate manner in the right context.