Bureaucrats – Getting a Bum Rap?

White House Portrait of Mitch Daniels

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 95 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.

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 95 Method for service organizations.  Reach him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/TriBabbittor LinkedIn at www.linkedin.com/in/trippbabbitt.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share This:
facebooktwitterlinkedin

Software Scope Creep

Embarking on Fatal Maiden Voyage”>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.

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 95 Method for service organizations.  Reach him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/TriBabbittor LinkedIn at www.linkedin.com/in/trippbabbitt.

Share This:
facebooktwitterlinkedin

The Whole Vision Thing is Overrated

Greg Ballard

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.

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 95 Method for service organizations.  Reach him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/TriBabbittor LinkedIn at www.linkedin.com/in/trippbabbitt.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share This:
facebooktwitterlinkedin

Revisiting MBO (Management by Objectives)

The Honorable Jennifer Granholm, Governor of t...

Image via Wikipedia

I am reading two books right now.  One by Governor Daniels of Indiana and another by former Governor Jennifer Granholm of Michigan.  Governor Granholm talks quite a bit about the loss of jobs in manufacturing in her State to outsourcing.  In fact, her last election against Dick DeVos – the former Amway CEO – she let him have it during her campaign for outsourcing jobs to China.  Certainly, the subject for a future blog post.

However, something else caught my eye . . . Governor Granholm’s love for MBO.

“As a big believer in management by objectives, I loved using  the State of the State speech as a blueprint for the year.”

– from A Governor’s Story – Governor Granholm

There is a correlation between the loss of jobs to outsourcing and MBO, but I won’t make it in this post.  They are both wrong behaviors and outsourcing you can find plenty of posts why it isn’t typically saving money.

Organizations and governments are still using MBO – shocking?  Not really.  I still see it in many organizations, once a bad idea . . . always a bad idea.

Peter Drucker invented this thinking in 1954, W. Edwards Deming rocked the world when he spoke about MBO as one of the evils of management (as practiced).  Closely related to MBO is SMART (Specific, Measurable, Agreed, Realistic and Time-related) and a Balanced Scorecard.  Targets come along with these thinking methods.

First of all, Dr. Deming understood that when you provide objectives and targets by function you get sub-optimization.  Meaning if you optimize each functional piece you miss the inter-dependencies and create a system works against itself.  This creates waste.  For example, you often see departments vying for resources focused on what they can get in resources for themselves. Artificial competition is produced and the loss to the system is great because we do what is right for the department, but not right for the system.

Information technology seems to get much of the money in organizations.  Yet IT cannot create value, it can only add value to the relationship between customer demands and work.  Unfortunately, too many organizations don’t get that IT, HR, Finance and other supporting areas aren’t meant to create a profit for their department – they are there to enable the value creating relationships.

With MBO, we get management and worker focused on the wrong things.  Hitting the target laid out in the objective (remember SMART).  The flow is interrupted by the functional separation of work as each piece tries to optimize itself.

“(MBO) nourishes short-term performance, annihilates long-term planning, builds fear, demolishes teamwork, nourishes rivalry and politics.”

– W. Edwards Deming (from Out of the Crisis)

“Management by Fear” was the Deming phrase that replaced MBO.

Governor Granholm is a Harvard graduate.  Peter Drucker taught there.  Harvard, with all its money has become the poster child for bad theory.  Smart people, wrong method.

As voters, we need to ask candidate, “By what method?”  As managers, we need better thinking about the design and management of work – devoid of MBO and targets.

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 95 Method for service organizations.  Reach him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/TriBabbittor LinkedIn at www.linkedin.com/in/trippbabbitt.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share This:
facebooktwitterlinkedin

Social Services Work Design and Thinking Problems

I recently read an article from Governing, Human Services by the Batch.  I felt a familiar pain associated with the “answer” for social services – process management, modernization, automation – the Greek trilogy and tragedy.

I posted a comment at Governing that explains why process or task management is NOT the way of the future.  I had to go back and adjust my answer (over the character limit) so the comment below is longer:

I am a former CIO of FSSA in Indiana. The “process management” system that is proposed here is similar to the IBM (and partners)-led modernization failure in Indiana.  This was a billion dollar contract that the Governor was forced to cancel.  In essence, “process management” is doing the wrong thing, righter – or possibly wronger.

Here is why – we have a fundamental thinking problem in government about the design and management of work.  The design of “process management” deals with three traditional questions, How much work do I have? How much time will it take?  How many people do I need?  These are the WRONG questions to start with to improve services.

All demand is not work to be done – some of the demand we receive is in the form of failure demand (demand caused by a failure to do something or do something right for a constituent).  Eliminating the amount of failure demand which I have seen as high as 90% in social services offers us a huge opportunity to reduce the demand coming in.  A leverage point for better designed social services.

Secondly, the flow of the work is interrupted by designing the work into teams and things wind up taking longer when functionally separated – a counter-intuitive truth.  Separated work even with a team will create more failure demand and less flow.  Better ?s are how many demands are done one-stop?  What matters to the constituent?  How long does it take end-to-end from application to benefit sought?

Improving the design of the work requires different thinking about how we manage work.  Unfortunately, I didn’t discover this thinking until after the IBM fiasco in Indiana.  However, you can learn from mistakes others have made.

A better method is to first understand the “what and why” of current performance.  When variety of demands is high – like in social services – IT systems and standardized process can’t absorb the variety resulting in failure demand (or more work to be done).  Redesign the flow of the work by eliminating failure demand and making the work one-stop.  Then automate with IT when a design that works (good flow) is found.

The problem we had in Indiana was that political ideology ruled the day – this at the expense of evidence and knowledge.  Case workers replaced by process and task management.  The system that the case workers worked in was flawed, but the flaw was from poor thinking from management . . . not bad workers.

With 49.1 million Americans living in poverty, we need better services that reach those in need.  Better social services needs to be a government management issue regarding how we think about the design and management of work.

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 95 Method for service organizations.  Reach him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/TriBabbittor LinkedIn at www.linkedin.com/in/trippbabbitt.

Share This:
facebooktwitterlinkedin

Cheap Labor – Not the Answer for Government

I follow a l0t of the conversations going around on the web comments pages.  An article about contract labor and outsourcing for government showed up on CNBC’s site.  The high wages of government workers are cited as a reason for our deficits . . . can’t be the politicians.

These governments workers are making the budget busting amount of $15 – 20 per hour plus benefits.  Bastards!  Greedy, aren’t they?  This bothers me in light of the government bailout poster children – Fannie and Freddie – whose top execs got over $2 million in bonuses (each).  This for such well run organizations that just borrowed $169 billion more.  When do we get the well run organization first, before we pay the big bonuses?  I am still waiting for the previous execs for Fannie and Freddie to go to jail.

Back to the task at hand – cheap labor in government.

I worked as a CIO for a year in government, government is full of waste.  It is everywhere you look.  However, the workers in government are not to blame for the poor design of the work.  Political ideology vacillating back and forth over the years is what created our current problem with government design.  No one in government knows how to design good work.

Politicians go immediately to the “technology well” to modernize and automate.  No evidence or knowledge this is the right or wrong thing to do.  The design requires many times the number of workers that are needed for a well-designed system.    But between the functional separation of work and keeping labor costs down, government management instead “dumb’s down” the design to keep costs down.  Ridiculous? Yep and it is costing us in the way of huge deficits for government.

What this means that if design work that adds value to constituents that maybe workers are paid a wage of $30 – 40 per hour or more.  As a taxpayer, I would gladly pay these wages for a system that isn’t full of waste.

We are missing a great opportunity to change the system that is more full of blind political ideology and misguided legislation.  Making the government workers a part of the solution rather than pointing a finger at them as the problem would be useful . . . that would mean that politicians would have to point the finger at themselves (sigh).

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 95 Method for service organizations.  Reach him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/TriBabbittor LinkedIn at www.linkedin.com/in/trippbabbitt.

Share This:
facebooktwitterlinkedin

Innovation – It Starts with Challenging Old Assumptions

Probably better to say curiosity starts us down a different path and innovation follows, but assumptions block the path to curiosity.  Grabbing or copying the first best practice or tool to make improvements ends any chance at innovation.  We want to check a problem off the to-do list not have to think about what options we have to solve a problem.

I was reading Alfie Kohn’s website and remembered my Deming days.  He was the first person I had met that challenged my thinking on competition and reward systems.  He reinforced and furthered Dr. Deming’s argument that cooperation and not competition was that better way to go.

Deming and Kohn also made me rethink reward systems and how they drive the wrong behavior.  Rewards and targets become the defacto purpose of an organization – meaning that management and worker pursuits of targets and rewards take our eyes off creating value for customers.  Further, the system we work in and how well it is designed is by far the biggest influence on organizational performance.

The best way to ask people to begin is to set aside the old assumption that we have learned in childhood, experience, schools and what others have told us are true.  This is why going to the work is so important rather than relying on IT-generated reports or the biggest mouth in a meeting.  You can learn new truths when you do and banish myths at the same time.

This brings new and better thinking to problems.  This is called innovation.

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 95 Method for service organizations.  Reach him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/TriBabbittor LinkedIn at www.linkedin.com/in/trippbabbitt.

Share This:
facebooktwitterlinkedin

Caveat Venditor!

There is  a growing trend of backlash in America and around the world.  The Tea Party wants a balanced budget and less government, Occupy Wall Street wants equality in business and government and now the consumer is taking action against $5 debit card fees.  We are in a new age.

Caveat Venditor!!!

“Let the seller beware” is upon us.  Social media has allowed people to organize causes quickly.  Be it the Arab Spring or London Summer or the recent events we have witnessed the times they are a-changing.

Organizations, governments and management need to get serious about the poor service they are providing customers because they aren’t just one-off or individual complaints anymore they are movements.  This can be good news or bad news for companies.

If you are trying to maximize profit and putting it to customers – bad news.  If you have horrendous service through poor customer service, IVRs, websites, etc. – bad news.

Blaming it on Washington just won’t fly anymore.

On the other hand, if you are designing good services – good news!

Here is the management paradox that organizations and governments need to get a grip on . . . good service costs less!  So, quit lamenting on lost revenue and build services that meet customer purpose and satisfy demands.  There will be less failure demand to deal with (lower costs), happier customers (more revenue) and discovery of new and innovative methods for new products and services.

That short-term focus on profit-thingy your reward systems will not survive this onslaught.  People are perceiving it as greedy and sometimes it is.  Long-term thinking with a consumer focus will win the day.

Are you ready?

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 95 Method for service organizations.  Reach him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/TriBabbittor LinkedIn at www.linkedin.com/in/trippbabbitt.

Share This:
facebooktwitterlinkedin

Software Development and Outsourcing

Earlier this year, I went to India on behalf of a client that had outsourced their software development.  I met with architects, project managers, business analysts, testers and developers.  What they had to say about software development was astonishing, but revealing.

I have nothing against any country.  Outsourcing is not always bad and the worse reason to reject outsourcing is patriotism.  The reason outsourcing fails is because it is not profitable.

Say again?

That’s right outsourcing is not profitable.

So scratch that concept of less expensive software developers right from your brain.  Software requires knowledge of the work.  Not better documentation, not better analysts.  The problem is the way we have industrialized software development.

There are a number of things that don’t work in traditional software development.  Prepackaged and turn-key systems sold to customers ignore the existing system customers have in place.  There is no study of customer purpose or the customer demands placed on systems.  Instead the “better” IT system is put into place.  It is the ignorant selling the plausible to the gullible.

Further, the flow of the work is not considered or if it is considered it is automated in an inefficient or as-is fashion.  Sometimes the existing functionally separated systems are perpetuated.  No one asks if the back office needs to exist, often it can be designed out and this does not require software.

Others treat software development as manufacturing.  You hear such words as “software factory” and “production line.”  Software development couldn’t be any more different than manufacturing.  However, it has been designed with different functions, where we can than outsource the pieces like testing or development.  Economies of scale gained through optimizing the pieces and lowering costs by lowering salaries.

It just doesn’t work that way or certainly doesn’t work this way very well.  But organizations continue to follow this path to its failed destiny.  Project overruns, exploding costs for IT development, late projects and software that doesn’t work or entraps workers with poor flow.  The price of admission for this privilege is expensive.  Sign me up.

Oh, and what did that conversation with the outsourcing company produce as its biggest problem in our conversations.  They could do a much better job of developing software if they could come and see the work.

Why did you outsource again?

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 95 Method for service organizations.  Reach him on Twitter at www.twitter.com/TriBabbittor LinkedIn at www.linkedin.com/in/trippbabbitt.

Share This:
facebooktwitterlinkedin