Tuesday, 22 December 2015

VW Scandal - why the goal of being No 1 is bad for business

The Australian Financial Review today published an article by Leah McGrath Goodman entitled, "VW Emissions-rigging software a team effort". The original article can be found here: http://www.newsweek.com/2015/12/25/why-volkswagen-cheated-404891.html

I recently wrote a piece on this very subject and would like to reproduce it here ..... please feel free to comment.

Why striving for the number one position in your industry is a bad goal

The recent scandal at VW had me thinking. It reminded me of all the times I have seen well-intended goals and performance measures end up producing terrible or unintended consequences. This experience has been the driving force behind my belief that you should NEVER set a goal of being number 1 in your industry. I know the great Jack Welch had a philosophy that his divisions at GE had to be either number one or two in their industry but the overwhelming evidence leads to the conclusion that under normal circumstances this isn’t a good idea. (Jack was an extraordinary leader and may possibly be the one exception that proves the rule).

As the ole saying goes – “What gets measured gets done”. The problem is more often than not what gets done is not what the measure was set up for in the first place. The business world is full of unhappy and unsatisfactory results from poorly designed KPI’s and goals.

While reaching number one is a laudable endeavour and achievement, however the achievement of reaching number one in your industry should be the result of a different set of goals than that of being number one. There have been some recent high profile examples of why specifically targeting number one is a bad idea. Take for example the following cases:

·      Toyota and their massive recall quality issues.
In around 2002 Toyota set a goal of being the largest vehicle manufacturer in the world. In doing so it targeted growth primarily in the USA as its path. Having initiated its presence in the USA with a joint venture with GM at the NUMMI plant in Kentucky it grew its USA manufacturing base to seven plants in:
o   Mississippi
o   Two separate plants in Kentucky
o   Texas
o   Indiana
o   Alabama
o   West Virginia

They also have plants in Argentina, Australia, Belgium, four in Brazil, two in Canada, two in Colombia, South Africa, France, Indonesia, sixteen in their homeland of Japan, Mexico, Philippines, Portugal, Russia, four in Thailand, Turkey and two in the UK. They also have 18 other plants in joint ventures in other countries including China and India.

As Toyota grew rapidly it lost its ability to inculcate the “Toyota Way” into its new employees and new plant processes. Previous growth was a result of a patient approach to developing people in the company with knowledge about the Toyota Way. A key component of the Toyota Way is to work closely and in some cases within the businesses of their suppliers to assist them to adapt to and adopt the new paradigm. This was not done well in a rapidly growing environment.

This resulted in quality issues sneaking into the process and was exacerbated by the level of growth the company was experiencing. My view is if the executives had a goal of ensuring the Toyota Way was successfully inculcated into every new plant – this would have ended up with a completely different result. They may not have become number one as quickly – but I firmly believe they would not have had as dramatic a crisis to deal with as they ended up having.
·      VW and their devious deception of the emission results on diesels. They too set a target of being number one. They too identified that leadership in the USA was their path to this position. In February 2007 the new CEO Martin Winterkorn was appointed and from his first day in office, he is aware that the group’s U.S. business is floundering. He believes that only diesel engines will enable VW to gain significant market share in the United States and to fend off Japanese rival Toyota and its hybrid drive.

In January 12, 2008 At the Detroit Motor Show, Matthias Wissmann, president of German automotive industry association VDA, says 2008 will be the year in which “clean diesel” achieves a breakthrough in the U.S. market. He predicts diesel cars will increase their market share from 3 to 15 percent by 2015, thanks to rising oil prices and stricter emissions standards.

In August 2008 Volkswagen announces the launch of the VW Jetta 2.0 TDI in the United States, based on the EA 189. The company highlights the car’s low fuel consumption and low emissions, which have been made possible thanks to the cheat software.

Early 2014 the environmental organization ICCT tests actual emissions figures for diesel cars and finds that the two Volkswagen models are well above the limits, exceeding the guidelines 35-fold in extreme cases. In May 2014 two U.S. authorities are informed of this, the Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board, a state agency. They commence official investigations into Volkswagen. VW indicates that it is willing to discuss the matter, conducts its own investigations and repeatedly compares the results on both sides.

It is clear that the drive to be number one resulted in practices and decisions being made that were, at least in hindsight – however should have been known at the time, deceitful and unethical. Again my belief is if the advantage of efficient diesels were in fact the game changer they expected – the setting goals around this would have helped them become number one. No target being number one as a prime goal.

·      Sears Roebuck in the 1990s found themselves in a situation where executives mandated a sales goal for automotive mechanics of $147 an hour. Rather than work faster, as was the expectation, employees met the goal by overcharging for their services and “repairing” things that weren’t broken.
·      The 2008 financial collapse, in which “motivated blindness” (explained below) contributed to some bad decision-making. The “independent” credit rating agencies that famously gave AAA ratings to collateralized mortgage securities of demonstrably low quality helped build a house of cards that ultimately came crashing down, driving a wave of foreclosures that pushed thousands of people out of their homes. Why did the agencies vouch for those risky securities?

These four examples demonstrate the unexpected consequences of poorly thought out goals. A smaller but no less important example is where companies of all sizes mandate cost cutting programs (see my article 7 reasons why cost cutting is the worst thing for your business). Procurement cost cutting more often than not results in the purchase of inferior quality parts that leads to further expense somewhere down the supply/manufacturing/maintenance chain.

It’s well documented that people see what they want to see and easily miss contradictory information when it’s in their interest to remain ignorant—a psychological phenomenon known as “motivated blindness”. The root cause of this blindness or self-interest is in the setting of goals and the incentives attached to those goals.

So how do you avoid these consequences when you want to set goals and incentives within your business? I have developed 5 steps to setting worthwhile goals:

1.     Examining what behavours you want in your business. Leaders setting goals need to view the situation from the perspective of those whose behavior they are trying to influence and think through their potential responses. This will help head off unintended consequences and prevent employees from “motivated blindness”.
2.     Having goals such as honest reporting are just as important to reward if not more so. When leaders fail to meet this responsibility, they can be viewed as not only promoting unethical behavior but also blindly engaging in it themselves.
3.     Identify how one measures the achievement of these goals. The goal has to be quantifiable.
4.     Set up the measuring of this goal so that it occurs as part of the normal process of conducting business. Your ERP system should be able to assist here albeit it may require a modification or specific BI report to be written. It is not until we examine what behavours are occurring in the business are we in a position to understand if the consequences are unexpected or not.
5.     As with all KPI’s or incentives constant monitoring of the result and the act of asking questions around the specific KPI results, is crucial to making this process work. One must monitor if the goal or incentive is having the desired impact. Without these actions being taken – the chances of motivated blindness dramatically increase.
6.     Examine how the cognitive biases that result from the motivated blindness could potentially distort ethical decision-making. For example, the most common problem executives report around the setting of goals and incentives is that their sales forces maximize sales rather than profits. I see this every day in all the client’s businesses I work with. I ask what incentives are they giving their salespeople, and they confess to actually rewarding sales rather than profits.

The lesson is clear: When employees behave in undesirable ways, it’s a good idea to look at what you’re encouraging them to do. Examine if you have followed the six steps completely. If you do; your chances of goals and incentives being productive is greatly enhanced.

Contact Details:
David Ogilvie
Ph: +61 (0) 438 787 759

© Copyright David Ogilvie 2015

Tuesday, 8 December 2015

Dateline: December 2015.

Our Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull wants the business community to become more innovative. He has set aside $1.1 Billion dollars for programs to foster innovation in our business community.

An ABC report trumpets, “The Federal Government will spend almost $1.1 billion in the next four years to promote business-based research, development and innovation. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull unveiled his much-anticipated Innovation Statement in Canberra on Monday, saying he wanted to drive a so-called "ideas boom"”.

How successful will this be? Much is aimed at start ups with early stage investors in start-up businesses receiving a 20 per cent non-refundable tax offset and a capital gains tax exemption. Much of the technological breakthroughs are to be left to university research and CSIRO to discover and the new alliances and connections with business are to market and leverage the new products that result.
This Government program will set up the environment for money to be invested in new technology and new businesses, but is money all that is needed to generate innovation? It also needs a culture of innovation – something business hasn’t been good at to date. Otherwise if it had – this initiative wouldn’t be necessary.

So how does one magically make business innovative if simply adding money to the mix isn’t the answer?

Innovation can be manufactured – its a process and when followed can be created. It requires a deliberate strategy and effort to find new opportunities and uniquely be innovative. According to Alan Weiss in this book, “The Innovation Formula” there is four steps to innovation:
1.     Opportunity Search
2.     Opportunity Assessment
3.     Opportunity Development
4.     Opportunity Pursuit

Innovation “is the willingness to look at things with an open mind and to examine change in an objective, confident manner.”

For this Government initiative to be successful it will require a significant change in behaviour from existing businesses to be anywhere near as successful as the PM wants. Maybe that’s why he has loaded the new start concessions as heavily as he has – he knows the best chance of success is from those who don’t have an existing culture and mindset. It’s easier to create the mindset from scratch than it is to change an existing one. The challenge has now been laid down to existing business – change or innovation may overtake you.

© Copyright David Ogilvie 2015

Monday, 16 November 2015

Selecting the right ERP system

Selecting the Right ERP Software:
David Ogilvie’s Lucky 13 Tips for a Successful ERP Selection

The ERP landscape is littered with horror stories of bad implementations costing companies many millions of dollars for absolutely no benefit (in some cases). Many of these failed implementations have ended up in court, or at least have involved an acrimonious split between customer and software vendor/partner. Studies have shown that selecting the wrong product in the first place is a main driver of the ERP implementation failure rate.

With the seriousness of the impact of a poor selection in mind, I have devised 13 key tips to a successful ERP selection.

Before I cover the keys to success in detail, let me quickly examine the historical landscape as it relates to off-the-shelf software selection:
·      Executives rarely run this type of project. Executives are hired to run the business. They have a particular skill set and experience that helps them to run a particular business in a particular industry. Selecting and implementing ERP systems is not their core skill set. As such, they are often working outside of their skill sweet spot, experience, industry knowledge and network. Therefore, the result is often less than successful.
·      The lessons from past failures don’t seem to be learnt. Looking in from the outside, it seems that companies and executives continue to make the same old mistakes over and over again. This is potentially due to the fact that executives don’t do this ERP selection frequently, and therefore resort to using the same ole methodology, even though past results are poor. Was it Einstein who said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results?
·      RF(X) represents the historical method of selection where customers go to the market with different requests: RFP (request for proposal), RFI (request for information) and RFC (request for contract). This is a situation where often-lengthy requests are made of the software market, and the vendors/partners are required to respond. At this point, vendors will generally respond favourably to all or most of the requirements listed in the request because they don’t wish to be cut out early. This can lead to vendors’ responses being misleading in one way or another, such as providing lowball offers. The customer then develops a short list of vendors. These vendors are then required to run a demonstration of the software. Some low-level reference checking is performed and, if all checks out, the customer is required to make some determination as to who wins.
·      An ERP sale can run into many hundreds of thousands of dollars at the lower end, and many millions of dollars at the upper end. The value of commissions payable on these sales is substantial, and therefore the competition is fierce. When these levels of commissions are on offer, it tends to encourage some sales people to be less ethical than they should or could be, meaning you need to be cautious about whom you deal with.

The historical method of selection simply isn’t working anymore, if it ever really did. There are many reasons for this:
·      The majority of the systems being reviewed can in most cases meet the list of required functions given in any RF(X). In many ways, the functionality war is over and has been for more than 15 years.
·      Budgets are usually required as part of the RF(X) submission. Again, vendors often lowball their submissions because they don’t wish to miss out so early in the process. It is ironic that past customers in many ways contributed to or caused this behaviour. Software companies lost deals during the budget step of the process, often unfairly, when they were being truthful and indicating what implementation costs really were. Unfortunately, customers didn’t want to hear so high a cost at the beginning of the process and eventually went for a cheaper option, only to find out later that additional costs really were required to make an implementation go well. These additional costs have helped formed the ERP legend that budgets are almost always exceeded. But could it be that the original budgets were not realistic in the first place?
·      Differences in submissions are difficult to discern. Each vendor will calculate costs and present their submission in a different format from the other submissions, no matter how structured the customer tries to make the response forms. It’s a fact of life in these selections: comparisons can be difficult to make, and the differences can be very difficult to discern.
·      Demonstration presenters and sales people are not implementers. They rarely have worked on a real implementation and are prone to make promises the implementing team cannot fulfil. Those charged with making the presentations are knowledgeable and smart people. They can generally think quickly on their feet and have the ability to show the product in its best light, thereby avoiding often-embarrassing gaps in capability. ERP implementation history is littered with stories of promises made in demonstrations that are unable to be fulfilled by functional consultants when the rubber hits the road: in the implementation.
·      Software vendors/partners will often conduct the demonstrations using their scripts, which don’t actually reflect your business process. They follow, for example, a generic process, such as procure to pay, to demonstrate that the system will comply with requirements.

This flawed process has contributed to fostering certain behaviours from software vendors/partners. Here are the behaviours you are likely to see if you continue to follow this process:
·      Some will lie, while others will spin the facts to best suit their product. Their behaviour is about ensuring the product is shown in its best light and safeguarding their position so that they aren’t cut out too early in the process.
·      They will attempt to bypass procurement structures, if you have them in place. They will want to speak to the people who sign the cheque, and not the selection committee charged with the role of selecting the product.
·      They will attempt to make the selection process as easy for themselves as possible and will resist any attempt at providing detailed work to respond to your demands.
·      They will be investing in your sales process, so they will expect some value for their investment.
·      They will create doubt anywhere they can, especially with the opposition and potentially with your team.
·      They will try to say your way isn’t the right way—and in many cases they are right.

So essentially, I am saying there is no surefire way to guarantee a perfect fit when looking for a new business application. There are a myriad of variables that can contribute to picking the wrong application. And picking the wrong application is number one of my “14 deadly sins” to ERP implementation failure, as I mentioned in my article “David Ogilvie's 14 Deadly Sins.” There are, however, a number of measures you can take to dramatically lower the risk of selecting the wrong application. In my next post I will go through my 13 lucky tips to selecting the right ERP system.