All Posts in Organizational Effectiveness

|In: Cognitive Enterprise|Last Updated:

Want to volunteer?

Enterprises need to become more cognitive — a point made in The Cognitive Enterprise and reinforced in quite a few of our weekly conversations.

And yet so far as I can tell, enterprises are, if anything, becoming less and less like organisms that act with intention. They aren’t even doing a good job of acting like mechanisms, as my process-oriented consulting brethren recommend.

No, taken as a whole, your average enterprise seems bent on devolving into a collection of semi-autonomous squabbling siloes.

It’s like this: If OODA loops are how enterprise cognition operates, informal collaboration is the cultural attribute that allows it to happen. And organizational siloes with high walls and impermeable boundaries are the single biggest organizational barrier to informal collaboration.

It’s time to do something about it. Here’s what I have in mind.

The Challenge

We need a metric — a way to measure silo height that satisfies the 6 Cs of good metrics. In case you haven’t read chapter 3 of the KJR Manifesto, they are:

  • Connected to important goals.
  • Consistent, always going one way when getting closer to the goal and the other way when getting further away.
  • Calibrated, so the act of measurement yields the same results whoever takes the measure.
  • Complete, because anything you don’t measure you don’t get.
  • Communicated because otherwise, what’s the point? Metrics drive behavior — that’s the most important reason to have them.
  • Current, because business goals change, but not if how the business measures itself doesn’t.

Fortunately, while we’re pretty much starting from scratch when it comes to measuring silo height, we do have a model we can use to help jumpstart the process — the Net Promoter Score.

Most business leaders understand that customer satisfaction matters, which means measuring it matters too. But measuring the psychological state of a customer is no easy task. It’s more like a fool’s errand than a difficult but rewarding undertaking.

And so was born the Net Promoter Score (NPS) (credit to Fred Reichheld) — a tool based on an easy-to-ask, easy-to-answer question: How likely is it that you would recommend this company to your friends?

If the NPS stopped with giving companies a measurement it would have limited value. But it doesn’t: Companies that participate in the NPS project also see statistics for their industry as a whole, which provides a sense of how they’re situated in their competitive landscape.

This is invaluable.

And finally, Bain & Company, the folks who own and administer NPS, are in a position to correlate NPS with business performance. No, correlation doesn’t prove causation, but it’s better evidence than just taking it all on faith.

The Silo Height Index Project (SHIP)

Here’s the plan, such as it is. We need to:

  • Develop a simple question or short set of questions that can be answered on a 1 to 10 or equivalent scale and that will reliably reveal an organization’s silo height — it will be a calibrated measure.
  • Promote the concept widely enough to reach critical mass — enough participants to do some statistical slicing and dicing with the results so the results are interesting enough to matter.
  • Establish a repository to manage the data. Following the principle of permeability, this should be made widely accessible at no charge, to give anyone interested the ability to play with the data. But, the public database can’t contain any … what shall we call it … Corporately Identifiable Information (CII) … so we’ll also need a private database that does contain CII. This will allow for follow-up research of a more sensitive nature, should that prove desirable.
  • Flesh out the business model. I’d like this to be an open-source-like effort without it being a crowdsourced effort. I’ll take initial responsibility for curation, but there’s always the danger of success — it by some strange combination of circumstances this catches on in a serious way, I don’t want to become a pothole in the road of progress.

If you find the concept appealing enough that you’d like to work on it … and I do mean work; this won’t happen without real effort … please send me an email letting me know what aspects of SHIP you’d like to participate in, and what qualifications you have for doing so.

One more thing: If you like the idea, spread it around. There’s no time to start promoting this like the present, so please forward this edition of Keep the Joint Running to anyone and everyone you know who might want to be in on it.

Launching this SHIP (I had to) is going to be a long shot, but what the heck. Even long shots sometimes find their target, and this target is certainly worth shooting at.

Comments

|In: Cognitive Enterprise|Last Updated:

A couple of decades ago, when I joined Perot Systems, I greatly admired the weekly employee newsletter.

It was entirely prosaic — a text-only email layout-and-design tragedy where bold-face and italicized letters were the boundaries of formatting sophistication.

It was concise and readable, told employees the essentials of what was going on, and, every edition included a story. Not a tale of Ross and how brilliant and fabulous he was, but of a team that had done something that exemplified the company’s aspirations, goals, and values.

Which was far more effective in making sure all employees understood what constituted “how we do things around here” than any mission statement posters, values cards, or other empty gestures.

Perot Systems wasn’t a cognitive enterprise, but its employee newsletter was a step on the right path to making sure whoever made decisions on behalf of the company made decisions Ross Senior and his inner circle would agree with.

It’s no small challenge, and the bigger the company, the harder it is to push and prod the organization so it acts like an organism — a single entity with a single purpose. Large enterprises tend to be more like ecosystems than organisms. Why? Like ecosystems, the component parts of an organization are diverse, self-interested individual organisms — those pesky human beings you’ve probably had to work with once or twice in the course of your career.

Just in case you still aren’t convinced: Your brain, stomach, kidneys, and spleen all have different functions, but they all have the same goal — your survival and success.

Your company’s supply chain, IT, accounting, and manufacturing departments also have different functions, but there’s no reason to assume their managers and staff even care about the survival and success of anything beyond their little silo, let alone agree in any way, shape or form on how to achieve the survival and success of the enterprise as a whole.

One place to start is the golden rule of design: Form follows function, which is to say, understand the problem you’re trying to solve before you start designing solutions.

With a cognitive enterprise, one of the problems you’re trying to solve is how to give customers the impression they’re interacting with the equivalent of a person that acts with intention, not the complex, hard-to-navigate bureaucracy that’s the underlying reality.

There’s no single magic bullet for this. Creating a cognitive enterprise is a tough, tough challenge, as Scott and I discovered while writing the book. One starting point among many: Design the default sequences through which you expect typical customers to pass, and the mechanisms for exiting the default sequences when they don’t fit the situation.

Doing so enumerates what the customer touchpoints are. The next step is deciding what the customer experience should be within each one, for each channel through which customers can interact.

There are, as you might imagine, quite a few different variables to take into account. For example: Should you maximize the number of required touchpoints so as to create a soft, we-care-about-you impression, or should you minimize them so you don’t waste your customers’ time?

The answer, and you knew this was coming: It depends.

For example: If you’re an Emerald Club member and rent a car from National you can walk right past everyone, grab a car, and drive out. National caters to customers who appreciate convenience.

Enterprise, on the other hand, which is part of the same car-rental conglomerate, takes the opposite approach: Someone accompanies you to your car, walking you through every step of the rental process up to and including looking for dings and dents.

Enterprise figures its customers want the personal touch.

Which company is right? They both are. Different kinds of customer have different preferences. What the two companies have in common: Both started with what they wanted their customers to experience, then designed their processes and systems … and educated their employees … to provide that experience.

What else? Three rules:

  • If something interrupts the flow, what changes is the touchpoint sequence, not the touchpoints themselves.
  • Touchpoints are functionally identical, regardless of the channel. What customers do doesn’t depend on whether they’re using the phone, the web, or a mobile app.
  • Touchpoints might initiate or rely on back-office processes, but they do everything possible to hide those processes so customers don’t know anything about them.

Once you escape the one-dimensional mindset that everything is about cutting costs, creating the appearance of cognition really isn’t all that complicated.

In principle, that is. Making all this work in practice is as difficult as business gets.

Comments