Following on from the "Discovery" we envisage an "Agree" phase - where we package, present, analyse - and most importantly - discuss the findings of the Discovery. These findings would typically, in a conventional "Get Well Plan", focus on SLA's, Asset Management and Governance Processes - but in our model will primarily focus on presenting what is perceived to be wrong, paying particular attention to get both parties view of each issue, and what impact the issue has on the value delivered. Through the process of discussion and with our focus on achieving a balanced and equitable outcome, respectful of what is and has been, we expect to be able to agree resolutions that involve both parties - so that each feels that they are contributing to the value of the relationship (and hence they will be).
IT Outsourcing - is it a partnership, or just another purchasing decision?
I would argue that, if it is to be effective, it needs to be very much viewed as a partnership, a partnership much more akin to a marriage than a Joint Venture. After all, like marriage, through outsourcing you’re placing your reputation and trust in to the hands of a partner - and they theirs in yours. Not only are there mutual reputations at stake when outsourcing - to be effective in a changing business environment it requires constant attention, must grow, and it needs to maintain respect in order to satisfy both parties. Like a marriage, it can be very productive and transforming. But, also like a marriage, if it comes to an un-natural end it can be expensive - for both parties.
It is my experience, and extensive experience at that, that pretty much all Outsource arrangements go through periods of difficulty, often extended periods of difficulty wherein neither the client nor the supplier is happy, where the services are perceived as failing in some way, and where the client is perceived as being unreasonable too. The typical response to this (after much damage has been done to the relationship) is the inevitable "Service Improvement Plan" and demands for improved "Governance".
In the light of the above - it is obvious that there is a need for "Marriage Guidance for Outsourcing" - and to that end we are working with a number of experienced individuals to develop a 'lifecycle' of services, the first of which combines the quantitative and qualitative analysis of a "Discovery" - to identify what is known, and detect what is not known, to be hurting.
I would argue that, if it is to be effective, it needs to be very much viewed as a partnership, a partnership much more akin to a marriage than a Joint Venture. After all, like marriage, through outsourcing you’re placing your reputation and trust in to the hands of a partner - and they theirs in yours. Not only are there mutual reputations at stake when outsourcing - to be effective in a changing business environment it requires constant attention, must grow, and it needs to maintain respect in order to satisfy both parties. Like a marriage, it can be very productive and transforming. But, also like a marriage, if it comes to an un-natural end it can be expensive - for both parties.
It is my experience, and extensive experience at that, that pretty much all Outsource arrangements go through periods of difficulty, often extended periods of difficulty wherein neither the client nor the supplier is happy, where the services are perceived as failing in some way, and where the client is perceived as being unreasonable too. The typical response to this (after much damage has been done to the relationship) is the inevitable "Service Improvement Plan" and demands for improved "Governance".
In the light of the above - it is obvious that there is a need for "Marriage Guidance for Outsourcing" - and to that end we are working with a number of experienced individuals to develop a 'lifecycle' of services, the first of which combines the quantitative and qualitative analysis of a "Discovery" - to identify what is known, and detect what is not known, to be hurting.
I sit here writing this in air-conditioned comfort whilst outside it is 41 degrees Centigrade - and this is the fourth or fifth 40+ day we've had this year (it is the 10th of January!). Whilst I think it is safe to say that all but the most stupid/ignorant/self-interested folk now accept that global warming is a reality, and is a product of mankinds own making, it struck me that we really aren't doing much about fixing it. Yet. At the same time, I read with interest (because at heart I am very much a petrolhead - or rather 'car-nut') that almost all of the world's established car manufacturers are announcing yet more powerful models (i.e. more power, more fossil fuel consumed, more CO2 produced - there are some laws of Physics involved here - and yes, I know BMW and Mercedes get more power for less fuel/CO2 - but they could just as easily go for same power and even less fuel consumed/CO2 produced).
Who is driving this 'arms-race' of power increase (and all too often accompanying weight increase) that seems to effect every class of car? Is it customers writing in demanding more "grunt"? (I don't think so) Market research surveys? (Nah). The car magazines with their sometimes adolescent fixation on acceleration? No, not even them. The reality is that the car industry itself simply can't change - it's stuck in a groove (or rather, a rut) that it climbed into in the early 20th Century, a time when the first cars likely did need more power than they had in order to power the bodywork and suspension structures necessary to cosset and protect the occupants (and to carry the odd pig or two to market) at a pace fast enough to make it worth driving rather than taking the train. So, for almost all folk in the car industry, more (power) = progress. The reality is that cars have, since the late 60's and early 70's had pretty much enough power to get the job done - to cruise effortlessly at the speed limit and be able to handle the roads as they have been built. The speed limit itself has little to do with the cars abilities anyway, it is the (lowest common denominator) driver's skill limitations that set the safe speed - more power would make no difference to those limits (rather it would just punishes breaches of them all the more harshly).
The car industry is stuck in a rut? You bet. And for a very compelling reason - they are expert! They are expert in the internal combustion motor and all of the periphery that its use engenders. They - and it's a big they when you factor in all of the people who's 'expertise' is in this technology: engineers; designers; manufacturers; maintenance mechanics; oil companies; motoring journalists; car sales staff; etc. would, in order to escape the rut, have to forego at least some of their status as expert if they were to 'reject' the internal combustion engine. The mere act of not making 'more power' would, to many of these experts, be disloyal to their creed, their engineer forebears who established this rut all of those years ago
I cite this example as the root of the problem we face in moving to environmentally friendly motor vehicles is the same root cause that prevents many change projects from succeeding - the informal but nevertheless rigid structures that are created by hierarchies of expertise are very well positioned to resist change, and they can only see change as a threat to their position and power in (and of) that hierarchy. Thus, to succeed in bringing change - you must acknowledge that hierarchy, and assist it to transform and serve the new project.
Who is driving this 'arms-race' of power increase (and all too often accompanying weight increase) that seems to effect every class of car? Is it customers writing in demanding more "grunt"? (I don't think so) Market research surveys? (Nah). The car magazines with their sometimes adolescent fixation on acceleration? No, not even them. The reality is that the car industry itself simply can't change - it's stuck in a groove (or rather, a rut) that it climbed into in the early 20th Century, a time when the first cars likely did need more power than they had in order to power the bodywork and suspension structures necessary to cosset and protect the occupants (and to carry the odd pig or two to market) at a pace fast enough to make it worth driving rather than taking the train. So, for almost all folk in the car industry, more (power) = progress. The reality is that cars have, since the late 60's and early 70's had pretty much enough power to get the job done - to cruise effortlessly at the speed limit and be able to handle the roads as they have been built. The speed limit itself has little to do with the cars abilities anyway, it is the (lowest common denominator) driver's skill limitations that set the safe speed - more power would make no difference to those limits (rather it would just punishes breaches of them all the more harshly).
The car industry is stuck in a rut? You bet. And for a very compelling reason - they are expert! They are expert in the internal combustion motor and all of the periphery that its use engenders. They - and it's a big they when you factor in all of the people who's 'expertise' is in this technology: engineers; designers; manufacturers; maintenance mechanics; oil companies; motoring journalists; car sales staff; etc. would, in order to escape the rut, have to forego at least some of their status as expert if they were to 'reject' the internal combustion engine. The mere act of not making 'more power' would, to many of these experts, be disloyal to their creed, their engineer forebears who established this rut all of those years ago
I cite this example as the root of the problem we face in moving to environmentally friendly motor vehicles is the same root cause that prevents many change projects from succeeding - the informal but nevertheless rigid structures that are created by hierarchies of expertise are very well positioned to resist change, and they can only see change as a threat to their position and power in (and of) that hierarchy. Thus, to succeed in bringing change - you must acknowledge that hierarchy, and assist it to transform and serve the new project.
10/12: Human systems
Everything is in a system, whether it its an IT network, a database, your computer or your network of colleagues, friends and family members.
After the Herculean task that was generating our web site, trying to cover the various applications of systemic constellations whilst not ignoring our other 'core competency' - innovation through technology, we have found a very interesting 'software as service' product which we feel will draw on both sides of our business and open up some very compelling propositions for many of our clients. As organisations of all sizes come to terms with their responsibilities in the "war on global warming" - as our politicians are likely to call the worldwide effort to counter the ravages of the past 150 years of "consumerism" - each will face the realisation that work as a 'place you go' (rather than as a 'thing you do') has a serious, and wholly avoidable, cost to the planet.
Why is it that we, in the so-called developed world, have seemingly adopted - or is that re-adopted? - 'war' as the highest and most honourable of human pursuits? Surely to declare war on something has the same effect as declaring a war on someone - they fight back - and the net result is just greater destruction - but I digress.
Back to the positive things organisations can do to reduce their heavy industrial footprint on this Earth. For those companies that employ a "contact centre" - often where hundreds of folk commute to an inner-city office block - it is possible to simultaneously cut costs, cut CO2 emissions and make staff happier and more productive too. This can be achieved by enabling those folk to work from home! Business avoids expensive real estate (the technology to deliver teleworking/telecommuting is way cheaper than a CBD desk), the employee avoids the cost (in $ and time) of the commute - and the environment avoids all the CO2 associated with the travel, aircon, lighting and the like. The technology delivers real time interaction between co-workers - so the benefits of collaboration and comradeship exist as they would in an office. Indeed the degree of interaction increases over that experienced in a typical office because the tools make it so easy.
The product we have found that delivers all this (and much more besides) is RapportCMS - an Australian product that was developed from the ground up over the past 7 years to deliver all of the functions necessary to recruit, train, certify, motivate, manage, operate and care for teleworkers - whether they be handling inbound, outbound or mixed calls. All of the technology is delivered as a subscription service, whereby business can align expenditure to revenue - and at a cost that is massively less than anyone could build for themselves. Over the next few months we expect several of our clients to adopt this technology - and we'll be looking to Systemic Constellations to gauge how best to introduce the system and how to revise current processes to get optimum results for all concerned.
Why is it that we, in the so-called developed world, have seemingly adopted - or is that re-adopted? - 'war' as the highest and most honourable of human pursuits? Surely to declare war on something has the same effect as declaring a war on someone - they fight back - and the net result is just greater destruction - but I digress.
Back to the positive things organisations can do to reduce their heavy industrial footprint on this Earth. For those companies that employ a "contact centre" - often where hundreds of folk commute to an inner-city office block - it is possible to simultaneously cut costs, cut CO2 emissions and make staff happier and more productive too. This can be achieved by enabling those folk to work from home! Business avoids expensive real estate (the technology to deliver teleworking/telecommuting is way cheaper than a CBD desk), the employee avoids the cost (in $ and time) of the commute - and the environment avoids all the CO2 associated with the travel, aircon, lighting and the like. The technology delivers real time interaction between co-workers - so the benefits of collaboration and comradeship exist as they would in an office. Indeed the degree of interaction increases over that experienced in a typical office because the tools make it so easy.
The product we have found that delivers all this (and much more besides) is RapportCMS - an Australian product that was developed from the ground up over the past 7 years to deliver all of the functions necessary to recruit, train, certify, motivate, manage, operate and care for teleworkers - whether they be handling inbound, outbound or mixed calls. All of the technology is delivered as a subscription service, whereby business can align expenditure to revenue - and at a cost that is massively less than anyone could build for themselves. Over the next few months we expect several of our clients to adopt this technology - and we'll be looking to Systemic Constellations to gauge how best to introduce the system and how to revise current processes to get optimum results for all concerned.
Who doesn't change will be left behind.
This is not just a brutal fact but also the challenge of todays business environment.
This is not just a brutal fact but also the challenge of todays business environment.
We value your input and like to invite you to participate in any of the discussions posted here on this blog.