Pareto analysis is a very simple technique that helps you to choose the most effective changes to make.It uses the Pareto principle - the idea that by doing 20% of work you can generate 80% of the advantage of doing the entire job.
Pareto analysis is a formal technique for finding the changes that will give the biggest benefits. It is useful where many possible courses of action are competing for your attention.
How to use tool:To start using the tool, write out a list of the changes you could make. If you have a long list, group it into related changes.Then score the items or groups. The scoring method you use depends on the sort of problem you are trying to solve.
For example, if you are trying to improve profitability, you would score options on the basis of the profit each group might generate. If you are trying to improve customer satisfaction, you might score on the basis of the number of complaints eliminated by each change.The first change to tackle is the one that has the highest score. This one will give you the biggest benefit if you solve it.The options with the lowest scores will probably not even be worth bothering with - solving these problems may cost you more than the solutions are worth.
Example:A manager has taken over a failing service center He commissions research to find out why customers think that service is poor.He gets the following comments back from the customers:1. Phones are only answered after many rings.2. Staff seem distracted and under pressure.3. Engineers do not appear to be well organized. They need second visits to bring extra parts. This means that customers have to take more holiday to be there a second time.4. They do not know what time they will arrive. This means that customers may have to be in all day for an engineer to visit.5. Staff members do not always seem to know what they are doing.6. Sometimes when staff members arrive, the customer finds that the problem could have been solved over the phone.
The manager groups these problems together. He then scores each group by the number of complaints, and orders the list:* Lack of staff training: items 5 and 6: 51 complaints* Too few staff: items 1, 2 and 4: 21 complaints* Poor organization and preparation: item 3: 2 complaintsBy doing the Pareto analysis above, the manager can better see that the vast majority of problems (69%) can be solved by improving staff skills.Once this is done, it may be worth looking at increasing the number of staff members. Alternatively, as staff members become more able to solve problems over the phone, maybe the need for new staff members may decline.It looks as if comments on poor organization and preparation may be rare, and could be caused by problems beyond the manager's control.By carrying out a Pareto Analysis, the manager is able to focus on training as an issue, rather than spreading effort over training, taking on new staff members, and possibly installing a new computer system.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Saturday, October 18, 2008
BAD BOSS
Recently I came across a beautiful article written by Mr Chetan Dhruve called "My Boss Is Bad". I would like to reproduce it for the benefit of my readers.
When we have a bad boss, what's our typical response? We blame the boss and say: "My boss is bad". In short, we blame the individual. But why are there so many bad bosses around the world, cutting across organisational and national boundaries? The phenomenon of bad bosses simply begs the question: "Rather than individuals being bad, is something about our organisations actually creating bad bosses?"
Strange though it may sound, the answer to that question is yes. Our organisations have been unthinkingly designed to mass-produce dictator bosses. It's as normal to have a bad boss as it is to have a can of cola come out of a cola factory. The problem is that while we have a bad boss production system at our workplaces, we wish for good bosses instead – like wishing that orange juice will appear from a cola factory.
It's abnormal to have good bosses. But when the production line produces bad bosses, we try to train these people to turn them into good bosses. But that's like trying to train cola to turn into orange juice. It doesn't really work. And instead of trying to change the production system, we spend more time, more money and more energy trying to improve our training methods.
The great and noble leader
"It's as normal to have a bad boss as it is to have a can of cola come out of a cola factory."
Just what is this bad boss production system? To answer this, we need to delve into an issue that's much talked about, written about and debated about - leadership. The old boss words such as manager or supervisor don't sound very nice in our apparently enlightened age. So instead, we use that great and noble word, 'leader'.
It seems perfectly reasonable though: bosses are in charge of people, have power over them and lead them. Ergo, they're leaders. Hence we have a proliferation of leaders – group leaders, team leaders, project leaders and so on. But are bosses really leaders? No. Why not?
Well, we need to get into definitions here. In the context of leading people, who really is a leader? Our typical response is in terms of idealized skills, character or personality: a leader is someone who is visionary, inspires people, serves well, praises well, criticizes well, is proactive, action-oriented, emotionally intelligent and so on.
While this sounds like the right answer, it isn't, because we already have a clear and profound definition for 'leader': a person who is elected by the people he or she is leading. We have a different word for someone who assumes power and leads without being elected: dictator.
Now consider this: your boss has power over you. But you don't have a vote. That makes him or her a dictator by definition. And by definition, that makes you a subject. What happens when dictator and subject interact? This is where things get interesting.
The whole system
There's a field of study called 'Systems Thinking', which is the study of wholes and the interactions among its constituent parts. This contrasts with analytical thinking, which examines things by taking them apart. A system is defined as something that owes its existence to the interactions among its parts. If the interactions break down, the system breaks down – it ceases to exist. The system is a whole that's greater than the sum of its parts. It's also important to understand that in a system, while the parts affect the whole, the whole also affects the parts.
Now, when two people interact, a larger 'whole' results from that interaction – a relationship. The relationship owes its existence to the interaction. If one person opts out of the relationship, it breaks down. And just like how the individuals affect the relationship, the relationship also affects the individuals. Thus, a relationship is a system.
"A leader is a person who is elected by the people he or she is leading. We have a different word for someone who assumes power and leads without being elected: dictator."
Systems can have properties called 'emergent properties'. These are properties that do not show up until the individual parts of a system interact. Moreover, the whole may have properties that are completely different from those of its parts. For example, the individual parts of an aircraft – the engines, the tail or the wings - cannot fly on their own. But together, and with atmospheric air, the aircraft flies. The property of flight is an 'emergent property'.
Returning to the workplace, we know that a relationship exists between the boss and subordinate. What kind of system is this relationship? A dictatorship system. And what is the emergent property in a dictatorship system? From our knowledge of dictatorship-countries, we know the emergent property for subjects is fear. And for the dictator, it is absolute power and the abuse of that power.
It's important to note that even otherwise normally intelligent and brave people become fearful or compliant when put into a dictatorship system. Likewise, individuals may not reveal any abusive or overbearing traits until they become dictators. Training a dictator to be better behaved simply does not – and cannot - work.
Looking at the boss-subordinate relationship from a systems perspective, it's not surprising that bosses and subordinates behave the way they do. These behaviours are automatic products of the organisation's dictatorship system.
A change is needed
While abusive behaviour by bosses is bad enough, it's not the only outcome of dictatorship systems. There's another problem that's far worse: bad news is suppressed or met with hostility, and whistleblowers working in the best interests of the organisation are punished and have their careers ruined.
Given the terrible consequences of dictatorships, we need to change our organisations from 'fear-systems' to 'free-systems' – systems in which freedom is an emergent property. What kind of system would this be? You already know the answer - a system in which people have the right to vote for their leaders.
What we need to do is to build our organisations on the rock of freedom, rather than the quicksand of fear. The only way to do that, bizarre though it may sound, is to give subordinates the right to vote out their bosses. And fundamentally, we need to change the way we look at leadership – we need to stop talking only about leaders, and instead start talking about systems and the emergent properties they produce. With apologies to Shakespeare, to be free, or not to be free, that is the question.
When we have a bad boss, what's our typical response? We blame the boss and say: "My boss is bad". In short, we blame the individual. But why are there so many bad bosses around the world, cutting across organisational and national boundaries? The phenomenon of bad bosses simply begs the question: "Rather than individuals being bad, is something about our organisations actually creating bad bosses?"
Strange though it may sound, the answer to that question is yes. Our organisations have been unthinkingly designed to mass-produce dictator bosses. It's as normal to have a bad boss as it is to have a can of cola come out of a cola factory. The problem is that while we have a bad boss production system at our workplaces, we wish for good bosses instead – like wishing that orange juice will appear from a cola factory.
It's abnormal to have good bosses. But when the production line produces bad bosses, we try to train these people to turn them into good bosses. But that's like trying to train cola to turn into orange juice. It doesn't really work. And instead of trying to change the production system, we spend more time, more money and more energy trying to improve our training methods.
The great and noble leader
"It's as normal to have a bad boss as it is to have a can of cola come out of a cola factory."
Just what is this bad boss production system? To answer this, we need to delve into an issue that's much talked about, written about and debated about - leadership. The old boss words such as manager or supervisor don't sound very nice in our apparently enlightened age. So instead, we use that great and noble word, 'leader'.
It seems perfectly reasonable though: bosses are in charge of people, have power over them and lead them. Ergo, they're leaders. Hence we have a proliferation of leaders – group leaders, team leaders, project leaders and so on. But are bosses really leaders? No. Why not?
Well, we need to get into definitions here. In the context of leading people, who really is a leader? Our typical response is in terms of idealized skills, character or personality: a leader is someone who is visionary, inspires people, serves well, praises well, criticizes well, is proactive, action-oriented, emotionally intelligent and so on.
While this sounds like the right answer, it isn't, because we already have a clear and profound definition for 'leader': a person who is elected by the people he or she is leading. We have a different word for someone who assumes power and leads without being elected: dictator.
Now consider this: your boss has power over you. But you don't have a vote. That makes him or her a dictator by definition. And by definition, that makes you a subject. What happens when dictator and subject interact? This is where things get interesting.
The whole system
There's a field of study called 'Systems Thinking', which is the study of wholes and the interactions among its constituent parts. This contrasts with analytical thinking, which examines things by taking them apart. A system is defined as something that owes its existence to the interactions among its parts. If the interactions break down, the system breaks down – it ceases to exist. The system is a whole that's greater than the sum of its parts. It's also important to understand that in a system, while the parts affect the whole, the whole also affects the parts.
Now, when two people interact, a larger 'whole' results from that interaction – a relationship. The relationship owes its existence to the interaction. If one person opts out of the relationship, it breaks down. And just like how the individuals affect the relationship, the relationship also affects the individuals. Thus, a relationship is a system.
"A leader is a person who is elected by the people he or she is leading. We have a different word for someone who assumes power and leads without being elected: dictator."
Systems can have properties called 'emergent properties'. These are properties that do not show up until the individual parts of a system interact. Moreover, the whole may have properties that are completely different from those of its parts. For example, the individual parts of an aircraft – the engines, the tail or the wings - cannot fly on their own. But together, and with atmospheric air, the aircraft flies. The property of flight is an 'emergent property'.
Returning to the workplace, we know that a relationship exists between the boss and subordinate. What kind of system is this relationship? A dictatorship system. And what is the emergent property in a dictatorship system? From our knowledge of dictatorship-countries, we know the emergent property for subjects is fear. And for the dictator, it is absolute power and the abuse of that power.
It's important to note that even otherwise normally intelligent and brave people become fearful or compliant when put into a dictatorship system. Likewise, individuals may not reveal any abusive or overbearing traits until they become dictators. Training a dictator to be better behaved simply does not – and cannot - work.
Looking at the boss-subordinate relationship from a systems perspective, it's not surprising that bosses and subordinates behave the way they do. These behaviours are automatic products of the organisation's dictatorship system.
A change is needed
While abusive behaviour by bosses is bad enough, it's not the only outcome of dictatorship systems. There's another problem that's far worse: bad news is suppressed or met with hostility, and whistleblowers working in the best interests of the organisation are punished and have their careers ruined.
Given the terrible consequences of dictatorships, we need to change our organisations from 'fear-systems' to 'free-systems' – systems in which freedom is an emergent property. What kind of system would this be? You already know the answer - a system in which people have the right to vote for their leaders.
What we need to do is to build our organisations on the rock of freedom, rather than the quicksand of fear. The only way to do that, bizarre though it may sound, is to give subordinates the right to vote out their bosses. And fundamentally, we need to change the way we look at leadership – we need to stop talking only about leaders, and instead start talking about systems and the emergent properties they produce. With apologies to Shakespeare, to be free, or not to be free, that is the question.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Dolphins and ‘Blue Oceans’
Dolphin’s behaviour around sharks is legendary. Sharks are scared of dolphins. This seems very unlikely given our image and experience of dolphins. Dolphins are considered peaceful, loving and playful creatures. And yet when they encounter sharks they adopt a totally new behaviour. “They circle and ram, circle and ram. Using their bulbous noses as amphibious bludgeons, they methodically crush the shark’s rib cage until the murderous creature sinks helplessly to the bottom.”
The Dolphin exhibits its elegance even in a battle. Its greater flexibility enables it to choose a strategy which matches its strength against the weakness of the shark. There is no bloodshed and therefore no gory sight to behold. A ‘Red Ocean’ is avoided and therefore, in a way a ‘Blue Ocean’ is created.
The Dolphin exhibits its elegance even in a battle. Its greater flexibility enables it to choose a strategy which matches its strength against the weakness of the shark. There is no bloodshed and therefore no gory sight to behold. A ‘Red Ocean’ is avoided and therefore, in a way a ‘Blue Ocean’ is created.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
