It took BP 116 days to cap the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill. In other words, for 116 days approximately four million barrels (170 million gallons) of oil continuously spilled into the deep ocean. It is unknown how long it will take to cleanup and for lives to get back to normal. Perhaps it will take years or decades.

The exact cause of the explosion may involve a lot of finger pointing, but the simple fact remain: BP failed. BP failed to adhere to business policies, due diligence and demonstrated incompetency for 116 days straight. That incompetency resulted in waste: environment, marine lives, people’s livelihood, money. An indisputable business and organizational failure. Tony Hayward‘s claim that he had no prior knowledge of the drilling of this well lacked logic that ultimately led to his departure as the CEO of BP. The obvious fact is that as the head of BP it was his responsibility for BP’s successes and failures.

Now, let’s dissect the challenges of change management in enterprises, regardless of technology solutions that are available.

Enterprise 2.0. Enterprise Collaboration. Change Management.

The commonality of the above? Eliminating corporate waste and cutting cost; boosting efficiency, productivity, innovation, sustainability, competitive edge with technology. The question begging to be asked though: Are tools and processes being implemented correctly? Sadly, hardly. Most often these are sound bites in SME to large enterprises. Why? It’s fashionable to use jargon and buzz words of the day. People enjoy linking their image with cutting-edge technology no matter how superficial the knowledge. As shocking as it may be failure to execute the solution is largely due to lack of experience, expertise and knowledge.

Then there is “social”. This magical word is believed to transform businesses from it’s medieval, slow-grinding, hierarchical organizational death trap to today’s fast paced, open share, transparent, sustainable and cutting-edge business solutions with technology. The concept would be true, if it was simply not as absurd a claim as it sounds. If the human minds ranked words like search engines do, perhaps meta tagging buzz words in board meetings and presentations would be of importance. But, does the Board’s brain light up on buzz words or does it on company’s earnings and losses – or, to be more accurate, waste?

Global financial meltdown has forced enterprises to cut cost, be more efficient. The solution has always been available with technology. The challenge was (and still is at many sectors), resistance to embracing technology as a strategic business partner and not merely a service provider. Tech silos too are comfortable in being told what to do vs providing strategic solutions focused on business need. Popularity and/or large user base alone will not make a product valuable if it does not meet business needs. Think Facebook and Warren Buffet‘s, Berkshire Hathaway Inc. As impressive a portfolio as Facebook claims with over 500 million users, would integrating Facebook accelerate Berkshire’s day to day operation? Very doubtful.

Yet still, one of the greatest challenge of change management remain people themselves: technology alone cannot be the solution if not embraced and executed by knowledge workers. Little knowledge combined with excessive use of buzz words in many different forms does not make a person an expert. In hierarchical organizational structure, that very misconception is a looming threat to innovation and efficiency. Meanwhile, the vast majority of work force remain under-valued, under-appreciated, mismanaged, frustrated leading to heavy turnover, productivity loss, inefficiency, low morale. These negativity essentially translate to waste of time and money in company’s ledger.

Whether hierarchical or otherwise, every employee is directly responsible for company’s sustainability and growth. However, leadership sets the mood. If that leadership is hands-off management, creating more layers and fragmentation contributing to confusion than solution, leadership must be reevaluated. An example: Yahoo! Inc. Carol Bartz compared the then organizational chart to Dilbert cartoon. It is the responsibility of the head of a company to foresee successes and failures of its management. If failures are outgrowing its successes, change management is a necessity.

Regardless how many layers and silos a chief executive form to efficiently run an enterprise, she or he must break down those same layers if the end result is disaster. If the chief executive chooses to be on an yacht outing, leaving his crew to get their hands dirty as Hayward did, that would be a disastrous strategic decision for himself as well as for the company. He too should be actively involved with the rest of the employees. Otherwise, it’s poor leadership and management.

Now, if every company’s waste could be graphically determined in the same manner as the oil spill did for BP, a large number of US cities’ business districts would be submerged in oil. It is up to the chief executives to heed the explosion in their own corporations and act quickly to cap the spill. Embrace technology as strategic partner and implement effective change management.

Today and not tomorrow.

.

Tags: Berkshire Hathaway Inc, BP, Carol Bartz, change management, Deepwater Horizon, enterprise 2.0, enterprise collaboration, Facebook, knowledge, oil spill, social, Technology, Tony Hayward, Warren Buffet, Yahoo
Posted in Best Practices, Business, Collaboration, Sustainability, Technology |

How do you quantify knowledge? From the Board to rank and file, there seem to be a lack of understanding in grasping with the value of knowledge, especially regarding technologists. I’ll attempt to simplify my logic.

A few years ago, after a serious car accident, I was forced to limit my driving to five miles radius around home, so extreme was my panic of being behind the wheels. Those essential trips were to doctors’ offices, hospitals and school. It took over a year of therapy, medication and self-determination to venture beyond that radius and brave Atlanta‘s heavy traffic. I undoubtedly owe my recovery to the medical professionals. Their combined final bill was over $25,000. Simply put, I purchased their knowledge, expertise and services. It was essential for my recovery.

I was reluctant to visit referred specialists: neurologists and orthopedics. I fumed at their high hourly rate of $350-450. My silent rage: why should I pay for an hour when the actual time the doctor spent with me was less than half an hour, rest being filled by their nurses and PAs? Now, my physicians were leading neurologists and orthopedics, which translated to best care. There were, no doubt, many other doctors with much less fees. The questions were: what ‘s the price of my health? Should I save money now and see other doctors even if not commanding in their fields? Would that not mean risking permanent nerve and bone damage, ultimately spiking medical bills, perhaps for life? Or, should I continue with trusted physicians, best possible care and expert knowledge? I opted for the latter. End result? Best possible and fast recovery.

Like my physicians, many technologists too command lead in knowledge and expertise in their fields. Unfortunately, people outside technology often fail to fathom the value of those expertise. What price should be put on intellectual property? Is it fair to expect knowledge-share or pick experts’ brains without engaging their services? Could I have chatted endlessly with the doctors and expected them to share all the procedures with me before becoming their patient – could I even have had access to them without an appointment, essentially $350-450? Ridiculous? Yes, it is preposterous. Just as absurd is to expect the same from technologists.

Intellectual property is valued by result, expert knowledge, credentials, to name a few. If Apple* would not let consumer test run a product before purchase but provide guarantee, technologists too shouldn’t be expected to share their knowledge and/or intellectual property without signing a contract. It is their bread and butter, as are payslips for most. Would you apply your knowledge and skills at work if your employer doesn’t pay you, even for half an hour? The irony is that technologists themselves often fail to draw the line as when to stop sharing. One of the challenge is the industry itself – technology is very fast moving, most other business sectors trailing far behind. Thus the dilemma of putting value to a product/service that has no comparison – another challenge with early adopters and visionaries, attributes of highly successful experts.

In short, it is not in any business’ interest to avail their team members’ knowledge, in essence company’s intellectual property, without a commitment. The value of those knowledge varies on result – an engineer may write a ten lines code output being exactly as expected within a couple of hours, while her/his peer may get the same result after twenty lines of codes in ten hours. Needless to say the value of their knowledge would be highly contrasting and it would reflect on their payslip. Sound simple? Interestingly, not so in many sectors. When engaging a business for their service/product, client is essentially buying the intellectual property whose combined experience/expertise may exceed 150 years – to client’s utmost advantage.

Still, if you are able to buy a Bentley with a Kia budget, please share so that I too may dip into the impossible.

.

*An example to demonstrate that just as all tangible products cannot be tested before buying, non-tangible product, intellectual property, too cannot be “tested”. Guarantees are used instead.

.

Tags: Apple, Atlanta, Bentley, code, engineer, expertise, intellectual property, Kia, knowledge, technologists, Technology, value
Posted in Technology |

My quick thought on people often feeling the need to owe their own worth to someone else.

I receive many thank you emails and notes for jobs, opportunities, connections, so on and so forth. As much as I’m humbled by these gestures my response remain the same: opportunities are created by each individual, him or her -self, by their own credentials, experience, knowledge. My or my team’s role is to identify the inner attributes and maximize those capabilities. Sometimes those steps require refinement, encouragement, exposure and education for sustainability and helping them reach greater heights. The core attributes of those talents, however, are exclusive parts of an individual without which there simply would not be any aspect for us to utilize. Simply put, if you are seeking to be indebted to someone for jobs and/or opportunities, look no further than in the mirror. It’s your own abilities that largely contribute to your success – the rest merely work in concert on that foundation.

On the other hand, businesses prosper by successfully identifying and engaging the right talent for the right role. In short, our actions are business decisions – we require the knowledge and capabilities for our own sustenance and profit while in return we offer compensation. While I appreciate the kind notes and thoughts, I encourage highly talented work force to appreciate their own worth, first and foremost – personally, that would please me the most.

Tags: Business, credentials, experience, knowledge, Sustainability, sustenance, talent, work force
Posted in Business, Talents/Expertise |