In my last blog I discussed the role of Service Strategy.
Quick recap before we get onto the next subject…

A Service Strategy needs to address 3 core challenges:
• Provide a clear focus. This requires making choices: choices about your service scope and emphasis as well as your customer scope and emphasis; choices about key capabilities you will and will not develop.
• Develop a competitive advantage. It can be found in the capabilities or services, or combination thereof, to meaningfully differentiate yourselves from your competitors.
• Create a basis for motivating the troops. A format/language for painting a picture of the end-state that creates energy/commitment amongst your followers to move in this direction.

At the end of formulating a corporate, functional or service strategy we need to ask ourselves: ”How will we know we are getting there?” with the emphasis on ‘getting there’… not ‘gotten there’.

This point gets me to the main characteristic of most IT/service organizations’ metric systems that I take issue with. We are too focused on lagging indicators. Customer Satisfaction, SLA attainment, cycle-time measures, etc. are all important performance metrics, but they only tell us after the fact if we delivered the goods. However, when we go through major change initiatives, these metrics may not be sufficient because by the time these lagging indicators have reacted (or not), it might be too late or too costly to make any corrections.

So why is it that we are so focused on lagging indicators? Because they are easier to measure as they are typically quantitative measures (e.g. duration, percentages, dollars). Also, the point (timing) of measurement is mostly obvious as it generally corresponds with the completion of a task (e.g. delivering an upgrade, closing an incident). If we truly want to measure change alongside performance, we need to combine our lagging indicators with leading indicators that measure sub-process effectiveness and efficiency all the way down to the task level where actual behavior can be assessed.

At the functional/departmental level the most important metrics are process metrics. Processes are about ‘how work gets done’ and how service gets delivered to customers. So how can we derive the most critical lagging and leading process metrics for our business?

First of all, go back to your strategy and ask yourself: “What are the most critical business processes in executing this strategy successfully in the eye of the customer”? Experience shows that most organizations can track their success back to 3-5 critical processes performed at the highest level. Once you have done this, map out the should process that will deliver the outcome. In doing so, make sure you are specific enough, i.e. you articulate the “how to” of the most critical tasks including measurable inputs and outputs.

Let’s take the process of Incident and Problem Management, for example. When mapping out this process you want to clearly define what happens at the front-end (the appraisal/diagnostic/data gathering phase), the middle portion (potential cause development and elimination of unlikely causes, if it is a problem), and the back-end (incident resolution/implementation). At the interface of theses 3 phases you want to have specific quality standards for the output/input you are looking for (for example, the minimum data required in a problem specification). It’s the ongoing measurement of these standards that will help you track actual changes in behavior and will allow you to predict changes in performance (positive or negative).

Here are a few additional questions that need to be answered in order to put an effective measurement system in place:
– What data object (measurement) will be recorded?
– How will it be recorded?
– How will the measurement be triggered?
– What mechanisms will go into effect after the trigger?
– When will the mechanism for measurement stop?
– What logic or processing is needed to derive the measure?
– Is there a simpler way of gathering/calculating this data?

Executed systematically for all key processes, the above approach will give you a “value dashboard” for monitoring and controlling your core service processes.

In my next blog: Service Processes: How work gets done!

Christoph Goldenstern is the Kepner-Tregoe Global Vice President of the Service Excellence Practice. He is also a Partner at Kepner-Tregoe with more than 15 years of strategic and operational consulting and management experience with focus on Customer Service, Technology and other B2B industries. Christoph can be reached at cgoldenstern@kepner-tregoe.com.

No Future without a Service Strategy
In my last blog I discussed the role of Service Leadership.
Quick recap…
Service Leaders need to be able to do 3 things:
• Assess the Current State - knowing where you currently are and understanding the areas of improvement which will provide the greatest return for the business
• Define the Future - developing a vision that provides the context for all improvements
• Lead the Business Integration - aligning the organization behind the vision
Today, I want to discuss the 2nd one in more detail: Defining the Future!
Defining the future of your business, i.e. formulating a strategy , requires a combination of out-of-the-box, divergent thinking (“expanding” of ideas/alternatives) and convergent thinking (choosing from the alternatives and committing to a direction/focus).
Some people believe that strategic thinking has to happen at the corporate level only and not at the Service/IT-level. I beg to differ! Strategic thinking needs to happen throughout the business because every organization is competing at multiple levels: the product level, the service level, the process level, the people level, the IT level!
A good business strategy should provide 3 things:
• A clear Focus
• A competitive advantage
• A basis for motivating the troops

A CLEAR FOCUS
Strategy is as much about what you won’t do as it is about what you will do! Having a clear strategy means providing focus to the organization by making choices – choices about services you will and will not provide; choices about customers/users you will and will not service (or only serve in a certain way); choices about key capabilities you will and will not develop; choices about strategic initiatives you will and will not fund. It is these choices that make the difference between a focused organization and an organization that is confused about its purpose.

A COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE
If you cannot demonstrate that what you do or how you do it has some sort of unique, value-adding feature then why shouldn’t the organization outsource your department? If you are not providing a key capability to the business (or cannot articulate it!), then some senior executive in the organization will sooner or later ask that question … and it is a fair question to raise! Ask yourself: what capabilities or services or combination thereof can we develop to meaningfully differentiate ourselves from our competitors? Sources of competitive advantage may lie in your service mix or delivery method, your relationship building approach or some other unique capability (e.g. the ability to develop customized solutions).

A BASIS FOR MOTIVATIING THE TROOPS
If you want to drive change in your organization, you first have to get your employees’ commitment. No change without some level of energy/excitement about what the organization will ‘be’ at the end of the journey. In order to achieve this you will have to find a format/language for painting the picture of the end-state, some way of clearly articulating what the organization will look like and do differently when the strategy is implemented. This includes explaining, in specific terms, how the individuals will benefit from the change (WIIFM = What’s in it for me?) and being honest about sacrifices that may have to be made.
In my next blog: Measuring Success
Christoph Goldenstern is the Kepner-Tregoe Global Vice President of the Service Excellence Practice. He is also a Partner at Kepner-Tregoe with more than 15 years of strategic and operational consulting and management experience with focus on Customer Service, Technology and other B2B industries. Christoph can be reached at cgoldenstern@kepner-tregoe.com.

In my last blog I discussed the concept of Customer Lifetime-Value (CLV) and its role in IT Service Management.

Quick recap:

CLV = the present value of future cash flows attributed to the customer relationship

Focusing on Customer-Lifetime-Value is based on two core assumption:
• It’s all about sustaining (internal or external) customer relationships – this implies we need to understand what the customer truly needs from IT
• These relationships need to translate into (financial) value for the business

So, how does ‘Leadership’ fit into this equation?

Leadership is what makes it all happen. By that I do not mean the day-to-day execution of plans, projects or budgets (that’s management!), but the ability to provide a vision and then create an environment in which teams collaborate to make that vision a reality.

In this context, Service Leaders need to be able to do 3 things:
• Assess the Current State
• Define the Future
• Lead the Business Integration

ASSESSING THE CURRENT STATE

Before you can define where you want to go, you have to know where you are starting from. You have to do a diagnosis of your business or what we call a ‘Situation Appraisal’ at Kepner-Tregoe. The CLV model I described in my last blog provides a framework for a holistic assessment of your business. For each of the value drivers in your business (with respect to strategy, cost and revenue/quality) you want to first identify your major concerns, challenges and opportunities. [To get started, you can use this health check]. Then break these concerns down into specific, actionable issues and identify their priority for the business by looking at time frame and impact. Finally, initiate a planning process for addressing your priority concerns (do not try to do everything, but focus on what gives you the biggest bang for the buck!)

DEFINING THE FUTURE

This is where a true visionary shines! Defining the future of your business, i.e. formulating a strategy, requires a combination of out-of-the-box, divergent thinking (“expanding” of ideas/alternatives) and convergent thinking (choosing from the alternatives and committing to a direction/focus). More on this particular subject in my next Blog!

LEADING THE BUSINESS INTEGRATION

This may be the least intuitive element of leadership, but perhaps the most critical one. Why ‘Integration’ and not ‘Implementation’? Because a true leader doesn’t necessarily need to be an “implementer”, but first and foremost of all someone who keeps the various elements of the business that make for a successful implementation “in sync”. ‘Implementation’ is about getting things done according to what was planned (e.g. rolling out a new ERP system or setting up a new data center). ‘Business Integration’ is about alignment. For example, when we decide to provide a new set of IT Services (say Problem Management), a leader thinks about what this may mean for process adjustments (e.g. linking Problem to Incident Management), new skills required (e.g. troubleshooting skills), the performance system (e.g. recognizing and reinforcing a structured approach to RCA/problem prevention) and alignment of software tools (e.g. for problem tracking/knowledge sharing). A vision only becomes reality if a leader ensures that the organization is aligned and enabled to execute on it.

In my next blog: The critical role of Service Strategy

Christoph Goldenstern is the Kepner-Tregoe Global Vice President of the Service Excellence Practice. He is also a Partner at Kepner-Tregoe with more than 15 years of strategic and operational consulting and management experience with focus on Customer Service, Technology and other B2B industries.

The current practices of the financial services sector make it seem like those in control are driving cars with only one pedal. When the times were good, every foot was on the accelerator (aka. ‘the gas’). Debt piled on debt and loans ran like water. The pace of excess was running so fast few took the time to stop, measure and assess it’s long-term impact. Now, it seems that every leader in this market has discovered the brake pedal and is not taking their foot off as though their life depended on it. Crisis is piling on crisis, not the least of which is the crisis of confidence, and there is little to no money to be had in the system. Even projects of true merit, with reasonable guarantees of return are in jeopardy. Consider the fortune of the second largest mall developer in the USA, General Growth Properties, or those of BearingPoint, the management consulting powerhouse who finds itself in bankruptcy protection.

Of the greatest concern is that mindset of these “one-pedal wonders” has pervaded the entire marketplace.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor only served to reinforce the point last week when they noted an increase in the unemployment rolls of 598,000 and an increase of unemployment from 7.2 to 7.6 percent. The fundamental picture of the downturn in January was that not only were job losses large they were widespread across nearly all major industry sectors. The economic picture is bleak. But it also hides an even bleaker picture unless the cycle can be broken.

In the late 1990’s and again in the early 2000’s cost-cutting efforts, most visibly demonstrated in reductions in employment, did not produce the long-term, desired results. Rather than positioning organizations for future growth the hazards of this manner of cost-cutting had a tremendous downside. Administered repeatedly cost-cutting as an imperative hurt product quality, alienated customers, demoralized staff and actually played havoc with the strategic growth of companies around the world. All of which runs counter to the intended outcomes of cost-cutting: improved productivity, performance, and profitability.

The key is not cost-cutting, it is prioritized cost management.

Cost management needs to be implemented as an ongoing operating practice. It requires using all the controls at hand. The accelerator to promote investment and the brake to prevent miss-allocation of resources need to be judiciously employed. The systematic and rigorous questioning of priorities, from strategic focus and decisions to operational and tactical concerns, must be built into the ongoing performance of the business. Hidden costs need to be identified, assessed and addressed. All employees, not just managers or accountants, need to learn the thinking skills of cost management. The performance systems, mechanisms for setting expectations, delivering rewards and providing feedback, need to be geared to reinforce the mindset of an always-on cost management culture. It is a discipline to be fostered and practiced if it is to be sustained.

Cost management is not simple or easy. It will force difficult choices, the avoidance of which will cause further chaos and provide the potential for disaster. It will demand a commitment to a persistent focus on resolving cost-related issues and the willingness to use all the controls at your disposal. We cannot be one-pedal wonders because if we continue to stand on the brake we will get no where.

In the middle of 2008 I wrote that the need for a clear understanding of your intent is essential to selecting the best balanced choice when making a decision, specifically as it related to selecting a Vice Presidential candidate. “As with all big decisions, understanding your intent and capturing the benefits that you want to derive from your choice in terms of a clear set of objectives is key.” (See: Big Decisions Demand Rigor) It would seem we are seeing the value of objectives, and their harm when they are absent or unclear, being played out on the public stage once again.

This time the arena is the series of financial bailouts enacted (in the case of the $700B Financial Service industry plan) or planned (in the case of the Automotive industry). The challenge of “rescuing” the distressed US economy, and by turn the global economy, seems to be compounded by an absence of visible, prioritized, and above all, specific objectives against which solutions can be designed and assessed. Unfortunately, we seem to have a mess and the TARP, or Troubled Asset Relief Program, would seem to be a very apropos acronym. A tarpaulin or “tarp” is essentially designed to cover something up.

In mid-November, Henry Paulson the US Treasury Secretary, decided to abandon his initial plan to buy bad mortgage debt and the troubled assets seem to be left out in the cold. This was one of the primary objectives of the bailout plan that he proposed to the US Congress and to which they agreed. The heart of the matter would seem to be that the objectives used to define the program were too broad to be useful and lacked clear measures so that performance against them could be assessed.

The current circumstances appear to be driven entirely by a repeating solution / test cycle in which proposed solutions are rapidly implemented and, when found wanting, are revised and another run at implementation takes place. This has caused some…consternation; which is understandable given how unclear the outcomes seem.

The Treasury has changed its mind about what it thinks will work on “Wall Street”, which seems to have little connection to the intent of Congress in terms of what it wants to see on “Main Street”. All of which is happening while the sitting President and President-elect attempt to wrestle with the hat-in-hand Auto Industry, who although they are being treated as a collective are actually in very different financial positions with separate and distinct needs in terms of their individual viability. This has created confusion on many sides.

Confusion is a breeding ground for anxiousness about the unknown and rising fear – not exactly winning emotions when the intent is to restore confidence in the financial markets, specifically the systems of credit that are a primary economic engine.

Whenever there is confusion about the quality and shared understanding of the objectives used in making decisions, and the way in which those objectives are being met, there is an increased likelihood for a divergence in expectations. This results in dissatisfaction with any outcome. That dissatisfaction results in poor implementation of any decisions made. In the case of the financial bailouts this is playing with fire. Not only does this create the conditions for confusion it also calls into question the effectiveness of the ownership of the decision-making process leaving the door open for additional objectives to be added and the common assessment of proposed solutions to be impossible.

Clear stakeholders and a clear owner are essential. With that in hand, a clear focus in terms of the decision statement that answers the question, “What result are we looking to achieve?” Then, and only then, should the objectives for any decision or solution design be developed and assessed for their level of relative importance to the desired outcome as determined by clearly defined measures and standards. With that in hand the decision maker or decision making group will have a robust framework against which data may be added to make the thinking visible and a commonly understood decision made. This absence of this kind of clear thinking is one of the reasons why a recent CBS Poll has Americans split on the Auto bailout. They just don’t see a clearly defined outcome.

When the stakes are this high rigorous, visible, consistent thinking is critical. And with the possibility of an additional mortgage crises and perhaps a consumer credit crisis in the future, the sooner that approach is adopted the better.

In the current economic climate there is little-to-no credit to be found. The absence of credit need not be the end of the world if a business focuses on improving what it already has in hand.

It was the best of times. It was the worst of times.
                                                                       Charles Dickens

Right about now we all know more about collateralized debt obligations, structured investment vehicles, mortgage-based securities and credit default swaps than anyone without a Nobel Prize for Economics has any right to know. While most of us are not moving in circles where the structures of high finance have had much meaning to us, we have all recently discovered just how much these financial oddities affect our own success. The first order of business is to figure out what to do now that the ready access to credit has evaporated. Until those funds begin flowing we will all need to relearn lessons of old: Do more with less and make the most of what you have.

Where to start? Building clarity of purpose by addressing five key areas now can minimize the short-term damage of the credit crunch and position you for survival and growth.

1. Take Stock - if you haven’t already

With current economic conditions shrinking or even eliminating credit availability it is necessary to understand available value-creating “inventory.” This is not product or SKU inventory. Rather it is your available human, production, process, systems and infrastructure – the lifeblood of your organization and how you go to market and meet the needs of your customers. The reason this is so vital is you will no longer be able to “buy” you way to operational improvement through capital expenditure or capability acquisition. What you have is probably what you will have to work with in the near term to improve your cash position.

2. Prioritize – choose what not to do

If anything needs to be remembered at this time it is that all resources, now matter how abundant they may seem, are finite. In your organization discussion will likely cover a wide variety of projects. It is safe to say that no project or program will be seen as superfluous in any sense. The key step is to recognize that the process of prioritization at a time like this is not an inclusive one; it should be driven to exclude. Be certain you understand the timeframe available for your projects and programs and their impact.

Through the prioritization process, it will become apparent that the annual (repeating) capital and operational needs will be difficult to compare to the one-time stand alone projects required to drive strategic change. Some level of annual capital expenditure should have the first call on capital in order to maintain your value streams, operations, facilities and infrastructure for present business needs. Additional annual capital needs should be analyzed separately and prioritized should capital become available. Driving all this should be your strategic objectives. If you arrive at this point and find that your strategic objectives do not help you differentiate between areas of expense (which is not as uncommon as you might think) you may need to rapidly work on a “strategy for the times” to meet your present needs.

With your prioritization in hand the next order of business is to quite literally fix what is broken.

3. Fix it Fast – if it is broken or represents a high degree of risk

Credit is a system whereby a person who can’t pay gets another person who can’t pay to guarantee that he can pay.

Charles Dickens

Based on your operational assessment, it should be readily evident what is working and what isn’t. Follow the money. Where are your cashflows not resulting in the expected return? Do you know why? If you do, what decision or decisions need to be made? Are there systems or processes, or even human performance issues at play? Are their decisions that you have been putting off because they were not easy, or not high enough a priority? These are exactly the kinds of decisions you should be making at this time. At a minimum you will be removing distractions and low-grade drains on energy. Better yet you will address issues that may have been festering for a while.

Realize value-added productivity per employee through closing capability gaps. In all cases spend your money wisely. Be clear about your objectives and share them with the organization so that everyone understands the concerns you are seeking to address. If you can stop wasteful expense today, you can begin to look for other ways to invest your money to capitalize on the opportunity resident in most downturns.

4. Look for potential – the unpolished gem, the hidden hazard

Often the swiftest response to times of economic uncertainty is to hunker down and hoard. Many organizations proceed to strangle themselves by turning off investment or cutting back so deeply they place their operations into virtual hibernation. Little do they realize that there is opportunity in the bleak news around them. At this time, the frustration of not being able to rely on past behaviors to drive business performance needs to be supplanted by forward thinking.

How have your clients’ needs shifted with the economic conditions? How have your suppliers’ needs shifted with the economic conditions? In both cases, with tightened credit coming into play, you can fully expect the joint conditions of shortened terms with your suppliers and increased aging of your Account Receivables. As the founders of Kepner-Tregoe, Drs. Charles Kepner and Ben Tregoe noted in their seminal work, The [New] Rational Manager, “The easiest and most economical time to solve a problem is before the problem has a chance to occur. This means that people must be free to look into the future and suggest actions for improving it or take the initiative to move ahead out of personal dedication and commitment.” Think of what you might do to strike agreements with your entire supply chain that meets the needs of all members. Get ahead of the painful lagging indicators – the ones that impact your bottom line. Being contrarian in this circumstance may pay large, long-term dividends.

5. People First, Processes Second, Purchase Last

This has essentially become the dark matter of the financial universe.

Chris Wolf, co-manager of Cogo Wolf (a hedge fund of hedge funds)

As quoted in Fortune magazine, October 13, 2008

The key factor to capitalizing on the value that your people bring to this situation is to invite their participation in a way that recognizes that value and which they perceive is meaningful. With your people onboard, the next step is to tackle your business processes. Every process should be focused on improving your customer experience and improving your return on that experience. Finally, spend your limited funds with clarity of purpose. Who knows when your capital coffers might next be filled? Prioritize your capital decisions in such a way that you can leverage any spend in multiple areas.

At a time of financial turmoil the first impulse may be duck and cover. Resist that urge. Confirm your available resources and current circumstances. Take the time to think and act wisely, the returns may surprise you.

Forty-three percent of hiring managers said they spend one minute or less looking at a resume when first reviewing applications; 14 percent spend less than 30 seconds. Make sure you are highlighting specific accomplishments, quantifying results whenever possible, to showcase how you put your skills into action and benefitted previous employers – CareerBuilder.com.

One of the challenges of an economy in turmoil is finding the next job. As firms shed jobs or slow hiring, looking for the next position can seem like a fruitless pursuit. If only you could read minds! Like someone with telepathy, or the very least a mentalist.

Unfortunately, no such capabilities are widely available to the job seeker. Fortunately there is something else that is actually much better – data. CareerBuilder.com in the middle of Summer this year, well before the economic crisis we are now sliding into, conducted its regular survey of hiring managers. While some of the findings were quite remarkable: like the number of people who lie in interviews, (my favorite being the person who submitted samples of work that the interviewer actually did – nice one!); there was a body of evidence that pointed to a long understood set of skills that most business need to survive. And, wouldn’t you know it, the set of skills at the top of the list of most desired attributes were…

Problem Solving & Decision Making skills

Which at 50% makes these skills desired over an above “oral and written communication” by 6% and even above “leadership” by 20%. Why is this the case?

One of the key drivers for any business is doing more of the right things, with less and less resources. Less time, money, people. To that end, it means that the people who are in the business have to be able to rapidly prioritize problems, identify their root cause, make decisions about what to do to correct it, and manage the associated systems risk and potential. Critical thinking skills are not only desired, they are a fundamental skill necessary for a business’s long-term strategic and operational success.

The practice of knowledge transfer is complex and can be analyzed through many different lenses. The learning and cultural differences that exist in a diverse workforce, an organization’s history and culture, and the changing employer-employee contract are only a few.

From The Conference Board report: “Bridging the Gaps”

A recent report from The Conference Board, titled, “Bridging the Gaps - How to Transfer Knowledge in Today’s Multigenerational Workplace”, highlighted the widening chasm that is forming among generations who find themselves sharing the workplace. In it they highlight the fond hope that employers will seek to prevail on soon-to-be retiring employees of the Baby Boomer generation to stick around long enough to transfer their hard-earned skills to their, most likely younger but not necessarily cheaper, replacements. To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin – those who live in hope, die fasting.

Unless employers can offer retiring employees a bargain that meets their needs they may find themselves filling vacant slots and rebuilding an incredible amount of tacit knowledge. The chaos this will cause may be profound and will incur significant cost. The reason for this is that the employment bargain that many Baby Boomers struck with their employers was based on hard work, commitment, mutual respect and a chance for advancement. The economic peaks and valleys of the last decade have certainly taken the shine of that implicit agreement. As a result Boomers, even those not ready to retire, may leave in waves and some may even take their knowledge and compete with their former employers out of frustration or a desire for more.

It seems that some fence mending is in order.

To that end, what systems should businesses be putting in place to tie the past and present of their organization to the future? There are a couple of critical elements. Make the knowledge easy to transfer. And, provide opportunities for it to be transferred. A common language for issue resolution and action is recommended. (Yes, I know my bias is showing!) If you share a common language for how to think and enact change, it can help link the way people think without telling then what to think. Essentially you need to create a context in which people can share and build an understanding of the issues at hand. Projects and structured approaches to managing decision and resolving problems provide excellent forums for this effort.

Previously I wrote an article on the challenge facing organizations addressing what I referred to as the Baby Boomer Vacuum. (If your interested in reading further – please make a request here.) This wholesale generational shift requires a strategic perspective on the part of leaders as they seek to manage this “changing of the employee guard” successfully. Keep employees engaged by having diverse groups work on matters that are important, even critical, to the organization’s health. This honors those who have served their time by recognizing their contribution, and engages those who are new to the organization by directly connecting them to something that matters (a key driver for the current generation entering the workforce.) Make this shift a matter of urgency and the employee engagement it delivers may surprise even the most jaded among you.

We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.

– Albert Einstein

In a demand-driven world, the “fire-fighter” is the pinnacle of virtue. What is a fire fighter? This person, or group in your organization, is who is turned to when things go drastically wrong. Essentially they are called upon to rescue the organization from itself. They are asked to address critical issues through the extraordinary application of their efforts. They are highly visible and highly prized. Often they are also highlight rewarded for their efforts with compensation, advancement and promotion. The only problem with this mind set is that the “tyranny of the urgent” will continue to outweigh the benefits of applying resources to longer term issues of building strategic capability and capacity. The fire-fighter, does not help an organization grow – they really only help an organization overcome the problems that the organization has not properly addressed previously (by removing the root cause of the issue) or perhaps even recovering the organization for the poor decisions it has inadequately implemented.

In our recent research, in the Consumer Products industry space, we found this the “fire fighter” is a common organizational archetype and that it is actually one they want to avoid. These clients found that the primary driver for this kind of behavior was that there was a demand that “hot” issues be visibly and promptly addressed. The biggest challenges, strangely enough, occurred when lower managers had trouble getting buy-in from senior managers to address more strategic issues. Those senior managers often saw only those issues that were most dramatically visible (regardless of their true priority) and sometimes lost sight of the strategic issues that needed to be addressed as a result. Action was prized over sustained focus. The constant demand to accomplish more with less created an ever-present sense of urgency. The time to think strategically was pushed to evenings, weekends or some hoped for time in the future. Not a good place to be.

Breaking this pattern requires that organizations build a focus on executing their corporate strategy, and resolving the issues that arise during that effort, with a single-minded focus on brilliance. It requires focused, systematic, consistent critical thinking. It demands that effort not be wasted. The elimination of waste in these organizations was seen as an effort that reached beyond the waste associated with production – unnecessary downtime, materiel wastes, energy wastes, procedural wastes – it was also, and perhaps most importantly, focused on the elimination of the wasted thinking effort that produces little value across the operation.

The news today is filled with tales of woe. Global fuel prices are increasing at a phenomenal rate. Access to basic necessities such as water, food and shelter is being impacted by a more chaotic and changing climate. The global economies are suffering from the after effects of an economic downturn, the result of the United States subprime mortgage debacle and its investment banks Structured Investment Vehicle follies. All in all, the world seems very much in turmoil.

One of the great challenges we see is that decision making is oscillating more widely between two ends of the data spectrum. The absence of data or access to too much data are causing behavioral extremes that Malcolm Gladwell described at the turn of this century in a particular prescient article in The New Yorker titled, “The Art of Failure.” I was reminded of this article in a recent story in a recent Financial Times “Outside Edge” column by Rahul Jacob. Jacob was focusing on the behavior of the tennis player Roger Federer, asking whether or not he chokes under the demands of fifth set match play – I am assuming he was reminded of this after Federer’s recent Wimbledon win to advance to a match against Lleyton Hewitt. Nevertheless for me, I found saw the concept in a new light. In his article, Gladwell described twin forces connected by instinct but very different:

“Choking is about thinking too much. Panic is about thinking too little. Choking is about loss of instinct. Panic is reversion to instinct.”

With the inability to process too much information manifesting itself as “choking”, and the inability to access enough information manifesting as “panicking” - and evident in the newspapers everyday – managing our actions rationally seems the only way to address this conflict. This is where I see KT fit. At its extreme we help our clients find the space between choking and panic. Through the application of systematic, rational, visible approaches we can ally ourselves to our clients need for business results. By using our Decision Analysis methodology we can help clients address their data deficiencies more effectively by gathering, sorting, organizing, analyzing and confirming the necessary meaningful action. In our Problem Analysis approach we can cut through the complexity of data surrounding an issue and identify the information that is most germane to the identification and confirmation of root cause.

In troubled times, clarity of thought helps you aim for the gap between choking and panic to use data in a way that helps you do what you need to survive and thrive.

Mind the gap – contrary to the London Underground – that’s where the value lies.