In most change initiatives, if you were to ask “who is responsible for compliance?”, there would be a clear answer. However, if you were to ask “who is responsible for ensuring what we do is ethical”, unless you are in a very narrow set of industries (research, pharmaceutical, etc) you’re likely to be met with…
I was recently thinking about the impact a potential change would have, and my mind wandered to the various mnemonics and frameworks that can be used for this. My mind went to frameworks such as POPIT™ 1, POTI2, McKinsey’s 7S3, and the like.
I was specifically thinking about the ethical impact of change, and was surprised that ethics isn’t directly covered by any of the commonly-used frameworks. It might be indirectly covered by some, but to me this felt like a missing piece of the puzzle, and one that is arguably relevant now more than ever. Always being someone who is somewhat ‘action oriented’, I decided to have a go at putting together an alternative framework that plugs this gap.
After some head-scratching, and thinking about making something short enough to be memorable while also broad enough to be useful, I came up with a group of terms. These terms are like “lenses” to look at a situation. I’m not suggesting for one moment that this is exhaustive, nor will it fit all circumstances. However I found it useful so thought I’d share it in case you do too!
By happy coincidence, the series of terms I landed on happened to spell POETICS. Or rather, they did after a bit of jiggling (let’s be honest, we all know these things are really “backronyms”, right? LOL)
The first draft of the framework is shown below. I’ve also included some potential focus areas, and key reflective questions. However, it isn’t designed to be rigid… if you feel something should be added or changed for your context, you are probably right! It isn’t designed to be interpreted too literally or narrowly either. Like so many of these frameworks, it’s intended to act as a ‘thinking tool’. But it isn’t intended to replace the actual thinking…
I have recently returned from a nine-night holiday (vacation) in an ‘all-inclusive’ resort. If you’re not familiar with all-inclusive resorts, they’re places where food, drinks, and entertainment are included in the price of your stay. The food was excellent, the entertainment was great, and a good time was had by all.
Now, I’m back to the cold, wintry reality of the UK, one thing I haven’t yet done is step on the scales. I know the ‘all-inclusive’ lifestyle I was temporarily living will have gained me some weight. After all, three courses every night alongside ‘one or two’ glasses of wine will have an impact…
But like most people, a holiday for me is temporary. I have no desire to eat and drink like that permanently. And I know I need to get back into my gym and (reasonably) healthy eating routine. It’s always a bit of a shock to the system to start with, but over a few weeks things normalise and I’m pretty sure my weight will stabilise and my tan will fade…
I had the inspiration for writing this blog at the dessert counter, while weighing up the pros and cons of two cakes and deciding to just have a slice of both. This is definitely not to be recommended as a long-term strategy, but occasionally, it’s probably fine.
I was reflecting on how organisations make decisions, particularly those that seem ‘urgent’, often knowingly implementing something that just about works but has lots of side effects as a ‘temporary’ fix.
We’ve all seen it: perhaps it’s an Excel spreadsheet manually manipulating data (but increasing workload and latent risk). Or perhaps it’s a poorly designed, rushed-out process that just about works (but really needs documenting and tidying up).
There’s often genuine desire and intent to fix any deficiencies at some point in the future. It’s really easy to loosely commit to a future action, isn’t it… ‘I’ll join a gym in the future, when I get round to it’ has likely been said by many people, many times.
But often, these loose commitments don’t materialise into action. Organisational priorities change, the next crisis hits and everyone forgets. Those involved with managing the workarounds might not be in a position to mandate change, or might even fear that if work is simplified their role is at risk… So the workarounds stay.
Some days it feels like organisations are built on layers and layers of this type of organisational debt. But instead of taking remedial action, priorities simply shift to the next thing. Change then becomes harder and more complicated… and undoing the years of (probably poorly documented) workarounds becomes tricky itself.
Who wants to face the ‘cold hard facts’ and do the best thing, when you can just buy and implement something new (good luck migrating the mess of data!) or jump on a passing bandwagon? At least that shows action, and organisations (and their stakeholders) seem to love loud noises and bold action! In some cases, the illusion of progress seems to matter more than actual outcomes.
It’s like they’re stuck in ‘holiday eating’ mode, but the consequences are just waiting to hit them…
Back when I was young(er), some people used to pay for groceries with cheques (I know, I know, I only look about 27 but I’m secretly a little bit older than that). Cheques used to take a few days to clear, and were sometimes a way of paying for groceries at the end of the month when money was short. It gave a few days ‘credit’ while the cheque went through the clearing process.
Except, it didn’t always work. If the supermarket banked with the same institution as you, then the cheque cleared the same day of deposit. Bam, overdrawn, fees! The ‘tactical fix’ didn’t work…
I suspect some organisations are playing a similar game, with latent risk affecting their processes and IT systems through workaround and half-finished solutions that, at best, are a risk to service availability, and more likely a risk to data integrity and customer security.
A few months back I visited a museum in Bath, UK. There were lots of really interesting exhibits, but one that really caught my eye (and perhaps not for the intended reason) was this one:
As you can see, the cabinet is absolutely brimming with glass objects, arranged by colour. This strikes me as a really odd decision; a rather strange “organising principle” to use when laying glass out in a museum.
When the glass is organised only by colour, visitors have no idea whether some are older than others, whether some are more historically significant, or whether they are all somehow equivalent. If there is one “masterpiece” in there, I would very likely miss it.
Seeing this reminded me of the importance of curation — and how good curation (and good curators) are largely invisible. Think about the best museum or gallery that you’ve been to… I bet you can’t name any of the curators. Yet the fact that you enjoyed it so much suggests they were doing a fantastic job.
There is understandably a great deal of talk about AI in the BA community. One topic of regular conversation is how AI tools can help BAs be more efficient and effective. A second is how business analysis can help ensure that organisations deploy AI in ways that are appropriate, ethical and effective. Both of these are important topics, and worthy of articles of their own, but there is a third which appears to be getting far less “air time”.
Most conversations within organisations seem to focus on internal AI use. This is a type of AI usage that is, theoretically at least, controllable to an extent. What seems to be discussed less often is how policies and procedures might need to change in response to the way that external actors are using AI.
At first glance, this might seem like a distraction—and indeed perhaps this is why it is not attracting attention. Yet further analysis would likely show that there are some fairly significant areas where AI usage might have an impact. For example:
I have a theory that most processes, services and ‘customer journeys’ have been defined with virtually zero input from actual users and customers. This becomes immediately obvious when you actually are a customer of just about any large corporation. Things jump out that make precisely zero sense, and often these are things that would have been flagged up if there’d been any form of actual customer or user testing. Typically, these are things which would have been fixed long ago if they had any mechanism to even hear and respond to customer feedback.
One of the challenges that exists is that people within businesses are not usually typical customers. An underwriter in an insurance company is nothing like a typical customer. They have all sorts of knowledge and insight that a typical customer doesn’t. A compliance manager at a bank is nothing like a typical customer who is trying to read the 10,000 words of text that went through 27 rounds of sign off, getting longer and longer each time (and yes, yes, I know some people’s perspective is that ‘regulation means we have to have it that way’.)
Also, as uncomfortable as it is: you or I are likely nothing like most of the customers or service users of whatever product or service your organisation offers. We might be like some of them, but we probably know more industry lingo and ‘insider information’ than the majority of them. And it’s hard to shake that knowledge off.
As anyone who has worked with me knows, I’m a stickler for precision. Communication can be crisp, clear and concise when it’s precise. Yet, to be effective, precision requires a shared repertoire of knowledge.
Take this real screenshot from a real chat system offered by a UK-based telecoms company. Reflect on the fact that this probably went through several rounds of sign off. It presumably went through several rounds of system and ‘user’ testing. Someone deliberately put this into production.
One of the red flags I’ve learned to look out for when dealing with organisational change of any complexity is consensus. This might sound counter-intuitive, after all surely consensus is a good thing, right? Well, yes and no; true consensus is good and should be celebrated, but too often what appears to be unanimous agreement is actually an illusion. Either people have different understandings of what has been agreed, so any kind of agreement is superficial, or people are holding back on discussing their concerns. Or perhaps an entire group has been missed, so a vital set of perspectives hasn’t been considered.
There’s a lot to unpack here, and the specific element I want to examine in this article is the idea of illusory consensus where people are holding back their true thoughts and feelings. This happens more than you might think, I can remember in the dim and distant past self-censoring my views as anyone who didn’t echo the prevailing corporate narrative was not seen as a ‘team player’. When constructive dissent isn’t welcomed it doesn’t disappear, in my experience it just gets repressed, with those repressing it now carrying an extra burden.
A while back I came across the phrase ‘dishonest harmony’, I can’t remember where, but it resonated with me and it seemed a handy shorthand for situations where there is the type of illusory consensus referenced above. I started to think about the different potential dimensions implied by the phrase ‘dishonest harmony’, and on a scrap of paper I drew the following diagram. I’ve found this helpful, so even though this is very much a v0.1, I was keen to share it in case it is helpful to others. The reason I have given this model the working title of ‘the honest elephant’ will become clear as you read on…
Let’s explore some of the quadrants:
Hi there, You’re getting this notification as you’ve subscribed via email to my blog. Some of you have been subscribed for years (probably over a decade in some cases!). You’ve probably noticed that I haven’t posted much here recently, and for that reason, I’m disabling email updates on my blog. There was once a time…
One of the things I’ve learned the hard way is to always clarify what people mean when they use terms and jargon. One that is particularly fresh in my mind is MVP, which you will probably know stands for Minimum Viable Product.
I know there are formal definitions of what MVP means. The first time I can remember seeing a proper explanation of the term was in The Lean Startup: How Constant Innovation Creates Radically Successful Businesses by Eric Ries, but there are definitions that predate this, and there are definitely definitions that have been written since then!
With multiple definitions and understandings of the term, “MVP” can mean different things to different people. In this article I want to reflect on some of the flavours I’ve seen and heard about out in the wild—both good and not so good. I’m sure you’ve seen others! (And yes I know there are lists of MVP types out there already, but I was keen to throw some other ideas into the pot).
When reading this you will almost certainly come to the conclusion that some of these aren’t MVPs at all. If you find yourself having that feeling, this is good, and I agree with you! That proves the point that different teams have different definitions of the term, and shows the importance of taking the time to clarify it. In doing so we can hopefully nudge people towards the more sensible forms of MVP.
Back when every club DJ played vinyl (records), you’d get some really interesting releases and dance remixes on “white label”. There were some that you’d only hear in the clubs. These records were called ‘white labels’ because the label in the middle was white, and usually the sleeve was generic too. Sometimes there wasn’t even anything on the inner label, so DJs tended to handwrite the track name on there.
It may surprise you to know that my first ever job was as an assistant groundsperson in an industrial estate. For those of you unfamiliar with what a ‘groundsperson’ does, it’s essentially a job that involves maintaining just about everything that is outside, including gardening, roads, and so much more.
With such a varied role, there are a variety of tools. A spade is definitely not a shovel, a ‘hoe’ is probably not what you think it is. Oh, and be careful with bow saws (I still have a scar that reminds me of that).
One of the particular tools I have a ‘fond memory’ of is a MultiVac. If you’ve never had the ‘pleasure’ (and I use that term with a large dose of British irony) of using one of these devices, here’s a photo. A MutiVac is essentially a large, outdoor vacuum cleaner, predominantly for clearing leaves and other stuff on roads.
It is a lot quicker than sweeping. Or rather, it is a lot quicker than sweeping in some specific sets of circumstances. Outside of those circumstances, it is slower and less efficient.
Now, I’m sure MutiVac technology has come a long way since the early-90s when I used one. Back in those days it was definitely not advisable to use one in the rain, or when the road surface was wet. The issue was that the machine would clog up, and you’d be forever unblocking the darn thing and believe me this was not a pleasant task. If you really needed to clear a road in the rain, it might actually be quicker to use a stiff broom and a shovel. Although, frankly, the best thing to do was probably wait and do something else. (Incidentally, weeding flower beds is a great job in light rain. The moisture loosens the soil).
Uneven surfaces were also a no-go. Steps, and anything with too much of an incline would be far better cleared by hand.
Now of course, you (probably) don’t use a MultiVac at work. So why is this relevant?
There are, in my mind, at least two reasons, and they relate to how tools are used in different contexts.