Category: Benchmarking

Apple-opoly: It’s Not a Game

money
money (Photo credit: 401(K) 2012)

Some people can hardly contain their excitement when a company like Apple is thriving with sky high profits in the midst of a dismal global economy. Yet, this same excitement is seldom shared when banks or oil companies report similar results. Wouldn’t we all prefer reduced fees or lower gas prices over excessive profits from the very companies that portend to serve our best interests?

This past week a colleague forwarded an article from cultofmac.com titled Apple’s Astonishing Profit in Context. My colleague’s opinion of Apple’s incredible performance is also echoed in the article itself. Of course, I would be hard pressed to disagree with them as I’ve written many times before that “The proof of wisdom is in the results.” The following quote from the article puts Apple’s “wisdom” in perspective:

From October 2011 to September 2012 Apple made more money than Microsoft, Ebay, Google, Yahoo! Facebook and Amazon combined. In that same period, Dell, Asus, Intel, Acer, IBM, Lenovo, and HP (basically the entire PC industry) only made $19.3 billion in profit, which is less than half of Apple’s profit.

Who can argue?

Apple has effectively advanced available technologies into unique devices that have dominated several market segments including: Computers (Mac), Smart Phones (iPhone), Tablets (iPad), and Media Players (iPod). Although Apple did not necessarily “invent” the core technologies that define their devices, they did find innovative ways to integrate them to provide an extremely user friendly experience.

Hardware is not Apple’s only source of revenue as the “App Store” is yet another venue that continues to feed Apple’s bottom line. If I understand the terms correctly, Apple receives at least 30% of every App Store purchase and as Apple is quick to mention more times than not, the number of available apps is in the hundreds of thousands and continues to grow every day. That in and of itself is an incredible feat.

I contend that the level of success enjoyed by Apple has peaked. This article, “Apple Losing Lustre On Wall Street: 3 Theories Why” is one of many that have surfaced recently as Apple’s stock has plummeted over the past few days. As stated in my recent post, Apple’s Best Kept Secrets … May Be Their Worst Enemy, Apple’s products are expensive and are subject to higher rates of planned obsolescence giving people cause to “wait” before buying.

Waking Up The Competition

Many would suggest that there is no competition when it comes to Apple’s products and, to some extent, there may be some truth to that. The question is, “What really sets Apple apart from it’s competitors?” I contend that a key component of Apple’s success is driven by their exclusive integration of the iOS operating system into virtually all of their devices. When compared to the number of competing companies selling electronic devices based on the Windows and Android operating systems, we quickly learn that Apple is the sole proprietor of it’s core hardware / software environment and the current court battles with Samsung strongly suggest that Apple wants to keep it that way.

In other words, while there are a number of competitors in any given segment, Apple has no direct competitors that manufacture computers using their operating system thus allowing them to command the price at which their devices are sold. In this context, Apple can determine it’s own price points, void of any threat from a competing manufacturer. From a financial perspective, Apple’s strategy to stay the course is a huge success – at least it was until now.

Image representing Windows as depicted in Crun...
Image via CrunchBase

The wisdom of Apple’s strategy to integrate hardware and software is perhaps a lesson learned by Microsoft as they too have joined the tablet race with the introduction of the Surface RT and soon to be launched Surface Pro. There is, however, a very stark difference. Whether Microsoft intended to become a tablet manufacturer is open to debate but Microsoft did not exclude or attempt to prevent their competitors from developing devices based on the Windows operating system. Microsoft certainly intentioned to develop a hardware environment that will best reflect the capabilities and performance of the Windows 8 operating system.

Competition inspires innovation as manufacturers attempt to earn a bigger share of the market with more differentiating features and ultimately lower prices. As a result, margins are strained on Windows 8 devices and competing products using Google’s Linux based Android operating system among others. Unlike the exclusive Apple-opoly market, consumers continue to reap the greater benefit of an open competitive market in the “non-Apple” world.

There is indeed a price to be paid to sustain a company that attempts to maintain an exclusive monopoly in the market place. I contend that Apple has more to lose and very little to gain as competitors continue to define and differentiate themselves in their applicable market segments.

The “App” Store – Remember Your Roots

Chart showing downloads and available apps on ...
Chart showing downloads and available apps on the app store over time, since the App Store was opened in 2008. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

If Apple’s devices are the cash cow, then the App Store is the cash calf. As mentioned above, Apple’s take is 30% of every App Store purchase. For a developer, losing 30% for the opportunity to sell an “app may be a great deal but … to a company like Microsoft, nothing could be further from the truth. Presently, Microsoft is subject to the same “App Store” rules of engagement as any other developer and this has now become a major point of contention between the two companies.

When it comes to Microsoft, Apple’s memory seems to be lapsing. In 1997 Apple (very much like RIM) was struggling to stay afloat and Microsoft’s Bill Gates stepped in to bail them out. It seems this gesture of goodwill has waned as Apple has subsequently grown to become a monopoly of it’s own making. In the world of Windows, Microsoft’s Office suite is unparalleled and I suggest the same can only be true in the world of Apple.

It appears that relationships between people still matter in the world of business and we can only wonder if Steve Jobs would feel differently about giving Microsoft a break in the App Store. Clearly, Apple would be a different company – or not exist at all – without the injection of Microsoft’s support as announced on August 6, 1997 at Mac World Boston. As Steve Jobs himself said during the conference:

“We have to let go of this notion that for Apple to win, Microsoft has to lose.” – Steve Jobs

Steve Jobs encouraged the audience in this video to “think differently”. Perhaps those who have succeeded Steve Jobs have forgotten (or never had the opportunity to remember) what it was like all those years ago when they were struggling to just to stay afloat. If there was ever a move to burn bridges with a once “rival turned ally”, the app store’s rules of engagement is one of them.

The Extremes

Remember RIM and the BlackBerry? They too have an exclusive operating system and hardware platform that at one time lead the smart phone segment by storm. The BlackBerry Messaging (BBM) service between BlackBerry devices is second to none and now includes BBM voice calls. Apple’s iPhone was a major disruption to both hardware and software as we knew it, offering users a substantially improved experience with available technologies. RIM’s market share and stock prices decreased dramatically for failing to introduce fresh, innovative technologies in a timely manner. Whether RIM’s OS10 can reignite the passion for their products and the profits in kind remains to be seen.

So hopefully what you’ve seen here today are some beginning steps that give you some confidence that we too are going to think differently and serve the people that have been buying our products since the beginning. Because a lot of times people think their crazy, but in that craziness we see genius and those are the people we’re making tools for. – Steve Jobs

Today, RIM is in a place where Apple once stood. Unfortunately for RIM, there is no rival stepping up to bail them out. In today’s world, rivals simply wait for their competitors to fold or file for bankruptcy before swooping in to reap what’s left behind. It is unfortunate, but as time will tell, consumers who are left with empty pockets will soon part ways with companies that choose to monopolize a market that serves the best interests of their shareholders and the bottom line.

Lessons Learned

Value is Not Market Share – In the delicate ecosystem of finance and business, the underlying theme is the perception of “value” for the consumer, the company, and it’s shareholders. I commend and praise Apple for the design and quality of their hardware with few exceptions although I have expressed my dissatisfaction with the frequency at which these devices change. As for their software offerings, I am also somewhat underwhelmed, at least from a business perspective. As for connectivity, Apple provides a seamless bridge between devices with unparalleled ease.

However, knowing that up to 40% of the purchase price is gross margin, the question for Apple devices still remains, “Does the price reflect the true market value?” Fundamental economics would suggest that the value of a product or service is determined by the price the consumer is willing to pay. I contend that in a society based on capitalism, competition will yield a price that better approximates the true value of a product or service.

“Success breeds complacency. Complacency breeds failure. Only the paranoid survive.” — Andrew Grove, co-founder Intel

Competition = Innovation – The Windows 8 and Android operating systems give us a greater appreciation for how real competition can lead to innovative hardware and software technologies at lower prices that benefit consumers versus those that ultimately aim to benefit shareholders. RIM’s new BlackBerry 10 reaffirms the inertia that exists within a company where only two options exist – to survive or die. With that inertia, we now see momentum building for the unveiling and launch of another new and innovative solution in hand held devices from BlackBerry.

Hansei / Reflection – Success can be both a blessing and a curse. Too few companies take the time to reflect on their history to appreciate their current state of affairs. Very few companies like Apple can claim to have risen from the ashes to become a self sufficient world renowned icon. However, in their wake, Apple’s success has also led to a certain “ego” or culture of arrogance that suggests “nothing can stop us now.” As we consider the current court battles with both rivals and allies, it’s difficult to discern which is which.

Collaboration = Mutual Successes – Success is seldom the result of one person’s effort and typically the result is greater than the sum of its parts.

We can choose to fight for the current state to preserve “what is now” or we can – in the words of Steve Jobs – “think differently”.

Until Next Time – STAY lean

Vergence Analytics

Advertisements

Microsoft – Scratching the Surface

Microsoft Surface
Microsoft Surface (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

There is always a better way and more than one solution

This certainly seems to be true in the tablet world as Microsoft unveils one of its own – the Surface. Taking a note from Apple, Microsoft has integrated hardware and software into a unique solution that is sure to compete directly with the iPad.

From a lean perspective, I can’t help but admire the evolution of electronics to become ever smaller and ever faster than the generations that precede them. While the Surface is Microsoft’s debut into the tablet market, it has much to offer as a strong contender to Apple’s iPad. Microsoft may be a little late coming into the tablet game but perhaps their timing is appropriate. Apple has played their cards giving Microsoft the opportunity to be “second but better”.

Although reviews are mixed, I’m encouraged by the initial product offering from Microsoft.  From the outset, there are a number of physical features that immediately set the Surface apart from the iPad such as an integrated keyboard and cover, a pop out “kick stand”, and included stylus. Windows 8 appears to be the operating system that will dominate both the Surface and the PC desktop / laptop environment in the near future. This pairing offers a much more flexible data storage and transfer solution than is available in competitor products.

You be the judge

Rather than describe the Surface, you can judge the Surface for  yourself as presented in this “teaser” preview video:

The full keynote presentation by Microsoft appears in the video below:

The Price of Ownership

Although pricing has not been stated explicitly, Microsoft suggests that it should be in line with other tablets and netbooks already available on the market.  Hopefully it will be cheaper than it’s intended competitors. In Ontario, Canada, Apple’s 64GB iPad retails at $895.00 and, after buying your case, keyboard, and stylus, the cost to “start-up” your iPad can easily swell to over $1,100.00 after taxes and the purchase of a few “useful apps”. The price of an iPad is not all-inclusive. It is worth noting that the iPad requires an additional line (phone number) on your cellular plan and, since data is all “in the cloud”, your monthly data usage rate is sure to rise as well. Even RIM‘s (Research in Motion) PlayBook tether option is admirable as a cost-effective solution as it “co-exists” with your BlackBerry SmartPhone.

The need for dominance – “apps”

Apple boasts that over 500,000 apps are available for the iPhone and the iPad. From a consumer perspective it is virtually impossible to evaluate all of the “apps” that are available and finding the one that will do what you want is even more daunting. Most reviews are brief or there is insufficient data collected to provide an effective rating. It could be argued that apps are relatively inexpensive so the financial risks or exposure for an error in judgement is minimized when choosing an app.

Apps for other platforms are growing in number, however, they are still far from approaching the scope of Apple’s app store. Now that Microsoft’s Surface has been introduced, app developers are sure to find themselves wondering which platform is deserving of their time and effort.

I suggest that a need for core dominant apps exists – much like the wars that ensued between spreadsheet and word processor developers of years past. Today, anyone with a computer, time, and a desire to code can develop an app. Apple certainly makes it easy by providing all the tools you need to get started including a fully integrated programming environment. With tools at everyone’s disposal and a small price for admission, it is no wonder that so many apps are available.

Microsoft may very well be the contender to develop real “useful” apps that will truly make tablets even more relevant for business just as they did with Office 2010 for the desktop. Microsoft Office can be found on virtually every computer I’ve seen in business and there are very few exceptions.

The Wait Begins

We’ll have to wait and see what happens in the tablet market. For now, it appears that Apple finally has a true competitor that may be cause to stimulate even more innovation going forward. It is also worth noting that Google just released the Nexus Android based tablet to compete with Amazon’s Kindle. All of this is happening as RIM (Research In Motion) is struggling to stay afloat. Some may even say, “It can only get better.”

Until Next Time – STAY lean!

Vergence Analytics

Anticipation – Wait For It!

Anticipation

We’ve all said it, “I just can’t wait!”  We look forward to certain events, both big and small, with eager anticipation. We carefully plan for vacations, family events, a get together with friends, or major purchases like a new car or home.  Our minds race, eagerly waiting for that magic moment to arrive.

Anticipation instills excitement and expectation in the present moment with regard to a future event. Anticipation introduces an emotional quotient to an outcome that has yet to be realized. Is “anticipation” an inherent part of the culture where you work? Do you look forward to Monday mornings? Do you create opportunities to experience anticipation? What are some of the events you look forward to? In contrast, what are some of the events you dread?

Putting Metrics in Perspective

Key performance indicators (KPI’s) or metrics are used to measure our progress toward achieving goals and objectives.  Overall Equipment Effectiveness is one such key performance indicator used by many companies and provides a means to monitor and improve operational performance. Timely corrective actions and improvement measures should be accompanied by expected outcomes. In other words, we should anticipate increasing returns for our efforts.

Unfortunately when results begin to plateau, a perceived “point of no return” is reached, support on all fronts begins to wane, and apathy sets in. A vision that extends beyond the current “process as we know it” coupled with effective leadership is required to strive for even greater achievements. Some companies use the term “stretch targets” or “stretch goals” to ensure a gap between current and ideal performance exists. For lean practitioners, there is always a gap between the current and ideal state and as a result “pursuing perfection and pure value through the relentless elimination of waste” is a never ending journey.

Kaizen – Continuous Improvement

Daily Kaizen embraces the ideology that there is always a better way and more than one solution. We anticipate improved performance as we continue to understand and learn more from our experiences. We appreciate and learn from our failures and successes recognizing that each brings greater understanding of the process at hand. A missed target is a learning opportunity – whether expectations were exceeded or not.

While some would consider success as exceeding the target, doing so actually demonstrates that we did not fully understand all of the influences or elements of the process. As such, even hitting the target should be cause for review to validate our initial assumptions.  We may discover that some elements or combination of elements outside of our initial “assumptions” were actually responsible for hitting the target.

Kaizen is an integral part of a learning environment where lean thinking flourishes. Anticipation brings an element of excitement to the work place that keeps us wanting to come back to do it all over again.

“Anticipation” – Carly Simon sang it right – its keeping me waiting!

Until Next Time – STAY lean!

The Art of Deception – All Decisions are NOT Equal

Kanizsa triangle.
Image via Wikipedia

As I discussed in “What did you expect? Benchmarking and Decisions – For Better or Worse” we are confronted with decisions every day.  I even went so far as to suggest that an underlying benchmark is at the root of all decisions.  As you will soon find out, not all decisions are equal.

Most of us understand visual or optical illusions, however, I doubt that many of us are even aware of “cognitive” illusions.  Did you know that the manner in which data or material is presented to you may affect your decision in a predictable but not necessarily rational way?  Instinctively, we’re probably aware but not certain.

I watched an educational, yet entertaining, video featuring Dan Ariely, the author of Predictably Irrational, where he asks, “Are we in control of our decisions?”  Dan’s presentation demonstrates that both optical (visual) and cognitive illusions do exist and may even deceive us into making predictable but not necessarily rational decisions.  If the video doesn’t appear below, you can click here:  Dan Ariely asks, “Are we in Control of our own decisions?”

I appreciate and certainly have a much better understanding of how deceptive illusions can be in our everyday decision making processes.

Until Next Time – STAY lean!

Vergence Analytics
Twitter:  @Versalytics

PI: Discovery to Application – 1900 years

Archimedes pi
Image via Wikipedia

Mathematicians celebrate PI day on March 14 to honour of the number 3.14.  PI day was founded by Physicist Larry Shaw at the San Fransisco Exploratorium on March 14, 1989.

Greek mathematician Archimedes of Syracuse (287 to 212 B.C.) was the first to calculate the value of PI, however, its use became wide-spread only after it was adopted by Swiss mathematician Leonhard Euler in 1737.

Concept to Customer

Could you imagine the conversation in today’s terms.  “So, whose idea is this PI thing anyway?”  “Well there was this guy who lived just before the time of Christ and he …”

I find it interesting that 1,900 years had passed before PI became part of mainstream math.  Today “concept-to-customer” cycles are measured in much shorter terms:  days, weeks, months and at most a span of no more than a few years.

Now the never-ending value of PI appears as a simple button on every calculator and as  “one of many” functions known to virtually every computer software and / or operating system.

For those who are not aware, PI is used in various math, science, and engineering calculations and is most widely used to calculate the areas and volumes of circular geometric shapes.

Lessons Learned?

The founders of science, math, and physics fought and argued even under the threat of death to share what we take for granted today.  I am also amazed that their seemingly limitless imagination was not bound by the extremely limited resources available to them at the time.

They dared to dream and lived to tell about it.

When we look back through history, we see numerous sketches, concepts, and ideas that simply were not feasible at the time and if not recorded or documented would otherwise have been lost.  Record / document your ideas no matter how far fetched some of them may be – a valuable lesson learned, but seldom applied.

A knowledge database can be used to store ideas and concepts for future projects where implementation may be more practical or feasible.  Many times I hear teams discussing options they once considered but limited documentation only exists for the one selected.

I’m sure Archimedes had his reasons for calculating PI, but I have to laugh just a little as I wonder what he could have been thinking.  “I’m not sure what this means exactly but I’m sure someone will find a use for it someday.  We’ll just put that over here for now.”  And, 1,900 years later, Euler saying, “You’ll never believe what I found today.”

Remembering our roots.

Perhaps we don’t always give credit where credit is due and often overlook the true origins of our final solution.  On that note, Albert Einstein was also born on March 14, 1879 and would be celebrating his 132nd birthday as of this writing.  Oddly, his date of birth is loosely related to PI, 3.14.

I can only imagine what today’s technology would’ve done to accelerate progress during that time of discovery.  As I pondered that thought in the context of PI, I realized that they were already way ahead of their time and society just couldn’t or refused to keep up.

Time for some real PIe.

Until Next Time – STAY lean!

Vergence Analytics
Twitter:  @Versalytics

What did you expect? Benchmarking and Decisions – for better or worse.

Dice for various games, especially for rolepla...
Image via Wikipedia

What did you expect?

Benchmarking & Decisions – for better or worse

I recognize that benchmarking is not a new concept.  In business, we have learned to appreciate the value of benchmarking at the “macro level” through our deliberate attempts to establish a relative measure of performance, improvement, and even for competitor analysis.  Advertisers often use benchmarking as an integral component of their marketing strategy.

The discussion that follows will focus on the significance of benchmarking at the “micro level” – the application of benchmarking in our everyday decision processes.  In this context, “micro benchmarking” is a skill that we all possess and often take for granted – it is second nature to us.  I would even go so far as to suggest that some decisions are autonomous.

With this in mind, I intend to take a slightly different, although general, approach to introduce the concept of “micro benchmarking”.  I also contend that “micro benchmarking” can be used to introduce a new level of accountability to your organization.

Human Resources – The Art of Deception
Interviews and Border Crossing

Micro benchmarking can literally occur “in the moment.”  The interview process is one example where “micro benchmarking” frequently occurs.  I recently read an article titled, “Reading people: Signs border guards look for to spot deception“, and made particular note of the following advice to border crossing agents (emphasis added):

Find out about the person and establish their base-line behavior by asking about their commute in, their travel interests, etc. Note their body language during this stage as it is their norm against which all ensuing body language will be compared.

The interview process, whether for a job or crossing the border, represents one example where major (even life changing) decisions are made on the basis of very limited information.  As suggested in the article, one of the criteria is “relative change in behavior” from the norm established at the first greeting.  Although the person conducting a job interview may have more than just “body language” to work with, one of the objectives of the interview is to discern the truth – facts from fiction.

Obviously, the decision to permit entry into the country, or to hire someone, may have dire consequences, not only for the applicant, but also for you, your company, and even the country.  Our ability to benchmark at the micro level may be one of the more significant discriminating factors whereby our decisions are formulated.

Decisions – For Better or Worse:

Every decision we make in our lives is accompanied by some form of benchmarking.  While this statement may seem to be an over-generalization, let’s consider how decisions are actually made.  It is a common practice to “weigh our options” before making the final decision.  I suggest that every decision we make is rooted against some form of benchmarking exercise.  The decision process itself considers available inputs and potential outcomes (consequences):

  1. Better – Worse
  2. Pro’s – Con’s
  3. Advantages – Disadvantages
  4. Life – Death
  5. Success – Failure
  6. Safe – Risk

Decisions are usually intended to yield the best of all possible outcomes and, as suggested by the very short list above, they are based on “relative advantage” or “consequential” thinking processes.  At the heart of each of these decisions is a base line reference or “benchmark” whereby a good or presumably “correct” decision can be made.

We have been conditioned to believe (religion / teachings) and think (parents / education / social media / music) certain thoughts.  These “belief systems” or perceived “truths” serve as filters, in essence forming the base line or “benchmark” by which our thoughts, and hence our decisions, are processed.  Every word we read or hear is filtered against these “micro level” benchmarks.

I recognize that many other influences and factors exist but, suffice it to say, they are still based on a relative benchmark.  Unpopular decisions are just one example where social influences are heavily considered and weighed.  How many times have we heard, “The best decisions are not always popular ones.”  Politicians are known to make the tough and not so popular decisions early on in their term and rely on a waning public memory as the next election approaches – time heals all wounds but the scars remain.

Decisions – Measuring Outcomes

As alluded to in the last paragraph, our decision process may be biased as we consider the potential “reactions” or responses that may result.  Politics is rife with “poll” data that somehow sway the decisions that are made.  In a similar manner, substantially fewer issues of value are resolved in an election year for fear of a negative voter response.

In essence there are two primary outcomes to every decision, Reactions and Results.  The results of a decision are self-explanatory but may be classified as summarized below.

  1. Reactions – Noise (Social Aspects)
    • supporters
    • detractors
    • resistors
  2. Results – performance, data, facts (Business Aspects)
    • worse than expected (negative)
    • as expected (neutral)
    • better than expected (positive

Accountability

If you are still with me, I suggest that at least two levels of accountability exist:

  1. The process used to arrive at the decision
  2. The results of the decision

In corporations, large and small, executives are often held to account for worse than expected (negative) performance, where results are the primary – and seemingly only – focus of discussion.  I contend that positive results that exceed expectations should be subject to the same, if not higher, level of scrutiny.

Better and worse than expected results are both indicative of a lack of understanding or full comprehension of the process or system and as such present an opportunity for greater learning.  Predicting outcomes or results is a fundamental requirement and best practice where accountability is an inherent characteristic of company culture.

Toyota is notorious for continually deferring to the most basic measurement model:  Planned versus Actual.  Although positive (better than expected) results are more readily accepted than negative (worse than expected) results, both impact the business:

  • Better than expected:
    • Other potential investments may have been deferred based on the planned return on investment.
    • Financial statements are understated and affects other business aspects and transactions.
    • Decision model / process does not fully describe / consider all aspects to formulate planned / predictable results
      • Decision process to yield actual results cannot be duplicated unless lessons learned are pursued, understood, and the model is updated.
  • Worse than expected:
    • Poor / lower than expected return on investment
    • Extended financial obligations
    • Negative impact to cash flow / available cash
    • Lower stakeholder confidence for future investments
    • Decision model / process does not fully describe / consider all aspects to formulate planned / predictable results
      • Decision process will be duplicated unless lessons learned are pursued, understood, and the model is updated.

The second level of accountability and perhaps the most important concerns the process or decision model used to arrive at the decision.  In either case we want to discern between informed decisions, “educated guesses”, “wishful thinking”, or willful neglect.  We can see that individual and system / process level accountabilities exist.

The ultimate objective is to understand “what we were thinking” so we can repeat our successes without repeating our mistakes.  This seems to be a reasonable expectation and is a best practice for learning organizations.

Some companies are very quick to assign “blame” to individuals regardless of the reason for failure.  These situations can become very volatile and once again are best exemplified in the realm of politics.  There tends to be more leniency for individuals where policies or protocol has been followed.  If the system is broken, it is difficult to hold individuals to account.

The Accountability Solution – Show Your Work!

So, who is accountable?  Before you answer that, consider a person who used a decision model and the results were worse than the model predicted.  From a system point of view the person followed standard company protocol.  Now consider a person who did not use the model, knowing it was flawed, and the results were better than expected.  Both “failures” have their root in the same fundamental decision model.

The accountabilities introduced here however are somewhat different. The person following protocol has a traceable failure path.  In the latter case, the person introduced a new “untraceable” method – unless of course the person noted and advised of the flawed model before and not after the fact.

Toyota is one of the few companies I have worked with where documentation and attention to detail are paramount.  As another example, standardized work is not intended to serve as a rigid set of instructions that can never be changed. To the contrary, changes are permissible, however, the current state is the benchmark by which future performance is measured and proven.  The documentation serves as a tangible record to account for any changes made, for better or worse.

Throughout high school and college, we were always encouraged to “show our work”.  Some courses offered partial marks for the method although the final answer may have been wrong.  The opportunities for learning here however are greater than simply determining the student’s comprehension of the subject material.  To the contrary, it also offers an opportunity for the teacher to understand why the student failed to comprehend the subject matter and to determine whether the method used to teach the material could be improved.

Showing the work also demonstrates where the process break down occurred.  A wrong answer could have been due to a complete misunderstanding of the material or the result of a simple mis-entry on a calculator.  Why and how we make our decisions is just as important to understanding our expectations.

In conclusion

While the latter situations may be more typical of a macro level benchmark, I suggest that similar checks and balances occur even at the micro level.  As mentioned in the premise, some decisions may even be autonomous (snap decisions).   Examples of these decisions are public statements that all too often require an apology after the fact.  The sentiments for doing so usually include, “I’m sorry, I didn’t know what I was thinking.”  I am always amazed to learn that we may even fail to keep ourselves informed of what we’re thinking sometimes.

Until Next Time – STAY lean!

Vergence Analytics

Twitter:  @Versalytics