Working in Corporate Syrup!

I deal with a lot of people in major corporates who have roles to develop and promote cross functional business design - business architecture.  Often they have been promoted into the role or have worked elsewhere and arrive with enthusiasm and drive to do the right thing.

I usually meet them because they know I work in this space or from the various websites and blogs I maintain and usually it is from a training point of view. Some are at a sufficient level or have influence to access budget and discussions move forward to a satisfactory piece of training or supportive consultancy work. On the other hand I find individuals whose organisations have given them a role, reasonably paid at that, but then fail to support them in their personal development or provide funding for tools and software.

The latter part around the subject of tools is also interesting in that recently I did some training for an organisation and was a little surprised to find process mapping being done using PowerPoint. Visio was not even available because there was no budget or the organisation was just making it too difficult to obtain anything. The employee said

“Doing anything here is like walking in six inches of syrup!”

In some cases this situation creates the scenario where one gets an email or phone call asking for materials to assist – free of charge of course - and this is difficult because one doesn’t want to come across as unhelpful but on the other hand the  freelancer has to make a living. This is particularly emphasised by the fact that many organisations that these people work for are some of the largest and wealthiest corporations in the economy. In reality the employee has no power or authority and getting approval to do anything is just too hard. The waste of this Syrup must be extensive if we extrapolate it across the knowledge worker population.

What underlies this is the fact that employees tasked to deliver do not have the empowerment to engage the resources that they need to be effective – they are as the client above said – working in corporate syrup. Surely if we employ expensive people we need to fund the whole package: training personal development, tools and culturally make the organisation able to innovate and change else these appointments are potentially futile.

Business Architecture Maturity Models

The subject of business architecture capability maturity models has come up in discussion with clients recently. Organisations are seeing them as a means to bench mark their own capability and plan the implementation towards a higher degree of maturity. Whilst I do see some benefit in this, in that it gives you something to think about and ask yourself questions, I am a little concerned to some respect.

The issue is how you can use a maturity model to test yourself against when the discipline itself is unclear and fragmented. Business architecture is different things to different people and is still under innovation and debate in many of its aspects.

What is happening here is that certain well-meaning and well intentioned groups are claiming the space as their own and proclaiming “bodies of knowledge” and publishing models of “their” best practice. Many of these groups are highly I.T. centric and to be honest I am not sure that the provenance of this material is too helpful. Even the Wikipedia entry for business architecture currently promotes and tries to create legitimacy for certain bodies who have perhaps taken it upon themselves to proclaim their ownership of this topic.

Quite often it how an I.T. person thinks business architecture should be from his or her systems based view of the world.  To be fair to them though a lot of the content has value but it isn’t gospel. We are not at a point where these models are of an equivalent status to CMMI or similar.

The forums are full of debate on business architecture and there are multiple threads of thought and opinion, so no firm view in any form is possible at this point in time. I do accept that they probably are worthy endeavours and are based on positive and well-meant intention but one could argue that it is very pretentious and somewhat a potentially arrogant approach.

If organisations are using these models thinking that this is the only way, or seeing them as something to aspire too, when in reality the approach put forward is perhaps not right for their organisation then big mistakes are going to be made. This will not add to the good name of the discipline as a whole.

Business architecture needs to be applied appropriately, not in a one way fits approach; each and every organisation will benefit from an approach that suite: its business, its market and its culture. Business architecture is not painting by numbers!

So we need to use these emerging models carefully and use then to ask questions and promote thought, not as a blue print for what we should do.

The models should be used to develop an appropriate model for the organisation under discussion and then the model becomes a bespoke implementation plan for that organisation not a business architecture maturity model.

Does providing cash back and in consequence extending customer satisfaction represent good end to end process thinking?

There seems to be an increase in cash back deals in consumer electronics at present. The added incentive of a good price entices buyers but are there knock on consequences in creating "reputation risk" and potential brand damage by offering these type of deals?

Well for example on receiving a product on this basis recently I received a satisfaction survey some weeks after receipt of the goods. I replied by saying that as the cash back process was not complete I did not consider the proposition or the transaction closed and was not yet ready to provide feedback; when in reality I am very pleased with the quality of the product itself!

As I stand today, with the claims both now in, I worry about whether it will go smoothly and whether this is really a scam or sharp practice; this makes me doubt and question the brand which is really not what the marketing department surely want me to do - surely? In fact I have put of the buying of a phone from the same manufacturer until these transactions are completed to my satisfaction. Good brand building?

It may well work out fine, time will tell. But if you increase process complexity the risk of failure increases and to be honest people experiences with large companies and their bureaucracies taint their expectations. We expect them to fail.

The company concerned obviously did not realise by offering a cash back scheme, that would take several months to complete within its rules, had extended its end to end process time and internal "hand-offs" considerably and by doing so had increased its potential risk of customer dis-satisfaction in many ways.

The premature customer satisfaction survey underlined its lack of understanding of what it had done. To make it worse the manufactures offer had been passed along the value chain to the retailer who was promoting the scheme and added  another cash back on a case for the item.

So we have a situation where both a well-known electronics provided and another very well-known retailer are both risking their brand images and reputations on a purchase transaction which is now much more complex than they need to be, extending the satisfaction cycle from hours to at least 2-3 months  until all is close off and satisfaction can be achieved; all placed in the hands of a third party administrator. Dangerous or what!

By extending any process cycle time and particularly one where you outsource the extension to another organisation to handle the admin for you this is a risky endeavour. One might well ask why bother to take on board all this extra process, cost  and hassle plus the the risks of messing up and damaging the brand.

In retail cycle times can be really short even when you buy on line and wait a few days for delivery but to extend it to 30 days before you can claim, to avoid people claiming the money and fraudulently returning the product, and then 30 -45 days from claim to payment must be process madness in a customer focused world.

A customer buying the product taking it home and being delighted and advocating purchase to all and sundry next day as opposed to saying " nice product guys but I'm not sure whether this cash back lark is a rip off I'll let you know in late February" seems like a big marketing error.

Clearly it is a lack of joined up thinking where marketing isn't taking on board the overall customer experience into account and the much high risks of creating poor brand experience but simply focusing within  the sales silo trading on some simple pricing gimmick for the sake of a £50 discount.

This perhaps  is an example of poor business architecture where the scramble to differentiate and gain market share has forgotten the basics of trying to shorten cycle times - short cycle times generally create lower risk-   and but secondly keeping things simple - simplicity reduces defects.

You never know it will probably work out fine I will tell you in 45 days!!

Up date 8/2/13.

Two identical products bought from two different retail sources. One validated directly with the manufacturer, validated claim within a week still await the money but reasonable satisfied.

The second via a well known retailer is now validated but was serious hard work with multiple customer service contacts or attempts at contact and failed processes. The only option was to visit the store and speak to a human in the end.

For this retailer cash back was an opportunity to show how bad they are at customer service, which was obviously not the intention; proving my original synopsis.  Still awaiting cheque on this one as well. Retailers brand damaged for me and for the 10 or so friends I have bored to tears about this over the last few weeks!

So both end to end transactions still open from a purchase made in early December. QED.

Update 20/2/13

Still waiting!!

Update 21/2/13

A result! first cheque for £30 arrived from retailer £100 still to go from manufacturer. 

Update 4/3/13

A second result the £50 for the cash back direct from the manufacturer hits the bank account. E2E process from purchase to completion  4 months....

Update 11/3/13
The retailer £50 ? -  well the process is messed up,- customer fault apparently-  bad process design in reality- Manufacture agrees to process exception -as good will !! - and promises money in 21 days ......what a farce...... Well of the £130 outstanding we now have £80 of it so at least some progress. 

Update and Closure 20/4/13

At long last the end to end process completes with the final payment. What a process!! End to end c. 120 days......marketing and brand disaster.

Tax, engagement and the Interim.

 In the UK the public sector is being lambasted by the media for employing so called interims complaining that tax is being avoided and these guys should be employees.

Let us remember that avoidance of tax isn't illegal, the media seems to forget that.

There is poor understanding of the issues involved and a lot of knee jerk reactions are being voiced on TV and late night chat shows with little substance behind the rhetoric.

The interim manager, a phrase that means lots of different things to different people, is under scrutiny at present from many different perspectives. The term and definition of an interim is actually is the source of the problem - it is just so poorly understood not just  by the media, but by interims themselves which doesn't help us here.

The contractor/interims, again overlapping and highly debated labels, fight back with claims of running their own business and the need to transfer fees from active assignment to marketing periods and the like.

There is clearly a difference from people employed on short term assignments, short is also debatable - is two years short?  who operate within the organisation as a controlling person making decisions and implementing commend compared to a consultant working on a project for a few months maybe in parallel with other client work.

The former are employees really, ducks and quacking come into mind here, but what goes amiss here is the lack of understanding of the costs those individuals have to maintain to stay engaged.

The fixed term contract option fails to allow the hotel bill to be offset against tax and the cost of operating way from home is a serious issue as most of this work never seems to be in one local area London excepted . MPs seem to get funded to work away from home don't they?

The tax man then gets the income tax and NI as an uplift on the expenses i.e.  a hotel bill gets paid from taxed income and either the rate to the client has to go up to accommodate the situation or in more likely reality the employee, sorry interim, suffers. The answer here has to be that the fixed term contract must pay a salary through PAYE that fits the costs and situation of the temporary member of staff, if of course we are going on with this definition.

Many H.R. managers seem to think that they can pay the same salary as they would a permanent employee forgetting the engagement commitment and feel good factor of belonging with some degree of longer term commitment. Fixed term contracts from the contractor/employee point of view are the worst option possible. No commitment beyond the term with no ability to transfer income to new business work after the event or protection of expenses.

This is a complex subject and the variations and issues are so diverse one stop solutions and over arching tax rules fail to address the problem with sufficient care. For example individuals sometimes take interim positions, sometimes take contracts, fixed term or day rate through service companies  and sometimes trade with multiple clients simultaneously. Thus people are interims, contractors employees and freelancers at different points on the timeline. The employment status changes from one from to another; this is not easy for individuals or the tax-man.

The current media frenzy on this matter is going to change the shape of the interim contractor landscape in 2013 no doubt. especially in the public sector. Like everything in life a minority have stretched the rules and unleashed a fire storm for which the majority are now paying for with interest!


All this is not helpful to true freelancers trying to eke out a living in difficult times with pressure on rate and clients trying to get value without paying for it properly by leveraging the difficult market to their own benefit.

"Heh Fenester. what's your definition of a freelancer!!!" :-)  Doh.....

Rush to Regulate

The media rushes to push for regulation on the premise that it protects the consumer and that corporate bodies and entrepreneurs  are evil and need controlling. Regulation is set out as a good thing and something to aim for in one industry after another; it is portrayed as good for the customer.

However there is another side.

Regulation cost money, a lot of money, this ultimately rises costs for everyone and the consumer has to pay for it. Whilst in recognising that some companies have been under hand in their dealings with the public and regulation as been the response as a result the cost to the majority of the behaviour  minority is huge. It is a bit like regulation being like an insurance policy, we all pay more to cover the eventuality of bad practice , or an attempt to prevent it in any case.

Regulation actually diminishes the customer experience - how?

Well you hear so many people complaining about inane scripts and pre-recorded messages and bundles of "pointless" fulfilment material; this is not always the providers fault, in many cases it's the result of compliance with regulation.

In a globalised market our localised regulation in staffing matters raises our costs and makes us uncompetitive. No wonder much of our processing activity was off-shored. Lots of people complain about the service that arises as a result.

On the up side compliance and regulatory matters have kept us change professionals in supplies and rations during the recession as mandatory change activity was the only work around!

So am I saying regulation is a bad thing?

No, people should be protected particularly from being exploited in employment but when the playing field isn't level the reality isn't that simple. The message here is regulation has  a place but it has to have its consequences thought through.

Let me finish off with an example of unintended consequences which illustrates why we need to think regulation through properly before jumping to knee jerk regulatory responses to problems:

A very well known university town council in England decided to regulate private rented accommodation that was shared; it required licenses and stipulated higher safety requirements including separate fire proof doors to bedrooms and the like.

All good stuff I hear you say but:

The stock of accommodation in that city has reduced substantially as landlords now only rent to families not shared groups, many don't want to incur the costs or ruin the look of their feature filled Victorian housing stock.

Sharers are being turfed out as their current rental agreements come up for renewal and then have to pay higher rents as the supply has substantially dropped and landlord recoup there extra expenses from this regulation and also benefit from increasing prices as the scarcity of their product has increased as a result. This on top of higher university fees is another blow to students and young professionals in the town under discussion.

Rents have gone up as a consequence and the house sharing young people foot the bill.

The same houses with no safety enhancements are now populated by families instead, the stock is the same standard not any safer either. The prices for licensed properties for young people have gone up with little benefit to anyone except the regulators and bureaucrats who charge the fees for the license, perform the inspection and administer the scheme. If a house is safe for a family, why is not safe for three young adults to live in?

The issue here is people with good intention, politicians and public employees, have little commercial knowledge and don't think through the business model that sits behind the regulation. This needs skills in business design and requires the skills often seen in disciplines like business architecture.