It's not all about unicorns and rainbows... but they are vital to your success

A fairly simple concept occurred to me the other day, really the result of a number of conversations that all went along similar lines - why is my [ role | organization | department | service | pitch ] (delete as applicable) not valued?


What it boils down to is this - whatever it is you deliver, you need balanced delivery.  You need things that are happening now.  You need stuff that promises a bright future.  You need value that covers the basics.  And you also need to deliver beyond the basics.


When you throw all that into a quadrant (like I love to do with pretty much every idea I ever had), and give those things labels, this is what you get;

To be perceived as delivering value sustainably, my thinking is that you need to deliver stuff that fits into every quadrant.  You need Pebbles that quickly establish that everything is under control.  Rocks that make it clear you can be left to get on with it and things won't fall over.  Unicorns that demonstrate a capability to do more than the just the basics.  Rainbows that keep people excited for the long term.


This isn't just for your customers either.  Getting the balance right is highly motivating for everyone involved.

Time, Cost, Scope, Risk, Quality and Benefit - and how they relate

So…  I felt like revisiting an old favourite this time, something I am sure that many, if not most, have seen before.  But this time I want to push it, stretch the idea as far as it will go.

The diagram below describes one of the central ideas behind Project Management – that it is necessary to balance Time, Scope and Cost (or Resource) to deliver a project.  For example, when a project is planned, the amount of Time, Scope and Cost is defined.  If something occurs which is not to plan, a compromise must be found.  Possible responses might be to reduce Scope to ensure that Time and Cost are still delivered as planned.  Or increase the amount of Time and Cost so that the full Scope is delivered.  In reality it is rarely that simple, but you get the idea.

These three parameters could be classified as inputs, and changes to any of them alters the shape of the project.  This in turn will often affect the planned outcome of the project – the Objective.  If we develop our diagram a little further, at this point we can plot our Objective on a fourth scale, the Benefit scale.

As the project progresses, we can draw lines from the planned departure points of each input towards our objective.  The length of line could denote how much of each input parameter has been consumed.  Errors in planning alter the departure point of each of these lines, as the assumption of how much of that input was required was in error.  Using this method it is clear to see that the closer the project is to completion, the harder it is to adjust for incorrect assumptions and still hit the objective. 

Further, it is apparent that should the Objective change partway through a project, although it may be possible to adjust it will also mean that consumption lines will not be straight (and therefore less efficient).

Those more familiar with Project Management will at this point be wondering about Risk and Quality – where do they fit in this model?  Let’s start with Risk.  Risk is by definition an ambiguity, and can easily be considered as a cone around each of our input parameters.  The earlier a Risk is to eventuate in a project, the greater the potential impact on the eventual objective.

Finally, Quality - assuming that our definition is consuming our three input parameters as planned to deliver our Objective.  This is by far the simplest concept, so much so I am not even going to draw it on the diagram.  Delivery of a Quality outcome is simply bringing the three input parameters together at the point of Objective, despite changes in project requirements, erroneous assumptions or eventuating Risk.  The greater the variance, the greater impact on Quality.  The key to delivering Quality is therefore alignment.  If all those involved in a project fully understand the input parameters, the Objective, the Risks, and most importantly – how these relate to each other, the result will inevitably be a Quality outcome.

Metrics that Motivate

Empowerment is generally a key factor when considering motivation, and is particularly important when defining appropriate metrics.  Creating a balance between a framework for success and freedom to operate is vital to ensure those contributing to your business are empowered to deliver.

Before we get into the challenge of empowering through metrics, we first need to understand how to evaluate whether a metric is ‘good’.  Simply, there are two key factors; clarity of ownership and clarity of expectation.  If your meeting consists of working through your metrics rather than what action you plan to take as a result, it will be because one of these factors is not clear.  The quadrant below can help diagnose when this is happening.

Diagnosing lack of clarity with respect to metrics

 

Creating clarity at first glance may seem simple, but in reality it can be quite complex to deliver the levels of clarity your organization needs.

 

As a minimum, expectations need to consider timescales, method of measurement, level of response, target and acceptable tolerance.  Ownership should include scope of inclusion, categorization and frequency of reporting.  As with many things, the devil is in the detail, and these factors become more involved as they are explored.

Now, back to empowerment.  It is important to remember that every metric is a constraint.  They shape the desired outcome.  Therefore, the more there are, the more disempowered the owner will feel.  A real danger is that so many metrics are put in place they become mutually exclusive, making success impossible.

Therefore, the fewer metrics the better, right?  Almost.

Metrics do drive behavior, and there has to be some balance.  If you put in place just a single metric for the Customer Service Manager, it would probably be to reduce the number of customer complaints.  The easiest way to do that is to reduce the number of customers served, by giving service so bad that people simply don’t stay as customers.  There is no balance, and the eventual outcome is bad for business. 

I know that is a pretty extreme example, but it serves to make the point.  I have seen many situations where this kind of behavior has been at play, and the overall business suffers as a result.

So, there is a need to create a balanced pair of metrics for each key accountability.  These can be distilled through asking two simple questions;

 

1.       What single metric should be used to establish whether the role has been done?

2.       What balancing metric should be used to establish whether the role has been done well?

 

For example, the role might be accountable to drive growth, and so annual sales growth might be the primary metric.  The balancing metric could be the percentage of profit for the total business.

 

I challenge you to give it a try, either for your own or another role - it would be great to hear how you went!