A logical approach to making more money

IF [100] we sometimes make changes in our business expecting one result, but we get a different (e.g., unexpected or even negative) result…

THEN [110] we sometimes miss or misunderstand the cause-and-effect relationships in how our business is actually working; AND [120] we sometimes have doubts about what we think we know about how our enterprise actually works.

IF [120] we sometimes have doubts about what we think we know about how our enterprise actually works… AND [130] we (as a management team, or the company as a whole) could somehow put our intuitive knowledge about how our business works on paper…

THEN [140] we could read and reread our logic about how our organization really works (and fails to work) in reaching our goals.

IF [120] we sometimes have doubts about what we think we know about how our enterprise actually works; AND [140] we could read and reread our logic about how our organization really works (and fails to work) in reaching our goals…

THEN [150] we might discover flaws in our thinking and reasoning regarding how our organization really works (or fails to work) in reaching our goals.

IF [130] we (as a management team, or the company as a whole) could somehow put our intuitive knowledge about how our business works on paper…

THEN [160] others can also read and review our logic concerning what we believe is really happening in our business and how it all works.

IF [160] others can also read and review our logic concerning what we believe is really happening in our business and how it all works…

THEN [170] others may be able to help us find flaws in our thinking about how our business works (or fails to work) in reaching our goals.

IF [170] others may be able to help us find flaws in our thinking about how our business works (or fails to work) in reaching our goals;

OR IF [140] we could read and reread our logic about how our organization really works (and fails to work) in reaching our goals…

THEN [180] we may realize that we have some flaws in our thinking about what is really happening in our business enterprise.

IF [170] others may be able to help us find flaws in our thinking about how our business works (or fails to work) in reaching our goals;

THEN [190] others may also gain a better understanding of how our organization works (or fails to work) in reaching our goals.

IF  [190] others may also gain a better understanding of how our organization works (or fails to work) in reaching our goals; AND [200] discussions based in documented logic may help convince others (in a way presumption or other discussions may not)…

THEN [210] other stakeholders (e.g., employees, vendors, customers, board members) may be persuaded to help us in taking effective action to change our enterprise in ways that will help us achieve more of our goals.

IF [210] other stakeholders (e.g., employees, vendors, customers, board members) may be persuaded to help us in taking effective action to change our enterprise in ways that will help us achieve more of our goals; AND [220] other stakeholders want to help us in taking effective action to change our enterprise…

THEN [230] other stakeholders will help us in taking effective action to improve our business.

IF [150] we might discover flaws in our thinking and reasoning regarding how our organization really works (or fails to work) in reaching our goals; OR [180] we may realize that we have some flaws in our thinking about what is really happening in our business enterprise…

THEN [240] we will gain a better understanding of how our business really works (or fails to work) in reaching our goals.

IF [240] we will gain a better understanding of how our business really works (or fails to work) in reaching our goals; AND [250] we want to take actions that will really help our enterprise achieve more of its goals…

THEN [260] we will be guided (by what we have learned through this process) to take effective action to help our business reach more of its goals.

IF [260] we will be guided (by what we have learned through this process) to take effective action to help our business reach more of its goals; OR [230] other stakeholders will help us in taking effective action to improve our business…

THEN [270] our business will improve and we will achieve more of our goals.

What you have just experienced is “reading through” a logical “tree” as used in the Thinking Processes. In this case, the end result [270] is a business that is virtually assured of improving and reaching more of its goal (read: making more money, if it is a for-profit institution).

What was their first step: First, to realize that their own history of false-starts and attempts at improvement that produced little or no beneficial results proves to them that they do not really understand their own business enterprise. This is revealed in entities 100, 110, and 120 above.

This management team does not necessarily need a consultant; but what they do need is a framework (a theory) by which to understand how their organization really works – and, indeed, fails to work – in attempts to make more money tomorrow than it is making today.

“Experience teaches you nothing without theory.” – W. Edwards Deming

Second, this management team needed a method by which create a theory or framework as to how their organization really works and fails in its attempts to reach more of its goals. Most organizations have no such framework to guide them and have discovered no method by which to build and document such a framework. As a result, they tend to be guided by numbers (which frequently lie to them) and by “tribal knowledge” (which is all of the important intuitive knowledge contained in your organization that is valuable but entirely undocumented).

That’s it: It took this management team a realization that trial-and-error was no longer a satisfactory way to run a business enterprise – especially in a recession; and the discovery of a tool to help them document and reconsider what they already knew but did not know how to exploit for a breakthrough.

Read more about Goldratt’s Thinking Processes as developed in the context of the Theory of Constraints (ToC) by doing an online search for terms such as:

·         Thinking Processes

·         Theory of Constraints

·         Goldratt

·         Current Reality Tree

If you and your management team would like help in getting started with these tools that can bring rapid and dramatic improvement, contact me at rcushing@geewhiz2roi.com.

©2010 Richard D. Cushing

Surviving the recession with breakthrough thinking - Part 3

 [Continuation]

As you and your management team will realize as you work through the Thinking Processes (TPs), this approach to achieving breakthrough thinking recognizes that each challenge you and your organization faces requires a unique approach and a unique solution. Unlike other methods of problem-solving, applying the TPs recognizes the distinct needs, interests, abilities, limitations and power of all of the stakeholders. This capability of the process helps achieve breakthroughs by maximizing the quality and the effectiveness of the solution. Furthermore, the fact the solution will be invented by you and your management team, the likelihood of full implementation is increased. After all, people seldom work against their own inventions.

Discovering the transitional steps

One of the dangers of adopting or adapting a solution from a previous effort or somewhere or someone else is that, in doing so, the “easy answer” too frequently leads your team to also accept an “easy implementation” in which the transitional requirements are never fully understood. Warning! If the transitional steps are not understood – and usually not even clearly articulated – then the transitional steps are never fully developed for implementation.

What your management team may have previously understood as “the problem” and “the solution” have usually been nothing more than cryptic images shrouded in a fog of language leading to lots of action but seldom (if ever) a real breakthrough in improvement. However, if you have undertaken to build and understand the Current Reality Tree (CRT), then you have in your hands a document that depicts clearly and logically what is constraining your organization from making more money tomorrow than you are making today. Chances are that, as a result, you and your managers have a clearer understanding of your organization as a whole than you have ever had previously. You may be feeling a sense of empowerment – a renewed sense of being in control – that you have been lacking as manager for years now.

However, the Thinking Processes have more to offer than helping you clearly understand the “root” of your problem – the one thing (or very small number of things) that is your bottleneck (constraint) to achieving more of the goal. The CRT you have built has helped you answer a critical question for good management: What needs to change?

But two additional questions need to be answered, as well: What should the change look like? And, How do we effect the change? Fortunately, the Thinking Processes supply powerful tools to help your team discover and clearly articulate answers to these questions.

By building a Transition Tree (TrT), your management team will go through a Thinking Process that will help you apply sound logic to determining the transitional steps necessary to move from your organization’s Current Reality to your intended Future Reality. When you are done, your team should have three Thinking Process logical “trees” – a Current Reality Tree, a Transition Tree, and a Future Reality Tree. These three documents represent answers to the three critical questions to which your management team needs sound answers:

1.       Current Reality Tree – What needs to change?

2.       Future Reality Tree – What should the change look like?

3.       Transition Tree – How do we effect the change?

Note that the TrT should become your “road map” to change. This document, you will find, should clearly define the necessary steps to achieving the desired change right along with the rationale for taking these steps. Without such a map it is easy to get lost or lose focus on the breakthrough your team has calculated for achieving more of the goal.

Don’t get derailed

Chances are, while you and your management team are building the Transition Tree, that there will be some that will step forward say, “We won’t be able to do that because….” There are a couple of important points to consider when this happens.

First, keep your focus on what happens most in making more money for your organization. If you can increase Throughput on 97% of your transactions, do not let the unpredictable 3% of exceptions keep you from achieving the breakthrough change for the vast majority of circumstances. Paying too much attention to these exceptions will likely distort your solution.

However, if there is an objection raised that needs to be evaluated and where it could have an impact on effecting the overall change anticipated by the FRT, then there is a Thinking Process for this, as well. Under such circumstance, you and your team should consider what Eliyahu Goldratt called “Negative Branches.” These are smaller logic trees that supply answers to questions such as: “What will we do if…?”

Don’t get stuck

Sometimes – in fact, with some frequency – management teams such as yours get caught on the horns of a dilemma. They find that there appear to be rational arguments for two mutually exclusive paths to the same interim objective in their Transition Tree development.

For example: A manufacturing manager is measured and rewarded on two different metrics – defect rates and equipment maintenance expenses. Of course, he wants to be a good manager and to be rewarded properly for being a good manager, so he wants simultaneously produce quality parts and hold-down the equipment maintenance expenses. He knows that he can reduce maintenance expenses by doing on-demand maintenance only. He also knows that he can achieve lower defect rates if he applies routine preventive maintenance on the equipment under his management. Which of the two approaches to equipment maintenance should he choose?

Fortunately, the Thinking Processes have an answer for this situation, too. The tool is called the Evaporating Cloud and is critical to actually achieving breakthrough solutions.

Summary

To my knowledge, no for-profit organization in the world has ever achieved ascendency in its industry through “cost-cutting” efforts. Companies that grow and gain market share are more likely to be those that have achieved breakthroughs.

There are three basic ways to reach a breakthrough in your organization’s thinking:

1.       By chance

2.       By hiring people who are intuitively breakthrough thinkers

3.       By finding and applying a tool that is proven in drawing out breakthrough thinking from ordinary executives and managers – like the Thinking Processes

Which will your organization choose?

©2010 Richard D. Cushing

Surviving the recession with breakthrough thinking - Part 2

[Continuation]
Thinking should be a process
Now that your management team is has identified a goal and they have a theory by which to consider the data they might collect, they are far better situated to determine what information might be valuable to them. If your team is focused on gathering relevant information where the goal is making more money, and the framework or theory tells us that there must be at least one bottleneck or constraint in our system (the whole enterprise), your team now knows the very first question to ask and answer. That question is: “What is our constraint or bottleneck to making more money tomorrow than we are making today?”
 
While we might find some hints in the data stored within your existing ERP database and other computer systems, it is far more likely that what is really valuable in finding the answer to this critical question is presently being held in the minds of your own firm’s managers and leaders all across the organization. We call this kind of undocumented information consciously or subconsciously filed away by the organization’s people day by day “tribal knowledge.” Tribal knowledge is what they have learned through facts and circumstances accompanied by their subjective intuition about what they have garnered objectively.
 
The relatively limited amount of information that is required to soundly answer the key question we have identified is actually better defined from probing the staffs’ intuitions – tribal knowledge – regarding the context of the organization, the uniqueness found in it and its products, and how it works or does not work in delivering value to its customers.
 
In almost every problem, the value of the factual details pales in significance when compared to the framework and setting in which the details transpire. Breakthrough thinking comes from the application of intuition that gives meaning and cohesiveness to the observations made.
 
Traditional information-gathering efforts focus on the past (historical data captured in computer systems or elsewhere) or the present failings. Unfortunately, since these cannot – by their nature – be an effective guide for the future, the real breakthroughs emerge from the intuition of those closest to the workings of the “system” – the organization taken as a whole.
 
You and your management team might begin by gathering a cross-functional team of staff whom you deem to be trustworthy and experienced in their functions within your enterprise. Then, simply commence by asking this simple question: “What small handful of things do each of you see as keeping our firm from making more money tomorrow than we are making today?”
 
 Give each of them several three-by-five cards or large stick-notes and ask them to jot down these factors for you. Before they begin writing, give them the following guidelines:

• State each thought as clearly as possible 
• Include an “actor,” as in “Our vendors provide us with too many defective components for Product Line A.”
• Do not include assumed cause-and-effect statements. For example, do not say “Competition is driving prices down, so our salespeople offer too many discounts to make sales.” Instead, make each of these comments stand on their own if you believe them to be true. Write them as separate items thus: “Our competitors are driving prices down,” and “Our salespeople offer too many discounts in order to make sales.”
• Put each statement on a separate card or stick-note.

You should refer to these as undesirable effects or UDEs (pronounced: YOU-dee-ees) as did Eli Goldratt when he first promulgated the Thinking Processes. Naturally, some of the participants will have more ideas to jot down than others. Your object in this part of the exercise is to come up with roughly 20 unique UDEs with which to begin creating your organization’s Current Reality Tree – a logical tree that will depict what is not working – what is keeping your organization from making more money tomorrow than it is making today.
 
You can learn more about Eliyahu Goldratt and the Thinking Processes, including Current Reality Trees by doing an Internet search on any or all of these terms, or review this and related Wikipedia articles. You will also find additional references and application of the Thinking Processes right here at GeeWhiz to R.O.I.
 
Every problem is unique and is likely to require a unique solution
A wise man once said, “No man crosses the same river twice: for both the man and the river have changed with each crossing.” The must be said in the realm of business problem-solving.

One of the most frequently occurring and devastating errors executives and managers make in problem-solving and planning is that one problem or situation is identical to another. Fads in management come and go, but no fad or prior experience can take into account fully the differences in time, place, people involved, surrounding conditions, and the present purpose of reaching a breakthrough. The Thinking Processes, however, are able to leverage the “tribal knowledge” and intuition available within your organization to discover unique responses to unique situations even when they may appear (on the surface) to be “just like” what you faced last month or last year.
 
Furthermore, the Thinking Processes are able to decipher and disarm cultural differences and conflicting values within your organization without compromise – which is nothing more than accepting the best of the worst options and blending it with the worst of the best solutions.
 
Far too many managers and executives go out of the way to draw comparisons between their present reality and some other situation believed to be similar. These similarities may be expounded to great length even though the two situations may be separated by miles, years and even involve entirely different companies and personnel. This propensity stems from a desire to reach an “efficient” solution while feeling some satisfaction about being “objective,” as well. It also reduces or eliminates much of the requirement for actually thinking about the uniqueness of the organizations present situation. The Thinking Processes’ Current Reality Tree (CRT) simplifies that while providing management with a truly objective and rational view of what is keeping the “system” from achieving more of its goal.
 
[To be continued]
©2010 Richard D. Cushing

The New ERP – Part 40

We are continuing our discussion of Sue Bergamo's article entitled "Is Your Implementation in Trouble?" Bergamo listed seven "high level categories [in troubled ERP implementations]…. in the order from the highest to lowest number of responses" from her informal LinkedIn survey. Here is her list:

1. A misconception of business expectations
   
2. The lack of top level leadership involvement in the project
   
3. Business processes were not correctly redefined and continued to be inefficient
   
4. The impact of the organizational change was not addressed properly and caused a major upheaval in the company
   
5. The vendor wasn't managed correctly and over-promised, then under delivered [sic]
   
6. Project management was weak and over-customizations lead to increased scope and time
   
7. The integration of diverse applications was harder than anyone expected
   (Bergamo 2010)
   

In the process of our reveiw we are drilling-down on Bergamo's symptoms list and setting them in the context of the New ERP – Extended Readiness for Profit while contrasting them with traditional ERP – Everything Replacement Projects to see if using the New ERP approach would have mitigated the failures.

5. The vendor wasn't managed correctly and over-promised, then under delivered

This exposes another important advantage of the New ERP – Extended Readiness for Profit over traditional ERP – Everything Replacement Projects: namely, that the New ERP takes several specific steps to minimize such an occurrence –

Traditional ERP – Everything Replacement Project	The New ERP – Extended Readiness for Profit
Since the vendor in a traditional ERP project is going to touch so many facets and functions in the enterprise, this fact allows the vendor great latitude to make promises about the benefits and gains to be made without ever declaring the specifics about those gains. The benefits to the organization are frequently stated so broadly as to remain essentially without a corresponding metric for evaluation.	The New ERP, in contrast, requires that the executive and management team of the organization determine in advance the three critical matters we have already mentioned several times: What needs to change – That is, to identify what very specific functions in the enterprise are keeping the firm from achieving its goal of making more money tomorrow than it is making today. What the change should look like – The management team must determine in advance what the changes in the specific functions (identified in item 1 above) should look like in order to assure that, after the change is made, the enterprise will, in fact – or with a very high probability – make more money tomorrow than it is making today. This should be measurable in some manner. We have previously used the example (see earlier portions in this series) of an increase in the number of orders that could be picked, packed and shipped with the same number of personnel working in the warehouse. How to effect the change – This is the one area in which the technology vendor may play a part. They may offer suggestions about which technologies to apply and how these technologies should deployed to achieve the greatest effect. Note that if this approach is taken, the management team of the buying organization is setting the specific performance standards expected. This leaves little room for the vendor to exercise his "bragging rights" and thus "over-promise." The vendor either can meet (or exceed) the stated standard or performance, or it cannot. It is as simple as that.
In most cases where traditional ERP is undertaken, there is no up-front establishment of performance standards with the vendor. And, of course, in the absence of a specific and measurable standard, how can one effectively "manage" the vendor. By what measure are you managing them? If the traditional "project success" standards are applied (i.e., on-time, within the budget, and of acceptable quality) then, I suppose, you can count your project a success. However, if that "success" does not result in your company's ability to make more money tomorrow than it is making today – if there is no measurable R.O.I. (return on investment), then that is a hollow victory indeed.	Since the New ERP begins with the executive management team establishing and articulating clearly to the vendors the measurable results expected from them, then "good management" of the vendors means achieving those results that have been predetermined to deliver increased Throughput, reduced Inventories or demands for new investment, and/or lower Operating Expenses while sustaining significant growth. Such an approach greatly reduces the likelihood that a vendor will be incorrectly managed.
Most traditional ERP projects include "demonstrations" of the software. In many cases, such demonstrations are even carefully scripted. However, if you look at the section of this series that references product demonstrations, you will see that product demonstrations rarely constitute proof of concept tightly focused around metrics correlated to critical functionality.	On the other hand, the New ERP required participating vendors provide, not only proof of concept, but also a budget to achieve that proof of concept in the production environment. Furthermore, that budget is compared by your executive management team with the estimated benefits (changes in Throughput and Operating Expenses) to help assure that the projects planned ROI is likely to be attained as a result.

 
This side-by-side comparison of traditional ERP with the New ERP should make it abundantly clear that the "incorrectly managed vendor" failing is far less likely to occur when organizations adopt the New ERP as their method for evaluating both improvement projects and the vendors they hire to supply and implement technologies for them.

[To be continued]

©2010 Richard D. Cushing

Works Cited

Bergamo, Sue. CIO Update: Is Your ERP Implementation in Trouble? Feb 01, 2010. http://www.cioupdate.com/features/article.php/3862056/Is-Your-ERP-Implementation-in-Trouble.htm (accessed Feb 02, 2010).


 

The New ERP – Extended Readiness for Profit – Part 39

We are continuing our discussion of Sue Bergamo's article entitled "Is Your Implementation in Trouble?" She listed seven "high level categories [in troubled ERP implementations]…. in the order from the highest to lowest number of responses" from her informal LinkedIn survey. Here is the list:

1. A misconception of business expectations
   
2. The lack of top level leadership involvement in the project
   
3. Business processes were not correctly redefined and continued to be inefficient
   
4. The impact of the organizational change was not addressed properly and caused a major upheaval in the company
   
5. The vendor wasn't managed correctly and over-promised, then under delivered [sic]
   
6. Project management was weak and over-customizations lead to increased scope and time
   
7. The integration of diverse applications was harder than anyone expected
   (Bergamo 2010)
   

In this process we are drilling-down on Bergamo's symptoms list and setting them in the context of the New ERP – Extended Readiness for Profit while contrasting them with traditional ERP – Everything Replacement Projects to see if using the New ERP approach would have mitigated the failures.

2. The lack of top level leadership involvement in the project

This is a no-brainer for the New ERP – Extended Readiness for Profit, and the reason is simple: "Top level leadership" are always interested and involved in those things that are going to lead to increasing profit. They are less likely to be interested and involved in "housekeeping" and "maintenance" matters.

For better or worse, top-level executives frequently consider IT either "a necessary evil" – like paying the janitorial staff; or they see it a "necessity that no longer delivers a business advantage" – like maintenance on well-worn manufacturing equipment on the shop floor. It may have been a competitive advantage when it was purchased (several years ago), but now it is only an "expense."

If top-level leadership had begun their search by looking for improvement leading to a competitive advantage, or improvement leading to significant increases in Throughput they would be "involved" in the project. Not only so, but if they had followed the New ERP – Extended Readiness for Profit approach, their application of the Thinking Processes (see prior posts) would have led executives and managers to uncover the answers to the three critical questions we have so frequently reiterated:

1. What needs to change (Current Reality Tree)
   
2. What should the change look like (Future Reality Tree)
   
3. How to effect the change (Transition Tree)
   

What could be simpler or more effective in gaining top-level leaderships involvement with the project at hand?

3. Business processes were not correctly redefined and continued to be inefficient

This is another problem easily created when traditional ERP – Everything Replacement Project methods are employed and even more easily avoided when taking the New ERP – Extended Readiness for Profit approach. Here is why:

If the executive management team has discovered what needs to change, then they have already automatically "correctly defined" the business processes involved. They know exactly what specific business processes are acting as a constraint or bottleneck to making more money. By using the Thinking Processes' CRT (Current Reality Tree), the firm's leadership has already unlocked and decoded tribal knowledge so as to precisely what business process should be improved.

And, if they are following the New ERP methods, then their next step likely would be (depending on certain factors) the creation of a Future Reality Tree (FRT) or a Transition Tree (TrT). Either of these logical trees would help them understand what the change should look like and how to effect the change. Specifically, the FRT would define for them what their business processes should look like after the proposed change, and the TrT would become the management team's roadmap for change management. [Note: For Theory of Constraints purists, there are other portions of the Thinking Processes that might become a part of this (e.g., Negative branches, Prerequisite Trees) that I have left out of this discussion for the sake of simplicity.]

I think you can see from this that, by employing the New ERP methods, there is simply no way to leave behind "inefficient processes" that remain unchanged. Fundamental to the Thinking Processes and the planning that results from the logic of the trees is the inherent roadmap to changing whatever it is that was defined in "what needs to change" (the CRT).

In the traditional ERP – Everything Replacement Project so much change is happening all across the organization, it is no surprise that all that some processes get overlooked and remain unchanged and, as a result, inefficient as well. 

4. The impact of organizational change was not addressed properly and caused a major upheaval in the company 

This cause sounds sort of redundant, does it not? This is a symptom that has its roots in the whole philosophy of traditional ERP – Everything Replacement Projects. After all, it is really hard to avoid a "major upheaval in the company" when your approach is to "replace everything" in their core IT systems.

That is precisely why the New ERP – Extended Readiness for Profit is not only vastly more likely to provide a sound and significant return on investment (ROI), it is also likely to produce an ROI at lightning speed. Many traditional ERP projects take years to produce a return and, sadly, some never do.

[To be continued]

©2010 Richard D. Cushing

Works Cited

Bergamo, Sue. CIO Update: Is Your ERP Implementation in Trouble? Feb 01, 2010. http://www.cioupdate.com/features/article.php/3862056/Is-Your-ERP-Implementation-in-Trouble.htm (accessed Feb 02, 2010).


 

The New ERP – Part 28

Strategic alignment is the "best determinant" of success

According to writer and researcher Meridith Levinson, "Many factors influence project success and failure…. But new project management research from training company Insights Learning and Development, the Project Management Institute and a strategic execution consultant suggests that the single most important factor influencing project success is the project's link to the organization's business strategy and the project manager's understanding of how the project supports the business strategy." (Levinson 2009) [Emphasis added.]

This should be an encouragement to any executive or manager who has been following along with us in our development of The New ERP – Extended Readiness for Profit. I say this because we have emphasized the following THREE SIMPLE STEPS:

1. Discover what needs to change, which we have helped you do by applying the Thinking Processes (TPs) and leading you and your management team to the creation of your own Current Reality Tree (CRT). By looking to the roots of your CRT, you were able to see clearly those few things (usually fewer than a half-dozen) that need to change in order for your business to reach more of its goal of making more money tomorrow than it is making today.
   
   
2. Work through what the change should look like. Here again, we suggested that you apply the Thinking Processes to build a Future Reality Tree (FRT) and Transition Tree (TrT). These two logical trees will help you and your management team understand with considerable clarity what the changes should look like if your "system" is going to improve.
   
   
3. Last, how to effect the change must be considered and, actually, if you have built your Transition Tree, you already have determined how to go about making your changes. It is worth mentioning, however, that sometimes the evidence at the "roots" of the CRT is so plainly evident that it is not necessary to build either an FRT or a TrT. (We do not advocate this approach, but some matters are so plain and so easily changed, that the actual work can be documented later, or a new CRT is drafted immediately following the implementation of the "simple" changes.)
   

You will note immediately that, having applied the TPs, you and your management team have already addressed the next element Levinson mentions: "Strategic value alone is not enough to ensure project success…. Project managers need to understand the business strategy and how the project supports it." (Levinson 2009) Having built your logical trees (i.e., CRT, FRT, TrT), you have the tools in your hand to quickly, accurately and effectively communicate "how the project supports" your business strategy of ongoing improvement to anyone involved in any part of the improvement projects that might be set forth.

A strategic road map for the improvement project

Here is a terrific side-benefit you get by having used the Thinking Processes to guide your New ERP – Extended Readiness for Profit project up to this point: For no additional investment of time, energy or money you and your team have a ready-made road map to keep yourselves and your project leads on target with the projects.

Levinson states that under traditional ERP scenarios, "[P]roject managers lack 'the context required to flag when the project is veering from its original intent and course-correct towards the intended outcome,' [write Suzanne Dresser and Mark Morgan, authors of a report published by Insights Learning and Development and the Project Management Institute]. And that's when cost and time overruns begin and when projects start to veer from business requirements." (Levinson 2009)

Your Thinking Processes diagrams provide not only the crystal-clear rationale for your efforts, the logic has already helped your management team set unambiguous metrics by which to compare outcomes with desired results. No fumbling around is required or allowed. Furthermore, the budget that you team has set is equally unambiguous.

Summary

In short, if alignment of IT projects with "business strategies" is, indeed, the "best determinant" of project success, you and your management team are well on their way to success if you have been following along with us in applying The New ERP methods. Plus, you have provided for yourself and those involved at every level with a clear, concise road map to keeping the entire effort – or even multiple efforts – on target for the desired ROI (return on investment) and within a budget that makes sense.

References

Levinson, Meridith. Business Strategy: The 'Best Determinant' of Project Success. Nov 17, 2009. http://www.cio.com/article/508018/Business_Strategy_The_Best_Determinant_of_Project_Success (accessed Nov 17, 2009).