Implementing CPM in small business on a limited budget

Eric Lundberg’s presentation at CFO Magazine’s 2011 Corporate Performance Management Conference today was refreshing. Lundberg brought things back down from the stratosphere for the large number of small-to-mid-sized business finance people in attendance.

My sense is that many of the presentations thus far have set forward concepts of such a broad scope and relative complexity that they are far, far beyond the pale of immediate consideration by many of the firms represented at the conference. Many of the attendees with whom I have spoken are mere “beginners” in corporate performance management (CPM).

Now, do not get me wrong: I have done no scientific—or even non-scientific—polling on this subject. I say what I say based solely on conversations I have had with a relatively small handful of conference attendees.

Nevertheless, I believe that many of the folks in attendance came here really trying to find out answers to pretty basic questions about CPM. And, given the fact that Julia Homer presented—that 63 percent of CFOs surveyed are more pessimistic about the coming year than they were about last year—I would further surmise that most of them are looking for ways to implement some kind of business analytics and CPM with the smallest possible drain on their corporate cash-flow.

That is precisely why I found Eric Lundberg’s presentation so very refreshing. Lundberg introduced his remarks by saying that he wanted to present “practical applications of tools” that he and his team put in place at ALM. He went on to tell the crowd that, as CFO in a firm held by private equity, he is not in a position to "go out and spend $100,000" or more on sophisticated analytics tools. Therefore, he and his team have implemented substantial business analytics built mostly around “home-grown” applications—not the kind purchased from analytics application vendors.

Lundberg went on to describe—in considerable detail—a number of the analytics in use at ALM. Using these effective but relatively low-cost tools, Lundberg and his team have gained considerable insight into what makes—and keeps—their company profitable. They have already implemented rolling forecasts and have the facility to re-forecast every month. They also do a complete bottom-up forecast fresh every quarter.

I really believe that Lundberg’s presentation put a light at the end of the tunnel for many CFOs struggling with the question: “How can we begin gaining the advantages of business intelligence and analytics without ‘big bucks’ to invest in making it a reality?”

This is real innovation, and it is clear that the analytics Lundberg and his team have put in place at ALM are already making the firm more successful, even in the midst of the present economic doldrums. Sixty-three percent of CFOs today may be more pessimistic about the coming year than the year just past, but Lundberg has leveraged limited resources in a way that will make his firm far more likely to survive and even thrive.

Congratulations, Eric Lundberg! And thanks for giving more small businesses hope for embracing new management metrics and analytics despite severely constricted funds.

Misaiming about metrics

In order to protect the guilty, my source for some the silly statements I read about business management will not be revealed. Recently, I read this statement in a book about business metrics.

“Measurement is the connecting fiber that can make all the parts work together [in a business or government enterprise]. Achieving this kind of coordination and alignment is impossible without exceptional performance measurement.”

Let’s consider the metaphor of a multi-movement mechanical watch. You know: the kind of watch that keeps time in minutes and seconds, tells you the day of the week, the day of the month, and the phases of moon.

Now, without a doubt, a huge number of measurements were made, formulas developed, and calculations made about the sizes of the gears, the number of teeth in each gear, their placement in relationship to one another and more. A watch is all about measurement. A watch’s whole purpose “measurement.” It only exists “to measure.”

Nevertheless, it is not the accuracy of the measurements that make the watch fulfill its functions properly. When you get right down to it, it is not even the accuracy of the calculations that went into the design of hundreds of moving parts. It is not the accuracy of its manufacture that—at the root—cause the timepiece to function as a “system” and do precisely what is expected of it.

It isn’t any of those things—at the root!

What, then, is at the root of a “system” that functions smoothly, efficiently and effectively? At the root of that highly effective watch’s ability to function is something entirely distinct from “measurement.”

What is that mysterious thing that all too frequently escapes the business intelligence fanatics? What lies at the very core, but is often overlooked by the “metrics maniacs”? What seems to conceal itself from those who seem to be convinced that if management could just get enough “information”—enough metrics—they could manage flawlessly?

The answer is—as W. Edwards Deming told us years ago—“theory.”

The people who designed all of the components of the multi-movement “watch” that does what it does so smoothly, efficiently and effectively had a “theory” about watchmaking long before they ever drew the first plans or began fabricating the first gear.



The business metrics book from which I got the quote at the opening of this article contained a diagram similar to that above. But this diagram is wrong in lots of ways. But, really, only two are critical.

Here’s what the diagram ought to look like:



The foundation of making a business that works—and stays working—is theory. And, more importantly, if the only “goal” of your “measurements” and “management” is a bunch of departments surrounded by a compensation system, then your business probably won’t last too long—except by “luck.”

The “goal” of your “system” should be—indeed, must be—profit. And, as W. Edwards Deming put it so well, “Information tells you nothing without theory.” Theory is the context by which information is interpreted and made the basis for action to change the outcomes.

[Cross-posted at Kinaxis Supply Chain Expert Community.]

Fractured Planning Processes

In a report entitled Retail Merchandising: Buckling Down in a Tough Economy, authors Paula Rosenbaum and Steve Rowen of Retail Systems Research (RSR) tell us that nearly half (47% on average, but 55% of performing laggards in the survey) of respondents to their survey said that their leading business challenge was “fractured [inventory] planning processes.”

Unfortunately, in the published report to which I have access, Rosenbaum and Rowen do not elaborate on just what the respondents consider to be a “fractured planning process,” although the accompanying prose tends to suggest that this description relates to business processes tied to inventory planning that are not unified or even in good end-to-end communications across the enterprise and beyond.

A common problem

While this survey deals with retailers and inventory specifically, it does highlight a problem in small-to-mid-sized businesses (SMBs) that I have observed for nearly 30 years: that is, the lack of “planning” at all. For sure, most SMBs do develop plans for special projects. If they are going to purchase new or upgraded technologies, build a new or extend existing facilities, open a new location, or add a new product line, then they do prepare and plan in a more or less formal way.

What executives and managers do not do on a regular basis is develop a plan for making more money – both now and in the future. Most executives tend to get their business rolling and then set the “cruise control.” Then, with the vehicle barreling down the road, they spend their time fighting fires and trying to keep up the organization’s momentum with little or no thought about how the terrain (read: business environment) has changed until something big hits (like a recession or big competitor appears on the horizon).

So, what keeps executives from “planning” more frequently and more effectively for business improvement?

My experience suggests the some blend of following key components comprise the answer:

1. Many executives developed a business plan once, and now they have a business. It never occurred to them that planning for “improving” the business is required or would even help. Being entrepreneurs, they tend to manage by the seat of their pants and trust their “gut” for what will bring improvement.
2. You can’t drain the swamp when you’re up to your neck in alligators. Many executives spend the bulk of their time being reactive, rather than proactive. There time is spent taking care of things that others don’t get done or fighting fires so people can return to doing what they need to do to keep the business running.
3. Unless something big is happening, most executives don’t think time spent in “planning” – rather than “doing” – is a good investment.
4. Far too many executives do not know of – or know how to apply – a good “tool” for effective planning. In the absence of a good tool, most executives feel that time spent in planning is not going to be effective anyway.
5. Things are changing too fast. We just need to do the best we can to survive, right now. Of course, in good times, or when things were not “changing too fast,” these same executives used other excuses for not planning.

A POOGI: A Process Of On-Going Improvement

In times like these – challenging economic times – it is more important than ever for executives and managers in companies that hope to survive despite the economic upheaval to make a concerted effort at ongoing improvement. That is, to start a POOGI within their firm.

Why?

Because it is becoming increasingly difficult to compete for the consumers dollars.  If you are not improving your value proposition in a process of on-going improvement, then day-by-day your products and services are losing out. Dollars that used to come your way are now going to other businesses – and I don’t mean just businesses that you see as your competitors. I’m talking about dollars that consumers used to spend for your goods and services are now going, instead, to buy groceries, fuel, or pay off credit cards – anywhere but into your bank account. That’s why you need a plan to increase the value of your offerings in an on-going way.

How to begin

How should you begin a POOGI?

You should begin by figuring out your present situation. You need to unlock your organization’s “tribal knowledge” and understand your current reality. Naturally, the right tool for doing this is called the Current Reality Tree (CRT).

For more information on Current Reality Trees, including step-by-step information on how to begin constructing one, click here. If you would like to have help unlocking your firm’s “tribal knowledge” effectively and in constructing your CRT, then contact me directly.

Next steps

Once your CRT has given you and your management team a clearer view of what needs to change, the next step is to decide what should the change look like. In other words, if you and your team took steps to reduce or eliminate Un-Desirable Effects (UDEs – pronounced: YOU-dee-eez) revealed by your CRT, what would your organizational cause-and-effect flow look like? The Thinking Processes tool used to expose this future state is called the Future Reality Tree (FRT).

Other of the Thinking Processes may also be applied, including:

• Evaporating Cloud
• Prerequisite Tree
• Negative Branch Reservations

However, for your “planning roadmap,” the tool that will you and your team move from where you are today (your CRT) to your planned future state (FRT), you will want to build a Transition Tree (TrT).

Again, if you’d like to have assistance in effectively applying the Thinking Processes and in creating a POOGI in your organization, then feel free to contact me directly. But, whatever you do, do not sit and do nothing and let the recession drive one more enterprise out of business.

©2010 Richard D. Cushing

Surviving the recession with breakthrough thinking - Part 1

If there is one thing you need to survive and thrive during a recession, it is a competitive advantage. And if there is one thing that can help you and your organization discover and secure a sustainable competitive advantage, it is breakthrough thinking. But how do you and your management team go about conjuring up a breakthrough? After all, the very word "breakthrough" indicates that there is a barrier between you and "the other side" of the breakthrough. How will you break through?

Become an expert on "the solution," not "the problem"
Over my career of more than 25 years in consulting and senior management, I have met lots of executives and managers that believe that "data" is central to improving a company. They did not have this same thought before computers became widely available to small-to-mid-sized business enterprises (SMEs). It seems that as PC-based computing and storage became faster and cheaper, managers' and executives' hunger for data grew. If some data was helpful, then (it seems they reasoned) all the data would make them infallible in their management actions.

The data are not right
What many of these executives and managers fail to understand, however, is that it is impossible for the data they collect to be right all of the time. To paraphrase P.T. Barnum: Some of the data will be right all of the time, and all of the data will be right some of the time; but, all of the data will never be right all of the time.

You will never possess all of the data
Of course, we need to add to that the fact that no one will ever possess all of the data in any given situation, if for no other reason than that there are hundreds of data elements affecting any given situation that are not quantifiable and cannot be reduced to empirical data points in a computer.

The data are not objective or impartial
Even the data that is collected may not be objective. How the data is collected, the programming that went into the computer application that collects it, the operator who enters it, the people making the measurements, and even the staff that categorize, select and report on the data are all potential influencers of the end result. The reports, dashboards or presentations that many executives will consider as being "neutral," "objective," and "impartial" really may have none of these attributes.

You are wasting time, energy and moneyFor all of these reasons and more, executives and managers that seek to amass volumes of data in order to solve problems are wasting the three things most companies can least afford to use unwisely: time, energy and money. Not only so, but too much data is more often a hindrance than a benefit to breakthrough problem-solving. The executives seeking a solution are more often than not simply buried in the minutia - much of it being unmanageable and irrelevant to the underlying core problem. The result is "paralysis by analysis."

Data-gathering is not accomplishment
Sadly, far too many executives and managers equate information gathering with actually accomplishing something that benefits the organization even though the act cannot be linked to increasing Throughput, reducing Inventories or demand for new Investment, and/or cutting or holding the line on Operating Expenses while sustaining significant growth. This approach to problem-solving frequently reports "progress" without any real accomplishment leading to improvement - short-term or otherwise.

Missing the goal and a frameworkIn management's misplaced attempt to become an expert on "the problem" through data-collection, they have already taken a wrong turn. Management should not be in the business of becoming expert on "the problem." They should be seeking to become expert on "the solution." However, their mistaken belief is that the data will lead them to a solution. This, however, is highly unlikely.

Data is nothing more than documented experience - the organization's history having been captured as data. However, as W. Edwards Deming told us so clearly:

• "Information is not knowledge. Knowledge comes from theory." 
• "You should not ask questions without knowledge."
• "There is no knowledge without theory."
• "Experience teaches nothing without theory."
• "If you do not know how to ask the right question, you discover nothing."

Managers busy amassing and combing through data frequently have neither a goal nor a theory in mind. They are, as Deming would say, "Asking questions without knowledge." They are seeking to be "taught" by the firm's experience (as captured in the data) without a theory about what the data should be showing them.

Begin with a goal
It is the awareness of a goal or purpose that will enable managers to determine what data might really be relevant to achieving a breakthrough.

Firefighting does not qualify as a goal
Firefighting might be a requirement, but it cannot qualify as "a goal." I say this because - like real, honest-to-goodness firefighting - the most it can do is minimize damage and restore the "normal condition" of "no fire." It cannot bring progress, let alone lead to breakthrough thinking and competitive advantage for your company.
 
If your executive team is going to achieve breakthrough thinking, then the breakthrough better be about something more important to your organization's success than how to put out - or even prevent - the next fire in department X. Your thinking had better be focused on the critical matters of achieving more of your goal - and, in a for-profit enterprise, that goal should be how to make more money tomorrow than you are making today. Any other goal is short-sighted: improving quality, improving customer service, and even making happier, more satisfied employees are require making money if they are to be done well and for very long.
 
So, if the goal is making more money tomorrow than you are making today, what are the right questions to ask and what is the theory (or framework) in which to ask those questions in order that you and your management team might come away with real and practical knowledge leading to breakthrough improvements?

The theory and the goal
Let us begin with this hypothesis: Every for-profit organization has at least one constraint to making more money. Of course, the evidence supporting this hypothesis is that if at least one for-profit organization existed with no constraint, its profits would be approaching infinity. The resulting theory - set forth by Eliyahu Goldratt more than 25 years ago - is called the theory of constraints, or TOC.

There are many nuances to understanding all of the implications of this theory and it is beyond the scope of this present writing to discuss them all. However, it seems simple enough as a concept: the organization - the "system" - is, in a for-profit situation, nothing more than a "money-making" or "profit-making" machine. Therefore, the following two statements should be considered:

1. The "system" - the entire organization - should be considered as a whole and not managed piecemeal by department and function. It is the "system" that produces profit, not the individual products, processes, departments or functions. The constraint is - or constraints are - related to the "system" and should be addressed in the context of the "system." 
2. In order for the "system" to make more money tomorrow than it is making today, it is important that the following occur:
1. IDENTIFY the constraint(s)
2. EXPLOIT the constraint(s) - i.e., take steps to get the most Throughput available under the current constraint(s)
3. SUBORDINATE to the constraint(s) - i.e., subordinate all other decision-making across the organization to the governing factors surrounding the constraint(s)
4. ELEVATE the constraint(s) - i.e., take steps to expand the capacity(ies) of capacity-constrained resources (CCRs)
5. CHECK to see if the constraint has moved - i.e., see if you now have a different constraint or set of constraint(s)
6. GO BACK to the first step - do not let inertia set in; enter into a POOGI (process of ongoing improvement)

Now you can start thinking - wisely
Now, with a theory in-hand (the theory of constraints) and a goal in mind (making more money tomorrow than you are making today), you and your management team are actually ready to begin "thinking" toward a breakthrough.

[To be continued]
 
©2010 Richard D. Cushing

Business Intelligence and “Tribal Knowledge” – Part 1

Recently I was working with a client and, at the opening of the meeting, I asked the six members of their management team who were gathered around the table the following simple question: "What is keeping your from making more money tomorrow than you're making today?"

Their responses were telling: (approximate quotations)

1. "We don't understand our customers: Who is buying, why they buy, or how they go about the process of getting a purchase authorized."
   
2. "The amount of time it takes us to respond to a lead or prospect. We might get 20 to 300 leads from a trade show, but it might takes us three weeks to six months to get back to them after the leads have gone through all the hands and processes in our organization."
   
3. "We don't have a good way to turn the data we possess into information that would be valuable for decision-making."
   
4. "We don't have a good way to classify accounts in our customer relationship management (CRM) software so we know how to best approach them regarding our products and services."
   
5. "We don't understand the secondary participants involved in our sales process with a prospect."
   
6. "Our customers lack the funds to buy our products."
   

What is interesting about this is that, if we take number 2 out of the mix (this is clearly a policy constraint) the other five responses all have to do with "business intelligence." These folks needed to understand their customers better in virtually every aspect.

Now, in their defense, this firm has a fairly complex sales cycle with, potentially, a number of different parties involved. Here's a brief description of the participants and their relationship to the sales process:

• School District – Usually, it is the school district that will end up "owning" the product after purchase. Frequently it is at the district level, as well, that the purchase commitment must be authorized.
  
• School(s) – The individual schools and school administrators may have an impact on the purchase decision. The school(s) must be willing to take on the product before the school district will authorize the purchase, even if the teacher may have convinced the district administrator and board that it is the right way to go.
  
• Teacher(s) – Teachers function mostly as influencers and catalysts to the sale. The teachers often are sold on the product and then become an advocate to aid in getting the product approved at the school and district levels.
  
• School District IT Department – Since the products generally involve technology, it is not uncommon for the schools' or the district's IT departments to have de facto veto power over any pending purchase of such technology.
  
• Government Programs – Since most of the schools in the U.S. are publicly funded, the funding for many of the purchases flows directly or indirectly from some government program. Such programs often set requirements and seem to have a never-ending series of "hoops" that must be jumped through before funds are made accessible for specific purchases.
  
• NFP or Other Sponsor – When the school districts' ability to access funds for a desired product purchase falls short, sometimes not-for-profit (NFP) organizations become a supplemental source of funds. Sometimes, it is even the NFP, seeking a place for its funds in community projects, that becomes the initiator of the whole process. Other times, the interested teacher may know that the school or school district have no money for the purchase, so he or she will seek aid from a NFP organization simultaneous with presenting the matter to the school and district decision-makers.
  

As you can see, with all of these participants, and no single path for each approach, it is understandable that this organization is discovering some challenges in "understanding" their customers. Add to this the fact that their business itself was changing. They were diversifying from the product around which the business had originally been built – beginning to sell a broader range of related products into the same marketplace.

Tools at their disposal

Now, this firm does have some tools at their fingertips. They purchase the use of data made available from a data aggregator that provides a database of schools, school districts and related parties. Some demographic data is included.

Now, I am not privy to exactly what demographic data is available to them – our discussions didn't go to that level. However, for the sake of this discussion, let us say that they have just the following data points for each school and district (in additional to standard data like addresses, phone numbers, and so forth):

• ZIP code
  
• Number of students
  
• Number of teachers
  

Using a tool as rudimentary as Microsoft Excel's OLAP capabilities, it would be relatively easy to spot correlations in the data between product sales (by dollar or by units) and these demographic characteristics:

• Which regions of the country account for the most sales? The least sales?
  
  • Using the first digits in the ZIP Code gives you 10 regions automatically
    
  • Using the first three digits in the ZIP Code gives you a breakdown by what the USPS call SCF (Sectional Center Facility)
    
• Which states account for the most sales? The least sales?
  
• Which cities account for the most sales? The least sales?
  
• Which districts produce the highest ratio of unit sales to students? Which ones have the lowest ratio? What about the unit-to-teacher ratio?
  

My guess is, if they had graphs of these data – especially TOP and BOTTOM data – their sales and marketing personnel would immediately begin to see some patterns emerging.

Likely, however, they have other data already in their possession that would give them additional insights as to sales patterns leading to a better understanding of their customers' behavior. Take the following examples:

• Which salespersons produced the highest sales in terms of dollars and units? Which ones produced the least?
  
• Within each salesperson's sales, are there significant differences by sales by geographical region or SCF?
  
• Are there correlations between salespersons' sales and the discounts offered? (This would be an indicator of price sensitivity and should be correlated by other factors, like geography or average sale size.)
  
• Do correlations exist between salespersons' sales results and the products or product configurations they sell most frequently?
  

Little of this kind of analysis was being done in a formal way at this firm. However, it seemed that they already knew they needed to "understand their customer" better. They just had not yet thought about how to leverage what they already had in their hands in order to begin segmenting their market and understanding the factors leading to less success or more success (read: Throughput).

We will talk more about this in the next post in this series.

©2010 Richard D. Cushing