“Art is anything that’s better than it needs to be.”Arte e eficiência não conjugam bem
"The Problem Management has come to be seen as a science whose purpose is to make commercial enterprises more efficient. But the single-minded pursuit of efficiency makes businesses less resilient. [Moi ici: Por um lado, recordar os nabateus e a sua lição, por outro recordar a fragilização decorrente de uma estratégia pura e, em paralelo, recordar que o negócio do preço não é para quem quer, mas para quem pode]
...A partir daqui divirjo da receita que Roger Martin prescreve. Em vez de intervencionismo, deixar Mongo fazer o seu caminho e não deixar que os estados apoiem os seus amigos-incumbentes.
The Solution Business, government, and management education need to increase their emphasis on organizational resilience. This will involve limiting the size of businesses, introducing more friction into global trade and the capital markets, giving long-term investors a larger say in strategic decision making, creating jobs that are richer in learning opportunities, and offering educational programs that balance efficiency and resilience. [Moi ici: Não vai ser preciso fazer nada disto com intervencionismo ingénuo basta deixar que Mongo faça o seu trabalho com a variedade, a proximidade, a interacção e a co-criação]
...
Smith, Ricardo, Taylor, and Deming together turned management into a science whose objective function was the elimination of waste—whether of time, materials, or capital. The belief in the unalloyed virtue of efficiency has never dimmed. [Moi ici: Fui um crente a 100% na bondade da redução da variabilidade como estratégia para o sucesso, até que percebi que isso era uma visão redutora e só para quem pode, (Redsigma - O fim da linha) e quem pode é cada vez menos porque o mundo caminha para Mongo, o mundo da variedade]
"effectiveness is more important than efficiency.Trechos retirados de "Choose Effectiveness over Efficiency When the Outcome Is Important"
...
There is a difference between being efficient and being effective. Efficiency is doing things with faster, with greater ease, and with less effort. Effectiveness is about producing an outcome.
...
The Pareto principle, which seems to be some law of nature, shows that around 80 percent of your results come from around 20 percent of your actions. About 80 percent of your revenue likely comes from approximately 20 percent of your clients, plus or minus.
.
This being true, it would make sense that effectiveness be the goal in the 20 percent of activities responsible for creating 80 percent of your results. Efficiency might be a better goal for the 80 percent of things that don’t move the needle."[Moi ici: Recuar a 2006 e recordar que o contrário de insatisfação pode não ser satisfação, e a diferença entre processos contexto e processos críticos - 2007]
"A new product line had failed, and the company believed the problem was either poor product delivery times or lack of effort by the sales force. After throwing millions at both problems, they finally realized what the real issue was: misaligned goals between marketing and sales. The product line was priced to grow market share, yet the sales force compensation was structured to incentivize salespeople based on profit margin maximization. As a result, the frustrated sales force focused efforts on selling other products in which the goals were more aligned.
.
This company isn’t alone. Marketing and sales departments often set their strategies, and goals, separately from each other."
"Classic management science dictates that stable, repeatable processes keep companies in business. Innovation, by definition, disturbs equilibrium, threatening what has gone before, he said. “You are causing disruptions to a system that has an immune response to repair those disruptions.”"Inovação está relacionada com variedade. Eficiência com variabilidade. Claro que quando se está numa competição pelo preço quem faz contas olha para as dicas de Terry Hill e pensa:
"once prototypes are deemed commercially viable, Mr. Sheldon and his team seek executive sponsors in business units that could make money or better serve customers with the invention.Outro tema aqui abordado ao longo dos anos, PME para irem buscar apoios comunitários entram em parceria em projectos que têm como resultado o desenvolvimento de produtos inovadores. Depois, os produtos atém vêem a luz do dia, até são inovadores, mas as PME não os aproveitam porque não têm trabalhada a rede comercial, não têm modelo de negócio adaptado. A maior parte das vezes não se vendem os produtos inovadores aos mesmos clientes que se têm porque esses preferem o produtos de preço, os produtos mais clássicos ou maduros, são outros clientes que frequentam outras "prateleiras" que são atraídos por uma proposta de valor diferente.
...
Companies must make sure their labs aren’t a dream factory but a central part of how strategic advancement happens, said Steve Hill, vice chair of strategic investments and innovation at KPMG. “Companies have been disintermediated and taken out because they weren’t agile enough to respond to it,”"
"Over the past several decades, the business world has relentlessly pursued efficiency-driven business process reengineering, seeking to integrate, standardize, and automate tasks in ways that can reduce costs, increase speed, and deliver more predictable outcomes. As the landscape shifts, perhaps it’s time for organizations to expand their focus beyond business process reengineering to pursue business practice redesign, helping frontline workgroups to learn faster and accelerate performance improvement, especially in environments that are shaped by increasing uncertainty and unexpected events.Por todo o lado este reconhecimento de como Mongo é un-friendly para os gigantes e para os eficientistas.
...
Organizations that don’t get on an exponential trajectory may fall behind and become increasingly marginalized as the world advances at a faster rate. It could be the difference between plodding along, working harder and harder to get equivalent improvements in performance, versus improving performance at a rate that mirrors the surrounding rate of change. Existing approaches to performance improvement are falling short, and companies are already feeling the effects of mounting performance pressures.
...
On the demand side, customers have more power and choice than ever before and are less willing to settle for the standardized products that long drove the success of large institutions.[Moi ici: Suckiness! Rings a bell?] Platforms have expanded the range of available choices and made it easier to get information about them, and customers can express their feelings about companies globally and instantaneously. So can investors. At the same time, many customers are becoming more demanding, expecting different and more nuanced products and services that are tailored to their specific needs and preferences. [Moi ici: As tribos assimétricas de Taleb] On-demand services have further raised expectations for speed, convenience, and customization as basic requirements.
...
On the supply side, businesses face intensifying competition as new platforms, connectivity, and other advances reduce the barriers to entry in many sectors.
...
A challenge for large companies—or companies that aspire to be large—is that scalable effciency is often no longer effective. While the model yielded results in a relatively stable environment and may continue to improve productivity over time, it has created an environment that is often hostile to learning, where it is harder, and takes longer, to achieve higher levels of performance improvement."
"Taylor created a clockwork factory, systematically eliminating variation, studying all labor until he understood it inside and out, honing it to peak efficiency, and ensuring that those precise procedures were followed at scale. Because he could study and predict, he could control. He dubbed his doctrine "scientific management."Este é o molde que ao chocar com Mongo deixa de funcionar. Assim como o percebi algures entre 2006 - 2008, McChrystal começou a intui-lo em 2004 ao chocar com a Al Qaeda do Iraque. (Ao longe intuí o mesmo ao aconselhar às PMEs que seguissem o exemplo da Al Qaeda: 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007 e 2006)
.
Taylor became the world's first management guru. At a paper mill in Wisconsin, he was told that the art of pulping and drying could not be reduced to a science. He instituted his system and material costs dropped from $75 to $35 per ton, while labor costs dropped from $30 a ton to $8. At a ball bearing factory, he experimented with everything from lighting levels to rest break durations, and oversaw an increase in quantity and quality of production while reducing the number of employees from 120 to 35; at a pig iron plant, he raised worker output from 12.5 to 47 tons of steel per day, and decreased the number of workers from 600 to 140.
...
Taylor’s ideas spread from company to company, from industry to industry, and from blue collars to white (there was one best way to insert paper into a typewriter, to sit at a desk, to clip pages together). They seeped into the halls of government. His philosophy of replacing the intuition of the person doing the job with reductionist efficiencies designed by a separate group of people marked a new means of organizing human endeavors. It was the behavioral soul mate for the technical advances of industrial engineering.
.
Taylor’s success represented the legitimization of “management” as a discipline. Previously, managerial roles were rewards for years of service in the form of higher pay and less strenuous labor. The manager’s main function was to keep things in working order and maintain morale. Under Taylor’s formulation, managers were both research scientists and architects of efficiency.
.
This drew a hard-and-fast line between thought and action: managers did the thinking and planning, while workers executed. No longer were laborers expected to understand how or why things worked—in fact, managers saw teaching them that or paying a premium for their expertise as a form of waste.
...
Military planners had relied on many of Taylor’s strategies—the segregation of planning and execution, standardization, and an emphasis on efficiency— for centuries before Taylor was born. But Taylor’s ideas inspired many military leaders to find fresh ways to create a more efficient fighting force.
...
“by the late 1920s, it could seem that all of modern society had come under the sway of a single commanding idea: that waste was wrong and efficiency the highest good, and that eliminating one and achieving the other was best left to the experts.”"
"This new world required a fundamental rewriting of the rules of the game. In order to win, we would have to set aside many of the lessons that millennia of military procedure and a century of optimized efficiencies had taught us.
...
In 2004, as we planned clockwork raids designed to make the most of every drop of fuel, we were manning a managerial Maginot Line: our extraordinarily efficient procedures and plans were well crafted and necessary, but not sufficient.
...
Over the past century, the kind of organizational measures that ensure the success
of combat parachute assaults have proliferated throughout the military, industry, and business. In today’s environment, however, these solutions are the equivalent of the provincial apprenticeship models that Taylor stumbled upon in 1874. In Iraq, the inexplicable, networked success of our underresourced enemy indicated that they had cracked this nut before we had. Managerially, AQI was flanking us."
"Our struggle in Iraq in 2004 is not an exception—it is the new norm. The models of organizational success that dominated the twentieth century have their roots in the industrial revolution and, simply put, the world has changed. The pursuit of "efficiency"—getting the most with the least investment of energy, time, or money —was once a laudable goal, but being effective in today's world is less a question of optimizing for a known (and relatively stable) set of variables than responsiveness to a constantly shifting environment. Adaptability, not efficiency, most become our central competency."Trechos retirados de "Team of Teams: The Power of Small Groups in a Fragmented World" de Stanley McChrystal e Chris Fussell
"We're not lazier or less intelligent than our parents or grandparents, but what worked for them simply won't do the trick for us now. Understanding and adapting to these factors isn't optional; it will be what differentiates success from failure in the years ahead.
...
Through on-site, practical work with client partners, we've seen firsthand the tornado of changing factors — once-comforting constants transformed into variables that defy predictability and challenge traditional models of leadership and management. For many successful organizations, things that once worked superbly now seem ineffective.
...
We will argue that the familiar pursuit of efficiency must change course. Efficiency remains important, but the ability to adapt to complexity and continual change has become an imperative. [Moi ici: Como não recordar o que escrevemos há "milénios", fora do mainstream, acerca do eficientismo, eficácia mais importante que eficiência] Using our experience in war, combined with a range of examples from business, hospitals, [Moi ici: Como não recordar a treta dos hospitais-cidade] nongovernmental organizations, as well as more unlikely sources, we lay out the symptoms of the problem, its root causes, and the approaches that we and others have found effective."
"What’s even more important than productivity?
.
Effectiveness.
.
Effectiveness is the measure of accomplishing the most important objective for your most ultimately beneficial pursuit."
"focal behavioral failures [Moi ici: Coisas que resultam para lá da eficiência], which are argued to revolve around the dimensions of rationality (the ability to identify opportunities), plasticity (the ability to act on opportunities), and shaping ability (the ability to legitimize opportunities and therefore “shape” or “construct” the opportunity space). It is argued that behavioral failures typically become more pronounced as firms pursue opportunities that are more cognitively distant. [Moi ici: Por vezes os gestores estão tão prisioneiros do que conhecem que não conseguem agir como os ignorantes dispostos a experimentar algo novo] To pursue these opportunities, strategic leaders must change their worldview, or they will not spot them. They must also persuade internal and external stakeholders to change their worldview, or these opportunities will be resisted and not acted on and legitimized. Performing these tasks intelligently is hard. Indeed, evolutionary and ecological perspectives show that pursuing cognitively distant courses of action leads, on average, to unusually grave survival struggles. ... Superior opportunities tend to be cognitively distant, and critical sources of superior performance lie in strategic leaders’ superior ability to overcome the behavioral bounds that make it hard for the average firm to pursue them.Trechos que combinam muito bem com: "There's always a choice, say the Sisters, but there's always a twist..."
...
Distant foresight requires leaders to acquire appropriate cognitive representations that draw cognitively distant opportunities nearer. To persuade internal and external audiences to espouse a new, cognitively distant course of action, leaders must induce them to adopt a new representation of the firm and its position in the competitive space. [Moi ici: Uma das utilidades do mapa da estratégia, traduzir numa figura um conjunto de interrelações] The construct of cognitive representation and what it takes to manage it are thus central to the concept of strategic agency proposed here. Meeting the challenges of acquiring appropriate representations to foresee distant realities and persuading relevant audiences to endorse novel representations involve processes that have a common root in their associative nature.
...
Behavioral failures are impediments to firms’ abilities to compete for opportunities. Such failures are behavioral insofar as these impediments are mental in origin. Behavioral failures can be viewed in terms of limits to strategic leaders’ abilities to manage and overcome such mental impediments."
"The premise of the theory presented below is that to identify the behavioral drivers of superior performance systematically, it is useful to reason against the benchmark of market efficiency. When markets are efficient, opportunities for superior performance (also called superior courses of action or strategic opportunities) do not exist, or, if they do, they are short-lived because they are competed away by many rival firms. Therefore, establishing what causes violations of market efficiency shows what causes opportunities to exist. Following this logic, the behavioral roots of superior opportunities can be understood in terms of behavioral factors that hinder efficiency. The theory proposed in this paper seeks to isolate such factors by identifying systematic behavioral bounds or impediments to competition. These bounds are behavioral in that they reflect limitations in strategic leaders’ ability to manage mental processes. They will be called behavioral failures, short for behavioral market failures. Such failures ensure that opportunities whose pursuit requires leaders to manage very hard-to-manage mental processes are not competed away, even if competition is intense. Hence, superior performance rests in part on a strategic leader’s superior ability to overcome focal behavioral failures. Thus, managing such mental processes is central to strategic leaders’ role."
"If the customer doesn't care about the price, then the retailer shouldn't care about the cost," E quem o faz começa a matar a galinha dos ovos de ouro.
"Sales and selling shouldn't be competitive or manipulative.Trecho retirado de "The No. 1 Rule in Sales Is to Forget What You've Been Taught About Sales"
.
Selling is usually competitive, though. Some people love and thrive on the competition. Competition is wrong when the competition is with your client, the industry, or your colleagues. Competition against your best self, well, is needed.
.
You do not need to overcome objections; you need to solve problems.
.
You do not need to attack the market; you need to build relationships.[Moi ici: Outra vez as relações]
.
You do not need to capture deals; you need to create solutions together."
"There are a lot of things that aren’t convenient. There are many possible ways to be more efficient with your limited time and energy. But much of the time, efficiency is the wrong factor to use to decide. Human relationships are inefficient. They require care and feeding. They require effort. That means that the inefficient is more effective in producing the outcome you need, making it the truly efficient choice—and making what you believe to be efficient to be the least inefficient choice because it doesn’t generate a preference to work with you."Com "Make relationships, not things":
"All relationships are based on trust.E com "Cuidado com as melhores práticas":
...
Make relationships, not things
The decision to create a relationship instead of a thing has real consequences for what you make, who you ask to make it, and how it gets done."
"Businesses are still organised in the same way they were in Victorian times when we were building factories that churned out consistent objects. We’re now in a world where we sell concepts, content, ideas and thoughts"Eficácia, relação, interacção. Temas recorrentes neste blogue e fundamentais para perceber como é que as empresas devem actuar em Mongo.
"advantage of scale has given far more of us increased material wealth, access to mass education, longevity of life increased social complexity and so forth.Um pobre anónimo da província escreve destas coisas há anos, "Mas claro, eu só sou um anónimo engenheiro da província", um dia isto há-de chegar ao mainstream.
...
Organizations have had a blueprint that was tailored for mass efficiency — but not meaningfulness, identity, belonging and individualization.
...
there is an increase in market complexity and uncertainty. We are in an era where digitization has led industries to converge and mutate.
.
So this system of certainty and predictability which was built for stability in certain times. Is suddenly finding itself in uncertainty. Unable to control for the asymmetric relationships that are appearing between their customers and new organizations.
.
The only thing certain becomes uncertainty.
...
the iron law of industry — advantage of scale itself — is being disrupted.
.
In fact scale is turning into a disadvantage due to the massive cost of producing non-standardized parts.
.
Scale, which once was a barrier to entry for new companies has turned into a barrier for incumbents to answer the demand patterns of the market.
As advantage of scale breaks down every scaffolding around it seems to shake or go down with it.
.
When the iron law of efficiency — which has cost individuals, ideas, talents and meaningfulness so much — comes crashing down we are GIVEN the opportunity to redesign how we organize and create together."
"Para encontrar respostas para diagnosticar o que parece ser uma doença estrutural, a primeira coisa que devíamos estudar é tão óbvia que parece mentira ninguém o fazer: temos um problema de produtividade ou temos um problema de produção? Aquilo que cada empresa faz, aquilo em que cada trabalhador labora, as grandes apostas da economia real do país têm condições para gerar, realmente, a riqueza que precisamos de criar? Estou a achar que não..."Há milhares de anos que neste blogue defendemos que há muito maior potencial de aumentar a produtividade actuando sobre o valor co-criado, sobre o que permite aumentar o preço unitário num mercado competitivo, do que actuando sobre o que permite reduzir os custos unitários.
