Porquê?

"It's the Benefits, Stupid! A project leader pointed out that project teams and owners focus too little on the benefits of their projects and too much on costs and schedule. It's not that cost and schedule are not important, emphasized this leader. But the ultimate reason for doing projects is their benefits. Cost and schedule are means to an end -- the end being benefits - not ends in themselves. We must therefore keep our eyes on the benefits, or we lose sight of why we do what we do, the leader concluded. - Again, the cohort was sympathetic. And again, our research supports the heuristic. First, we have found that most projects don't even measure benefits, making their study difficult. Second, project managers who do measure and manage benefits perform better than managers who do not. Not only do these managers perform better in delivering benefits, but also in delivering on budget and on time. It appears that once project managers know how to get benefits right, they know how to get everything right. They have graduated to the level of the mature and effective project leader. Therefore, if you don't already focus on benefits in your projects, now is a good time to start. You will not truly master project management until you do."

Relacionar os sublinhados acima com o tema do último artigo de Cavaco Silva.

"Ask Why? This will focus you on what matters, namely the benefits the project will achieve, which are the ultimately purpose of the project. Nietzsche rightly observed that, "to forget one's purpose is the commonest form of stupidity" (Nietzsche 1994: para 206). Good leaders are not stupid. They stay on purpose by asking why? This also prevents you from jumping too quickly to solutions, a classic error in project management and, indeed, all management. Moreover, it prevents you from seeing the project as an end in itself, instead of as a means to an end, another common error. Even a company is just a means to an end, and if you begin to see it as an end in itself then, ironically, that is the beginning to the end. Steve Jobs was crystal clear about his answer to why?: "making wonderful things" or "great products," as he repeated, over and over, like a mantra (Schlender and Tetzeli 2015: 233). Finally, asking and answering why? helps you think from right to left, like Wolstenholme above. The answer to why? is your "right" -- your North Star -- which will guide you every step of the way through delivery. Your "left" is the actions to get you there, your means. In the end, there are only two types of projects. The ones that get things right from the start, by asking why?, and the ones that fix things later. There are no shortcuts. The later you leave the fix the more expensive and stressful it will be. Once you're in the din of delivery, it is easy to forget to ask why? Therefore, remind yourself. Good leaders never stop asking why?"

Trechos retirados de "Heuristics for Masterbuilders: Fast and Frugal Ways to Become a Better Project Leader" de Bent Flyvbjerg.

black swan management"

Bent Flyvbjerg no livro "How Big Things Get Done" refere que por vezes os projectos saem furados não por causa da execução, mas por causa das previsões irrealistas com que foram baseados:

“When delivery fails, efforts to figure out why tend to focus exclusively on delivery. That’s understandable, but it’s a mistake, because the root cause of why delivery fails often lies outside delivery, in forecasting, years before delivery was even begun.”

Uma das formas de evitar estas previsões irrealistas passa por usar informação de projectos anteriores (o título do capítulo é "SO YOU THINK YOUR PROJECT IS UNIQUE?" e o subtítulo é "Think again. Understanding that your project is "one of those" is key to getting your forecasts right and managing your risks.""

Muitos projectos seguem uma distribuição normal.

"But even with a project as simple as a kitchen renovation, the number of possible surprises, each unlikely, is long. Many small probabilities added together equal a large probability that at least some of those nasty surprises will actually come to pass. Your forecast did not account for that."

No entanto, os projectos grandes podem seguir um outro tipo de distribuição:

"There is, however, a big, fat-tailed caveat on all this. Imagine you have a graph with the costs of one thousand kitchen renovations that takes the shape of a classic bell curve—with most projects clustered around the mean in the middle, very few projects on the far right or far left, and even the most extreme data points not far removed from the mean.

...

But as noted in chapter 1, my analysis revealed that only a minority of the many project types in my database are “normally” distributed. The rest—from the Olympic Games to IT projects to nuclear power plants and big dams—have more extreme outcomes in the tails of their distributions. With these fat-tailed distributions, the mean is not representative of the distribution and therefore is not a good estimator for forecasts. For the most fat-tailed distributions, there isn’t even a stable mean that you can expect outcomes to cluster around because an even more extreme outcome can (and will) come along and push the mean further out, into the tail toward infinity. So instead of good old regression to the mean, you get what I call “regression to the tail.” In that situation, relying on the mean and assuming that your result will be close to it is a dangerous mistake.

...

If you face a fat-tailed distribution, shift your mindset from forecasting a single outcome (“The project will cost X”) to forecasting risk (“The project is X percent likely to cost more than Y”), using the full range of the distribution.

...

Contingencies might have to be 300, 400, or 500 percent over the average cost—or 700 percent, as we saw for the Montreal Olympics. That’s prohibitive. Providing such contingencies would not be budgeting; it would be blowing up the budget. So what can you do about the tail? Cut it off. You can do that with risk mitigation. I call it "black swan management".

...

Some tails are simple to cut. Tsunamis are fat-tailed, but if you build well inland or erect a high enough seawall, you eliminate the threat. Earthquakes are also fat-tailed, but build to an earthquake-proof standard, as we did with the schools in Nepal, and you are covered. Other tails require a combination of measures; for a pandemic, for instance, a blend of masks, tests, vaccines, quarantines, and lockdowns to prevent infections from running wild. That’s black swan management.

...

The critical next step is to stop thinking of black swans the way most people do. They are not bolt-from-the-blue freak accidents that are impossible to understand or prevent. They can be studied. And mitigated."

Um exemplo da mitigação apresentado é: construção de uma linha ferroviária em Inglaterra. Qual o motivo mais comum para paragem de uma obra? Achados arqueológicos! Mitigação: Contratar arqueólogos para estarem de prevenção para intervirem e reduzirem tempo de paragem.

"you must organize around projects"

"a different way of thinking about knowledge work: you must organize around projects, not jobs.

...

Knowledge workers don’t manufacture products or perform basic services. But they do produce something, and it is perfectly reasonable to characterize their work as the production of decisions: decisions about what to sell, at what price, to whom, with what advertising strategy, through what logistics system, in what location, and with what staffing levels.

At desks and in meeting rooms, every day of their working lives, knowledge workers hammer away in decision factories. Their raw materials are data, either from their own information systems or from outside providers. They produce lots of memos and presentations full of analyses and recommendations. They engage in production processes—called meetings—that convert this work to finished goods in the form of decisions. Or they generate rework: another meeting to reach the decision that wasn’t made in the first meeting. And they participate in postproduction services: following up on decisions"

...

Knowledge work actually comes primarily in the form of projects, not routine daily tasks. Knowledge workers, therefore, experience big swings between peaks and valleys of decision-making intensity”

Fez-me recuar a:

• Avaliar projectos (parte II) 
• Provocação para empresas certificadas  complementada com a parte II 
• Tenho de testar isto ...

"A ideia de fazer de cada ano um espécie de projecto, algo único e irrepetível, em vez de uma continuação da rotina de sempre, é capaz de ser útil para mudar mentalidades em muitas empresas."

Trechos retirados de "A New Way to Think" de Roger Martin.

Ter ou não ter fogo no rabo

Muitas vezes... demasiadas vezes, desanimo com aquilo a que chamo falta de fogo no rabo nas empresas (uma expressão que escrevi pela primeira vez aqui no blogue em Janeirto de 2008, mas que recordo ter começado a usar nas empresas por volta de 2003). Por exemplo, recordar "A falta de fogo no rabo".

Ou porque se formulam iniciativas para implementar estratégias para criar um futuro melhor, ou porque se desenham projectos para ultrapassar problemas operacionais, desafios críticos, desafios importantes, desafios que gritam por atenção e que vão progredindo a velocidade de caracol, e que vão repousando nos congeladores empresariais. Desafios sem atenção da gestão de topo, desafios sem chefe de projecto, sem equipa, sem compromisso de datas, sem especificações de saída, sem recursos, sem ...

Depois, apanha-se algo deste calibre:

I asked Tony Fadell about the iPod timeline for my fast project page. Summary: 😯. pic.twitter.com/mf0CfbAEtB

— Patrick Collison (@patrickc) January 12, 2020

Como é que isto pode medrar neste ambiente?

Avaliar projectos (parte II)

Parte I.

Há dias fui recordado que podia usar a palavra desassossego muito mais vezes. As PME deviam ser mais desassossegadas, deviam estar mais atentas ao contexto para se anteciparem e, depois, terem fogo no rabo e avançarem para a execução, para a transformação da organização em algo muito mais adaptado a um contexto em transição cada vez mais acelerada.

O texto de Nieto-Rodriguez (na Parte I) chama a atenção para um conjunto de perguntas-teste que devem ser feitas para avaliar do potencial de sucesso de um projecto.

Recordo esta provocação "Provocação para empresas certificadas"  complementada com a parte II e com "Tenho de testar isto ...":

"A ideia de fazer de cada ano um espécie de projecto, algo único e irrepetível, em vez de uma continuação da rotina de sempre, é capaz de ser útil para mudar mentalidades em muitas empresas.
...
Pensem nisto a sério, pensem em fazer de 2018 um projecto. Pensem em quais serão os entregáveis que pretendem ter no final do ano (esqueçam a norma e pensem nos resultados fundamentais da organização). Pensem no contexto em que 2018 vai decorrer. Que gargalos, que riscos, que oportunidades conseguem equacionar?
...
E que tal pegar num sistema de gestão da qualidade implementado e considerar 2018 como um projecto. Que mudanças teríamos de implementar para conduzir o sistema de gestão de forma a atingir os objetivos para o projecto?
.
O que me atrai é o potencial para criar algo de muito mais palpável e interessante para o dono de uma PME. Transformar um sistema de gestão da qualidade que ele não domina, que ele vê como algo à parte, numa ferramenta para atingir algo que ele valoriza, que ele deseja, que ele procura.
.
Quais são os objectivos para 2018? Que resultados quer, precisa de atingir em 2018? O que fará de 2018 um bom ano? Acha muito abstracto? Estamos no final de 2017: foi um bom ano porquê? Como poderia ter sido melhor? Foi uma mau ano? Como poderia ter sido menos mau? Não quer fazer batota e chegar a 2019 com a sensação de ter segurado no volante e ter mandado na caixa de velocidades?"

Assim, se virmos a revisão do sistema da ISO 9001 como um momento Janus, como um momento de transição entre o que fomos no ciclo de gestão que está a acabar e, o que queremos ou temos de ser no próximo ciclo de gestão, podemos transformar o próximo ciclo de gestão num projecto... na verdade num programa (um conjunto de projectos alinhados). Então, o conjunto de perguntas-teste de Nieto-Rodriguez funcionarão como uma espécie de último teste antes do kick-off formal do novo ciclo de gestão

Avaliar projectos (parte I)

Gosto de ler os artigos de Antonio Nieto-Rodriguez, sobretudo quando ele faz o que tento fazer aqui: pegar num caso da vida real e confrontá-lo com as suas ideias e, explicar porque correu bem ou mal,  aproveito sembre boas ideias.

Se calhar devíamos aplicar este questionário dele a alguns projectos em que temos dúvidas em entrar:

"Here are the six questions in the order we recommend asking them:
.
1. Is there a solid business case and a compelling rationale? (The Why).
There are two main reasons we invest resources (time and effort) in a project: either to solve a problem or to capture an opportunity. [Moi ici: É clara qual a razão de ser para avançar com o projecto? Problema? "Precisamos da certificação porque ela foi colocada numa candidatura para aumentar a pontuação na avaliação"]
...
2. Does the moon shot [project] have a committed and charismatic sponsor? (The Who).
Probably the single most important characteristic of a successful transformation project is having a strong, engaged, and charismatic sponsor. [Moi ici: Por favor ler esta pergunta outra vez. Recordo um projecto na indústria e outro no turismo que estão a marinar por causa desta falha]
...
3. Does the moon shot [project] have a clear scope? (The What).
The scope defines what the project will look like when delivered (not to be confused with the project objectives, the “why,” which we explored in question 1). The more you know about this at the beginning of the project, the better you can estimate the duration, cost, and skills needed to produce the desired outcome. The opposite also applies: The more uncertainty there is about the requirements, the more difficult it is to have an accurate plan. [Moi ici: Ler isto e recordar logo o relato que Nieto-Rodriguez faz da wicked mess que é o projecto do novo aeroporto de Berlim. Interessante, na semana passada numa formação sobre a ISO 9001 comecei exactamente pela pergunta: O que fazem? Qual é o vosso negócio? Para chegar à definição do âmbito do sistema]
...
4. Is there buy-in from key stakeholders? (The How).
The most successful projects occur when all, or at least most, of the key stakeholders (the people impacted by the project, with different degrees of influence) are in favor it. Even better is when they are driving it.
.
In project management there is a maxim: “There is always one stakeholder who will be happy if your project fails.” There are regulators, politicians, shareholders, or simply employees who can be obstacles to the success of the endeavor. [Moi ici: O que é que cada parte interessada pode ganhar com o projecto... Aquele: "What's in it for me?"]
...
5. Does the moon shot [project] have a precise finish line? (The When).
Projects that start with an ambitious and undisputed deadline have a higher chance of success. Starting without a finish line can make a project drag on for months and even years. [Moi ici: Por favor ler esta pergunta outra vez. Recordo o "fogo no rabo" ou antes, a sua falta]
...
6. Is the moon shot [project] a true priority? (The Where).
The “Where” domain covers the external elements that can have a positive or negative impact on the project. These areas are often outside the control of the project leader — such as the priority of the project in relation to all the other projects being carried out, or the overall project implementation competencies in the organization — yet there are ways that the leader can influence the project favorably. The executive sponsor plays an important role in influencing the organization too.
...
Take time to discuss, clarify, and solidify your answers to these questions. Despite the natural excitement and urgency to start working on them, projects that spend more time in the definition phase tend to have a smoother implementation."

Trechos retirados de "6 Questions to Ask Before Launching a Moon Shot Project".

Continua com a aplicação a um sistema de gestão da qualidade já implementado.

"Deciding where to focus companies' scarce resources"

"most companies have very similar strategies and business objectives (e.g.,  growth, expansion, product innovation, market leadership) but just a few succeed in achieving them. What do these successful companies do differently?
...
Up to the late 1970s, an organization's main focus was on core activities reflected in the traditional value chain described by Michael Porter
...
Deciding where to focus companies' scarce resources is one of top management's most important challenges.
...
Improving operations is easier than improving projects. Often, operational processes can be mapped, analysed and finally improved by automating or simply removing the inefficient parts. This is not possible with projects: mapping them is very complex, and they are very difficult to improve m most of the time they are one-off.
...
although very few companies succeed in implementing their strategies, there are a few whose strategy execution is successful.
...
To my surprise, some of these successful organizations were not just reaching but were also exceeding their strategic objectives. While their formula included great leadership and maturity, what made all the difference in their ability to exceed their expectations was the fact that they were highly FOCUSED.
.
What I realized is that in todays world most companies and many employees are highly unfocused. As a result, top management has difficulty setting a dear strategy and communicating a ranked list of priorities; and most staff members end up deciding on their own where to concentrate their efforts; most likely on easy and irrelevant task, This lack of focus results in much wasted money and resources, the inability to execute the strategy, project failures, and unhappy and uncommitted employees. Successful individuals are highly focused, and the same applies lo organizations. In fact, every business is focused when it is just starting up but only those companies that manage to stay focused will likely succeed and remain in business."

Trechos retirados de "The Focused Organization - How Concentrating on a Few Key Initiatives Can Dramatically Improve Strategy Execution" de Antonio Nieto-Rodriguez

Animador

"A study by PwC that reviewed 10,640 projects from 200 companies in 30 countries and across various industries found that only 2.5% of the companies successfully completed 100% of their projects.
McKinsey & Company studied over 5,000 projects and found that 56% delivered less value than expected, 45% were over budget and 17% unfolded so badly that they threatened the company's very survival.
According to Gartner, 85% of big data projects fail to move past preliminary stages." .
A study published by the Association of Spanish Geographers estimates that between 1995 and 2016 Spanish government agencies spent more than €8I billion on "infrastructure that was unnecessary, abandoned, underutilized or poorly programmed". And this figure could surpass €97 billion in the near future, factoring in the amounts that have already been pledged. The report says: "All of it was done without a proper cost/benefit analysis, and often on the basis of estimates of future users or earnings supported by a scenario of economic euphoria that was as evident as it was fleeting." 

Não, não é primeiro de Abril.

Trecho retirado de "The Project Revolution" de Antonio Nieto-Rodriguez

"selling projects rather than products"

Outro texto delicioso e em sintonia com Mongo, "Selling Products Is Good. Selling Projects Can Be Even Better":

"In the beginning companies sold products. And then they sold services. In recent years, the fashionable suggestion has been that companies sell experiences and solutions, solving the needs and aspirations of customers.
.
Companies, indeed, do all of these things. But increasingly, what companies sell are projects. To understand the difference, think of an athletic shoe company, such as Nike or Adidas. A focus on products means a focus on selling running shoes. A focus on experiences might mean they sell you a membership to a local running club. A focus on solutions might mean they figure out how to help you reach your goal weight. While these clearly offer more value than simply selling you a pair of shoes, they also have limitations. Selling products limits the revenues you can make from clients: Unless you are innovating and continually updating your product offering, customer attrition tends to be high, and incentivizing repurchases can be hard. Selling experiences provides intangible benefits that are hard to quantify and measure, often focusing on meeting the needs of one single customer, preventing any mass production. Selling solutions became popular in the early 2000s when customers didn’t know how to solve their problems. But today, in the internet age, people can do their own research and define the solutions for themselves.
.
A focus on selling projects would mean helping someone do something more specific, such as running the Boston Marathon.
...
The project would have a clear goal (finish the marathon) and a clear start and end date.
.
And that is just one type of project. More so than products, the possibilities with projects are endless. [Moi ici: Como não recordar - as pessoas e as empresas não compram o que compram, mas o que vão conseguir, processando o que compraram]
...
Soon after launch, products are copied by the competition, which means they must be priced more cheaply. Soon, they become a commodity. This removes any opportunity for steady, high margins over the long term. Philips has experienced this even with its high-end health care products. Shifting its emphasis to selling projects rather than products was a strategic response to this problem.
.
For example, Philips sells high-tech medical devices. In the past it sold them simply as products (and it still does). But now Philips seeks out the projects in which its products will be used. If a new health care center is being considered, Philips will seek to become a partner from the very beginning of the project, including the running and the maintenance of the new center."

Há tempos a trabalhar num projecto de reflexão estratégica para exactamente fazer esta transição de empresa de produtos para empresa de projectos, fui surpreendido no inicio pelo pedido para fazer uma análise Value Stream Mapping ao seu ciclo produtivo. Entretanto, com o andar do projecto passei a mensagem que se quisessem aplicar a análise Value Stream Mapping o fizessem à utilização do produto durante o ciclo de vida do utilizador final, como naquele "running and the maintenance of the new center".

Continua.

BTW, confesso que me estou a tornar num fan de Antonio Nieto-Rodriguez.

Project Based Organisation

Mongo também passa por isto:

"The number and importance of projects are increasing steadily. Projects are being used to deliver innovative products and services, to perform change and transformation and – in general – get things done in organisations.
...
A project based organisation (PBO) is ... one in which the project is the primary unit for performing certain tasks.
...
Processes in a PBO are organised from the client to the client, a value stream of activities, orchestrated by a project manager, using agile or traditional methods, tools and techniques. The culture of a PBO is clearly project-friendly, client-centric and oriented towards “doing the right things right”, which means combining effectiveness and efficiency.
...
A PBO may comprise several firms, for example a project consortium or network organisation, and thus is temporarily organised, flexible and adaptable to the specific circumstances of the project, its context and partners.
...
The more we see a change from products to services, from mass production to individualisation, from single organisations performing projects to a co-creative network of partners, the more we´ll see PBO as a role model. So PBOs are a trend which will change the way of organising, and the transformation of many organisations prove that this process is already taking place. We need to see this from an economic perspective, identify the drivers for this change and the impact it may have for traditional organisations."

Trechos retirados de "Will project-based organisations be the new normal?"

Estratégia executada por um portfolio de projectos

Esta ideia:

"What makes the strategic journey unique is that it’s perpetual – you never actually reach your destination. It is a highly uncertain journey where the terrain is constantly shifting and there are more things outside of your control than within them. It is much more like an explorer’s journey through the wilderness than it is a highway trip. More and more it is a journey where following the familiar, well-trodden path can get you hopelessly lost before you even realise that you are off course.
...
Projects are the perfect vehicle for today’s strategic journey
.
In the Tao Te Ching, Chinese philosopher Lao Tzu said a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. When talking about a strategic journey, strategic improvement projects are the most effective way to take those steps. Through these projects, and a project-mindset, we can take decisive action toward our strategic goals… one step at a time.
...
Most importantly, they are short-duration, hard-hitting activities that can be carried out by a relatively small cross-functional team. They should be targeted on a single specific outcome that delivers strategic value – either on its own or as one phase in a longer program – rather than on low-value activities."

É seguida por mim há vários anos:

"Quando falo de sistemas de gestão tento passar a ideia de que o sistema de gestão ideal traduz-se num portfolio de iniciativas, num portfolio de projectos, alinhados por uma estratégia. Tudo o resto é treta de consultor e de auditor, para justificar honorários.
...
Só as iniciativas, quando implementadas, quando executadas, mudam uma organização. Tudo o resto, estratégia, mapa da estratégia, balanced scorecard, indicadores, metas,... não passa de conversa de café, enquanto não começarmos a mudar a realidade!!!" (Junho de 2007)

E:

"Um sistema de gestão concebido desta forma, é na essência uma estrutura móvel, um portfolio de projectos de melhoria," (Fevereiro de 2007)

Trechos retirados de "Why projects are the key to bringing your strategy to life"

Para reflexão

""In the same report," I don't give up, "it's indicated that they chose the cheap vendors over the more reliable ones. How much do you think they saved?"
"How do I know? Maybe five percent. Can't be much more."
"You can also see," I continue, "that delays in getting the machines from those vendors was the prime reason for the delay in completing the project."
"I see what you mean." He picks up Fred's report again and looks at it intently. Finally, he says, "So they saved about five percent on the machines, which is, probably, less than three percent of the total investment in the project." Very slowly he continues, "And this savings caused them to turn a three-year payback project into…" He stops.
"Saving a miserable three percent caused them to turn a very good project into a loser," I summarize.
"Rick, calm down. We have made a lot of assumptions. It's not so simple."
I don't know what he is talking about. The effect is clear. Companies are so immersed in the mentality of saving money that they forget that the whole intention of a project is not to save money nut to make money.
Out loud I say, "It's a simple fact that they try to cut the budget by a few percent and cause the payback period to double."
.
Para reflexão séria.
.
BTW, acham mesmo que um Observatório vai melhorar a qualidade dos projectos de obras públicas?
.
Trecho retirado de "Critical Chain" de Eliyahu Goldratt

Gestão de iniciativas estratégicas

Da próxima vez que facilitar o trabalho de equipas que tenham de desenhar, de estabelecer, de implementar e monitorizar iniciativas estratégicas, no âmbito de transformações estratégicas puras e duras, ou no âmbito do desenvolvimento de sistemas de gestão ambiental, espero ter à mão esta lista de verificação:

Retirada de "Information Systems Project Management: How to Deliver Function and Value in Information Technology Projects " de Jolyon Hallows.

"Managing for Breakthroughs in Productivity" parte II

Nem de propósito, o artigo "Managing for Breakthroughs in Productivity" de Allan Scherr, sobre o qual começamos a escrever ontem, refere:

"Successful organizations often give high priority to the minimization of risk and maximization of predictability. This is done to encourage what is seen as the source of past successes and to discourage what is seen as the cause of past failures. This priority is inappropriate, however, if unprecedented, extraordinary results are sought. Nevertheless, the management systems established in most large organizations have an implicit and largely unexamined bias against creating the kind of projects described in this article."

Hoje, descubro no artigo "Is It Real? Can We Win? Is It Worth Doing?: Managing Risk and Reward in an Innovation Portfolio" de George S. Day, na revista Harvard Business Review deste mês.

"Minor innovations make up 85% to 90% of companies’ development portfolios, on average, but they rarely generate the growth companies seek. At a time when companies should be taking bigger—but smart—innovation risks, their bias is in the other direction. From 1990 to 2004 the percentage of major innovations in development portfolios dropped from 20.4 to 11.5—even as the number of growth initiatives rose. The result is internal traffic jams of safe, incremental innovations that delay all projects, stress organizations, and fail to achieve revenue goals."
...
"According to one study, only 14% of new-product launches were substantial innovations, but they accounted for 61% of all profit from innovations among the companies examined.

The aversion to Big I projects stems from a belief that they are too risky and their rewards (if any) will accrue too far in the future. Certainly the probability of failure rises sharply when a company ventures beyond incremental initiatives within familiar markets. But avoiding risky projects altogether can strangle growth."
...
Ontem, almocei com o gerente de uma empresa que já está "infectado"!!!

A uma empresa com contabilidade analítica, e com gente, internamente, que analisa os números, bastou um ano.
Bastou um ano, para ficarem "viciados"!!!

O lançamento de um novo produto, num mercado tradicional (Oh meu Deus, e como é tradicional!), permitiu ganhos de rentabilidade invejáveis.

"Para o próximo ano, queremos mais do mesmo. Temos de colocar no mercado mais produtos novos!!!"

Alguém sabe quais são as características de um produto novo bem sucedido?
Só o mercado!

Assim, há que arriscar. Ou como diz Tom Peters:

""The whole damn purpose is to test stuff, try stuff," Peters said.
"And whether you're shooting pool, playing golf or playing violin, the only way you learn is if you're screwing up.
My major argument in the world of business is there's too much planning and too much talking, and not enough doing. The only way you grow, for God's sake, is go out and do it, and then correct quick."

So Peters endorses failure, calling it "not only normal but good," so long as that failure is achieved by trying something "with incredible vigor" and not through laziness." Se enquadrarmos bem as coisas, nós, humanos, somos o resultado de mais de 2 milhões de anos de falhas... corrigo, somos o resultado de 4,5 bilhões de anos de falhas, de falhas espectaculares. After all: "The only way you grow, for God's sake, is go out and do it, and then correct quick."

Mas haviam de ter visto o brilho dos olhos do gerente, quando dizia que apesar de terem aumentado os custos com pessoal, o peso dos custos com o pessoal diluíu-se, face ao aumento das margens.

"Managing for Breakthroughs in Productivity"

Este artigo "Managing for Breakthroughs in Productivity" de Allan Scherr está recheado de pequenos tesouros:

"we focused on the question of how to deliberately create projects that would have this quality for people and would predictably produce extraordinary, unprecedented results."

"There appears to be a pattern to the occurrence of breakthroughs. They arise predictably around particular events we call breakdowns." ... "A breakdown occurs whenever there is a gap between a committed result and the predictable outcome given the current circumstances."

...

"While it is obvious that unprecedented, extraordinary results will never be produced by simply executing the predictable recipes from the past, most people’s actions in the midst of a breakdown situation are not consistent with this obvious fact."

...
"A breakdown, then, creates a demand for extraordinary action." ... "The occurrence of a breakdown causes people to shift their attention and to see things differently. This perceptual change is often the opening that enables people to see opportunities for previously unconsidered actions."

O "breakdown" gera a rotura, quebra as barreiras, estilhaça as regras impostas pelo lado esquerdo do cérebro e, assim, abre uma brecha, para que o lado direito do cérebro, com uma postura mais holistica, desencante uma saída ardilosa, memorável e bem sucedida.

"The traditional emphasis in project management is on avoiding breakdowns. The breakthrough framework reveals that the most effective strategy for avoiding breakdowns is to design one’s commitments to be as safe as possible or, even better, to avoid commitments altogether. Examples include being committed to “doing you best,” “trying hard,” or to following a process rather than to producing a specific result. The latter often appears among technical or science professionals who embrace a particular process for conducting research, doing creative work, or developing a product as the end rather than the means. This approach provides safety because, if the desired result is not produced, at least the work was done in the correct manner."

"to following a process rather than to producing a specific result" Esta é, para mim, IMHO, uma das "defesas" mais espalhadas pelo mundo. Basta recordar o plano nacional de combate à violência doméstica, sobre o qual escrevemos aqui e, aqui também, sobre o indicador´"número de reuniões".

...

"the strength of small companies in the face of a breakdown as interpreted here is their lack of flexibility rather than the additional degrees of freedom often ascribed to them."

Sei muito bem do que é que o homem está a falar. Uma pequena empresa não pode falhar, não tem alternativa, não tem pulmão. Esse ter de resultar, faz das tripas coração e gera níveis de desempenho excepcionais. Mais uma vez, a necessidade aguça o engenho!

...

"Successful organizations often give high priority to the minimization of risk and maximization of predictability. This is done to encourage what is seen as the source of past successes and to discourage what is seen as the cause of past failures. This priority is inappropriate, however, if unprecedented, extraordinary results are sought. Nevertheless, the management systems established in most large organizations have an implicit and largely unexamined bias against creating the kind of projects described in this article."

Isto faz-me lembrar um livro que li há mais de dez anos, "THE BREAKTHROUGH STRATEGY: USING SHORT-TERM SUCCESSES TO BUILD THE HIGH PERFORMANCE ORGANIZATION" de Robert Schaffer, by the way, no mesmo número da Harvard Business Review de Janeiro de 92 em que Kaplan e Norton escreveram o artigo inicial sobre o Balanced Scorecard, Schaffer escreveu também um artigo onde falava da "rain dance". No livro, o autor falava do "zest factor", para energizar as equipas de projecto.

...

"The more precise and specific the statement of the required results and timeframe is, the more likely the project will succeed."

Será que tem algo relacionado com a visualização do futuro? Com a comunhão de interpretações?

(continua)