Input bias

A propósito de "É a vida":

"Input bias: using signs of effort to judge outcomes.
...
Don't confuse effort with outcomes.
...
Make sure your metrics are meaningful.
...
Examine your incentives"

Francesca Gino em "Measure Employee Productivity Accurately"

Produtividade para o século XXI (parte II)

Parte I.

"What is meant by productivity?The productivity of an operation is related to how effectively input resources in a process (manufacturing process, service process) are transformed into economic results for the service provider and value for its customers. As a consequence of high productivity, a favorable profit impact should be achieved for the service provider and good value created for the customers. This productivity concept is normally stated in a simplified form as the effective transformation of input resources into outputs, the quality of which is unchanged (a constant quality assumption). In services, especially for two reasons, it has turned out to be difficult to use such a productivity concept. First of all, it is seldom possible to clearly define ‘‘one unit of a service.’’ Because of this, productivity measurements in services are normally only partial measurements, such as how many customers are served per period by one waiter in a restaurant or how many phone calls are dispatched by one employee in a call centre.
...
However, cost-cutting changes in the resources used may equally well have the opposite effect. They may create a servicescape and service process where the perceived quality deteriorates, and customers become dissatisfied with the value they get and start to look for other options. In that case, as less value for customers than before is created in the service process, the service provider’s revenue-generating capability declines. Using a traditional productivity concept, Anderson et al.  studied the relationship between customer satisfaction, productivity and profits in manufacturing and service industries, respectively. [Moi ici: É pensar no hara-kiri em curso dos bancos, por exemplo] They found that in services a high level of either customer satisfaction with quality or productivity measured in a traditional way was associated with higher profit, but not both simultaneously. In manufacturing higher customer satisfaction and productivity levels were found to be associated with improved profits.
In manufacturing, productivity is a concept related to production efficiency. However, the problem with being an effective service organization is that productivity and perceived quality are inseparable phenomena. Improving productivity may have a neutral or positive impact on quality, but equally well it may reduce perceived quality. If the latter happens, satisfaction with quality declines, customer value goes down, and the risk that the firm will lose customers increases. Revenues go down and this may have a negative effect on the economic result, in spite of the fact that costs may have been reduced as well."

Pois, e se tudo for serviço?

Continua.

Acerca da co-criação de valor

"In co-productive terms, value is manifested thanks to the 'enabling' which the supplier brings to the customer's own value creating activity. By 'enabling' we mean 'supporting', or 'making possible'.[Moi ici: Tudo a ver com o uso da oferta como um input a ser processado pelo cliente na sua vida. A mesma oferta é processada por diferentes tipos de clientes de diferentes maneiras e, por isso, terá valores diferentes para cada tipo de clientes. Se a mesma oferta está disponível no mesmo local para todos os tipos de clientes, alguns vão considerar a oferta como demasiado cara, ou como suspeitosamente barata. Admitindo que possa fazer sentido trabalhar para mais do que um tipo de cliente, talvez faça sentido usar marcas diferentes, ainda que o 'hardware' seja o mesmo, para enviar diferentes mensagens e sinais para diferentes tipos de clientes]
...
Rather than being objective or subjective, interactive value is in fact, `actual'. It is 'actual' in the sense that it requires action on the part of both the customer, and his or her customers, and the supplier for the value to become (actually) possible. Once the actions take place, they become facts. Actual value is thus dependent on 'action' and interaction, which upon taking place 'actually', becomes 'factual'. With this understanding of customer valuation, the notion of 'end customer' — a customer at the end of a value chain that passively receives the value produced by the supplier — has lost its significance. [Moi ici: Isto não invalida que certos tipos de clientes não saibam, ou não precisem, ou não queiram criar mais valor com uma oferta. Porque a noção de valor não é a do produtor, mas a daquele que vai operar a oferta com um fim em vista. Como comprar azeite virgem extra de marca de nicho, para depois só o usar para fazer refogados] Somebody buys an offering, seeking to co-create value with others, for themself, for the other, and/or for third parties. We buy in order to create value, with others or in relationship to them. And we seek value-creating opportunities, which guide much of our buying. Understanding these value-creating opportunities for one's customers becomes the true challenge for any seller. [Moi ici: O vendedor pode fazer o papel de consultor, de formador do cliente, ajudando-o a perceber como uma determinada oferta pode fazer mais sentido e ser mais útil para a criação de valor percebido realmente como tal] The interface between one's customers and their own different customers, establishes the value that one's customers are seeking to produce. It is the supplier's role of actually helping customers to create value (with their counterparts) that convinces a customer to buy from that supplier. [Moi ici: A importância de ir para além da relação diádica e perceber o ecossistema do negócio]
...
The connotations that a given interaction holds for us, how we value it, are subjected to the particulars of the situation in which the interaction takes place. ... Offerings are thus valued 'contingently', that is, depending on which they are connected.
...
The offering consequently is not something that exists, independently, in itself. It both resulted from and contributes to a bundle of activities that enable the buyer to perform his or her activities in a different way than if the offering had not been bought. It is the outcome of these intended activities that creates some form of satisfaction for the buyer.
...
Facilitating customer value creation is, within the co-productive point of view, the raison d'être for a firm. This perspective shifts the focus of strategic attention from actor or 'activity' to interaction."
...
What competes is the offering, not the actor. Offerings are the output produced by one (or several) actor(s) creating value — the `producer' or 'supplier' — that becomes an input to another actor (or actors) creating value — the 'customer'....Offerings are thus both outputs and inputs. Acknowledging and incorporating the specific individual requirements of each customer implies that customers cannot be simply treated en masse as anonymous, 'average', de-personalized 'product markets'. Customer requirements can be better understood by knowing how each customer is producing value for themself and in turn, for their customers. A company's offering have value to the degree that customers can use them as inputs to leverage their own value creation with their own counterparts."

TRechos retirados de "Prime Movers" de Rafael Ramirez e Johan Wallin. 

Produtividade para o século XXI (parte IV)

Parte I, parte II e parte III.

"According to the traditional manufacturing-related productivity concept, productivity is defined as the ratio between outputs produced and inputs used, given that the quality of the outputs is kept constant (the constant quality assumption), or
Only if the quality of the production output is constant and there is no significant variation in the ratio between inputs used and outputs produced with these inputs, productivity can be measured with traditional methods. The constant quality assumption is normally taken for granted and not explicitly expressed. Therefore, the critical importance of this assumption is easily forgotten. [Moi ici: Forgotten por todos este pormaior fundamental. Subir na escala de valor é uma forma de dinamitar a constant quality assumption. É ela que gera o fenómeno da perseguição entre  gato e o rato (salário e produtividade)] However, in most service processes it does not apply.

In services, it is not only the inputs that are difficult to calculate, it is also difficult to get a useful measurement of the outputs. Output measured as volumes is useful only if customers are willing to buy this output. In manufacturing, where the constant quality assumption applies, customers can be expected to buy an output produced with an altered input or resource structure. However, in services we do not know whether customers indeed will purchase the output produced with a different input structure or not. It depends on the effects of the new resources or inputs used on perceived process-related and outcome-related quality. Hence, productivity cannot be understood without taking into account the interrelationship between the use of inputs or production resources and the perceived quality of the output produced with these resources. The interrelationship between internal efficiency and external efficiency is crucial for understanding and managing service productivity."

"usando o que produzimos como um input para o seu processamento"

O exemplo que se segue pode servir de reflexão aos que respondem com o seu produto ou serviço à pergunta sobre qual é o seu negócio. Os clientes não compram o que produzimos, os clientes procuram o que vão conseguir viver, experienciar, usando o que produzimos como um input para o seu processamento. Diferentes processamentos, diferentes contextos:

"You’re either pregnant or you’re not. And the market for pregnancy testing kits would appear to be similarly dichotomous: you either need a pregnancy test kit, or you don’t. If you do, you buy one and it helps you answer the first question in the affirmative or in the negative.
.
So you’d think there’s not much to the market – not much market segmentation potential.
...
“why do consumers buy pregnancy kits?”
.
The answer was surprisingly far from obvious.
.
It revealed two very different kinds of buyer of pregnancy kits: those who hopefully await a positive result, and those who anxiously wish for a negative one.
.
These two segments deserved to be served differently. So the product was launched differently for the two types of consumer: one for “the hopefuls” and another for “the fearfuls,” differentiated in name, packaging, pricing and in-store placement.
.
For the fearfuls the product was named “RapidVue,” it came in a plain white clinical pack design, priced at $6.99 and displayed near the condoms in the contraception aisle.
.
For the hopefuls, on the other hand, the company created a pretty pink box labeled “Babystart,” featuring a gurgling, rosy-cheeked infant, priced 50% higher at $9.99 and sold near the ovulation predictor kits.
.
It was a dramatically successful strategy for Quidel. A new way of segmenting the market was born."

Recordar:

• Preço e JTBD são contextuais (Novembro 2016)
• Conservas e pricing (Janeiro de 2014)

Trechos retirados de "Segmenting The Market For Power And Profit"

Dispersão da produtividade

Dado que se trata de uma conclusão que vai ao arrepio do mainstream, cá vai mais um artigo sobre o tema da produtividade e da qualificação dos trabalhadores.
.
"Wage and Productivity Dispersion: Labor Quality or Rent Sharing?" de Jesper Bagger, Bent Jesper Christensen e Dale T. Mortensen onde se pode ler:
.
"We fi nd that both input heterogeneity and intrinsic di fferences in total factor productivity across fi rms are important explanations.
...
Only 5% is associated with quality di fferences in the labor input. In the case of individual log wages, 70% of the variation is due to individual characteristics, whereas only 13% is attributable to firm di fferences"
.
As figuras que se seguem ilustram a dispersão de salários e de produtividade em três sectores dinamarqueses:

Porquê?!

Acerca da produtividade leio:
.
"if your firm invests in more machines so that less hand labor per loaf is required, output (value added) per hour should go up. But multifactor productivity will not necessarily rise, because your combined input measure will rise by about the same amount as output. There is another potential source, however, of increases in output per hour. If you discover a way to rearrange your labor force and equipment so that production is more efficient, or discover a great new recipe for a loaf that is equally tasty but costs you less to bake, multifactor productivity in your firm may go up, increasing your output (value added) per hour even in the absence of any capital deepening."

.

Trecho retirado de "Productivity".

.

O texto comete o mesmo esquecimento de sempre. Segundo o autor, a produtividade aumenta quando se poupa, quando se é eficiente. De acordo! 

.

Nem uma palavra sobre o aumento da produtividade à custa da alteração da qualidade dos outputs... porquê?

.

Por que é que o mainstream não fala, não escreve sobre o aumento da produtividade à custa da alteração da qualidade, do valor acrescentado do que se produz? É, de longe, o factor com o maior efeito de alavanca...

Fazer a mudança acontecer (parte V)

Continuação da parte I, parte II, parte III e parte IV.
.
Há alguns anos a minha pesquisa levou-me a estudar a Teoria dos Sistemas, o primeiro livro a despertar a curiosidade e a abrir uma porta para a operacionalização foi “Systems Thinking, Systems Practice” de Peter Checkland, foi esse livro que me despertou para o papel dos modelos. .
Outros livros que compuseram a minha compreensão do pensamento sistémico foram: “Systems modelling - Theory and Practice” (editado por Michael Pidd); “Tools for Thinking – Modelling in Management Science” de Michael Pidd; “Organizações: uma abordagem sistémica” de Yves Bertrand e Patrick Guillement; “Seeinf the Forest for the Trees – A Manager’s Guide to Applying Systems Thinking” de Dennis Sherwood (este título é delicioso e profundo); e “Visible Thinking – Unlocking causal mapping for practical business results” de John Bryson, Fran Ackermann, Colin Eden e Charles Finn.
.
Estes autores ajudaram-me a construir um suporte teórico para uma maneira diferente de ver o mundo. No entanto, foi Stephen Haines com o seu livro “The Systems Thinking Approach to Strategic Planning and Management” que de forma definite ajudou-me a desenhar uma metodologia para intervir e actuar sobre os sistemas.
.
Vou recorrer a alguns trechos de um livro de bolso de Haines, “Systems Thinking & Learning” para ilustrar a base da intervenção.
Primeiro a ilustração do modelo de Haines:
“Understanding and Using the Model.
To comprehend our model (figura acima), we first must understand that a system is anything but a static entity; rather, it is a living, ongoing process that requires inputs, outputs, and feedback.”
…
“In terms of looking at those phases in order to effect change in a system, we must begin where analytic thinking would have us end up – at the output phase. We ask “Where do we want to be?” and then think and work backwards through the system phases to create the desired future state”
...
“When applied to problem-solving, the model focuses us on results (outputs) rather than knee-jerk solutions, and so we work toward better, longer-term answers and solutions. When everyone in an organization knows how to frame issues in this way, discussions about problems take on a new dimension – one in which clarity and focus are possible, despite all the complexity.”
Uma visão alternative do modelo é ilustrada da seguinte forma:“Phase A – OUTPUT. This is the defining phase in the systems model, the output that results from the system’s activities. It leads us to the crucial question: This is the Number One question that systems thinkers ask when they are dealing with any situation or problem.
…
Phase B – FEEDBACK LOOP. It is at this point in systems thinking that we start thinking backward to determine what must take place for our desired outcome to occur. We ask:Phase B is where we decide how we will measure our achievement. We then feed that decision back into the system. This phase also operates as a way to see if Phase A needs more work; for example, we may find the goal has been too broadly defined and needs redefinition.Phase C – INPUT. In this phase we begin to understand where we are today so we can create strategies for closing the gap between what is happening right now and what should happen in the future. We ask the question:Analytic thinkers start with today’s issues; so they end up problem-solving isolated events. Instead, we must see today’s issues in light of desired outcomes. É aqui que o HOJE 2 é identificado, é aqui que as estruturas sistémicas que conspiram para que tenhamos os resultados actuais são identificadas.

.
Phase D – THROUGHPUT. Now we look at the system and its interdependencies, and ask:

With those interdependencies in mind, we focus on the processes, activities, and relationships that the system must implement in order to produce the desired outcome.”
…
Ao iniciar um projecto de transformação é importante descrever o objecto que vai ser alvo da transformação, quais são as suas fronteiras, onde começa e onde acaba, aquilo a que chamo o HOJE 1 onde normalmente recorro à abordagem por processos para modelar o sistema inicial.
.
“To begin with, you must be clear on what overall system you are trying to change. You must also be clear on its boundaries, both physical and mental. Where does it all start and end? Your preliminary question is therefore: What entity (system or “collision of systems” are we dealing with, and what are its boundaries?
.
This question may seem obvious, but many people fail to ask it at all. They launch into change efforts with only a vague idea of what they want to change, and so quickly run into problems. Consider this question a precondition to any intelligent, effective action and change.
.
The entity to be changed must be clear.”

.
Continua, no próximo episódio vamos apresentar um exemplo prático, um caso concreto de aplicação desta metodologia.

Uma surpresa boa!

A leitura de "The Root Cause: Rethink Your Approach to Solving Stubborn Enterprise-Wide Problems" de Hans Norden está a ser uma surpresa, por vezes brutal. Toda uma série de hibridações que desenvolvi ao longo dos anos a aparecerem-me, página após página em lingua inglesa.

Já vi muita gente a usar o modelo de cadeia de valor de Porter de muita maneira, mas não assim:

“The value chain is a representation of the process by which input variables are transformed into output variables. Therefore, the value chain’s design, organization or structure, implementation or operation, maintenance, and management are a function of its competitive advantage.

Within the value chain, each business function has its own objective that contributes to and supports the realization of the overall purpose of the value chain.”

O modelo de Porter usado como uso os mapas de processos!

Olhar para as organizações como seres vivos, organismos e não mecanismos:

“Note the difference in perception of a business, and therefore its value chain, as an organism or as a mechanism. The specifications and design of individual component parts that constitute a value chain are less important than their intricately interdependent and synergistic relationships, which determine a business’s character and nature as an organic whole.”

A linguagem que aprendi com Goldratt e Dettmer 

“It makes sense to distinguish between the desired state and the current state when they are misaligned—when the value chain experiences change. The root cause can originate from outperforming the aim or by easing up on the aim, or by changing the benchmark for success.”

A doença do eficientismo, a doença de saltar para soluções sem perceber as causas: 

“Beware of managers with a finance background who are prone to perceive this altered state as a financial problem in need of a financial solution, which usually means increasing operational efficiency. The unfortunate effect of treating symptoms is ignorance about the magnitude of the problem, jumping to conclusions that might even aggravate the problem, and allowing the problem to linger and fester. As a result, problems will persist, recur, or become a latent condition that can wreak havoc when least expected and tend to arrive at a critical moment in the business’s future.”

"a grande mudança que põe os trunfos na mão das PME"

"“Ten years ago, companies or industries defined what the markets needed. Nowadays, consumers are not just asked for their advice and input - they are defining what the products and services should look like, and can even drive and create products themselves on [crowdfunding] platforms like Kickstarter.”
.
As we noted in our 2007 study, “The Customer Connection,” companies can spend more money, hire the best engineers, develop the best technology, and conduct the best business market research, but unless their R&D efforts are driven by a thorough understanding of what their customers need and want, their performance may fall short."

Esta é a grande mudança que põe os trunfos na mão das PME com gente capaz de interagir com os clientes como entidades únicas e não como plankton ou miudagem

Trechos retirados de "The Global Innovation 1000: Proven Paths to Innovation Success"

Keeping optionality

"Successful businesses have always endeavored to satisfy customers. But the customer was traditionally treated as a separate entity whose needs were knowable only partially and episodically. Since physical and informational limitations made it infeasible to address each customer - or each usage episode - individually, companies typically aggregated customers into market segments according to features such as age, social status, gender, and geography. The tastes and interests of each group were averaged:

...

Companies are not competing for theoretical market segments anymore but rather for the attention and expendable cash of the individual consumers or organizations that they target. Doing so means emphasizing personalized and tailored offerings.

...

Business strategy has been predicated on the individual firm as the unit of competition, within relatively stable industry boundaries. Companies made strategies and developed products and services internally, only occasionally and selectively partnering with specific customers and suppliers.

...

But in a more dynamic and uncertain era of competition, owning a proprietary asset can easily turn into a liability; there’s a higher risk of obsolescence, and companies have less flexibility. Therefore, the ability to build or leverage digital platforms and ecosystems is key to achieving high optionality. Firms can multiply their options by complementing their capabilities with those of other ecosystem participants, which means that they can avoid being locked into a specific offering.

...

In a stable context, it is efficient to strive for standardized offerings in order to achieve economies of scale and experience. However, creating optionality for an uncertain future means turning variation from an expensive inconvenience into a valuable source of information, leading to greater optionality and differentiation.

Companies need to treat the execution of routine tasks and customer interactions as opportunities for learning. Standardizing tasks or offerings becomes counterproductive since it suppresses variance, which is the grist for new ideas. [Moi ici: Vejo esta confusão muitas vezes. Escrevem variância (variabilidade) quando deveriam escrever variedade. Variabilidade não é o contrário de variedade] Instead, firms need to leverage their digital presence and use learning algorithms to capture and process lessons from each interaction.

...

Most firms focus on satisfying the immediate and explicit needs of customers. Some go further and try to predict future needs using the techniques detailed above. But few companies interact directly with the customer’s own process of exploration. Serving the exploration needs of customers offers various avenues toward value creation. By facilitating the customer’s search for products or services, companies can learn more about the customer’s needs, which can serve as crucial input for their own search process (akin to Google’s approach). Helping customers find the best solutions to their explicit needs has become the core business for some firms."

Trechos retirados de "Radical Optionality" publicado na HBR de Maio-Junho de 2923. 

A bad economy can provide good opportunities for businesses

Há tempos escrevi aqui no blogue (confesso, com algum embaraço, que não consigo encontrar esse texto) que um dos motivos para o renascimento da indústria portuguesa, assente na subida na escala de valor, devia-se à reduzida dimensão e crónica falta de capital das nossas PMEs.
.
Quando o contexto macro-económico muda e os modelos de negócio das empresas deixam de carburar como carburavam, as empresas têm de procurar alternativas.
.
Quando há capital suficiente e não há paciência dos accionistas, o mais comum é manter o modelo de negócio e apostar na eficiência, apostar na redução dos custos... esquecendo que muitas vezes não é o preço/custo que está mal, os clientes é que mudaram.
.
As empresas portuguesas com capital não se deslocalizaram, seguiram as leis da física e, foram pelo caminho onde encontraram menos resistência para ganharem dinheiro honesto facilmente, apostaram no sector dos bens não transaccionáveis.
.
As PMEs portuguesas, sem capital suficiente para se deslocalizarem e sem acesso ao sector dos bens não transaccionáveis, fizeram o que se faz quando se está desesperado, saltaram da "burning platform". Muitas não resistiram e foram definhando com mais ou menos rapidez, com mais ou menos estrondo. Contudo, algumas empresas fuçaram e fuçaram até que começaram a descobrir o seu espaço, o seu ecossistema, o seu nicho. A Grande Contracção de 2008-2009 é que escondeu essa revolução estrutural nas PMEs portuguesas que passa despercebida aos olhos do mainstream.
.
O facto de uma empresa não se deslocalizar obriga-a a usar a sua herança como uma peça de um puzzle e a ir ao mercado testar e testar diferentes combinações de produtos, de clientes, de soluções até que a herança se case com algo de novo no exterior que resulta, que encaixa, que tem potencial para gerar capital. Depois, o spill-off acaba por contaminar outras empresas existentes e outras mentes, servindo de exemplo, de motivação, de prova de que há uma alternativa (BTW, na reflexão com Rui Moreira alguém disse que o spill-off era um treta porque não tinha resultado por cá. Os investimentos do Estado não tinham contaminado positivamente a sociedade. Eu digo, o spill-off funciona, o investimento que o Estado fez é que era da treta, não era investimento era gasto puro e duro. Investimento é gastar hoje em algo que amanhã vai, só por si gerar retorno e compensar o gasto inicial. Portanto, assim que acabou o capital inicial metido pelo Estado acabou a festa).
.
Assim, um conjunto de empresas começa a operar no mesmo sector, mas com novos modelos de negócio, novas estratégias, novos produtos e soluções. a transição para um novo patamar na escala de valor concretizou-se. A fase seguinte consiste na progressão da epidemia virtuosa ao longo do sector.
.
Um exemplo do Canadá "Canadian manufacturer refuses to move off-shore" dado por um indiano:
.
"The appeal of manufacturing offshore is tempting, to keep costs down. But should Canadian small and medium-sized manufacturers move offshore? If not, how can they stay in Canada and remain competitive?
...
When other North American manufacturers started moving their operations to other countries like China, Mexico, Brazil and India, Mr. Datta wasn’t tempted to follow them.
.
Although his input unit labour cost of 18 per cent of total cost was much higher than it would be in China, for example, he believed that low offshore wages were a temporary phenomenon.
.
“I’ve always thought that, as the Chinese economy grows, Chinese employers will have to provide better compensation for their workers – better wages, better housing, and a better quality of life,” he says.
.
He sees now that his prediction was accurate.
.
“Their labour costs have increased to the extent that they’re within 10 per cent of ours. When you add that to the high cost of transporting your goods from Asia, in our industry, there is little or no cost benefit to manufacturing offshore.”

...

Instead, Mr. Datta focused on making Cancoil better.
.
When times were tight, he focused on being able to respond in a more flexible way to his customers. Not only did the company develop new engineering systems, it also worked closely with employees and their union.
.
“We have a great working relationship with employees, and the union understands that flexibility in manpower deployment is core to our success,” Mr. Datta says.
.
Indeed, Mr. Datta believes that a bad economy can provide good opportunities for businesses.
.
“When the Canadian dollar (Moi ici: Bom para bento-lovers)  was low, everyone made a lot of money and people became complacent and wasteful. When things got harder, we had no choice but to shape up.”

"all models are wrong, but some are useful."

Há muitos anos li a frase, “Todos os modelos estão errados, alguns são úteis”, desde então tem-me acompanhado e, de certa forma, ajudado a trabalhar com modelos. Um modelo é uma ferramenta, só isso, uma hipótese de lidar com a realidade. Um modelo não é a realidade, algo que muitos esquecem. Um modelo é, de certa forma, uma ilusão. Talvez por isso, tenha abraçado as ideias de Peter Checkland sobre os ovos estrelados, ou as amibas, em vez dos rectângulos arrogantes e pretensiosos. 

Quem trabalha com sistemas de gestão tem de trabalhar com modelos. Por exemplo, os mapas de processos nos sistemas da qualidade com base na abordagem por processos. Ou seja, quem trabalha com sistemas de gestão tem de trabalhar com ilusões. Recentemente comecei a ler o livro "The Upside of Uncertainty" onde os autores nos despertam para o receio que tanta gente tem da incerteza. Talvez por isso muitos esquecem que um modelo é só uma ferramenta e tratam-no como a descrição perfeita da realidade. 

Por que medimos o desempenho dos processos e o desempenho do sistema de gestão? Porque existe incerteza! Porque a realidade é volúvel e pode alterar o que pensávamos. No entanto, há uma outra razão que muitas vezes esqueço de verbalizar. Temos de medir, analisar e avaliar porque o nosso modelo é só uma rede que lançamos à realidade. A realidade é demasiado complexa para ser descrita por um qualquer modelo. A medição, análise e avaliação permite perceber quando é que o modelo se afasta tanto da realidade que deixa de ser útil.

Por que escrevo isto? Por causa de uma crítica ao livro "Escape From Model Land: How Mathematical Models Can Lead Us Astray and What We Can Do About It" de Erica Thompson, publicada no passado dia 28 de Dezembro no WSJournal.

"We live in an information age, as the cliché has it-really an age of information overload. But “measured quantities do not speak for themselves,” observes Erica Thompson, a statistician and a fellow at the London School of Economics. Data, she notes, are given meaning “only through the context and framing provided by models.” [Moi ici: Tenho uma interpretação um pouco diferente. Medimos. Analisamos, qualquer estagiário faz isso se for ensinado. Ou seja, como trabalhar os dados brutos e transformá-los em algo que possa ser avaliado. Avaliamos, já usamos o modelo para analisar os dados. Agora, usamos o contexto interno e externo para avaliar o desempenho e a continuação da confiança no modelo. Aquele pormenor de saltar do ciclo SDCA para o ciclo PDCA - "Avancemos agora para a Figura 2." Quando decidimos que precisamos de dar o salto é quando percebemos que o modelo que temos já não permite esperar um desempenho aceitável, temos de o melhorar.]

When we want to know how rapidly a new infectious virus is likely to spread, we turn to mathematical models. Models are used by climate scientists to project global warming; by options traders to price contracts; by the Congressional Budget Office to forecast the economic effects of legislation; by meteorologists to warn of approaching storms. Without models, Ms. Thompson says, data "would be only a meaningless stream of numbers."

Ubiquitous and persuasive, models also drive decisions-one reason why, in Ms. Thompson's view, they require our urgent attention. She tells us that, as a graduate student studying North Atlantic storms, she noticed how different models predicted different overall effects and produced contradictory results. She started to reflect on the role of models as metaphors, tools for understanding, and expressions of sociopolitical power. "Escape From Model Land" offers a contemplative, densely encapsulated summary of her reflection and research.

[Moi ici: O parágrafo que se segue é precioso] Models seek to represent the real world, but they live outside it. Indeed, they exist in their own "wonderful place,' what Ms. Thompson dubs "Model Land." In Model Land, the assumptions of a model are considered "literally true," enabling expansive exploration and ambitious predictions. The problem is that Model Land is easy to enter but difficult to escape. Having built "a beautiful internally consistent model," Ms. Thompson writes, it can be "emotionally difficult to acknowledge that the initial assumptions on which the whole thing is built are literally not true."

 ...

There are all sorts of ways that models can lead us astray. A small measurement error on an input can lead to wildly inaccurate forecasts-a phenomenon known as the Butterfly Effect. Fortunately, this type of uncertainty is often manageable. Far more problematic are what Ms. Thompson calls "unquantifiable unknowns" -things that are left out of a model's calculation because they can't be anticipated, such as the unexpected arrival of a transformative technology or the abrupt collapse of a robust market.

...

[Moi ici: Outro parágrafo precioso] Beyond the inherent inability of models to account for the unaccountable, models also reflect the biases of their creators. We may be inclined to regard models as objective expressions of truth, yet they are deliberately constructed interpretations, imbued with the values and viewpoints of the modelers-primarily, as Ms. Thompson notes, well-educated, middle-class individuals. During the pandemic, models "took more account of harms to some groups of people than others," resulting in a "moral case" for lockdowns that was "partial and biased." Modelers who worked from home while others maintained the supply chain often overlooked "all of the possible harms" of the actions their models were suggesting. And even when models try to describe the effects of different courses of action, human beings must ultimately weigh the benefits and harms. "Science cannot tell us how to value things," Ms. Thompson says. "The idea of 'following the science' is meaningless."

...

The statistician George Box once observed that "all models are wrong, but some are useful." For Ms. Thompson, the real utility of models is as a tool for exploration rather than a mechanism to divine the truth or predict the future. "The process of generating a model changes the way that we think about a situation," she writes; it "strengthens some concepts and weakens others." Recalling President Eisenhower's legendary maxim-that "plans are useless, but planning is indispensable"--she argues that relying on models solely for their output misses the indispensable value of the process of model development: of trade-offs, and the agility to adapt if foundational assumptions unexpectedly change.

While acknowledging our "overenthusiasm for mathematical solutions," Ms. Thompson emphatically counsels not abstinence but discipline and humility. Clarity about the purpose of the model matters, she says: An epidemiological model may inform us about viral transmission and hospital pressure but not about the economic effects of closing businesses. Modelers should acknowledge the value judgments implicit in their models, explain what makes a model "good" and describe relevant limitations. But it's up to us to learn from models without being drawn in by their seductive elegance and to ensure that the lessons from Model Land find substantive expression where it actually matters: in our messy, material, magnificent world."

Mongo não é só tecnologia...

Mongo não é só tecnologia...
.
"Kings of a Small-Batch Empire in Brooklyn"
.
"Etsy"
.
"Smorgasburg"
.
E sublinhar mais um trecho de Chris Anderson em "Makers":

"Goods made by passionate consumers-turned-entrepreneurs tendo to radiate a quality that displays craftmanship rather than mass-manufactured efficiency.
.
In a sense, this is just the extreme of the specialization that Adam Smith originally recognized in The Wealth of Nations as the key to an efficient market. People should do only what they do best, he said, and trade with others who make other specialized goods. No one person or town should try to do it all, since a society can do far more collectively with an efficient division of labor - comparative advantage plus trade equals growth. What was good in the eighteenth century is even better in the twenty-first, now that specialists have access to global supply chains for their commodity input materials and global consumer markets for their niche output products."

Acerca da produtividade

Ando a escrever sobre isto há anos:

"But ‘productivity’ is off-kilter: the original and subliminal meaning is the rate of output per unit of input, and which implicitly stresses increasing output. As I recently commented at a dinner party, the term ‘productivity’ has a bit of barbed wire in its deeper associations.
.
We aren’t really designing tools or practices to increase output, per se, despite using the term ‘productivity’ so liberally. We are really seeking to improve outcomes, which is something different altogether. And that distinction is critical, because it opens the door to incorporating innovation, creativity, and the emergent value of people cooperating toward mutual ends."

Por exemplo "Acerca da produtividade, mais uma vez (parte I)" e "Actualizem o documento por favor."

Trecho inicial retirado de "Progressivity, not Productivity"

Eficiência versus Eficácia

Imaginem um mundo que já não existe, um mundo onde a oferta é menor do que a procura, um mundo onde quem manda são os produtores, um mundo em que o fundamental para o sucesso é gerir bem o interior da unidade produtiva, um mundo onde ser eficiente, ser poupado é suficiente para se ter sucesso.

.

Imaginem esse mundo, fixem bem a impressão que retêm de como é a vida nesse mundo. Agora, com essa imagem na mente, com esse paradigma como cenário de fundo leiam estes trechos:

.

"Todas as relações económicas se expressam em preços e mercados... Na relação entre a oferta e a procura que estrutura todas as relações económicas, a articulação entre o preço e o mercado é constituinte dessa actividade económica, dando origem a duas linhas estratégicas distintas, uma que consiste em reduzir os preços para tornar o mercado possível (é o efeito da tecnologia, da produtividade, da organização das empresas para a redução dos custos de produção)(Moi ici: Nota 1), outra que consiste em controlar o mercado (para assim criar as condições para um preço superior assegurado por esse controlo ou para proteger essa actividade de modo a que ela não se torne inviável).

.

Com a passagem para o padrão de modernização da globalização competitiva, esta relação entre preço e mercado tem uma nova configuração porque o preço comparado e a liberdade de entrada nos mercados, em combinação com a maior mobilidade de produtos e de factores produtivos, estabelecem valores para os preços e características para os mercados que passam a ser determinados pelos centros económicos mais eficientes. É uma evolução que favorece os consumidores (porque têm acesso aos melhores produtos aos melhores preços), mas que tem como consequência inevitável a discriminação e a desigualdade entre produtores (com os mais eficientes a eliminarem ou a subordinarem os menos produtivos). É uma relação que, com a passagem do tempo, acentua as desigualdades, na medida em que muitos consumidores também serão produtores menos eficientes ou têm os seus rendimentos dependentes de empresas menos eficientes. Não será preciso um prazo longo para que os consumidores beneficiados com os melhores produtos aos melhores preços que a globalização competitiva lhes proporciona verifiquem que, ficando sem actividade remunerada porque as suas empresas são eliminadas no processo competitivo, também não poderão beneficiar do acesso a esses melhores produtos a esses melhores preços."

.

O raciocínio tem lógica, faz todo o sentido para o mundo que imaginamos no início deste postal, aliás este raciocínio acaba por justificar a política salazarista de protecção corporativa ou as políticas anti-trust, tudo para evitar que as empresas mais eficientes, entrando numa lógica auto-sustentada e auto-catalítica se tornassem progressivamente mais eficientes e eliminassem a concorrência até que no limite só existiria uma empresa vencedora sem concorrentes independentes vivos.

.

Mesmo que o mundo imaginado inicial evolua e se chegue a uma situação de procura a exceder a oferta, como a actual, o raciocínio do trecho destacado tem lógica... tem ainda mais lógica.

.

Há no entanto um problema no texto, o autor escreve "melhores produtos". O que são melhores produtos? Produtos com menos defeitos? OK, o raciocínio do autor continua válido.

.

Então estamos condenados!

.

.

.

.

.

Como é que a economia alemã cresceu e progrediu nas últimas décadas? Como é que a economia luxemburguesa progrediu nas últimas décadas?

.

Foi apostando na melhoria da eficiência?

.

.

.

Don't think so!

.

.

.

Os protozoários podem dar-nos uma pista "O que os protozoários nos ensinam sobre estratégia" (como me explicou o professor Vitorino, a primeira pessoa que me abriu os olhos para a química quântica), quando estamos num quarto cheio, repleto, e sem mais espaço, está tudo ocupado, está tudo gasto, está tudo conhecido... alguém descobre uma janela, escapule-se e descobre um admirável mundo novo cheio de oportunidades por descobrir e construir.

.

Por isso é que descobri, não há muitos anos, que um país com uma moeda forte só tem duas hipóteses: ou passa a ter uma moeda fraca... ou passa a ter uma economia à alemã. (O sucesso das empresas alemãs não assenta no tamanho)

.

Quem trabalha numa multinacional pode fazer a comparação com informação em primeira mão: os trabalhadores portugueses das fábricas de automóveis alemãs em Portugal são mais ou menos produtivos que os trabalhadores alemães nas fábricas de automóveis alemãs na Alemanha? A haver diferença resulta só de dois factores: o preço de venda do automóvel e o salário.

.

Quem trabalha numa multinacional portuguesa e compara as unidades industriais situadas em Portugal com as unidades industriais do grupo situadas na Alemanha e Suécia normalmente detecta e estranha um pormenor. As unidades estrangeiras têm sempre mais gente que as unidades portuguesas... como é possível? "Eles ganham mais e têm mais gente! Nós ganhamos menos, temos menos gente e andamos sempre à rasca para atingir os resultados!"

.

.

Acham que essas unidades competem na melhoria da eficiência?

.

.

.

.

.

Don't think so!

.

Volto outra vez ao tema do numerador, ao tema da criação de valor, da originação de valor, a Larreche, ao tema das contas de Rosiello, ao tema da produtividade (basta procurar os marcadores no final dos postal). O combate é pela eficácia e não pela eficiência.

.

Só que... reparem

.

O que o autor não toma em consideração é a criação, a originação de valor... e o valor não resulta do trabalho, o valor resulta de uma avaliação subjectiva feita pelo comprador e... isso abre um leque infindável de opções evolutivas para as empresas, ser eficiente e ter um bom preço é só mais uma das opções para se procurar ter sucesso. É possível ter sucesso tendo uma fábrica na China e exportando calçado a 3€ o par para a Europa, e é possível ter sucesso tendo uma fábrica em Portugal e exportando calçado a 50€ o par para a Europa. A proposta de valor e o modelo de negócio é que é diferente!!!

.

O que nós vamos ter de fazer é evoluir de um modelo mental que aposta na eficiência, no denominador, para um mundo económico onde se aposte na eficácia, na criação de valor e isso não é fácil. Quase que aposto que só uma minoria de empresários é que consegue mudar de modelo mental e fazer a transição como no exemplo da economia finlandesa "It is widely believed that restructuring has boosted productivity by displacing low-skilled workers and creating jobs for the high skilled.
This hypothesis can be tested by taking into account the quality of labour input in productivity decompositions. This can be done by using so-called “linked employer-employee” data.
These data allow labour input to be measured in terms of “efficiency units”. It turns out that the basic findings and conclusions remain unaltered after the inclusion of the labour quality aspect in the productivity computations.
In essence, creative destruction means that low productivity plants are displaced by high productivity plants."
.

Assim, a conclusão é imediata, quanto mais apoios receberem as empresas actuais, menos hipóteses haverá dos recursos, cada vez mais escassos, serem desviados para as empresas do futuro, as empresas que precisam de ser criadas sobre os escombros das que não se adaptaram a um mundo da eficácia.

.

Nota 1: reparem, todas estas opções concentradas na redução do denominador

.

Trecho retirado de "A Economia no Futuro de Portugal" Estudo da Saer coordenado por Ernâni Lopes.

Mais do que o custo

"Our research into business model innovation in Asia uncovered two distinct, yet overlapping, waves of innovation: one decades old and still going, and one that ... is evolving now.
...
The first wave, as we call it, primarily exploited differences in labor and other input costs between developed and developing markets. By contrast, the second wave is driven primarily by business model innovation and typically leverages new technology. [Moi ici: Em tom quasi irónico direi que apostam em dumping legislativo. Sociedades mais abertas à mudança e com menos direitos adquiridos pelos incumbentes] These companies are characterized by extensive and often radical reconfigurations of the profit formula, resources, processes, and relationships within a broader stakeholder ecosystem.
...
The first wave of innovation from emerging markets in Asia has been predicated on the replication of existing business models at lower cost. As the model has evolved, it has become increasingly sophisticated,
...
Nonetheless, we believe the second wave could be even more disruptive than the first wave was. There are three reasons why, all of which reveal the ability of second-wave companies to achieve scale while remaining nimble.
.
The first reason is that second-wave companies fundamentally reimagine various facets of the business model. The second is that second-wave companies find new, often digitally enabled, ways in which resources and processes can be leveraged, ... The third is that second-wave companies identify creative ways for partners, stakeholders, and customers to be involved in value creation and capture, [Moi ici: Co-criação e ecossistemas]
...
If you want to reimagine your own business model, the first step is challenging the fundamental assumptions about what it means to be a business, employee, partner, or customer."

Trechos retirados de "The Next Wave of Business Models in Asia"

"Processos e experiência dos clientes" (parte V)

Parte IV, parte III, parte II e parte I. 

"You can’t run service operations like a factory, because customers just walk onto the factory floor and mess everything up. They interfere. You can’t schedule when they show up. They just come in massive waves at the most inconvenient times. Then they get angry when they have to wait. Why can’t they make an appointment? They don’t understand how things work, so you have to train them to use the equipment. Sometimes they can be really slow to figure things out.
.
They ask for things that aren’t on the menu. They want everything to be customized and personalized for them. They have no interest in efficient operations.
.
They don’t follow the processes we lay out for them.
...
And customers want to get on with their days. They don’t want to wait in the waiting room or stay on hold for the next customer representative. They want services to be convenient for them.
...
As customers, competitors, and partners make adaptive moves and countermoves, they not only affect each other but they affect the landscape itself, so an organization that was fit for yesterday’s world cannot be certain that they will be fit for tomorrow’s world. Our companies have all been optimized for a perfect one-way stream, the line of production, and these pesky customers are mucking about in our operations, and we have now a completely different problem to solve. We need to optimize not for the line of production but for the line of interaction, the front line - the edge of the organization - where our people and systems come into direct contact with customers. It’s a whole different thing.
...
Many service companies just aren’t designed for service delivery. They are designed like factories, optimized for the mass production of inputs into outputs. This makes perfect sense in a rapidly-industrializing economy. But in an economy where manufacturing is shrinking and services are expanding, it doesn’t work anymore. Traditional management thinking looks at a customer service call as an input to the service factory. For a factory, it’s not difficult to get standard inputs from suppliers. But inputs from customers come in all kinds of different shapes and sizes. Every problem, every job that customers need to do, has its own unique profile. Most companies try to standardize these inputs as much as possible so they can process them efficiently. The factory’s job is to produce “resolutions.” This is how we end up with complicated voice menu systems that attempt to route calls to the appropriate department while keeping costs as low as possible. As companies try to fit customer demands into standard boxes, customers become frustrated and angry. They give up. Sometimes they leave to find another provider, but even then they often hold little hope that anything will change."

Trechos do Capítulo 4, "Services are complex", do livro "The Connected Company" de Dave Gray.

Uma novela sobre Mongo (parte V)

Parte I, parte II, parte III e parte IV.

"Most things from the industrial age were dead-end products. Dead-end products are those that arrive to the end purchaser in their final format. A price is paid and the benefit of the product is that it can be used as it is. Sure, we may be able to re-sell it, or even use it for an extended period of time, but it’s designed in a way that its primary purpose is to finish its lifecycle at that point.
.
But more than that, dead-end products are not intended to be reinterpreted, mashed up and released back into the market with our input. The time-saving devices of the industrialised world fit very much into this space. Time is saved because someone else did the hard work to prepare something for you. If you think about life preinternet, it was filled with dead-end products — packaged goods, fridges, cars, washing machines, sneakers, ducted heating, instant coffee, glossy magazines, sitcom television programs — all sit-backand- receive scenarios.
...
The world we live in now is about handing the brand back over to its rightful owners: the audience. Companies believe they own their brands, but in reality they don’t. A brand depends on those who purchase it for sustenance. If we stop feeding a brand, then the brand dies.
...
people are telling us is that they want to help create the things they use. There is a clear shift towards people preferring products that are not finished. They want products where they get involved in the making process. [Moi ici: Isto é Mongo, o reino da individualidade, da co-criação, da interacção] Everything from slow food to high-end technology is transitioning to the malleable marketplace."

"Fitness Beats Truth in the Evolution of Perception"

"it is standard in the literature to assume that more accurate percepts are fitter percepts and that, therefore, natural selection drives perception to increasing veridicality-i.e., to correspond increasingly to the "true" state of the objective world. This assumption informs the prevalent view that human percepts are, for the most part, veridical.

Our main message in this paper has been that, contrary to this prevalent view, attempting to estimate the "true" state of the objective world corresponding to a given sensory input confers no evolutionary benefit whatsoever. Specifically: If one assumes that perception involves inference to states of the objective world, then the FBT Theorem shows that a strategy that simply seeks to maximize expected-fitness payoff, with no attempt to estimate the "true" world state, does consistently better (in the precise sense articulated in the statement of the FBT Theorem). In an evolutionary competition, this "Fitness-only" strategy would drive the "Truth" strategy to extinction.

...

In our view, the very idea of attempting to estimate the "true" state of the world is wrong-headed."

Trechos retirados de "Fitness Beats Truth in the Evolution of Perception"