« April 2007 | Main | June 2007 »
May 20, 2007
One Version of the Link
Oops. I am sorry. The link that I posted to download the One Version of the Truth white paper didnt seem to work. Here is another link that should work:
http://www.hyperion.com/products/immersion/one_version_wp_form.cfm
I welcome your feedback!
frank
Share:
Posted by Frank Buytenkijk at 3:36 AM | Comments (0)
May 16, 2007
One Version of the Truth
Oh, and by the way, here is another paper. It is called The Myth of the One Version of the Truth and you can download it by clicking on the link.
In the field of data warehousing and business intelligence, the problem most projects deal with is trying to create the one version of the truth. Rarely has it been successful, and most efforts have been misguided.
The reason why it is such a difficult problem is the fact that we look at it from a vertical or hierarchical point of view. Senior management doesnt really know the subtleties of differences in definitions of terms between departments, and through the hierarchy, the managers dont really get to know what their peers exactly mean. No wonder that senior management sees apples and oranges when IT tries to consolidate all different versions of the truth, and why managers fight this consolidation as they dont see their issues reflected in a bland compromise of a single definition of a term.
If we look at the problem from a horizontal or value chain approach, the problem is remarkably (or dare I even say: disappointingly) easy to solve.
The white paper explains how.
frank
Share:
Posted by Frank Buytenkijk at 11:06 AM | Comments (0)
Introduction to Performance Networks
I just finished writing a paper. Due to its length and format, it is less applicable as an Expert Insight on http://www.hyperion.com/leaders/, yet I believe it is very interesting for you (assuming you are a performance management professional, if you take the time to read this). It will make you think very differently about performance management!
I have been working on the concept of performance networks, as I believe there is great value in using performance management to manage relationships between stakeholders, and not only within the business, towards a single stakeholder. Interestingly enough, there is not much thought leadership available on this topic.
Here is the summary of the paper:
There is a gap between the state of performance measurement and much of the innovation taking place in business models. Where business models are becoming increasingly networked due to outsourcing and various forms of inter-organizational collaboration, performance measurement remains a very hierarchical exercise. This paper discusses the use of transaction cost economics (TCE) in performance measurement. The paper introduces TCE - which is not traditionally well-known by performance management professionals - and applies it to performance measurement. It proposes a framework of three levels of relationships organizations can have with their stakeholders; transactional relationships, added-value relationships and joint-value relationships, and how to use these three levels to define better performance indicators.
You can download the paper here:
Download tce_in_pm_fabuytendijk_weblog.pdf
I will be writing much more on this topic in the weblog.
frank
Share:
Posted by Frank Buytenkijk at 2:03 AM | Comments (0)
Conceptual Thinking
Recently I had a chat with a reader of the blog (thank you P.!) who commented the blog was useful, but sometimes a bit too conceptual of nature. Blogs are just read in a casual way, and not studied.
I agree, and I will try to better my life there ;-).
However, I would also like to point out how important conceptual thinking is. A good concept helps understanding reality in two different ways:
- A good concept helps you perform a gap/fit analysis on reality. If you are evaluating a certain situation, the concept helps you figure out which bits are still missing and which bits are redundant.
- A good concept helps you broaden perspective. If you understand the concept behind something, you can define other applicabilities as well.
Ok, examples. Lets take for instance a set of metrics within an organization. A concept for creating the right metrics is the balanced scorecard (there are many frameworks, I am just picking this one because it is so well-known). So if you need to evaluate the metrics you have, mapping them to the balanced scorecard framework tells you if you are missing metrics in vital areas, such as growth/learning, or if you perhaps have too much metrics in another area, such as process.
And if you understand how to apply balanced scorecard principles on internal management metrics, you can understand how the same principle applies in other areas. For instance, you can use the same framework in managing supplier relationships (supplier scorecard), or creating a brand promise to customers using the balanced scorecard. Or... or... or... a good concept, boiled down to the essence, can be used in many different ways.
Hope this was not too conceptual...
frank
Share:
Posted by Frank Buytenkijk at 1:46 AM | Comments (0)
May 9, 2007
Performance Accountable Organization
Wouldnt it be great? Everyone is accountable for his/her performance and contribution to the organization. Everyones added value is clear, and for every target there is a clear owner.
It is the mantra for enterprise performance management, and it is a beautiful vision.
One issue: it doesnt work that way.
If organizations drive accountability too deep, people create their own agenda. Many of todays number games are based on accountability. Heres what happens:
(1) Never promise too much. Play down stretch goals
(2) Always build in cost, risk and virtual profit margins in everything you do
(3) Dont care about someone elses performance. Youre not rewarded for it, it distracts your attention and hey, if they mess up and you dont, it makes you look good.
The drive for accountability leads to people losing buy-in in the shared objectives of the organization, and creating their own objectives. Local optimizations. Mediocre performance.
People turn into suppliers of performance, instead of business colleagues with the same goal. Relational behavior is driven back to transactional behavior.
It may sound weird coming from a performance management professional, but perhaps we should measure less, and trust more. Performance management should not be about control, it should be about feedback. And the feedback tells you if you are doing well, so you take the next set of decisions with confidence and with the organizations goals in mind. And the feedback tells your boss you are trustworthy.
That would be a shock in most organizations.
Yet more and more I get convinced that the one keyword of performance management and BI is not control, but is feedback, probably leading to a much higher level of control. Getting grip by letting go.
Someone called me a hopeless romantic in a panel discussion a few weeks ago. It was the nicest compliment I could think of...
frank
Share:
Posted by Frank Buytenkijk at 10:00 AM | Comments (0)
