The concept of an Iron Triangle is that along each side of the triangle is one item that is constrained by the items from the other two sides. In Project Management this is often referred to as a triple constraint. This identifies the fundamental relationships (such as Time, Cost, and Scope in Project Management) without addressing related aspects such as Risk and Quality. It provides a simple understanding of both requirements and tradeoffs.
Yesterday I spoke with Dave Mosby, an impressive person with an equally impressive background. He related Innovation to Fire, noting that in order to create fire you need fuel, oxygen, and heat. He added that they need to be in the right combination to achieve the desired flame. What a brilliant analogy.
Dave stated that for Corporate Innovation to succeed you need the proper balance of Innovation, Capital, and Entrepreneurship. I found this enlightening because his description substituted “entrepreneurship” for “culture” in my existing mental model. While the difference is subtle, I found it to be important.
As noted above, simplified frameworks do not provide a complete understanding. But, they do help understand and plan around the foundational items required for success. Mapping this to past experiences I was able to gain a better understanding of things that did not move forward as desired, and what I could have done differently in order to be more effective.
One idea was to create a fault-tolerant database using Red Hat’s JBoss middleware. We had a Services partner willing to create a working prototype, tune it for performance, document the system requirements and configuration, and package it for easy deployment. They wanted was $10K to cover their costs.
At the time I did not hold a budget of my own so created a purchase request supported by a logical justification. It modeled potential revenue increases for database subscriptions based on the need for a failover installation, as well as growth from potential expanded use cases. This was a slam dunk!
In my mind, this was simple as it was “only $10K,” and I had funded many similar efforts when I had my own company. But that’s the rub. I viewed these efforts as investments in understanding, lessons learned, and growth. Not every investment had a direct payoff, but nearly each one of them had an indirect payoff for my company. It was an entrepreneurial mindset that accepted risk as something required for rewards and success. I now see, many years later, how reframing my proposal as a way to foster innovation and entrepreneurship could have been far more effective.
It is never too late to gain new insights and lessons learned. And, a slightly different perspective on an important topic provided the understanding that should help with positioning projects for success in the future. And this flowed from a discussion with an interesting person who has, “been there, done that” many times.
This “pocket” story is from Scientific American, originally published on March 5, 2019. The Creativity of ADHD.
Over the years I have found that some of the most interesting, creative, and effective CEOs have ADHD-like tendencies. The strange thing is that they may not even be aware that they have it. Hyperfocus can be incredibly effective when attached to a driven person.
Below are links to a couple of posts that make these concepts and their benefits tangible:
Just examples of why it is best to look beyond labels, lay your preconceived notions to the side, and explore the potential that each and every individual can contribute. The best managers and leaders tend to have this ability.
And if you want to take that a step further, let it guide you on finding the best approach to teaching, coaching, and motivating the people on your team. It may take a little extra effort but the results are amazing.
Recently, I was speaking with a person who is part of a team analyzing ways to, “mitigate the risk of exclusive manufacturing in China” while not fully divesting their business interests in a growing and potentially lucrative market. This bifurcation exercise got me thinking about how many other companies are evaluating their supply chain relationships, inventory management, and the predictability of their cost of goods sold.
In the mid-1990s I had done a lot of work with the MK manufacturing software that ran on the Ingres database. Some of the issues were performance-related and fixed by database tuning, some fixed by using average costs instead of a full Bill of Materials (BOM) explosion using dozens of screws in a window, but some were more interesting and also more business-focused.
After NAFTA became law one manufacturer built a facility in Mexico and started having a few basic but important parts manufactured there. When I arrived as a Consultant the main problem they faced was a reject rate of roughly 20% and additional related QA costs. My suggestion was to treat this part (say a single piece of steel like the rotor from a disk brake system) as a component and build-in the cost of both the scrap and the QA. They could then benchmark the costs against other suppliers in an apples-to-apples comparison to determine if they were really saving money. That approach ended up working well for them.
While that approach helped manage costs it did not address the timeliness of orders or lead time required – important aspects of Just-in-Time (JIT) manufacturing. Additionally, it should be possible to estimate shipping costs by taking into account changes in petroleum costs or anticipated changes in demand or capacity.
There are systems that are out there that claim to estimate the cost and availability of commodities based on a variety of global factors and leading indicators. It is tricky, to say the least, and can’t anticipate an event like a pandemic. But, companies that are able to manage their inventory and production risk the best will likely be the ones that succeed in the long run. They will become the most reliable suppliers and have increased profits to invest in the further growth and improvement of their businesses.
The next 2-3 years will be very interesting times due to advances in technology and geopolitical changes. Those companies that embrace change and focus on real transformation will likely emerge as the new leaders in their segments by 2025.
One of the many changes resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic has been a sea change in thoughts and goals around Supply Chain Management (SCM). Existing SCM systems were up-ended in mere months as it has become challenging to procure raw materials to components, manufacturing has shifted to meet new unanticipated needs, and logistics challenges have arisen out of health-related staffing issues, safe working distances, and limited shipping options and availability. In short, things are a mess!
Foundational business changes will require modern approaches to Change Management. Change is not easy – especially at scale, so having ongoing support from the top down and providing incentives to motivate the right behaviors, actions, and outcomes will especially critical to the success of those initiatives. And remember, “What gets measured gets managed,” so focusing on the aspects of business and change that really matter will become a greater focus.
Business Intelligence systems will be especially important for Descriptive Analysis. Machine Learning will likely begin to play a larger role as organizations seek a more comprehensive understanding of patterns and work towards accurate Predictive Analysis. And of course, Artificial Intelligence / Deep Learning / Neural Networks use should accelerate as the need for Prescriptive Analysis grows. Technology will provide many of the insights needed for business leaders to make the best decisions in the shortest amount of time that is both possible and prudent.
This is also the right time to consider upgrading to a modern business ecosystem that is collaborative, agile, and has the ability to quickly and cost-effectively expand and adapt to whatever comes next. Click on this link to see more of the benefits of this type of model.
Whether you like it or not, change is coming. So, why not take a proactive posture to help ensure that this change is good and meets the objectives your company or organization needs.
Changes like this are all-encompassing so it is helpful to begin with the mindset of, “Win together, Lose together.” In general, it helps to have all areas of an organization moving in lockstep towards a common goal but at a critical juncture like this that is no longer an option.