Functional Specialization Solutions

There are many solutions strategies that can be used to maximize the potential net benefits of functional specialization and overcome the inherent limitations.

First, processes can be defined and optimized to effectively leverage functional talents.  The mechanical and modular paradigms can be refined to incorporate specialists.

Firms can adopt a portfolio strategy whereby the average success ratio largely offsets random failures.

Specialists and generalists can trade positions to increase their effective coordination skills and understanding.

Communications meetings, technologies, experiences and priorities can improve alignment.

Process management can be elevated to a meta-analysis level, with individuals responsible for the success of prospect to customer, concept to product and order to cash processes.

Countries, states and firms can develop long-term partnerships with their suppliers and customers and improve their prospecting, bidding and negotiation skills.

Individuals can improve their situational leadership skills, learning to balance task and people needs.

Firms can greatly improve their means-ends skills, improving staff delegation, board governance and supplier management skills.

In highly diverse and risky product development areas, firms can invest in specialized firms or in competing development teams.

Firms can invest in staff members who are highly skilled in translating strategy into projects and then into operations.

Finally, firms and individuals can increase their understanding of situations where there are two inherently conflicting objectives.  They can learn from the experience of statisticians, researchers and actuaries who routinely manage the alpha risk that a predicted relationship exists when it really doesn’t against the beta risk that a relationship is found to not exist when it really does.

Functional specialization is an incredible driver of incremental value.  Countries, states, firms and individuals will be rewarded for their attention to this factor.  Common tactics can be used to maximize the value of this strategy.

Project Opportunity Analysis Template

    Opportunity Analysis – Name of Project
     
    1. Key Strategic Priority Areas/Critical Success Factors
10 A Creatively addresses more than one of the nine key strategic priority areas.
7 B Directly targets a significant improvement in one key strategic priority area.
3 C Contributes to the achievement of one key strategic priority area.
  D Provides benefits, but does not address any of the nine key strategic priority areas.
     
    2. Annual Strategic Plan
10 A An integral and significant preplanned component of the annual strategic plan.
7 B An initiative within the annual plan.
3 C Consistent with focus areas of the plan, but not defined as a planned initiative.
  D Provides benefits, but is not connected to the initiatives defined in the plan.
     
    3. Mission, Vision and Precepts 
10 A Creatively addresses more than one precept or component of the mission.
7 B Directly targets a precept or component of the mission.
3 C Contributes to a precept or component of the mission.
  D Provides benefits, but the connection to the mission and precepts is weak.
     
    4. Long-term Strategic Plan
5 A Creatively addresses more than one goal of the plan.
4 B Directly targets a significant improvement in one goal of the plan.
2 C Contributes to the achievement of one goal of the plan.
  D Provides benefits, but does not address specific goals of the plan.
     
    5. Program/Product Portfolio
5 A Builds on an existing area of strength, leveraging a core competency.
4 B Provides services the organization has targeted for growth or improvement.
2 C Addresses an area of weakness considered critical to portfolio of services.
  D Serves a new area, a weak area, or one that de-emphasized.
     
    6. Customer(s) Served
5 A Targeted to serve an existing primary customer group.
4 B Serves a customer group which has been identified for growth potential.
2 C Serves a secondary customer group, by leveraging an existing program.
  D Serves a secondary customer group or channel,  which others could serve as well.
     
    7. Proven Demand for this Service
5 A Members, customers and sponsors have paid for this program before.
4 B Marketing research and tests indicate that this is a top priority service.
2 C Marketing research supports some demand, but dollar value is unproven.
  D Some constituents demand this service, but no research or market proof.
     
    8. Brand Consistency
5 A Service reinforces key brand messages and is promoted with existing vehicles.
4 B Service is consistent with key brand messages, but requires separate promotion.
2 C Service connects with some brand messages and requires separate promotion.
  D Service is not consistent with key brand messages.
     
    9. Delivery Channel Environment
5 A Reinforces historical and current programs and values in delivery organizations..
4 B Consistent with historical programs and values in delivery organizations.
2 C Some degree of innovation or stretch that may be a concern to some players.
  D Innovative program designed to introduce change for delivery partners.
     
    10. Financial Resources
5 A Earns a financial payback of investment in one year or less.
4 B Earns a financial payback in two years or less.
2 C Breaks even in more than 2 years, but provides significant qualitative benefits.
  D Qualitative benefits are deemed to exceed quantitative costs.
     
    11. Sponsor/Funding Resources
5 A Creates a strong opportunity to attract new sponsors and contributions.
4 B An attractive project 80% likely funded in a year, without harming programs.
2 C More than 50% funding chance, but may compete with existing programs.
  D Less than a 50% funding chance or clearly competes with existing programs.
     
    12. Information Technology
5 A Uses existing capabilities without modification.
4 B Uses existing or planned strong capabilities with minor enhancements.
2 C Uses existing capabilities, but requires development outside of current plans.
  D Requires pioneering development work to provide appropriate service.
     
    13. Delivery/Operations/Processing Capabilities
5 A Uses existing strong capabilities without modification.
4 B Uses existing strong capabilities with minor enhancements.
2 C Uses existing capabilities, but requires significant development.
  D Requires pioneering development work to provide appropriate service.
     
    14. Human Resources
5 A Service can be provided by existing staff and structure.
4 B Service requires some additions to staff in existing categories.
2 C Service requires new staff skills and minor adjustments to structure.
  D Service requires major initiatives in recruiting, retention and structure.
     
    15. Monitoring and Evaluation
5 A Success is easily measured by existing measurement and evaluation tools.
4 B Success can be measured with only minor enhancements to current system.
2 C Success can be measured, but will require adjustments to existing measures.
  D Success is difficult, if not cost prohibitive, to measure directly.

Outsourcing Success

After four decades of outsourcing in many functions and industries, it is clear that success requires more than leverage.  Outsourcing success requires a compelling rationale, a clear and flexible framework and positive personal relationships.

The rationale for outsourcing is based upon core competencies, provider capabilities, economics, strategy and fit.

  1. Buyer core competencies can not be outsourced.  The provider must deliver the outsourced function as a true core competency, not just a low price.  The provider is able to own responsibility for the outsourced function.  The provider has world-class skills and invests in improvements.  The provider is well-capitalized and experienced in the customer’s industry.  There is no beta site or learning by doing dimension.
  2. The provider has the skills and culture to be a third-party provider, including a customer service mentality, flexibility, creativity and change management skills wrapped around professional competence.
  3. The contract allows the buyer and provider to both win financially.  The provider is capable of reducing unit costs each year.  The provider’s initial bid and investment make economic sense.  The provider can justify a fully qualified account manager dedicated to making this contract work.
  4. The buyer has a clear strategic reason for outsourcing and has structured the deal to ensure its delivery.  This can be cost, quality, capacity, service, delivery time, risk management, creativity, technology, systems or intellectual property access.
  5. The hand-off from buyer to provider is a good fit.  Either the function can be very well-defined and delegated cleanly or the function is inherently virtual and both firms thrive in a matrix environment.  The buyer emphasizes product innovation or customer intimacy and the provider delivers operational excellence (or some other clear division).  The provider is able to perform in the buyer’s steady state or high growth and change environment.  The provider is comfortable with the buyer’s status in the Fortune 100, Fortune 1000 or middle market world.

 

The framework for an outsourcing agreement is well-defined, flexible, empowering, balanced and aligned.

  1. The contract is detailed, comprehensive and robust and meets the needs of finance, legal and operations.  The strategic objectives and measures of success are clearly defined.
  2. The contract is a model of world-class delegation.  Important results are defined, but the means to achieving them is left to the provider.  Micromanagement and administrivia is avoided like the plague. 
  3. The relationship between single agents for the buyer and provider is clearly defined.  The provider account manager is welcomed as a full business partner on the buyer’s staff.  A competent buyer rep is assigned to manage the contract, with his career depending upon its success.  The two reps are given the authority and flexibility to manage day-to-day issues.  A dispute resolution framework, including billing, is defined.  The contract supports a wide range of operating conditions and triggers for re-opening negotiations.
  4. The provider has adequate capacity and power in the agreement to succeed.  The minimum and maximum volumes are reasonable.  The provider has a fair economic deal and leverage to negotiate as required.
  5. Contract incentives align the interests of the buyer and provider.  The contract provides time for the provider to digest start-up costs and benefit from learning curve effects.  Each side benefits from greatly increased service volume.

 

The relationship between the buyer and provider reflects a true partnership, shared resources, trust, opportunities and planning.

  1. The partnership anoints the provider as the sole provider of services in their category.  The contract gives the provider reasonable security and expectations of ongoing business unless someone clearly outbids them.  The business is not re-bid based upon opportunities.  The business is not divided by high and low margin components.
  2. The buyer and provider work together to find every opportunity to leverage their skills, suppliers and knowledge.  Terms reflect the firm with the lower cost of capital.  Transaction and billing costs are minimized, assuming good faith.  Everything learned in the bidding process is incorporated into the contract.  The contract recognizes that there are inherent trade-offs between costs and services.
  3. A trusting relationship is developed.  The provider is on-site, attends meetings and communicates with the buyer daily.  The provider has a quality management system that provides confidence.  The provider is transparent in sharing information and risks, including competitive intelligence. 
  4. Both parties actively promote win/win opportunities.  The buyer is an active reference for the provider.  The buyer seeks new products, services and applications from the provider at list price. 
  5. The provider is involved in the planning process.  They attend strategic planning meetings.  They get 90 day notice of annual budget targets.  Both parties negotiate annual changes in good faith.

 

Buyers tend to have greater leverage in outsourcing services.  To achieve the best long-term results, they need to negotiate long-term win/win deals with providers.

Building an Integrated Planning and Control System

In the process revolution since WWII, we have seen every business function discover that input-process-output descriptions of activities followed by a “say what you do, do what you say, be able to tell the difference” feedback structure are the key to long-run success.  Firms need to evaluate and consolidate these planning and control systems into a single fully integrated system, since they are all attempting to reach the same goals using the same tools.  There are at least five different sets of systems independently active in most firms today.

Strategic planning systems operate at the highest organizational level, attempting to evaluate the situation, set direction, identify critical success factors, define strategies and key performance indicators, and approve major investments and projects.  More evolved frameworks, like the balanced scorecard, attempt to link strategic goals to operational performance.  Many firms have learned to link strategy to measures and projects.

Modern financial planning and control systems have evolved for more than 100 years.  Strategic plans are translated into long-term financial plans to guide borrowing, investment, operations and risk analysis decisions.  The financial plan is translated into a negotiated annual budget.   A financial performance management system evaluates managers against business unit, department, product, customer and project goals.  The key transaction processes are defined and monitored.

Risk management has evolved to become a separate discipline apart from classic P&L management.  Regulatory compliance and external financial reporting have become more technical and legal.  Internal controls have moved to secondary and tertiary levels of safety with an emphasis on “defensible positions”.  Emergency preparedness and disaster recovery have developed into new disciplines.  Risk management tools have evolved from insurance policies to include hedges, contracts and outsourcing.

Human resources systems have grown to become parallel factors.  The regulatory side has greatly increased the emphasis on compliance and risk reduction.  HR performance management systems have become linked to business performance through SMART goals.  HR has been charged with helping managers professionally address frequent change management issues.  HR has also become a senior management partner in attempting to create cultural alignment.

The process or quality systems approach has been the greatest innovator.  At the highest level, a management or total quality management system attempts to incorporate all activities.  The quality approach requires clearly defined customer goals.  All processes must be defined and documented at the staff and system level.  Operations measures are defined to provide simple and direct feedback.  Quality goals are set and quality improvement is defined as a separate goal.  Processes are defined within the generic framework of product, sales and delivery.  IT systems are positioned as facilitators, requiring technical and user documentation.  Individual application systems become more complex, incorporating best practices, but allowing many exceptions.  Change management becomes a sub-discipline, with growing project management expertise.  Process changes are driven by re-engineering, kaizen and continuous process improvement efforts.

Ideally, a firm defines and operates a single planning and control system which integrates the strategic, financial, risk, human resources and quality management dimensions.  Failure to integrate these components leads to added costs, political conflicts, waste and missed opportunities.  A performance management cross-team with representatives from sales, product management, finance, HR and operations is needed to coordinate this effort.

There ARE many components.  We need to overcome the desire to have a fully integrated system that encompasses all possible components as exhibited by the US military in their Afghanistan plans.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/27/world/27powerpoint.html

Goals of an Integrated Planning and Control System

The proliferation of planning and control systems has led to a large number of goals.  Fortunately, they can be consolidated and categorized to facilitate the development of an understandable consolidated system.  The essential goals are eternal, but the growing complexities of the business environment and processes have increased the number of goals worth monitoring.  On the planning side, firms need to prioritize, clarify, align, communicate and prepare. 

In spite of the countervailing winds of entrepreneurship and empowerment, in a dynamic world with greater value at stake, firms need to set key priorities at the top for direction, values, strategies, investments, projects, critical success factors and key performance indicators.  Without them, even in the best conditions, managers and staff will ineffectively make decisions “as well as they can”.  Clear priorities and expectations can significantly reduce the zero-sum game of internal politics.  Senior management needs to proactively clarify the priorities, trade-offs and commitments made to all stakeholders, including investors, customers, suppliers and internal departments. 

A well-designed strategic plan and its related structures effectively align the decentralized, specialized, outsourced, matrixed and virtual resources of today’s firm.  Intentions, decisions, opportunities, authorities and best practices are clearly communicated.  The well-defined expected and desired future state allows individual functions to optimize within their frameworks.  Long-term commitments are made and managed, allowing business units and functions to flex within the context and pursue immediate opportunities.  Commitments are made at every level at the right time, with confidence.  Scarce resources are devoted to priority objectives and secondary projects consume no resources.

An effective planning process prepares the firm to face the unknown.  Participants at all levels have devoted time to organization level thinking about direction, situation, gaps and solutions.  If simulations, sensitivity analysis and emergency preparedness work has been done, some level of preplanned formal responses and tools has been defined, providing a base and confidence for managing the challenges that were not expected.

On the controls side, the system needs to deliver results while managing assets and risks.

“What gets measured gets done”.  Objectives that are measured and reported receive priority management and staff attention.  Today’s digital dashboards expand the number of goals to be pursued and more clearly communicate their status to everyone in real-time.  This greatly increases the motivation by staff to improve their real performance (and sometimes beat the system).  The quality revolution attempts to move this feedback loop to a higher level, with staff understanding customer needs, defining their own goals, measuring performance and developing quantum leap improvements to serve easily understood definitions of success.

The accounting staff has always been charged with safeguarding the firm’s assets.  In the analog world, this was straightforward.  Today, it requires a deeper understanding of intangible assets such as patents, supplier relations and brand value.  In spite of the loss of firm loyalty, it is apparent today that employees are the most valuable assets for most firms.  Employees need to feel valued for their skills and contributions, and be given opportunities to build their skills and apply their talents.  The human resources management system (job descriptions, evaluations, compensation) needs to be effectively integrated into the overall planning system.  An effective process system also builds the knowledge management value of the firm by documenting processes, accumulating knowledge and improving the rate of knowledge transfer through training and sharing.

In the post-Enron, Sarbanes-Oxley informed world, risk management has become an important board level topic (because board members have new responsibilities).  Developing basic and advanced internal controls to prevent and detect theft is a classic controller responsibility.  Administrative policies and procedures have long been used in large and small firms to increase the degree of compliance with management’s expectations by managers and staff.  Most firms have been subject to some level of regulatory oversight, audit and compliance.  All firms have reported financial results to external stakeholders within generally accepted accounting practices and tax laws.  Firms have always thought about the risks of natural disasters, but today’s decentralized and electronically supported worlds require much more attention to a variety of 10%, 1% and 0.1% risks.  Firms have used insurance policies for basic risks for centuries, but today they must evaluate and guard against a much wider variety and degree of business risks.  Finally, complex and decentralized firms are subject to Murphy’s Law and the role of the weakest link.  The sheer number and impact of risks has caused them to make openness and transparency a top value.

An integrated planning and control system needs to address all of these goals.  Planning must prioritize, clarify, align, communicate and prepare.  Reporting must deliver results while managing assets and risks.

Strategic Planning: Balanced and Disciplined

Of the many planning methods proposed and widely used in the last two decades, two stand out for their impact and longevity.   Michael Treacy and Fred Wiersema’s “Discipline of Market Leaders” was published in 1994, closely followed by  Robert Kaplan and David Norton’s “Balanced Scorecard” two years later.  How do the two interact ideally?  Can a strategy process and strategy be both balanced and disciplined?

 The discipline of market leaders is to prioritize resource investments into one dimension of strategic choices, while making modest investments in the other dimensions.  Treacy defines the generic dimensions as Operational Excellence (cost reduction), Product Leadership and Customer Intimacy (best total solution).  Based upon market opportunities (customers and competitors), wise organizations choose one dimension for emphasis and align all other variables to support that choice.

 The balanced scorecard emphasizes the importance of measures and a complementary planning process that ensures that four levels of activity are reviewed:  Learning and Growth (asset management, broadly speaking), Internal Processes (operations, product development, customer interface – the how), Customer Satisfaction and Financial Results.  Asset management feeds optimal processes delivering customer satisfaction and financial results. 

 The two approaches seem to conflict: one says focus (discipline) while the other says diversify (balance).  The resolution lies in their application.  The balanced scorecard provides a universal framework of the factors that drive business success in a logical sequence.  Organizations still have to compare their direction (mission, vision, values) with their situation (SWOT) in order to determine critical success factors.  CSF’s help the organization to select those 10-20 measures that best cover the landscape. 

 The discipline of market leaders is making strategic investment choices, while the balanced scorecard is using a planning and control process that highlights opportunities and links strategy to results.  The advice from Treacy and Wiersema is to focus on a single dimension, rather than to spread the investments evenly.  In balanced scorecard terms, this means that the measures will emphasize different dimensions.

 Focusing on operational excellence indicates the use of more measures in the Internal Processes and Asset Management levels.  Customer intimacy requires customer satisfaction measures, key internal process measures that impact customers and a touch of asset measures regarding the adequacy of the products offered.  Product leadership requires measures of customer satisfaction with the features and benefits set offered, the product development process itself and the availability of key technical resources that create products.

 Organizations will benefit from finding ways to apply the insights from both camps.  Strategy and structure matter more than ever.  The best answers continue to be “both/and” rather than “either/or”.

 http://www.amazon.com/Discipline-Market-Leaders-Customers-Dominate/dp/0201407191/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1262473135&sr=1-1

 http://www.amazon.com/Balanced-Scorecard-Translating-Strategy-Action/dp/0875846513/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1262554699&sr=1-1

 http://www.slideshare.net/kennyong/balanced-scorecard-for-strategic-planning-and-measurement