I recently participated in a provocative discussion thread of a website where the question was asked, “Why do executives fail to act on proposed ideas that could save a company substantial amounts of money?” I was expecting a debate between defenders of an executive team’s prudence and attackers of an executive team’s complacency and competence. To my surprise, all of the comments were of the latter type. Maybe every one of them took angry pills the day they posted their opinion.
I am unsure of the correct answer. I do want to give executives the benefit of the doubt. I sense that an explanation for less risk taking by executives involves the emergence of business analytics and Big Data. It can be explained with a pyramid depicting how power and influence of individuals affects types of decisions.
A power and influence pyramid
The savvy executives are realizing they must now delegate and distribute decision rights deeper down into their organization to empowered managers and employees. This is because of the exponentially growing mountain of data, both structured (numbers) and unstructured (text) including social media, and a speed-up and volatile world. Executives can no longer hoard decisions at the C-suite level. In my pyramid the executives are at the top just like in an organization chart. Their decision types are strategic ones. As examples, what is our organization’s mission? What products and services should we offer to maximize value to our constituents? What altered strategic direction should we navigate our organization toward?
In contrast, at the lower levels of the pyramid are operational types of decisions that should be made by employees who ideally have had the strategy communicated to them by the executives (via a strategy map, scorecard, and dashboards).
With expanding Big Data, the base of this pyramid is widening, and executives are realizing it is futile for them to be able to explore, investigate, and comprehend this massive treasure trove of data. This is why the role of analysts (think “data scientist”) is emerging as being mission-critical. Executives cannot do it all. They must now delegate decision making, and provide analytical tools and capabilities for decisioning to their workforce.
Performance improvement levers
An impediment on improvement is an organization’s approvals process. Too many managers may be involved. Performance improvement actions are the consequence of thousands of daily decisions made by employees. There are two powerful levers for performance improvement and more specifically the execution of the executive team’s formulated strategy: (1) as mentioned, clarifying decision rights, and (2) designing effective information flows.
1. Clarifying decision rights – As organizations grow in size, the approval process gets complex and foggy. Employees become unsure where one person’s accountability begins and another’s ends. Workarounds then subvert formal hierarchical reporting relationships. Clarifying who has what decision-making authority and empowering decentralized decisions lower into the organization brings mission-critical agility – as long as trust is given by the executives and second-guessing by supervisors is minimized. But with more decision rights must come more accountability with consequences. This is the domain of performance indicators against targets and motivational methods.
2. Designing effective information flows – Decisions are based on information. Too often information flows are blocked by organizational silos. Collaboration is important and enabled by cross-functional information flows. To complicate matters, logical and judicious decisions are constrained by the type and quality of information available to employees. Some organizations simply have inconsistent and poor-quality data. Even with a new transactional business system, such as an enterprise resource planning (ERP) or customer relationship management (CRM) system, organizations drown in oceans of data but starve for information in a form that business analytics can mine and that can be quickly interpreted in the context of a problem or needed decision.
Business intelligence does equate to an intelligent business
Executives may be brilliant strategists. But strategists need foot soldiers to carry out tasks. The higher the executives are, the less they can know about what is happening. Yes, there can be summarized reporting and executive scorecards and dashboards. But monitoring the dials is not the same thing as moving the dials.
The era of widespread use of analytics is in its earliest stage. If competency by the work force with analytics is not now a top five priority with an organization, just wait a couple of years. It will be. It is a competitive edge.
I agree, Business intelligence tools do not equate to Business Intelligence – that only comes from linking operational actions and decisions to strategic objectives. Most organisations implementing BI, fail to create this strategic performance framework.
Gail … Thanks for your note. This should not surprise me, but it does, that so many organizations do not yet fully see how integrated all of their enterprise performance management (EPM) methods should be. And this definitely includes strategic alignment and execution.
(Unrelated, I have been to Wellington and Auckland a few times and love them.)
Gary … Gary Cokins
Very good article Gary, thanks.Oracle call this concept “analytics everywhere”. I come from a BPM perspective so I would add “linked to the enabling processes” to Gail’s comment.
Great article Gary. I think that today many of us have discounted or completely ignored the lessons of the past and the teachings of people such as Deming, Juran, and Kume.
What I see happening in business today is partly a result of data overload and the proliferation of many more decision points than previously existed. Some of the simple philosophies of men like Deming could be implemented without the plethora of tools that exist today because they are based in principles of leadership and centered on individual worth, much of which is lost in today’s workforce.
On aligning an organization by the establishment and adoption of strategic goals and measurements toward those goals, most large corporation fails miserably. Many times I have heard “the mission statement is published” or “the vision is available for everyone to read” and it is said with such finality and acceptance that to ask questions would not be a good idea. So, for any organization to optimize its system of performance we would need everyone to work towards a common goal with shared values and guiding principles. This is much easier said than done, but a good start would be to adopt a new philosophy towards a system of production, performance, and the value of everyone in the organization toward achieving a common, shared goal.
Sorry for being long-winded and rambling. Great post.
Gary (another Gary)