Rants
Questions
Soapbox
Best Practices
Apply today for a FREE subscription to CIO Magazine!
Mon, Mar 12, 2007 14:06 EDT

|
Posted by: Michael Hugos Topic: ApplicationsBlog: Doing Business in Real Time
Current Rating: |
This weekend I spent an afternoon sitting in a coffee house in my downtown Chicago neighborhood pondering what it means to be agile and how to measure it. The place was busy but I got lucky and snagged the cushy armchair next to the plate glass window in front that looks out on the sidewalk and the apartment building across the street. Watching the other patrons, looking at the people who pass by, and enjoying that burst of mental energy induced by a fine café au lait is often a good way to get inspired and be creative.
I started with the definition of agility in business as: the ability to consistently earn profits that are 2 – 4% (and sometimes more) higher than the market average. Agility enables companies to earn an additional 2 – 4 % because they can make a hundred small adjustments every day to reduce operating costs and increase revenues. And sometimes agility enables you to earn even more by sensing and responding quickly to opportunities for new products or services, that for a while, have terrific profit margins.
I decided to use this results oriented definition of agility instead of attempting to describe what agility is because we have a lot yet to discover about being agile (agility “best practices” as they say) so any description I offer now will only change later. Also, I figured that unless agility actually delivers additional profits then why go to all the trouble of being agile in the first place?
There is one caveat to this definition of agility though - true agility is self-sustaining, not self-consuming. By this I mean companies can always get a short-term boost to profit margins by cutting headcount, reducing customer service, squeezing suppliers for lower prices, and deferring repairs and improvements to infrastructure. But that is self-consuming, like spending down your bank account. It’s not agile because it isn’t sustainable; it does not create or renew; it only uses up.
So if business agility is the ability to consistently earn an additional 2-4% (and sometimes more) then what is the combination of factors that delivers this delightful state of affaires? At this point I ordered another café au lait. And as I sipped that hot, foamy, milky coffee, I looked out the plate glass window and saw a woman walking by with two big dogs; the dogs were so happy to be outside they pulled at their leashes and wanted to charge off down the street. She worked hard to keep them out of trouble.
Then I eavesdropped on a conversation going on at the table next to me. A couple of college students were discussing an upcoming organic chemistry test; one student was showing the other how to read a formula and draw out the molecular structure implied by the formula. Good coffee houses serve up a stimulating mix of impressions like this to go along with their fine fare and the resulting blend is often the source of interesting ideas.
Here’s the idea that emerged from the blend of that second café-au-lait and the impressions I just described. First of all, I think agility happens when we see something we want and when we are highly motivated to go after it. But we can’t just go charging off down the street; we have to focus on what’s important and act effectively. Secondly, I think there’s a formula to measure agility and it goes like this:
Business Agility = (Visibility + Motivation) x Training
What this means is that companies will consistently earn an additional 2-4% profit if their people can clearly see what’s going on in their area of operation and if they have the motivation to respond appropriately. The effect of this visibility and motivation will be multiplied and magnified by the training people get. The better people are trained, the greater the results will be.
This formula identifies the main factors that promote agility and it shows how they interact with each other to produce different levels of agility. It points out what factors to measure when we’re trying to assess the level of business agility possessed by a company. Visibility can be measured by the technology and procedures a company uses to collect, store, disseminate and display information. Motivation can be measured by the incentives and authority people are given to make decisions and act to achieve company objectives. Training builds peoples’ skills for using visibility, for making good decisions, and acting effectively to achieve objectives. So training can be measured as well.
Wow. Now we can start to discuss agility best practices using a common and measurable framework to compare one practice to another (did I leave out something important?). This formula is either a very useful insight or it's the result of too much caffeine.
Michael,
I believe the second latte was an excellent idea. The formula condenses OODA pretty well. As an aside - I was thinking this and was looking for where I had read about OODA and pulled "Building the Real-Time Enterprise" off my bookshelf and noticed an eerie similarity between the authors name and yours. Guess I don't need to say that Observe and Orient makes up the visibility section of the formula and the Decide and Act pretty much make up motivation (in a company that does not reward innovation I may decide to do nothing....). I do like the training aspect. With training greater options become available to the motivated employees. This has a dual effect since employees, supplied with the right kind of information they can trust, are enabled to make better decisions they are happier employees. I believe most of us want to do a great job. And of course happy employees don't tend to leave - so it is self-serving to a large extent. I like the formula and have the added benefit of letting you know I enjoyed your book, even though I did not initially make the connection.
Interesting reading. You may wish to consider the motivation part. Motiation is the product of desirability*ability*institutional support. Ability is enhanced by training. So, the taining part in your formula is covered in the motivation definition. Desirability is embeeded in the vision part of your formula. Institutional support may enhance or decrease the desirability and ability.
So, going back to your formula it would read like
Business Agility = (Visibility + Motivation) x Training
= (visibility+ (ability+desirability+institutional support))*training
Thanks for the article. It was quite interesting. However, what are you views on the following:
1- Scope of visibility?
2- Adding a 't' time component to the equation so as to introduce the acceleration bit. Since one could argue that you need to achieve agility or respond to change in a fast and timely manner!
...thanks.
Justin,
Anyone who reads my stuff and likes it is automatically promoted to the rank of a scholar and a gentleman (or gentle lady as the case may be). Thanks for making the connection between my formula for business agility and the OODA Loop. I am much influenced by the OODA loop (as you can see from reading my book) and the writings of John Boyd who articulated the principles of the OODA Loop.
I believe training is the great force multiplier for the reasons you state. Very few companies really provide effective training so those companies that figure out how to train their people effectively have a terrific advantage over their competitors.
I wrote a blog post last year titled "Business is a Serious Game - So Start Playing" that talks about the opportunities open to companies that do training well. Given that all your competitors can buy the same technology you have, training is the competitive edge, not technology.
Hi MFaisal,
My view on scope of visibility is that visibility (and transparency) are the foundations of trust in a company or work group and agility depends on trust because without trust, nobody will act without permission, and nobody will give permission without a full investigation thus making agility impossible. Therefore I advocate as much visibility as possible showing both the performance of the overall organization and of the operating unit or work group that individuals are a part of. Individuals need to see overall indicators of their company's performance and detailed indicators of their particular operating unit or work group.
Point well taken on the time component; fast and timely is a given yet it is a relative thing. For instance, a rabbit is more agile than a turtle, but if you are competing against a snail then turtle agility is quite effective, and attaining rabbit agility would be wasteful. I think people using this equation must factor in the time component in such a way that is relevant to their situation - in other words they must be faster than their competition but need not be fast simply for the sake of being fast.
Best regards,
Michael