Complexity and chaos surrounds us as we try to steer our organisations through these uncertain economic times. The Utopian solution seems to be simplicity and calm which has a compelling magnetism for those exhausted by the rough seas of change or the choppy waters of the stock market. So can we engineer simplicity in and complexity out of our lives?
As a former system designer I applied three simple principles to tame complexity:
1) Do as much as you have to and no more. Minimalism is good; don't add bells and whistles until someone says they will pay for them. Technical people always want to over engineer things.
2) Seek functional cohesion by solidifying related activities into one place or unit so complexity is hidden inside rather than exposed to the poor consumer of the service. It's better that every body does just one thing well rather than lots of people doing the same thing a number of different ways twice. I'm not saying redundancy is bad, rather replication is good!
3) Decouple things so there are not intimate links between components. If you then want to swap one thing for another the whole can be oblivious to the change as everything carries on working as it should.
The key is to hide necessary complexity from the end user/consumer, but remember doing clever things is difficult and complex otherwise everyone would be doing them. Removing complexity can have its costs and can be far from a simple matter. As Einstein famously said "Make everything as simple as possible, but no simpler". I'll take capably complex over stupidly simple any time.
Tuesday, 23 September 2008
Monday, 8 September 2008
Seeing Beyond The Obvious
Having got a PhD in business strategy, I must know what I'm doing, right? More accurately I spent three years trying to teach a computer to think strategically. Bad idea! The problem was seeing the bigger picture and having a holistic view ain't something that bits and bytes find easy to do. Neither is it that simple as an organisation gets bigger and more than one person has responsibiliy for driving things forwards. If this rings true for you, then tune into our webinar series that will kick of with a session on Business Planning for Growth on the 16th September.
Running a business is all about having a bigger vision that the various 'factions', however you have diced and sliced the pie operationally, can understand, buy into and get behind without necessarily being 100% happy. In my experience, a decision that one department loves and another hates in invariably the wrong one for the organisation as a whole. This is what you get when silo mentality and operation detail dominates. But if decision makers don't know what the overall strategy is or what constitutes success in the longer term, i.e. the organisation is rudderless and going nowhere fast because there is no bigger picture, then all they can do is make the decision that's best for them, right here right now.
Unfortunately, the correct strategic decision can be often less than optimal tactically or indeed downright wrong from a short-term perspective, so devolved decision making has its risks. Seeing beyond the obvious and doing the right strategic thing is what differentiates the long-term winners, but equally empowering employees to make decisions is also crucial to success. So not surprisingly this is a tricky balance to strike - and if you are running a business it's your job to do this!
After once canning a development project because it was the right strategic thing to do, my technical manager said to me at the time: "We are the thoroughbreds in this space and this decision sucks. Apparently, horses can't vomit, so pardon me for the cliche but I am as sick as a very refined parrot".
Remember, if you are a business leader, feeling bad that you have had to make the right but difficult strategic decision is better than feeling good about making the obvious and easy tactical one. But if you ain't got a clear long-term business strategy, do the latter then sign up to our webinar on the 16th!
Running a business is all about having a bigger vision that the various 'factions', however you have diced and sliced the pie operationally, can understand, buy into and get behind without necessarily being 100% happy. In my experience, a decision that one department loves and another hates in invariably the wrong one for the organisation as a whole. This is what you get when silo mentality and operation detail dominates. But if decision makers don't know what the overall strategy is or what constitutes success in the longer term, i.e. the organisation is rudderless and going nowhere fast because there is no bigger picture, then all they can do is make the decision that's best for them, right here right now.
Unfortunately, the correct strategic decision can be often less than optimal tactically or indeed downright wrong from a short-term perspective, so devolved decision making has its risks. Seeing beyond the obvious and doing the right strategic thing is what differentiates the long-term winners, but equally empowering employees to make decisions is also crucial to success. So not surprisingly this is a tricky balance to strike - and if you are running a business it's your job to do this!
After once canning a development project because it was the right strategic thing to do, my technical manager said to me at the time: "We are the thoroughbreds in this space and this decision sucks. Apparently, horses can't vomit, so pardon me for the cliche but I am as sick as a very refined parrot".
Remember, if you are a business leader, feeling bad that you have had to make the right but difficult strategic decision is better than feeling good about making the obvious and easy tactical one. But if you ain't got a clear long-term business strategy, do the latter then sign up to our webinar on the 16th!
Thursday, 14 August 2008
Academic Commercialisation: The Third Way?
In an earlier post, Fail Fast Fail Early, focused on healthcare companies optimising their pipeline development, I asked whether there was a better way of commercialising medicines. Well GSK and Cambridge University have come with an interesting alternative development model using “academic incubators” to optimise the early clinical development of new medicines.
Cambridge will dedicate a team of academic experts to develop drugs with therapeutic potential, as well as bearing some financial risk for which they'd be compensated if the programme is a success. GSK will provide operational support, access to its in-house clinical research and imaging facilities, and background preclinical data on the drug. The agreement is fully aligned with one of the key recommendations of the Cooksey Review of UK Health Research Funding that consideration should be given to alternative drug development models, such as Public Private Partnerships, to optimise effective collaboration between industry and academic sectors in the development of effective new medicines.
Whether this is "ground-breaking approach" or just a sensible way of outsourcing development of low priority orphan drugs is open to debate. It does however establish a joined up pipeline from academic research towards commercialisation that may university inspired projects lack - despite their efforts to bolt on commercialisation activities. Also the fact that the projects are GSK sponsored gives a commercial focus to the activity from the outset that will undoubtedly benefit the eventual business outcomes. As we have seen with the Enterprise Fellowship projects backed by Yorkshire Forward, having some commercialisation DNA and focus at an early stage is invaluable.
Cambridge will dedicate a team of academic experts to develop drugs with therapeutic potential, as well as bearing some financial risk for which they'd be compensated if the programme is a success. GSK will provide operational support, access to its in-house clinical research and imaging facilities, and background preclinical data on the drug. The agreement is fully aligned with one of the key recommendations of the Cooksey Review of UK Health Research Funding that consideration should be given to alternative drug development models, such as Public Private Partnerships, to optimise effective collaboration between industry and academic sectors in the development of effective new medicines.
Whether this is "ground-breaking approach" or just a sensible way of outsourcing development of low priority orphan drugs is open to debate. It does however establish a joined up pipeline from academic research towards commercialisation that may university inspired projects lack - despite their efforts to bolt on commercialisation activities. Also the fact that the projects are GSK sponsored gives a commercial focus to the activity from the outset that will undoubtedly benefit the eventual business outcomes. As we have seen with the Enterprise Fellowship projects backed by Yorkshire Forward, having some commercialisation DNA and focus at an early stage is invaluable.
Monday, 4 August 2008
Making Your Own Luck
Gary Player once remarked "It's funny, the more I practise, the luckier I get". So should a failed entrepreneur be given a second chance? The argument goes that you learn valuable learn valuable lessons from failure, so you should be more likely to succeed second time around. But others argue that experience gained from one failed business is unlikely to apply to a second, due to the unpredictability of chance. "You can't learn to win the lottery" No, but if you are lucky you can influence the amount you win (my tip, don't select the numbers 1,2,3,4,5,6 as 10,000 others have then!).
Getting into a position to profit from being a little bit lucky is probably was differentiates successful entrepreneurs, but no one is lucky all of the time. So whether you eventually profit from a bit of good business fortune is very much down to the experience of the management team. All you can do is deal yourself a good hand, but whether you win a particular pot or hole a specific putt is partially down to fate. Embracing this risk is what equity investing is all about. So if anyone says they have only been associated with success they have either are a one-trick pony or very, very lucky! In business, lessons are best learned from those who have been mainly successful...
Getting into a position to profit from being a little bit lucky is probably was differentiates successful entrepreneurs, but no one is lucky all of the time. So whether you eventually profit from a bit of good business fortune is very much down to the experience of the management team. All you can do is deal yourself a good hand, but whether you win a particular pot or hole a specific putt is partially down to fate. Embracing this risk is what equity investing is all about. So if anyone says they have only been associated with success they have either are a one-trick pony or very, very lucky! In business, lessons are best learned from those who have been mainly successful...
Monday, 9 June 2008
TechTalk Speakers
We've got a great line up for TechTalk which will be held on the afternoon of our Investment Forum on the 18th June in Leeds. Deidre Bounds Founder of i-to-i; Kevin Walsh group Executive Director of Kingston Communications; Jonathan Straight Founder of Straight plc; and Neil Gaydon of Pace plc.
The TechTalk afternoon allows you to hear these high-tech businesses leaders give their provocative thoughts on the challenges facing the sector today. TechTalk 2008 offers the opportunity for you to debate topical issues and share valuable knowledge and experience. Find out how they succeeded and what they feel makes for a formidable business opportunity.
Who Should Attend? Anyone with an interest in the technology scene! Whether you are a leader of an established or SME technology business or an aspiring entrepreneur, TechTalk is the perfect opportunity to develop strategies for success. Equally if you are an investor or service provider with a passion for developing and investing in innovative ideas, TechTalk will help you hone your strategies for success.
Registration for TechTalk, including lunch and the champagne reception, is £75 plus vat. To register online, please Click Here. Alternatively, contact Connect Yorkshire with your full contact details on email: events@connectyorkshire.org or Tel: 0113 384 5640.
The TechTalk afternoon allows you to hear these high-tech businesses leaders give their provocative thoughts on the challenges facing the sector today. TechTalk 2008 offers the opportunity for you to debate topical issues and share valuable knowledge and experience. Find out how they succeeded and what they feel makes for a formidable business opportunity.
Who Should Attend? Anyone with an interest in the technology scene! Whether you are a leader of an established or SME technology business or an aspiring entrepreneur, TechTalk is the perfect opportunity to develop strategies for success. Equally if you are an investor or service provider with a passion for developing and investing in innovative ideas, TechTalk will help you hone your strategies for success.
Registration for TechTalk, including lunch and the champagne reception, is £75 plus vat. To register online, please Click Here. Alternatively, contact Connect Yorkshire with your full contact details on email: events@connectyorkshire.org or Tel: 0113 384 5640.
Friday, 16 May 2008
Does Cream Rise To The Top?
The Richard Report has a major theme that brokering 'something' is best achieved by the market deciding who or what is best using the 'wisdom of crowds' rather than the seal of approval of the broker. But is it that simple?. At Connect, a key selling point of our service is that we help put forward the best propositions to investors so they don't waste their time filtering out the 'bad uns'. Can Web technology ensure the cream of the crop rise to the top without the broker being the ultimate discriminator of what is best?
How do you find 'good uns'? If you follow the natural selection approach, you need an innovation ecosystem that encourages mutations and experimentation and let the marketplace decide those that are best i.e. most likely to survive and hence reproduce. As Nobel laureate Linus Pauling said: “have lots of ideas and throw away the bad ones…. You aren't going to have good ideas unless you have lots of ideas and some sort of principle of selection.”
With MyDealMaker we are trying to develop this approach to complement and extend our physical pitching events. Within reason anyone with what they think is a bright idea can put up their profile. We can try to give some quality assessment based on our engagement with the entrepreneur. Have they gone through our Investor Readiness Programme? Have they taken the trouble to fill out a detailed profile etc. But where it gets interesting is if, as Richard's suggests, the portal offers the functionality necessary for the market or software itself to promote the best and demphasise the rest.
But lets not get too carried away with all this. Online screening is just that: its a filtering process that can reduce the many to a few based on something more than a one dimensional view of quality or who you stood next to in the queue for the food at a networking event. But just like you don't buy an house based on its profile on RightMove, entering into a meaningful relationship with a business advisor or investing in what appears to be a bright idea on paper requires a little more interaction than can be done online. Physical engagement is still needed to seal any deal!
So I'm with Doug Richard on this - the brokerage need to provide the marketplace first and foremost and this provision and any signposting ideally should not consume a signicant percentage of the transaction it facilitates. Online brokering portals that match those with a need with those best able to provide it have the potential to change the balance of responsibility between brokers, providers and consumers and more importantly improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the marketplace.
How do you find 'good uns'? If you follow the natural selection approach, you need an innovation ecosystem that encourages mutations and experimentation and let the marketplace decide those that are best i.e. most likely to survive and hence reproduce. As Nobel laureate Linus Pauling said: “have lots of ideas and throw away the bad ones…. You aren't going to have good ideas unless you have lots of ideas and some sort of principle of selection.”
With MyDealMaker we are trying to develop this approach to complement and extend our physical pitching events. Within reason anyone with what they think is a bright idea can put up their profile. We can try to give some quality assessment based on our engagement with the entrepreneur. Have they gone through our Investor Readiness Programme? Have they taken the trouble to fill out a detailed profile etc. But where it gets interesting is if, as Richard's suggests, the portal offers the functionality necessary for the market or software itself to promote the best and demphasise the rest.
But lets not get too carried away with all this. Online screening is just that: its a filtering process that can reduce the many to a few based on something more than a one dimensional view of quality or who you stood next to in the queue for the food at a networking event. But just like you don't buy an house based on its profile on RightMove, entering into a meaningful relationship with a business advisor or investing in what appears to be a bright idea on paper requires a little more interaction than can be done online. Physical engagement is still needed to seal any deal!
So I'm with Doug Richard on this - the brokerage need to provide the marketplace first and foremost and this provision and any signposting ideally should not consume a signicant percentage of the transaction it facilitates. Online brokering portals that match those with a need with those best able to provide it have the potential to change the balance of responsibility between brokers, providers and consumers and more importantly improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the marketplace.
Tuesday, 13 May 2008
Small but Perfectly Formed
When I was in merger talks with a larger company (OK read takeover!) I commented to their CEO that they had muscles in placed we didn't even have places! When things get big, do they really need to become more complex or does it go with the territory?
When businesses grow to more than eight people, holding company meetings in the rest room is no longer as feasible as it once was. Structure need to be put in place and when a job becomes bigger than one person, departments evolve.
The trick is to align related functions together and put in process orientated 'glue' to make sure the external world doesn't get exposed to (necessary) internal complexity. 'Join up thinking' and 'non-silo mentality' seems to be the in vogue phrases. Trying to have one department doing everything, so no glue is required, is about as bad as having individuals pulling in different directions and having loads of gaffer tape holding them together (which to be fair is what is invariably the end result of any growth phase for a business).
So I am not quite sure how to react to the government target of reducing 3,000 support projects down to 100 by 2010. Don't get me wrong, I am sure this can be done but why stop at 100? I thought 42 was the answer to life the universe and everything. But as Einstein said: Make everything as simple as possible, but no simpler.
When businesses grow to more than eight people, holding company meetings in the rest room is no longer as feasible as it once was. Structure need to be put in place and when a job becomes bigger than one person, departments evolve.
The trick is to align related functions together and put in process orientated 'glue' to make sure the external world doesn't get exposed to (necessary) internal complexity. 'Join up thinking' and 'non-silo mentality' seems to be the in vogue phrases. Trying to have one department doing everything, so no glue is required, is about as bad as having individuals pulling in different directions and having loads of gaffer tape holding them together (which to be fair is what is invariably the end result of any growth phase for a business).
So I am not quite sure how to react to the government target of reducing 3,000 support projects down to 100 by 2010. Don't get me wrong, I am sure this can be done but why stop at 100? I thought 42 was the answer to life the universe and everything. But as Einstein said: Make everything as simple as possible, but no simpler.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
