I review books from time to time for the Operational Research Society - it is a nice way of keeping up with new techniques and ideas in the business world and sometimes I get to read some real gems like Managing Green Issues by Tom Curtin. The latest book I have reviewed looks at a system for managing multiple projects, in order to optimise benefit to the organisation.
Optimisation of resource, activity, profit, output - all these are standard areas of OR and management concern and some of the classic OR techniques have arisen from the desire to optimise. Linear programming and integer programming are good examples of this - I remember struggling for hours with working out the Simplex Algorithm by hand as a student in preparation for exams! Similarly I remember one of my earliest OR assignments was to look at allocation of IT staff to IT projects at British Gas Northern using integer programming (an elegant solution but not taken up by the client, as it was a bit too Black Box).
Similarly, identification of waste and prioritisation of mission critical (to use a horrid management term) work has long been the Holy Grail of business improvement strategies. I was involved in a Zero Based Budgeting exercise at British Gas - again I don't think anything changed from the project, other than I made some new friends, learnt a new technique - personal wins rather than benefits to the business. That project had a top level sponsor as well, but it was cumbersome and expensive.
The project portfolio management methodology was heavy on acronyms, advocated a special team responsible only to the top level sponsor, but with powers to determine which projects would be undertaken and how much resource they would receive to be implemented. At the age of merely 43 I shouldn't be overtaken by a wave of cynicism when I read about such techniques. All I could imagine while reading the book, was the spoiling tactics that could be used by colleagues unwilling to change, the challenges to the project team posed by senior managers who were not the project sponsor and an overwhelming vision of Dilbert cartoons about cubicle workers!
In building a solution for a client, I have learnt that it is important that the client is fully with you, keen to find something that will make a difference and that the client's colleagues and partners are willing to sign up to. Without hearts and minds, even the project that will make your organisation number 1 in its field, will not be implemented.
But isn't the continual progress and improvement in gobbledegook an essential management tool these days? If I produce a very moderate report on change, or anything really, I will dress it up with state of the art acronyms, synonyms and all the other blue sky drivel I can. This serves two functions. Firstly, it makes me look as though I am 'with it' and 'happening' and secondly it reduces criticism because if others can't follow what I say, because the terminology is obtuse and inaccessible, then who dares to criticise? That's rubbish say you. I (adopting a well practicised degree of patronising, but not insulting, vocal inflection), explain that you have not really understood what was said, with no further need to explain, because that will only make you look even dafter. Lack of technobabble, while nominally a 'good thing' is very dangerous because understanding of what has been reported opens you up to criticism.
Posted by: John | 09/16/2007 at 11:23 AM