Connecting the Dots

On December 25, 2009, a Nigerian man traveling to Detroit from Amsterdam tried to ignite an explosive device which would have resulted in the destruction of a Northwest Airlines flight and the deaths of 278 passengers.

 

After meeting with his National Security team, the President said, “It was a failure to integrate and understand the intelligence that we already had.”  The President also said that the government had collected sufficient information to uncover the terror plot in advance but that intelligence officials had, “failed to connect those dots.” 

 

The phrase “connecting the dots” has been often repeated to describe the circumstances which allowed for this situation to present itself.  This incident has captured our attention because it is disturbing at a number of levels.  The fact a person could get on an airplane with an explosive device reminds us all of how vulnerable we are.  The fact this person was not stopped, despite the billions of dollars invested in intelligence services, is perplexing.  The fact this person was known to some within the intelligence community but that knowledge did not result in action, is inexcusable.

 

In our organizational and community life, we often find situations which reflect a “failure to connect the dots.”  While it is rare these situations present themselves as dramatically as a terrorist threat, we often find situations where the answer we seek is within our reach but seemingly unavailable to us.

 

Lessons Learned:

 

The incident of December 25^th allows us to witness an examination of a very large system and how it failed to achieve its most basic goal.  Describing the problem as a failure to connect the dots leads us to some basic questions:

 

• Which are the dots?
• What are the connections?
• What does it mean to connect the dots?

 

The phrase “connect the dots” suggests a model including resources, data and relationships.  The “dots” can be seen as the agencies and resources which collect, catalogue and interpret data.  The “connections” are the pieces of data/information flowing to and from the various agencies and resources (dots).  Under this model, data flows to the dots for interpretation and collection and flows from the dots as refined information to be used elsewhere in the system.

 

In the system described above, information flows can be either directed (pushed) out from one agency/resource to another or can be provided in response to a request for information (pull).  Regardless of whether data is pushed to or pulled from another agency/resource, it only becomes useful to the receiving organization after it is processed by the new owner of the data.

 

It seems an inevitable part of organizational life to find we continually have either too much or too little information to work with.  The challenge is to find just the right mix of routinely provided information and information available on demand.

 

Applying the Lessons:

 

The following steps will help sort out the “connecting the dots” challenge:

 

1. Identify the dots: Make a list of the organizations and resources which provide you with information.
2. Identify the connections: What information is provided by each resource?  Note whether the information provided is generated by the organization or passed along from another source.
3. Note gaps and overloads: As you make an inventory of the information you receive you are likely to find there are things you need but don’t receive.  You may also find data you receive but have no use for.
4. Depending on what you find you will likely want to adjust the information flows connecting you to other organizations and resources.

 

The steps above are an informal process for reviewing the information flowing into an organization.  There are more formal processes for reviewing how the dots connect and organizations should perform a formal data flow review on a regular basis.  Another approach to the problem of connecting the dots is to forget about the dots and focus on the people within the dots.

 

_____________________

<http://www.AffinityByDesign.com/>

 

_____________________

<http://www.AffinityByDesign.com/>

I gave blood and fell off the earth.

my wife got me into the habit of donating blood. I have donated more than seventy pints of blood over the past fifteen years. I've taken advantage of the customer service department at the blood center of Wisconsin calling me every eight weeks to set up an appointment. this is a great service and it ensures I give blood frequently.

 

I learned recently of a large gap in the blood center's customer service process. I was going to be at one of my customers offices during a blood drive so I canceled my scheduled appointment and signed up to be included in the organization's blood drive. the plan worked well for me: I streamlined my schedule and did a good deed.

 

an unintended consequence of my change in plans was I fell off the blood centers reminder rotation. I no longer get a call every eight weeks to make an appointment. I keep forgetting to give them a call. I'm sure I'll get around to it a some point but it is just not my highest priority.

 

note: after writing this post I called the blood center and made an appointment to donate. I mentioned I no longer get reminder calls.

_____________________

<http://www.AffinityByDesign.com/>

Abandon versus Adapt

I just got done listening to a story about how newspapers need to adapt to a new media environment in the 21st century. This has been an ongoing story for some time now and it really does seem like newspapers  are starting to come to grips with the challenge they face. I've also been listening to stories this week about how the United States might adapt to high speed rail systems. Europe and Japan provide good examples of how high-speed rail systems can be integrated into an overall transportation plan. These systems have not been easy to integrate nor have they been inexpensive.

 

A large part of the challenge we face in the United States is integrating rail systems into an overall transportation plan. We generally look at passenger rail as being a part of our past. Rather than a part of our present. European rail systems are integrated into an overall transportation plan which includes local mass transit and the ability to walk directly from train stations to workplaces. With few exceptions U.s. rail stations leave people without access to mass transit or sidewalks. People are able to get from city to city, but find themselves stranded without the ability to get to their final destination. The challenge we face has been referred to as "The last mile". The contrast between US and European rail systems is also the contrast between abandonment versus adaptation. European rail systems have become an integrated part of transportation systems for moving people from where they are to where they want to go. In the United States, we largely have looked at passenger rail as something that we abandoned many years ago in favor of automobiles. 

 

We have suddenly found ourselves taking another look at rail systems and looking at how they might be part of an integrated transportation system. We have become aware that the economics and environmental impact of rail transportation are much better than automobile transportation.

the challenge is to quickly move from the view railways were an old method that was obsolete almost 100 years ago to a perspective that rail systems are a part of a new integrated system that includes many pieces working together

 

The irony of this challenge is the fact that the United States has always been known as an innovator, a tech knowledge he leader and as a creative nation. The biggest challenges in integrating high-speed rail into an overall transportation plan are challenges of innovation leadership and creativity. The sad reality is we've had the luxury for many decades to simply abandon old technologies rather than adapt them into part of a new more effective or efficient system.

 

And yet, I remain confident we can meet this challenge.

 

 

<http://www.AffinityByDesign.com/>

A Night at the Big top

I recently attended a show at the Lake Superior Big Top Chautauqua (sha-ta-qwa).  I’ve listened to the “Tent Show Radio” broadcasts for years and was happy to win a pair of tickets to a show.  From the names “Big Top Chautauqua” and “Tent Show Radio” I knew we would be watching a show under a tent but that was the limit of our expectations.  What we found was an interesting mix of simplicity and sophistication.

 

The sign for Big Top Chautauqua (BTC) directed us west off of Highway 13.  After a short ride we found ourselves in a queue of cars being directed by a person along the side of the road.  We told the person we needed to pick up tickets at “Will Call”.  We were directed into the left lane and expected we would end up at a building with a ticket window.  A ways further we were stopped by another person along the way.  When I asked for directions to Will Call the woman responded “That’s me.”.  The ticket window turned out to be a person with a clipboard and a stack of envelopes.  We were then directed to a parking spot by a person in an orange vest.

 

With the exception of the restrooms, everything we came in contact with at BTC was under tents.  The people we encountered were the kind of warm and friendly types who evoke images of people who had, in years gone by, uttered the words “You know what would be cool…” while sitting around a campfire.  While this may be true, BTC is a much more sophisticated operation than the simple surroundings and friendly smiles would suggest.

 

Taking a closer look at the BTC grounds shows clearly defined business processes and practices.  There are separate tens for food, merchandise and raffle sales.  The complimentary tickets we received were electronically generated and showed a price of $0.00.  BTC operates a shuttle service to bring guests in from nearby communities.  Additionally, BTC produces a syndicated radio program, does educational outreach programs and has a touring company.

 

In 2000 BTC encountered a major problem:  an electrical short caused their tent to burn down in the middle of the night.  Many organizations never recover from such a catastrophic event.  Fortunately BTC had seen how disastrous it would be to lose their tent.  They only missed one performance before the backup tent was in place.

 

For mor information about BTC go to http://bigtop.org/

 

Lessons learned:

 

At first glance big top Chautauqua appears to be an unorganized collection of sophisticated and unsophisticated processes, practices and technologies.  A business analyst looking for some consulting dollars might recommend an intense (and costly) process to “standardize the organization’s business processes and raise them up to include the best technologies available”. 

 

A closer look at BTC suggests things are as sophisticated as they need to be, but not more.  Aside from the technology of sound systems, there is little BTC could do to dramatically improve on the audience experience.  A multi-million dollar investment in buildings for ticket sales, food service and merchandise would add little to the overall audience experience.

 

On the other hand, BTC has an organizational infrastructure reflecting thoughtful leadership with a sophisticated business sense.  While the big blue tent is the iconic image of BTC they have developed multiple income streams and distribution channels.  The decision to have a backup tent was preceded by some version of the question, “What would be the impact of losing our tent?”  The fact BTC tracks paid and complimentary tickets indicates they have the ability to analyze revenues and expenses by audience, seats and paid admissions.

 

 

 

Applying the lessons:

 

The Lake Superior Big Top Chautauqua employs a mix of business practices and technologies ranging from simple to sophisticated.  This mix provides a reminder “best practice” and “best technology” are subjective terms.  Here are a few simple questions to assist you in looking at how sophisticated your organizational environment needs to be:

 

 

1. Start by clearly describing what is to be accomplished by the business process being examined.  At BTC all they were trying to do is put “on hold” tickets in the hands of people coming down the driveway.
2. If the process is not working as expected, clearly describe the problem.  Avoid describing a solution to an undefined problem.
3. Identify the impact the problem has on the organization.  Does the problem consume staff time when they could be doing something more productive?  Does it cause bottlenecks in the flow of your organization?  Does it cause customers to go somewhere else?  Every problem can be associated with a cost to the organization.  The cost of the problem should exceed the budget for its solution.
4. Identify the absolute minimum change required to solve the problem described above.  Can this solution apply in all situations? It’s best to avoid elaborate exception processing:  if a solution can’t be integrated into the standard process it’s too complicated.

 

The book Think and Grow Rich tells of a sales manager who told his salesmen (Yes, Napoli and Hill was smart but not enlightened.) to put twenty-five beans in their left pocket at the start of the day.  When they made a sales contact they were to move one bean to the right pocket.  Their sales day was over when they had emptied their left pocket.  Some might say a Smartphone connected to a centralized database would be a better tracking process but it’s unlikely the salesperson would have time to make twenty-five contacts in a day if they were constantly fiddling with their phone.

 

 

<http://www.AffinityByDesign.com/>

<http://www.DanLococo.com/>

Household Observations

          f        

1. No more than one person can know how to refill a liquid soap dispenser.  If a second person should find out how to fill the soap dispenser, the first person will lose the knowledge immediately.
2. Plastic wrap creates a force field around things it covers.  Even if the wrap does not form a seal, it is expected the food will somehow stay fresh.
3. A pan of brownies, on a cooling rack, will remain hot indefinitely.  Therefore, it must remain on the cooling rack until all of the brownies are consumed.
4. A recycling bin will grow taller as it is filled.  The overflowing appearance of the bin is only an illusion.
5. A bottle of juice will regenerate itself as long as there is a little left in it.
6. Cream cheese will jump into your hand when you open the refrigerator.  If not a new package should be opened.
7. The dog will, eventually, learn how to refill its own water bowl.

 

The above items are trivial moments of household life.  The regular reoccurrence of these situations can create a low-level friction but they remain trivial.  In an organizational setting these situations parallel business processes with significant impact on the success of the organization.  An organization where knowledge of routine procedures is not shared, where supplies are allowed to spoil or run out, or where there is confusion over who serves the customer is likely to suffer critical failures at regular intervals.

 

 

Lessons Learned:

 

 

The list above is a set of observations and assumptions.  In fact, it is hard to separate the observations from the assumptions.  The reason for this is described in a tool called the “Ladder of Inference”.  The following steps summarize the tool:

 

• We observe things
• Select what to pay attention to
• Make meanings and assumptions
• Draw conclusions
• Adopt beliefs
• Take actions

 

What is interesting about the Ladder of Inference is the fact we are often unaware of climbing the steps between initial observation, conclusions and actions.

 

I don’t really believe anyone in my house thinks the dog will learn to fill the water bowl. I’m just aware the bowl seems to be empty when I walk by it.  I have no idea how often the bowl gets filled when I’m not around or who fills it.

 

For more information on the Ladder of Inference go to: <http://www.solonline.org/pra//tool/ladder.html>

 

 

Applying the lessons:

 

The examples used in this article are intentionally light hearted but they parallel important situations faced in most organizational environments.  In an ideal setting we would gather at regular intervals and share our observations, perceptions, values and beliefs.  Unfortunately organizational life is often too busy to take time out for such reflection.  As an alternative it’s pretty easy to ask a few questions and then compare answers among peers.  Here are a few simple questions to get started:

 

• Who are the people involved in the process in front of us?
• What responsibilities do I have in this situation?
• What responsibilities do I expect others have?  Who are these “others”?
• What one thing, that cannot be changed, would make a significant improvement if it were different?

 

The challenge is to reach agreement on the basic who, what, when, where and how.  Once these are established it is fairly easy to see where gaps exist in the process.  It also becomes fairly easy to see how the process can be improved, often without a great deal of additional resources.

 

http://www.affinitybydesign.com/

 

Household Observations

 

1. No more than one person can know how to refill a liquid soap dispenser.  If a second person should find out how to fill the soap dispenser, the first person will lose the knowledge immediately.
2. Plastic wrap creates a force field around things it covers.  Even if the wrap does not form a seal, it is expected the food will somehow stay fresh.
3. A pan of brownies, on a cooling rack, will remain hot indefinitely.  Therefore, it must remain on the cooling rack until all of the brownies are consumed.
4. A recycling bin will grow taller as it is filled.  The overflowing appearance of the bin is only an illusion.
5. A bottle of juice will regenerate itself as long as there is a little left in it.
6. Cream cheese will jump into your hand when you open the refrigerator.  If not a new package should be opened.
7. The dog will, eventually, learn how to refill its own water bowl.

 

The above items are trivial moments of household life.  The regular reoccurrence of these situations can create a low-level friction but they remain trivial.  In an organizational setting these situations parallel business processes with significant impact on the success of the organization.  An organization where knowledge of routine procedures is not shared, where supplies are allowed to spoil or run out, or where there is confusion over who serves the customer is likely to suffer critical failures at regular intervals.

 

 

Lessons Learned:

 

 

The list above is a set of observations and assumptions.  In fact, it is hard to separate the observations from the assumptions.  The reason for this is described in a tool called the “Ladder of Inference”.  The following steps summarize the tool:

 

• We observe things
• Select what to pay attention to
• Make meanings and assumptions
• Draw conclusions
• Adopt beliefs
• Take actions

 

What is interesting about the Ladder of Inference is the fact we are often unaware of climbing the steps between initial observation, conclusions and actions.

 

I don’t really believe anyone in my house thinks the dog will learn to fill the water bowl. I’m just aware the bowl seems to be empty when I walk by it.  I have no idea how often the bowl gets filled when I’m not around or who fills it.

 

For more information on the Ladder of Inference go to: <http://www.solonline.org/pra//tool/ladder.html>

 

 

Applying the lessons:

 

The examples used in this article are intentionally light hearted but they parallel important situations faced in most organizational environments.  In an ideal setting we would gather at regular intervals and share our observations, perceptions, values and beliefs.  Unfortunately organizational life is often too busy to take time out for such reflection.  As an alternative it’s pretty easy to ask a few questions and then compare answers among peers.  Here are a few simple questions to get started:

 

• Who are the people involved in the process in front of us?
• What responsibilities do I have in this situation?
• What responsibilities do I expect others have?  Who are these “others”?
• What one thing, that cannot be changed, would make a significant improvement if it were different?

 

The challenge is to reach agreement on the basic who, what, when, where and how.  Once these are established it is fairly easy to see where gaps exist in the process.  It also becomes fairly easy to see how the process can be improved, often without a great deal of additional resources.

 

http://www.affinitybydesign.com/

 

Growing More Sophisticated

We made our usual Sunday journey to church last week.

 

As the service started I was surprised to hear the choir had added a few new instruments to supplement the keyboard accompanist.   I had thought the only time we’d hear a drum set with our liturgical music was when the contemporary music group (Jamin’ for Jesus) made their monthly appearance.

 

Both my daughters have been involved with Jamin’ so I have paid attention to how they have grown and become a part of our liturgical gatherings.  They were kind of rough around the edges when they started and the congregation was more than a bit skeptical of rock’n roll music being included in the serious business of worship.  The group got better and the congregation grew to accept Jamin’ as a part of who we are.

 

As I listened to the drums and maracas supplementing the sound of the choir I realized the introduction of a contemporary music group to our worship services has both added a new dimension to our liturgical music and broadened the horizons of our long-standing musical program.  I find comfort in seeing this outward sign of growth in our church.  It gives me confidence there are subtle changes taking place in other areas I may not be aware of.

 

<http://www.AffinityByDesign.com/>

Grocery store lines

I found two occasions in the past 48 hours to be standing in line with a full grocery cart.  On Friday I was in our local Pick’n Save where we spent about $90.  On Saturday we were in the nearest Costco where we spent about $125.  The dramatically different experiences of these lines got me wondering about how each store looks at the check-out process.

Pick’n Save has baggers but they seem to appear randomly and often seem to disappear just as quickly.  We found our groceries being pushed down one of two chutes to a bagging area.  There were no baggers.  By the time we finished bagging our groceries both bagging areas were occupied and the checker was trying to force the next customers groceries on top of ours.  This was clearly a log jam and a frustrating experience for all parties involved. 

At Costco we found the check-outline was operated by a three person team that reminded me of a NASCAR pit crew.  The first person took the groceries out of the cart and lined them up on the conveyor belt.  The second person scanned each item and the third put the scanned items into another cart.  The Costco check-out process took a fraction of the time of the Pick’n Save process.

Pick’n Save has lower expenses due to lower staffing levels.  Costco has higher staffing costs but also has higher throughput capaticy at the cash registers.  What is unclear is which has the lower cost per dollar of sales. 

As a consumerI tend to be drawn toward pleasant experiences and avoid frustrating experiences.  I had a far better experience at Costco.  Consequently I would prefer to shop at Costco over Pick’n Save.  In the short term Pick’n Save may b more profitable but as more people have a better experience at other stores those profits will quickly fall away.

Web:  www.AffinityByDesign.com