Doing More With Less Can Be Your Loss

Kia ora Ken

"The whole is greater than the sum of its parts".

I'm a firm believer in this adage when it comes to the power of people. Synergy is a relatively new word that applies here.

One of the properties of synergy is that it is mobile. It's like a toy puzzle that can be put together any number of ways - a transformer. Some combinations are greater than others.

Optimising synergy means that the biggest gains are achieved when the parts come together in certain optimal ways. Doing more with less so that it's your gain rather than your loss means getting the combination right.

When it's optimal you have synergy.

Catchya later
from Middle-earth

You are quite correct, and so the saying goes in business, "Do more with less!" However, I find that many are not afforded the proper training in the areas they manage as to effective use of time, nor are their priorities very often clearly communicated as many managers feel they "should just know" or are bad communicators themselves. Thus, if the "certain optimal ways" are not uncovered and clearly communicated there is no synergy, and in point of fact this becomes destructive.

In essence, the shortcuts many take (including myself at times) often leads to more pain in the end... It is my observation that only experience and painful lessons in doing it write tend to be the most effective teachers. However, if we focused on communicating our experiences to our teams, then wisdom could be a shared experience rather than a continually, vicious cycle of self-centered learning.

Right again, King Friday (this comes from Mr. Rodgers.)

The invariable is time. Everything else can be managed. The trick is to spend the time at the beginning to get complete agreement on the scope. Then keep revising the $$$= scope equation until you get complete client sign off.

It's amazing how "nice to haves" get separated from "must haves" when time is constant and the metric is cash.

Very adept... I was just reviewing a statement of work today with a colleague of mine and realized he had a much better way of approaching what I was gnashing teeth over. In short, he specifically put the metric of time=cash, so the customers he works with quickly determine how best to optimize his time...

I enjoyed learning that today, and now can see very clearly I did some things just right in closing a recent deal, but could've streamlined the process even more by that simple metric.

cool.
It turns out that a very similar approach works in a classroom. either in college or at bottom of the pyramid high schools. In that context you can't do time=$$.
Time is the inflexible constraint. When the semester ends, it ends.

So, what I used to do is redefine the project until it can be done within the time. Keep going until you get to " we can do that." Only then begin the project. Once begun it's all about compromises that stay within the time, by redefining the scope and keeping track of everybody to make sure they are doing their well defined jobs within the time.

Turns out in my experience in schools, that time discipline is the best goad to innovation. And clear measurement to make sure everyone is doing their job is the best way for kids to learn to act like grown ups.

Your statement “Let’s face it - some industries, like IT, have been under fire for years to increase productivity and reduce headcount. But with the driving forces telling us to do more with less, where does less become your loss?” can be looked at another way.

As IT professionals, part of your value is your ability to apply technology that improves the way your organization does business. You are the ones coming up with new solutions to solve problems, or bringing in existing solutions to fit your organizational needs. In these times, we can take this time-taxed mentality and stop for a second to look at what we’re doing and how we can do it better. Call it Six Sigma, or just being smart. One of the best things to come out of this recession is the realization that we can stay above water with less resources. There was fat to be trimmed. By working smarter we can be more productive with less.

Obviously my perspective doesn’t apply to every situation. I know there are plenty of individuals who are being pulled to the max right now and my sympathies are with you, but I also think this is a great time for technology application and for technology professionals.

Hmmm... the eternal optimist. I do enjoy that, and a good debate. So let's chew on this a bit:

The application of technology does not necessarily support the theory of doing more with less. I think that you would agree that technology as it relates to business process improvement and/or automation in and of itself does not solve problems; it simply makes a good process better or a exposes more flaws in a bad process.

Assuming that we are applying technology "smartly" to a business process simply in need of automation (as a cost reduction strategy) is wholly applicable. Additionally, in business, I think most of us agree that, emotions aside, team members' time is a resource to be spent.

While I would support your observation that most everyone and every company can trim this finite resource, much like they could probably search for overages in the expense budget or cost of goods, my overall point was spent in the hope of illustrating that people often choose the unimportant over the important. I did not want to create a support for laziness. In fact, I would promote just the opposite.

In the end, time is finite. Technology may help you recover some of it. As a general observation in business, I find that applying technology to reduce overhead costs is extremely effective, but often knowledge workers are required in areas where revenue generation is the objective. This is not to say that technology doesn't play a part in increasing efficiency, but it is to say that technology does not and should not replace the person entirely and that person can typically only be so productive.

Ultimately the fat that is trimmed is often with the least prepared workers, and in my opinion, corporate America has allowed this recession to become the scapegoat for brow-beating their associates while demanding the same or more out of them through the inculcation of fear. While this works during the short-term, this is extremely damaging in the long run as the sacred trust between the team members and the company are irrevocably damaged.

I see waste every day inside my own processes, my own company, and in my clients' companies. We are all human and by nature not made to be 100% efficient. That said, I completely agree with working "smarter" to be more productive.

I do think it is a great time for technology applications and professionals. Those who are as fierce in "up times" as they are in "down times" will prevail, and are still in high demand. Employers and clients alike can be more choosy, and I think that is a great motivator to raise the bar so long as we also remember to offer a path for those willing to rise to our challenge - so that they might surpass our expectations.


All of this aside, I do take some issue with the comment of fat-trimming as this can seem somewhat of a should-shrug-solution. I do not entirely disagree that companies have grown to "fat and happy", but where does the responsibility rest for ensuring 1) headcount does not grow too large and 2) our responsibility to mentor and guide our directs into positions of success is upheld?

... and I really appreciate you making me think. Your comment is very thought-provoking, and I always welcome your opinions.

Warmest Regards,
Ken

You are right. “The application of technology does not always necessarily mean you are doing more with less.” Nor does it mean that technology is a more valuable resource then knowledge workers. As we progress as a culture and an economy, knowledge workers are becoming our most valuable resource. This is an opportunity to harness and grow your knowledge base to remain competitive, not just afloat. Much like marketing in a down economy is always a good idea, building your team, empowering them, valuing their knowledge and focusing on better practices and improved processes will put you ahead of the curve when things turn around. You are right, “technology does not and should not replace the person entirely.” This would be a huge underestimation of knowledge worker potential.

That being said, why would you have a potential resource that could improve your overall revenue in a position where they are sorting documents, or opening mail when these processes can be automated? Automation technology reduces overhead in relation to menial tasks allowing you to reallocate your more valuable resources into positions where they can grow as employees and deliver more. This would fall under your “applying technology ‘smartly’ to business processes in need of automation” umbrella.

I was in no way trying to be flippant or minimize the experience of today’s overworked employees. I fully agree with you that people/companies are choosing to focus on things that are not necessarily the most important right now and it will be to their detriment. Trimming the fat is a callus term, but I was not necessarily referring to individuals as much as I was to wasteful practices.

For example, scanning and emailing information as apposed to printing and shipping it can save a company thousands of dollars or more. Knowledge workers are still in place, they are just able to be more efficient and process more information in a shorter period of time because there is less of a waiting period from when information is reviewed to when it is processed. When times are hard, we are forced to look at these things and you and I are in agreement that there are many ways IT leaders can step up and be heroes right now. Looking at technology that is already in place and evaluating if it can do more for you is another low-cost, value-add opportunity for IT professionals to increase their personal capital.

In response to your final questions, “where does the responsibility rest for ensuring:
1) headcount does not grow too large and
2) our responsibility to mentor and guide our directs into positions of success is upheld?”

1- Headcount comes down to how many people you need to complete a task in order to reach your goal. Managers and directors need to be accountable and honest about what resources they really need. Automation tools have the added benefit of tracking and monitoring entire business processes so you can see what is processed when, and how long things take. You have measurement tools that help you set benchmarks. Utilizing this technology will help managers estimate how many people they need for each task.

2- Organizations that are callus and do not value or nurture their knowledge base will not be as successful as those who do. In our age of social media, blogs, and so on, we all run the risk of having our dirty laundry shared with the world. All it takes is one disgruntled employee, or customer and your reputation can be sullied. This isn’t a scare tactic, just a truth. There is a reason organizations strive to be on the Top 100 Companies to work for list. Your employees are part of your brand. Too often we forget this. As a leader of an organization, you need to invest in your knowledge base, which will in turn strengthen your overall organization and how it is perceived both internally and externally.

So who ensures that managers are nurturing their staff? I believe it comes down to culture and culture is an organic thing. We can’t loose site of the culture we have helped create and the knowledge workers who inhabit and help define it or we’ll diminish our brand and waste our resources.

Thanks for brain spar ;)

Natalia, very salient response! I can tell you are an intellect to be reckoned with :-)

I think you have zeroed in on something very dear to my heart in a much more succinct manner:

"Your employees are part of your brand. Too often we forget this."

I am very impressed with this statement, not only because it is a wonderful thing to say (write), but that you give the impression of earnestly believing this.

When you say, "I believe it comes down to culture and culture is an organic thing," truly that is the essence of what my article drives towards... in truth, this article is nothing more than a bullet point to that overarching topic of culture and the on-going demonstration of organizational insanity and cultural suicide.

... and what is the definition of insanity? Continuing to do the same thing and expecting different results.

Many companies are guilty of this behavior... and I believe this is why we are in the straights we are in now - where the employee and tax payer are footing the bill and bearing the brunt of the burden - Companies (as a general rule) are not changing their practices quickly enough to match the pace and requirements of our time and economy.

Should you ever find yourself in need of a space to share some of your thoughts, feel free to drop me a line. I would be honored to host some of your guest posts :-)

Warmest Regards,
K

Thanks Ken, I appreciate the invitation and I look forward to reading more of your thoughts.

Natalia