Author Archives: Dalip Raheja

About Dalip Raheja

Dalip Raheja is President and CEO of The Mpower Group (TMG). Dalip has over 30 years of experience managing large organizations and change initiatives. He has worked across the spectrums of supply chain management, strategic sourcing, and management consulting.

Market Perspective: What is Keeping You Up At Night?

Posted on by
Reply

I was recently asked to speak at another regional ISM event (click here to download the presentation Market Perspective: What Keeps Chief Supply Chain Officers Up at Night?) and having done a significant number of these over the years, I put together a presentation that I thought would work.  Until I realized that this was a rather unique audience and had to switch gears a week before the event.

This was a gathering of various Presidents of the ISM and NAPM regional chapters and they were gathered together in that capacity.  They were trying to figure out how to become more relevant for their regional markets and their customer was the entire Procurement, Sourcing and Supply Chain community of that region.  I decided to give them a perspective of their market based on a lot of the research that we have done and provided them with the proverbial Top Ten list (in no particular order).

I have included the list below and now it is your chance to test and challenge what I provided them and help us rank the list. Please mark your top three organizational challenges. Or if you think an item should not be included, then go ahead and add your inputs in our comments section.

Please pick the three items you lose the most sleep over.

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...


Did you like this? Share it:

A “Side-ways” Look at Measurement and Change Management

Posted on by
Reply

Ever notice, that in spite of all the energy and “diligence” we put into selecting the right measures or metrics for business today, and how much measurement detail we wire into our Change Planning, we can still question these measures when change stumbles mid-stream or we find ourselves rationalizing (again) the outcomes upon project completion?  Measurement is certainly one of the facets of change management that can become over-engineered and we can get lost in the complexity we create.

Take for example, the oft cited disappointment with the “failure rate of change”–our OWN scorecard! It is estimated to be as high as 70% in studies by researchers at Harvard and McKinsey.  Just how badly should we feel?  Of course, we are motivated to succeed and are even drawn to the role of Change Leader to take on challenges from which many others would run.  That said, in a classic measurement mind-set error, we are beating ourselves up for this “high” and “unacceptable” failure rate.  Really?…what if the base-rate for failure is 100% and the best we can hope to achieve—the summit (as an average across initiatives and all companies) is 60% failure…now THAT changes your perspective…does it not?  If you only fail 2 of every 10 times, you’d be a genius!

The most frequent Change Measurement error I find, in spite of great diligence placed on defining metrics in many Change Teams, involves the arbitrary nature of the measures chosen.  Why, for example, were you asked to report monthly or define your project milestones relative to the calendar or company’s fiscal year?  Is this the natural cycle of change and the most meaningful definition of milestones and achievement for the transformation you’re leading—I doubt it.

When I was a child, we measured my height on the first day of the new school year, and marked my progress on the door frame to my bedroom.  Now…what if my “growth spurt” occurred during the months of June – October, is any conclusion about which school year included the most growth either accurate or representative?…No.

Take a look at the measures you’ve wired into your Change Initiative?…Do any of those seem to be a bit arbitrary—or moored to the wrong anchor for creating meaning and accurately representing change progress?  Consider, for example:

  • If you are attempting to influence your customer’s business, are your measures defined by the natural cycle of their outcomes…or your own?;
  • Look at the reality of the change you are driving—What are the early signs of progress?…What indicators would tell you that it’s taking hold?…How will you know when it is “complete?”…(my guess is that these have nothing to do with the calendar or your company’s fiscal schedule);
  • Do your measures of sales/revenue growth match the sales cycle?…or your customer’s buying patterns (e.g., their own fiscal year or timing defined by their market)?
  • And most fundamentally…

“If you took away the calendar, is there ANY reason why you’d chop up your transformational, complex endeavor into bits defined by December 31?…Fiscal “quarters?”…Days when it is most convenient (or traditional) for the Management Team to meet?”

Challenge your Change Team to re-examine the “logic” behind your measures or the measures that are important to your stakeholders.  In all likelihood, some of these measures lack meaning because they are not connected to how you are creating value through your initiative—even getting shaped by rather arbitrary factors (if not lazy efforts) like the calendar on the meeting room wall or your businesses monthly reporting cycle for everything from paying taxes to ordering office supplies.  Measurement plays a key role in managing expectations and delivering demonstrable value through change—get this part right and where necessary, lead a revolution to overthrow arbitrary accounting of success.

Did you like this? Share it:

The Next Practices Xchange Hosts Top Supply Chain Executives to Discuss Supply Chain Transformation from Cost-Cutting to Value-Creating

Posted on by
Reply

Each quarter, the Next Practices Xchange (NPX) (http://www.nextpracticesxchange.com) hosts a gathering of some the brightest and most innovative minds in the strategic sourcing and supply chain discipline.

The Mpower Group will set the stage with a review of current research and benchmarking results that reflect the underlying issues today’s executives are facing within a global supply chain. The focus will be on identifying the main roadblocks that prevent Sourcing and Supply Chain groups from achieving synergy that is greater than the “sum of its parts.” This will pave the way for two substantive presentations that will create the basis for the hallmark NPX Roundtable Discussion.

Alastair Donald, CPO at ConocoPhillips, and Lamar Chesney, CPO at SunTrust Bank, will lead the Keynote session by sharing their perspectives on value. A lively roundtable discussion on what value is and how to communicate it up the chains of command and across the enterprise is sure to follow.

A series of facilitated workshops will serve as the vehicle for the NPX members to share Next Practices and apply the concepts and tools presented by the speakers. The BPX members will share their own unique strategies for generating and communicating value across the supply chain during the Roundtable and will Xchange their experiences, successes, and challenges with one another.

About Next Practices Xchange (BPX):
NPX is a members-only, peer-to-peer group with a charter to provide thought leadership, advanced solutions and networking opportunities to group members. The group meets quarterly.
NPX addresses major Global Strategic Sourcing and Supply Chain Management challenges such as:
-Building world-class Sourcing and Supply Chain Management Organizations
-Supplier Relationship Management (SRM) and Governance
-Low Cost Country Sourcing
-Integration of Technology into Supply Chain processes
Integration of 6 Sigma and Strategic Sourcing
-Managing IT Outsourcing Arrangements

The Next Practices Xchange (http://www.nextpracticesxchange.com) is one of the most prestigious and influential executive groups in the Sourcing and Supply Chain world. These Strategic Sourcing and Supply Chain executives represent many top corporations. Collectively, these firms generate over $225 billion in sales, employ over 1.0 million people and enjoy worldwide operations. These executives meet each quarter to discuss the challenges faced by supply chain and sourcing industry leaders.
Representative Member Companies include:
-Discover Financial
-Exelon Corporation
-FMC Technologies
-John Deere
-McDonald’s Corporation
-State Farm
-BP

If you would like more information on The Next Practices Xchange (NPX) or to apply for membership, please contact Brian Marshall brianm(at)thempowergroup(dot)com) at The Mpower Group, 630-268-8963.

Did you like this? Share it:

Pressure Felt in Leading Change and “The Wall of Worry”

Posted on by
Reply

Often, part of the “madness” we find ourselves struggling with in complex change scenarios is of our own making.  That’s right, we sometimes “do it to ourselves.”  We attempt to drive positive change and optimism as part of our initiatives, but others may discount our message because we look haggard and frustrated.

How do you know when you’re in need of new perspective?…Take a “sideways” look at the simple parts of your change process or experience to reveal sources of “madness.”  Today, we’re going to take on the madness of pressure on change leaders and the cost of worry.

While not an identified part of the OMC “process” (pick your model, I don’t care), the Change Leaders I work with, like a parent or a nervous inventor waiting for the moment of lightning to enliven his Frankenstein report worry as a primary part of their experience—heart, mind, and soul.

To examine the cost of worry (or build your personal Case for Change and adoption of these disciplines on the path to change success), let’s take a “sideways” look that this bugger.  What I have learned in coaching Change Leaders for over twenty years is that carrying a burden of worry, wasting too much time at the Wall of Worry has two significant costs:

1-Feelings of worry or dread can unwittingly move you to shrink your field of vision or even “make like an  ostrich” to avoid bad news.  The biggest cost that results is that your perspective on success and solutions gets overly narrow.  You tend to look for confirming information and only ask for feedback or evaluation limited to a few formal measures (e.g., “Are we still on track?”) and your range of responses to problems gets limited because the prospects of making a small issue into a bigger one or placing importance on areas that include ambiguity seems like a huge risk.  This is one reason why project leaders can appear pretty “mechanical”—erring on the side of managing to the process rather than keeping their eyes and ears open for opportunity.

2-Extend the reference to building a “Wall of Worry” to four walls that make a box.  The higher you build these walls (more worrisome you get), the greater the distance you put between yourself and you’re your stakeholders (sponsors, your change team, key partners, your audience).  You may not notice this if you can still look over the wall (still see them), but they will notice the walls and as a result, perceive you as less accessible and less receptive to inputs. 

So…how can you adopt a more constructive, liberating mindset (not bogged down by worry)?

ASK YOURSELF:

__When I look in the mirror, do I see optimism or dread?

__Is the source of worry something I can influence?

__Have I sequestered myself with Walls of Worry so I appear inaccessible?…uncaring?

__Am I finding it too easy to throw new concerns on that big, growing, and scary pile of worrisome things, or am I taking them on and taking action with the same vigor I began my project with?

ASK OTHERS:

__On balance, where could the “tone” of our interactions around this project benefit from more positivity and optimism?

__Is my team and I as open, listening, and attentive now during the change as we were when we were soliciting your inputs in the planning stage?

__Are we giving off any signals that we don’t have time or interest in listening to feedback or concerns?

Like a Chief Executive, the Change Leader can feel surprisingly isolated.  Recognizing this risk and building in some processes and trusted feedback channels throughout the change journey can help you avoid the great costs that come with worry and isolation.  This approach and asking the questions outlined above are a clear sign of a constructive Change Mindset.

Did you like this? Share it:

Battle Hymn of the Tiger

Posted on by
Reply

A new book Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother by Amy Chua is generating buzz and debate both on-line, in print, and on TV.  Chua’s goal in writing this book is to answer how Chinese parents raise such stereotypically successful children.  As counterpoint, Chua decries American parents as wimps who coddle their kids and accept mediocrity.

Used interchangeably in the book are the words “Chinese” and “Tiger” to describe Chua’s maternal ferocity and passion.  Chua’s parenting techniques are strikingly similar to “Tiger” companies found in today’s global supply chain.

The Quest for Perfection

Chua’s relentless parenting style demands no less than perfection.  On her balanced scorecard, Chua tracks only two domains: Individual achievements (such as winning a piano concert, or achieving straight A’s) and disciplined respectful behavior.   By those performance metrics, her children are superstars:  musical virtuosos, “A” students, masters of foreign languages, etc.

It is good for a customer and suppliers to have demanding metrics in place that encourage the right behavior. Certain “Tiger” companies (Wal-Mart, Home Depot, McDonald’s, etc.) stipulate high execution (on-time, fill, compliance, etc.) from their suppliers.  These companies know running low cost, high service supply chains demand perfection from all partners and that supplier unpredictability throws sand into their engine of efficiency.

While meeting these demands is initially challenging, successful suppliers should welcome these hurdles as both a way to improve internal operations and create barriers to entry versus other competing suppliers.  As a side benefit, operational changes made to satisfy more demanding customers often carry over to less demanding customers.

For a new supplier, the transition to this new performance is rocky-demanding an extensive toolkit, robust processes, and new ways of thinking about and doing work.  During this time suppliers should consider some of our Strategic Transformation tactics to achieve these desired results.

Tough Love

One area Chua is attacked by critics is her use of tough love with her children.  If a child doesn’t meet expectations, the “Tiger” parent assumes it’s because the child didn’t work hard enough.  Chua’s solution to substandard performance is to excoriate, punish and shame the child into higher performance.  As examples:

  • Chua rejecting poorly made birthday cards from her daughters and demanding new cards be made
  • Chua threatening to burn all of one of her daughter’s stuffed animals unless she played a piece of music perfectly
  • Chua calling her daughter “garbage” when she acted disrespectful

Widespread adoption of tough love sourcing tactics was one reason we proclaimed earlier that strategic sourcing is dead.   It is difficult for suppliers to constructively invest in a relationship when “Tiger” companies:

  • Threaten annual rebids despite stellar supplier performance and/or cost containment
  • Demand year over year price concessions regardless of underlying commodity movements
  • Refuse to do 360° business reviews where both parties are thoroughly evaluated
  • Refuse to concede that some fault may lie internally as opposed to externally
  • Constantly look to find supplier poor performance to build negotiation leverage
  • Challenge paying a fair price for a high level of supply chain execution

An old proverb states “It is easier to lure with candy than with a sticks…”  Tough love with suppliers is a dated approach that fosters a “fear-based” accommodation.  It is at odds with developing a sustainable value-based partnership.

Individual vs. Group Performance

Critics also point out that Chua’s focus is on her child’s individual performance and she misses encouraging the “team” approach essential to success in business and in life.  While individual achievements are commendable, our experience with High Performance Work Teams shows that team members with strong individual performance traits consistently make decisions that do not align with the best interests of the team.

Most people work in groups because groups are much more efficient at solving complex problems.  During our training we typically have highly structured breakouts designed to amplify group and team dynamics.  Inevitably we will have individuals who subscribe to “There is no “i” in team but there is in win” school of thought.  These students will challenge our initial statement that the only solution lies with the group and ask to be placed on a team of one.  They deliberately choose a path where they cannot win but believe they can perform better than the group.

Even worse, when placed in groups they will often withhold information to generate “the answer.” gained from other shared information.  Obviously putting two or more of these individuals together leads to an information impasse in which the team fails.

Supply Chains need information and partner participation to work.  These demand strong “team” competencies not individual excellence.

Summary

Chua is not a bad parent.  She cares deeply about her children.  She is willing to devote extraordinary amounts of time to ensure her children reach the high expectations demanded of them.  Where there is a breakdown is Chua’s tough love tactics and her narrow focus on a set of performance metrics that don’t prepare her children for some of the real world challenges they will eventually face.

Today’s supply chains conditions are some of the toughest ever.  But do tough conditions demand tough “tiger” tactics?  Here are some questions for our readers

1)      Culturally, is America slipping in terms of national expectations and achievements versus other more hungry “tiger” nations such as India and China?

2)      Does customer tough love and high expectations generate better long term results?

3)      Is Chua’s approach sustainable for a supply chain?

Did you like this? Share it: