Time is money, are you using real time data wisely?


busby-berkley-snowflakeTime is money, are you using real time data wisely?

Are you feeling up to date, in sync with the times? Both individuals and organizations find it challenging to fully leverage technology and integrate the sea of real time data that surrounds us.

This past week, I attended a local Internet of Things (IOT) conference, only to be reminded how we’ve been kidding ourselves with respect to the human machine dynamic.  When Factiva reported in 2013, that the previous two years had created 90% of the world’s data, it also reflected the impact of visibly faster technology and emergent opportunities for those capable of wrangling more data. Similarly, the exchange of information machine to machine and the responses that  IOT and the Industrial IOT (IIOT)  make possible  will soon surpass all human generated information.

Information has never proven more valuable to competitive advantage than now. The key istimely mastery and/or the ability to separate meaningful data from noise. Possessing  Real time capabilities merely up the ante. 

Suddenly,  all of the conversations about the real, meaningful  difference of  Big Data clicked. The challenges I knew and had experienced working with volumes of data is not something everyone experiences, and itswhy I missed the significance of the message. Language can do thar. Today’s – competitive advantage relies on learning synchronicity between people, and also between people and machine. 

Yep, syncing as in coincident timing. Timing reactions require coordination on the order of the elaborate dance numbers Busby Berkley made famous will separate winners and losers. 

People learning rates

People are interesting precisely because we begave inconsistently.  These same traits  make us effective competitors and efficient information processors.  We focus and only selectively pay attention, which means we consciously ignore most information in our midst. Unlike machines, we are slow few of us possess capabilities to process high volumes of complex data at high speeds. 

How people integrate data remains a bit mysterious. Part conscious and part unconscious, each of our senses connect to different parts of our brain and the information isn’t always processes with consistency. 

Humans create their own reality. For example, our eyes see things differently than what we describe and not because of language problems. Automatic transformations correct using depth perception and pre existing knowledge to flip the image, while sound tends to retain its integrity. 

Similarly, information new to us versus updates also  process differently; and yet, endless streaming information can overload and confuse us. Today’s powerful computers don’t experience anxiety or fatigue though they may overheat or fail.

The natural limits of time and energy challenge people to choose their focal point, the when and how we respond to data and perceive opportunities. For example, few of our waking moments and activities require conscious thought. Our body takes care of itself and manages to coordinate processing of external sensory information with internal demands. This syncing makes possible mindless activities like breathing, eating, walking and resting.

Consciously, our ability to track our time and energy is spotty.  Still, unstructured/unplanned  moments, especially those that demand little of us mentally remain ideal, while society frowns on the same characteristics when referred to as idleness. The contradiction reflects the value we attach to purpose or meaningful use of effort over time that results in tangible output.

Artists create, builders build, analysts compute and chefs cook for example by adding their effort over time. They make something or transform original materials/inputs.

The notion of efficiency also boosts the value of effort by measuring the effort relative to the output produced over time. Likewise effectiveness, measures the additional value produced relative to the starting inputs. Together, these measures translate into meaningful consistent tokens of value that permit ready exchange, or wealth accumulation.

In this context, the accumulated tokens of value allow us to buy ourselves time to take vacation or be idle as easily as buy us time to learn, create and do more.

Machine learning capabilities

This also explains precisely why technology advances prove so valuable, as they have progressively reduced the amount of time and effort necessary to perform a task. As a result, we DO spend less time on common, routine activities than was previously necessary.  Internal plumbing saves us time we spent fetching water, Wheeled transportation saves us time we spent walking, and similar telecommunications vastly removes the break in communications that once necessitated considerable effort  to cross the distance by one if not both parties, or the enlistment of a proxy to carry the message on their behalf. The human messengers were replaced first and written notes/letters, and then the telegraph dramatically reduced the time between message sending and receipt.  Now text messaging and email is displacing telephone and video conferences.

This evolution in communication methods affects the people’s interaction styles but also their information needs and expectations.

Real time communications savings and benefits are not equally distributed and so inefficiencies persist.  On one hand they present a new opportunity to replace planning and documentation of activities essential when communications were primarily indirect and time lagged. Built-in tracking, boosted transmission capabilities and data recording can both fill in and increase information gaps.  Problems associated with incomplete, unsupported or even delayed information that always created risk persists, but for new reasons.  The flood of data from more sources both people and machine generated pose new challenges to separate out meaning, predict and or respond in timely, relevant manner.

Another opportunity real time capabilities offer are all around us, assisted by the information collected and transmitted from multiple data sensors scattered across the environment.  In fact, it’s how airplanes fly automatically, rail road cars notify switches of their location to either open or close crossing gates, motion sensors in buildings adjust level of lighting and air temperatures, and Tsunami warning systems saves lives.

In general, people are wired to process information in real time. We use an array of body language cues to understand how to  manage the situation and engage with the people in our midst, and yet we do it unconsciously.  Planning on paper is a far more conscious activity, time consuming and energy draining.  Worse, planning often stops us from activating the unconscious real time processing.  We follow the plan, rather than notice the inconsistency or the more obvious information we may or may not have incorporated.  Best example, is the step by step navigation systems that we know are less than perfect.  Have you found yourself using the navigation only to discover it’s asking you to turn onto a one way street going the wrong way? Or your location is “ahead” of the GPS signal and so you miss a turn?

My point is this.  Too many built in business procedures and processes were designed in the absence of real time information.  In order to be more relevant, more valuable people will need to revisit their processes with respect to learning, creating and doing.  It will require a shift in attitude, refocus of needs and adjustment in expectations.  It’s a shift from a look back and partner with machines that look forward, use more data sources and get to analysis faster.

If you have any examples of success or any challenges I’d love to hear about them.

[i] Mike Hogan, “big Data of your Own,” August 2013, www.factiva.com

John Adams, “Be careful or Big Data could Bury your Bank,” January 25, 2013 http://www.factiva.com

How can you stop short term choices from crippling long-term value?


cancer-curable-not-corruption

As more bad news about Wells Fargo’s practices emerge,  the stain transcends CEO Stumpf’s  reputation. Warren Buffett opted to wait and comment knowing that he himself needs time to sort through his own internal review process.

It’s not just Stumpf who needs to believe that the “cancer “found in the retail bank was its source. The Gr8 prorgram setting very high bars for growth with 8 interconnected accounts per customer delivered results but discovery of the ill effects  proceeded much slower.  It took years and then the decision to remove the malignancy—firing of low level employees and managers—what made management believe this toxic behavior didn’t spread?

Well that’s naïve, if not ridiculous, isn’t it? Elizabeth Warren made clear that an organization must remain accountable to its customers more than its shareholders, no matter how large or successful it becomes. Somewhere along the line Wells Fargo, Samsung, Chipotle, VW, and GM all made similar high profile mistakes.

Speed to market may appear an appropriate competitive response but not if short-cutting quality results in shortchanging business value.

Bottom line the antenna in a business can’t be only tuned in for reward especially since it often means the business misses the risk signals. The obsession for rapid growth isn’t just blinding good judgment shows in ignorance of the environment and its complexity.

Interconnected digital networks absolutely create a speed advantage. But speed needs to be managed, and adjustments made to acknowledge the additional risk it creates. Ask the NASCAR drivers what precautions they take that are absent in other environments, or the Samsung engineers who knew they hadn’t done enough testing to properly advise the risk management team with information that prepared them for the inevitable fire.

Pull not push

The Internet made it easier than ever for consumers to find anything, anywhere, and at anytime. Businesses and sales people need to adjust and adapt to accommodate these more informed buyers. At the same time management goals or quotas must recognize changes in the environment, but looking more broadly at the inevitable interactions and the change in likelihood that they will occur.

It may be a cliché, but it isn’t true that what got you here will get you farther. What worked in the past works differently today and will work in another way in the future. The trick is to find the part that is essential and remains critical. Water does seep to the lowest level, but technology advances have created stronger more resilient and resistant containment mechanisms that alter the impact.  Don’t wait to understand them until it’s too late.

Start by answering these questions to the satisfaction of your leadership team and board.

  • How does your management team leveraging or limiting the new levers of change?
  • How does social media, sensor networks, big data and cloud computing alter the behavior of your customers?
  • What risks to your bottom line do they introduce?
  • What steps have you taken to mitigate and or adjust your targets to assimilate them?

How Doing, stopped my was and they thinking


I suppose, in highschool I first imagined being a writer, but I never committed.Adjusting Sensibility allows me the opportunity to practice, rehearse and communicate more effectively.

This morning Bruce Kasanoff’s  suggested “repetition is powerful, use it wisely.” It was a point I emphasized in my Goldilocks is a genius talk last week.  After spending my weekend struggling to write, it also reminded me that practice  always helps, but it’s not enough.

Purpose matters, and the ability to see differences yourself that yields progress.

I never learned grammar rules well. They annoyed me, they got in the way of my thinking aloud and desire to be creative, and imaginative in my writing.  Today, I read a note aobut courage and another about It’s more likley that unconsciously I was insecure, less confident about everything.  I did many things, and the easy stuff that came and most naturally, happened out of school in organizations and with people.

Today, maybe there’s a university that grants degrees in leadership, especially since so many claim to be effective teaching the subject. Personally, I fought taking on the mantle and continue to enjoy being a collaborator. I now know that leadership terrifies me, becasue I beleive leaders need to be clear in their vision, confident in their situational assessment and unwavering in their commitment to their team and the mission.

Several  times I held project and team leadership responsibilities, I found myself sabotaged. My team didn’t challenge me or push back, it was my associates and peers in other roles or parts of the organization, and even at times my own boss.It wasn’t that they disagreed. More often it was the changes that the success of my intiaitve implied for them, changes they didn’t want to make, even if the changes actively improved the organization’s positioning.  Now occassionally, they had better sight lines than I did. Just as often however they didn’t want to ponder the implications and preferred to shut down the intitiave, impede changesthat disrupted the smooth steady flow of their own projects.

Professionally, and personally, I had been taught not to speak out of turn, and that it was best to find the right time and place to raise objections.  In other words, a public meeting may not be the first time to challenge a colleague or a superior.

Many people are surprised most by the passion and persistence that occassionally emerges when I do feel in command of my subject. It rouses and inspires them.  Unfortuanately I don’t feel that consistently, so many who know me, see and experience something else. That voice needs confidence to speak, it needs purpose.  I may love an idea but until I know what to do with it, then it’s just a vague notion.

At present, in particular this post, I decided to share how using my voice in prose also helped me overcome confusion and reconcile inconsistencies in my thoughts and actions.

It’s not what you know, but what you practice that counts

Grammar annoyed me. It was a dull subject with seemingly annoying rules and my bad experiences stopped me from learning. I did well in school but not as well in English, becasue I  never fully assimilated the basic lessons. Rather than learning how to improve, I got angry at all my mistakes and lost my confidence and along the way muffled my voice too.

I recognized great writers by thir prose and persuasive narrative but never saw the effects of the underlying grammar unless, the author exaggerated it for affect.  My inability to see these signs meant I didn’t try and work them out for myself until decades later.  My writing remained less effective, less convincing and less committed.

In contrast, my graduate professor in statistics challenged my lack of commitment to learning and excelling in her classs.  I spent hours in the math library learning the notation to keep up with the matrix algebra that execeeded my formal math studies in basic calculus. I learned to feel the different effects that only practice produces. Likelihood tests and probability colors my thinking and establishes clarity that today I appreciate as akin to the effects of active prose.

Our will, our intention and our purpose expresses the likelihood of our followthrough.My senior year in highschool I took an advanced literature course from an english teacher my oldest brother revered. I like to think she drummed out the word I from my prose.

For decades, the pronoun One replaced I. Yes, it was gender neutral and I think that was its one saving grace. In additio to the distance it added to my voice, I no longer expressed my thoguhts or feelings but rather the thoughts, feelings or actions by those omnipresent, or omnicient–the ones.

It’s fine to use third person. After all, this voice appears most most commonly in storytales. Goldilocks does, so do the bears, and so does Red Riding Hood, Hansel and Gretel every other character. What makes the story work for me is it’s use of active voice, that allows the reader to play along AS IF they too were that character. It’s in the active, direct prose that I now recognize but missed understanding and thus failed to practice.

More directly, my present experiences and payment for writing made me up my game.  It made me commit to learning and understanding.

Let me correct that. The faith of the marketer who offered me the job, in fairness had seen some of my writing but he also demonstrated the value of great prose.  After submitting a very hasty first draft long on creativity and very short on grammar, I got a single request.

“Tighten it up.”

I had no idea what they meant,what I needed to change or where to begin. The last thing I needed to do was show my incompetence, so  I turned to my colleagues of experienced writers to guide me.

One buddy asked “what’s your process?” I couldn’t answer that questions which led to a series of additional questions on both sides. The more I didn’t know the sooner I realized the depth of my inexperience.  The downside of blogging? It’s the absence of direct feedback that makes you a better writer.  Conceptually I knew about thesis statements but had never consciously tried to use them in a cogent, organized fashion.

Suddenly, years of prompts and suggestions made by lawyers and other active readers of my writring flooded back to me.  My arguments were delayed, I had been a weak communicator becasue I overwhelemed the reader with detail and never disclosed my purpose clearly up front.

After struggling mightily alone, a friendly call arrived just in time.  Another friend and occassional collaborator offerd to coach me through.  She held my hand, read my prose and succinctly pointed to examples of indirect reasoning and endless rationalization; that could be summarized in a short direct phrase. She helped me see how my sentences would benefit from  better grammar practices.  Her beautuiful quick examples used the active voice. Another lightbulb helped me see more clearly what I needed to do and how to do it too!

Suddenly, I could see my poor grammar, my awkward phrasing, and my habits encircling  a point and take the steps needed to correct them.

Tighten became a directive for simplicity. I could see where I confused presenting a fact and thinking aloud. My readers didn’t benefit from learning  my situation that led up to the analysis, they cared about the analysis.

In closing, it’s easy to read good writing and it’s easy to understand too. If you know what you want to say, then you can write it, and you shouldn’t be shy about it either.

If you don’t then whatever you write will waste yhour reader’s time.

Blogs are fine for thinking out loud, exploring what you want to say. Do yourself and your readers a favor, before you hit publish, take your closing points and put them at the top.  Then reread to be sure the prose you keep follows and supports that point.

Aat the very least, maybe, like me, it will allow you the practice needed to improve your writing.  Why else do you blog, if not to communicate your thinking more effectively?

 

Are you looking for a recipe or a map?


Problems are like Puzzles, both I think are well named, because there’s no implied process.  No approach that everyone instinctively finds or consistently produces a quick result.

Most common approach to problem solving suggests that it gets broken into smaller pieces.  Why? Does a pattern emerge? Or, can you determine a relationship between the different pieces once separated? It sounds like a puzzle, doesn’t it?

A jigsaw puzzle, it turns out defies this process.  At an early stage of our process, after just a few attempts, we recognize that finding the edges first makes assembly of the puzzle easier.

rubrics cubeRubrics cube, or its predecessor the four cubed puzzle–Instant Insanity, and its multi-dimensions add degrees of difficulty. The individual variation in the blocks make the solution difficult. Conceptually the puzzle’s solution includes deciding on the pattern to produce, and then setting the sequence in the cube face to match.

Crossword puzzles, one of those things that people take great pride in their ability to be fast at completing.  This type of puzzle is multi-layered patterns.  One its’ the pattern of answer to match the clue, and there’s an insider advantage from practicing, the other is the words that fit the number of empty boxes, or has a particular letter in a particular place that allows it to leverage words it crosses.

Now look at a map.  It has edges that easily extend, if it’s a mobile dynamically linked map or not, or you know connects to a larger representation that’s known.  In other words, maps help you see a larger reality in a glance. It expands your view of a landscape or a system.  Maps and blueprints both lay out another perspective.  We apply many rules to create and understand the representation. For example, scale, the ratio of an object’s drawn size to the object’s size in reality helps us visualize the inter-relationships of objects from a different perspective. One inch can represent a mile, or a thousand meters.

Creating maps are more of a puzzle than reading them.  The same is true about a recipe. If you know what you want to make, then a recipe provides the list of necessary ingredients and the instructions for assembly.  It too incorporates a scale, so much of each ingredient when combined will create x number of servings.  Most recipes scale easily you can increase the number of servings by apply the same factor to each ingredient.  A recipe that serves 2, doubled now serves 4.  Retaining the proportions of scale allows us to zoom in or zoom out to see more or less mapped details.

Process, the method or approach that literally advances our thinking our understanding or activity turns out to be a bit of a puzzle.  It’s exactly why framing a problem matters.  As I learned last week, when asked to assemble into an 8×8 array 64 small tiles with white and black geometric patterns. There was one rule. Each edge of the tile must match the colors on its adjacent edge face. This was not a solitary task. My team effort comprised people who sat nearby but were strangers. We had 30 minutes. In addition, we were to estimate our progress at 15 minutes, and use the same estimation method at 30 if we were unable to complete the task.

The objective was clear as day. Our team of six suggested that the task sufficiently resourced to tackle 64 pieces. The thirty minute timetable sounded reasonable.

That was until we realized we had no methodology, no way to organize the six people and their skills, perspectives or background. We also lacked the means to identify what this particular challenge needed, and therefore we had no experience to assess the amount of time needed to complete the task.

Brave and trusting souls that we were, we didn’t waste any time before everyone began to move pieces in front of them. Each of us set out to understand the task by doing.  Quickly, suggestions began to spoken aloud. “We could assemble a small section, and then attempt to put the sections together.” Quickly, the group determined that approach too challenging. Instead, we opted to lay out one edge and build out the array.  Well we didn’t finish in the 30 minutes.

Did we fail? Not really, because each of us learned something new about process. More accurately, we paid attention to one aspect of process–one that generally we overlook, but proves essential to the solution. When breaking bigger challenges into smaller pieces, we don’t pay much attention to how those pieces once connected. These interfaces, or places and mechanisms that connect the pieces turn out to be essential to building on ideas, a recipe, a structure, a machine or even a city.

“How” different or even the same things fit together isn’t straightforward. It definitely helps to have an objective. Highly specified objectives make the solution easier to recognize and more difficult to achieve. Loosely specified, sparsely details objectives generate a greater number of solutions and may create a new problem, selection.

There’s an art to balancing the specificity of an objective and the skills and possibilities available. Each of us leans on our past experience and know-how to face new tasks and tackle new problems. For a new or unfamiliar task, we may find comfort in narrow specifications, easily achieved and successful solutions recognizable. Its part of why we often try what we know before trying something new.

Thankfully, we also get bored with too much repetition. We enjoy variety but also willingly engage in many routine tasks to save ourselves time and energy. Accepting the trade-off of early or later specification changes the difficulty of the task and our ability to solve it efficiently and effectively. It’s what differentiates innovation from improvement, learning from reacting and leading from managing.

Try it with different materials with your own team and discover more about your own internal how thinking and motivations. I encourage using play things—spaghetti and marshmallows with the instruction to build a tower, or small groupings of identical pieces like Lego that you invite everyone to build their own tower. Assign the open, but limited time task. Give people an opportunity to share what they did and engage a wider conversation about process dos and don’ts. It’s not just a great team building activity, it’s also great leadership and management development exercise. I’d love to hear back what you did and what happened as a result.

Refreshing Core Values


asset_upload_file537_21063

Remember the  expression built to last? It was an expression that my grandparents used to differntiate value.  What I saw as an old tool, or piece of basic furniture or clothing they valued.  The phrase also describes capabilities and inherent qualities that stand up, endure over time surviving changing conditions.

The ups and downs of the stock market represent value differently. Analysts love to pounce on companies when they stumble. The bigger the company the better the blunder and the better for the Bears.  Retail food and department stores currently appear to be under heavy fire these days, even brands and companies that dominated their industry.

So what value should you seek? Investors seek returns but don’t always consider the long term costs, do they? Does sustainability really matter?

I suspect some of these thoughts  led Jim Collins and Jerry Porras to title their 1994 book Built to Last (BTL). Sure they may have thought to follow the example and success path set by Tom Peters and Robert Waterman  whose titled 1982 research project  In search of Excellence also became a best seller.

Sadly, in writing the book Collins and Porras did what other well-meaning authors do. They put a priority on pithy copy over substantive analysis. In short, they wrote great stories.  In fact they went so far as to feature the CEO as leader/hero.  Their research (see sidebar) to distill what made companies visionary  was refashioned into a great read.  Nothing wrong with a great read, unless the reader confuses the story for prescriptive advice and your analysis turns out to be a bit superficial.  If you think I’m being harsh, consider these comments:

Martin Maneker, Collins and Porras publisher put it this way in the Daily Beast in 2009

“the heart of the Good to Great philosophy is that disciplined people, engaged in disciplined thought and taking disciplined action, have the greatest chance at success.”

Or in Collins own words on his website  posted in May 2009 about his book Why the Mighty Fall :

“[Porras and I were ]discussing the possibility of a project on corporate decline, in part because some of the great companies we’d profiled in the books Good to Great and Built to Last had subsequently lost their positions of prominence. On one level this fact didn’t cause much angst; just because a company falls doesn’t invalidate what we can learn by studying that company when it was at its historical best.”

Or Consider  Fast Company’s look at BTL 10 years post publication written in 2004:

“ at least 7 of BTL‘s original 18 companies have stumbled (8 if you’re cynical about HP) — scarcely better than the results you’d get by flipping a coin.”

In other words, the fundamentals that stand the test of time more likely due to discipline or luck. Sorry that it’s not the five that Collins and Porras research efforts describe.

So why did Jennifer Reingold and Ryan Underwood in their Fast Company retrospective review of this highly influential business book try to salvage its essence? For the same reason that these books continue to inspire and continue to be best sellers.  The Fast Company authors looked beyond the company profiles and focused on the stated principles.

As pointed out earlier, Collins and Porras in later editions had to qualify their original findings in the preface. Collins’ later writing also back pedals with post mortems describing how his BTL companies had lost their way.

I’m not the first to question the relevance of the principles to demonstrate the thesis of the book. In fact Collins was well aware of the criticisms leveled at Peters research, and why they adopted matched pair design for their own research.

What bothers me is how story telling hijacked the writers’ judgment.  For example, why use distinctive new prose when citing the principles?  The better to make believers and best sellers, that’s why.

Long before social media, Collins understood the power of language. Catchy language could  impress the ideas on his reader but also fuel fan sales, and  “word of mouth.”  Consider one of his most famous original phrasings:

“A Big Hairy Audacious Goal, or BHAG, a long-term vision that is supposed to be so daring in its scope as to seem impossible. “

It’s in these language choices that I begin to feel the book tilt.  BHAGs  conjure really ugly images.  Who, other than a hero, would dare to take on something ugly? Personally, my criticisms side with Reingold and Underwood.  Even by 2004, the BTL principles seemed less relevant in the face of massive consolidation, global outsourcing or even disruption that shifted the business environment.  But the descriptive principles they coined failed to capture the essence of deeper qualities that underlay any organizations success, ones my grandparents would recognize.  I’m talking about  people believing in people.

Recently, I attended a local meeting of the Private Directors Association. I heard a panel of three CEOS talk about their 100 year old companies.

At the close, each of the CEOs identified factors they thought helped them survive. Profitability never made their list, nor did any pithy phrases tumble from their lips.  The single repeated understanding described their commitment to people and values.  Not only have these companies experienced low employee turnover over the life of the company, they shared unusual views about proper compensation and invested heavily in training.  For two of the three, visible diversity on their boards had been a conscious decision in the most recent period.

Another notable common thread described their recognition of business value–that goods and services they offered should always exceed the price customers paid.

Pride of ownership too dominated  and was demonstrably evident in each of these companies successes though  Mead&Hunt now employee owned and operated, and the other two remain family owned and operated.  Each and every company pointed out their expectation of modest returns and willing attitudes toward change and adaptation.

In other words, missing from the conversation was the idea that any of them expected to use the business as a vehicle for generating great wealth.

A friend pointed out that mid-market company values, at least evident in the mid-west,  don’t seem to match those of corporate America.  I wouldn’t go that far. Particularly since these companies were all privately owned, its difficult to measure them using the criteria that BTL employed– 10x returns on stock price.  Not a one would be considered leaders in their industry.  Even Mead & Hunt which is employee owned understands that returns on their own capital rely directly on production and interaction with customers and not financial shell games.

Kevin Boyle, the CEO of Schulze & Burch, “the biggest baker of toasted pastries in the US” typified the distinctive attitude of these companies.  Here’s how he answered an investment banker’s inquiry about how  growing valuations and M&A affected his business.   “Keep doing what you’re doing,” Boyle said, “it’s good for me and keeps my cost of capital down, and also minimizes my competition.”

Had to laugh at that.

If you are curious Wikipedia’s list of the oldest  surviving companies found many that began before 1300  and not surprisingly they were primarily service businesses, and remain small– as in less than 300 employees.  This list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_companies

Pushing 60, McDonalds needs more reinvention than its latest face lift


Successful change initiatives often result from a deeper understanding of the problem than the questions that initially emerge when something that should work doesn’t.

For example, Does McDonald’s need an activist investor? This question posed by Parke Shall  today suggests McDonald’s may be in need of a more in-depth analysis. One that   looks beyond the basic data level and requires capabilities and alternative perspectives than those currently at the helm . This deeper thinking would take stock, examine the array of assets tangible and intangible as well as the various factors or flows in order to depict the present working dynamics that produce the present situation. For example, the following conceptual view by Donnella Meadows  and her corresponding outline of effective leverage points offers one such perspective.

State of the System

From Meadow’s perspective, data happens to be one of the least effective leverage points and big data is no exception.  After all data alone merely describes what is, was,  or what may result when applying particular assumptions.

Parke Shall isn’t the only one wondering what McDonald’s can do to appease its investors after a year of declining sales. The complexity of managing and formulating strategy have proven difficult for the chain whose market capitalization and earnings exceed those of several small nations.  It’s precisely why internal decision-making and long standing alliances may require more leverage points and even the most effective in changing outcomes a complete paradigm shift.

I’m Not Lovin' Itif it were up to a few active social media savvy shareholder and mommy bloggers, the changes begin with focusing less on appealing to children’ts natural weaknesses and interests.  When the executives got caught up denying that Ronald McDonald’s visits schools only to recall seeing him present, she had to ask a question that resonates with analysts and shareholders alike:

Are the executives at McDonald’s completely out of touch with reality?

It’s just one of a series of signs that suggest the leadership team and operating  executives appear trapped.  Their understanding and sense of how to make necessary changes that may put  their business on a more positive, sustainable path seems to be stuck in time and experience that no longer resembles the present or the future.

The signs

Millenial challenges reported by the Wall Street Journal in August 2014 tops the list of signs that McDonald’s seems to have lost its relevancy with a key demographic.  Ad Age reported that among Millenials McDonald’s didn’t even make it into the top 10 list of restaurants, though overall they remain the #1 fast food chain. For millenials eating patterns wsj 2014McDonald’s there’s significant impact not only across their 35,000-plus global locations, but its flat or falling sales of the past year for restaurants open at least 13 months, this hurts the US hardest where 40% of its locations exist.

Current CEO Don Thompson replaced the head of the US division effective October 15 with Mike Andres who in turn made additional changes in  the structure and leadership across the US.  The hiring announcement included appointing a new CMO and adding its first customer experience officer who quickly began to  usher new changes for the brand.  Beginning with Leo Burnett assuming their advertising responsibilities and refreshing a popular campaign.  Will these changes and renewed focus prove  significant  enough?  Today’s “lovin it” campaign launch hopes to earn back customers  and promote more positivity. 

Another traditional leverage point , McDonald’s long term relationships with key suppliers enabled mutual growth with product consistency and exclusivity.  Coca Cola, for example, has been a critical partner since 1955.  New York Times reported Coke’s contributions to a variety of successful promotions and innovations  McDonald’s introduced over the years, the smoothie being the latest example.   To what extent will suppliers participate in the extensive reinvention process? Given that Coca Cola has seemed to hit a sugar speed bump itself , this approach may be less advantageous.

This bring us to innovation at the menu level brings.  Widely acknowledged to prove challenging, the menu creep  throws off the rhythm of prep and compromises serve time, a key management metric and contributor to McDonald’s overall value proposition.  Expanding offerings such as  McCafe and McWraps, along with efforts to rebrand and position itself as more upscale may appease some consumers, but not clear these additions delivered sufficiently to slow if not deflect the falling sales.

Is McDonald’s too entrenched in the trappings of it’s 59-year old brand strategy?

The amount of  data  and analysts working on this task doesn’t identify a source or clear evidence of higher level strategic thinking.  A 2012  Booz & Company case study of Wendy’s strategy noted McDonald’s had sewn up three key competitive advantages. Brand name recognition for the golden Arches holds an enviable 88% visibility internationally, which helps it win over price-sensitive consumers who also focus primarily on convenience.

Its US location density  places a McDonalds franchise at the very least within 100 miles of every consumer.  This limits acheiving new growth by adding new outlets. It may be why McDonald’s has increased its innovation capabilities beyond what the Huffington Post reported in 2011 were evident in its Romeoville innovation center where it develops, borrows and systematizes operations innovation.  This effort enviable to most corporations prototyped the extensive experience facelifts ranging from re-architecture and mobile ordering.  Still not clear there’s enough in the pipeline to turn the tide against   longer term trends of lost relevance and eroding sales signals.

Among 32,000 consumer reports subscribers, McDonald’s hamburgers came in last when judged for its taste against 20 rivals. This suggests that it’s not just the millenials who no longer find the fast food’s burger offerings appealing, thoguh burgers and shakes continue to draw crowds to other fast casual restaurants at higher price points too.

Bigmac sticker shock Fortune 2014The problem of sticker shock doesn’t impact Chipotle or other restaurants among the ever increasing fast casual segment, but it sure has hurt McDonald’s. As Fortune reported, the growing gap between the dollar menu and higher price points continues to widen making the higher priced items less attractive.

Changes to help the struggling chain regain its growth may require either  McDonald’s board and.or its CEO to resolve deeper structural challenges characteristic of complexity.   It will require some serious assumption busting, re-framing of the definitions of success and aligning more attributes with those characteristic of open systems environment.  No pun intended.  I do believe ramping up prototyping activities in Romeoville and  live testing of customization such as those in sourthern California will also help.

The evident discrepancy between McDonald’s goals and its shrinking share of the markets in which it operates doesn’t only create unease among its various stakeholders (e.g. customers, employees, its board and shareholders. This contrary indicators also reflect the inter-related operating decisions that constrain and limit opportunity while at the same time provide effective command and control that enhance efficiency but at increasing opportunity cost vis a vis growth.  Some of these indicators affect competitors as well as suppliers,  impacting factors that compete and complement American eating attitudes and behaviors.

For example, notice the changes in attitude reported  over the last nine years by International Food Information Council (IFIC) Foundation’s “2014 Food & Health Survey: Consumer Attitudes toward Food Safety, Nutrition & Health.”

Healthy food attitudes surveyed

This data merely exemplifies the changes in attitude over time and supports or disputes assumptionsin evidence by decision-makers running McDonalds.  It also shows how little the major facelift and experience initiatives matched, let alone change pre-existing attitudes about McDonald’s on items  corresponding to what Booz *company reported as core strengths for the brand.

These attitudes are not independent of each other and reinvention will require exercising leverage that cuts much more deeply than switching out leadership and introducing additional menu changes.   In other words, the complex tasks associated with increasing growth will require fundamentally different approaches than those available to smaller competitors or innovators carving out new space and creating  new categories.  Will their investors be patient and have enough confidence to believe in their existing leadership, only time will tell.

Goldilocks can help you face your challenges, will you let her?


photo (1)What’s the story? Today’s headlines continue to be filled with a persistent recurring behavior symptomatic of leadership failures.  Most of us are familiar with storybook tales and parables that remind us of particular lessons. No one wants to be The boy who cried wolf. Cinderella teaches us not to give up hope, and I’m sure you have an equally simple take away for the story of Goldilocks, aka the story of the three bears.

Have you considered using simple stories, and in particular the tale of Goldilocks,  to lead differently? 

I’m actually heartened by Mary T. Barra, because I think she gets this lesson. Today’s New York Times report on the ignition switch investigation suggests that unlike her predecessors, she pursued a different approach. This stands in sharp contrast to last week’s New York Times story Business school Disrupted where Jerry Useem offers a glimpse into Harvard Business school‘s decision-making around digital, online education.

How IS it possible that one of the most premier academic institutions in the world–with articulate thought leaders on key business issues related to Strategy, Disruption and Innovation– continue to cling to their old ways, unable to effectively transform themselves?  I’m not interested in their offering per se.  Their decision options resemble those of Fortune 500 business leaders when surveyed.  They find it difficult to pursue a path toward transformation, though failing to try, often cripples their organization’s ability to sustain value and/or their competitive advantage.

I see the decision dilemma as actually two stories. One, the tale of a lizard, or chameleon, and the second the universal tale of Goldilocks.

Steve Jobs sittingSteve Jobs, from what I’ve read, understood how to lead like a chameleon. By association the story of Apple throughout its tumultuous history can easily be interpreted as a lizard’s tale. Academics, however like many cogent, intelligent thought leaders resemble Goldilocks. Their training, the PhD process itself promotes competition, neither intentional antagonism or collaboration. Individual researchers training emphasizes objectivity, perhaps fearlessness, definitely curiosity. Still academics produce results relative to existing thought using an established process.  These predictable outcomes rarely achieve or encourage breakthroughs in understanding.  Occasionally, this process model when most forcefully applied manages to create disruption in existing domains. Leaders in these established environments rely on orderliness, offsite planning and reflective discourse. Failure to challenge their process makes them vulnerable to outside breaches that create havoc at multiple levels within their hallowed institutions and the underlying operating models their continued existence depends. Basic physics teaches that a body at rest stays at rest.  This lesson exemplifies the impact of complacency and comfort, and the necessity to avoid them at ALL costs.

Goldilocks isn’t a morality tale

Adaptation came easily for Steve Jobs , though in many ways he also behaved like a Goldilocks. Constantly moving and sampling new things until he seized on an idea that resonated with his core principles—simplicity , quality and durability, as in built-to-last. His passion for these principles when wrapped around an idea supported peer learning that enabled development of a powerful culture that made his ideas tangible. The Steve Jobs in Walter Isaacson’s book both hungered for new ideas, and was steadfast in his resilience. These qualities resemble chameleons, making it possible to adapt quickly to subtle changes happening in their environment. These thick-skinned qualities made him  tough, capable of weathering transitions and nurturing— both necessary to support transformation and sufficient to support sustainability.   The verdict remains out for Apple itself.

Goldilocks adapts too.  She makes do with what she finds but she herself never undergoes any transition. She changes her environment, it doesn’t change her. Her existence also depends on encounters with normally distributed choices. The variance around the norm makes her choices rational and predictable.  This may explain why her innocence makes us lose sight of the disturbances she leaves behind.

I don’t know what personality profile Goldilocks fits exactly. It’s why I believe today’s popular assessment tools used by many companies in their hiring practices to find cultural fit ultimately don’t matter.  How exactly do profiles help an organization survive? Leaders who worry about identifying Goldilocks may be missing what I find to be the more critical perspective in the story.

What about the story of Goldilocks resonates and endures? (see post two)

Personally, I think on some level, each of us behaves like Goldilocks.  We are often unaware of how our choices create a wake or disturb the system for those who follow. We prefer to limit the number of choices. Fewer options allow us to focus and ultimately find the points of contrast most relevant, or good enough for us now. Once we make the choice, we can keep going,  gain additional experience and be ready for the next opportunity we meet.

Goldilocks always finds a suitable, generally satisfying choice after sampling all of them. What would she do in a complex situation where the choices exceed her ability to sample? The absent inhabitants of her found environment don’t stop her from seizing the opportunity or indulging her curiosity.  Why doesn’t she hesitate or allow uncertainty to get in her way? When the Bears do return, Goldilocks flees and the narrative ends.

Of course, our experiences allow us to imagine the internal voices that often stop us from pursuing what we recognize could create difficulties for others.  A verbal exchange of assumptions often proves surprising and reveals greater diversity in perspective than any of us imagine. These behaviors Leaders need to cultivate and question when presented with Goldilocks canned results.

Ask Mary T. Barra if the risks were worth the time her predecessors saved shutting down alternative thoughts, questions left unspoken and open issues under examined? Does complacency in your process overrule critical thinking and exchange among peers of diverse perspectives? Should PhDs be reviewed only by the experts in their own domain? What are the principles that every report and process should adhere?

The challenge for management and leadership isn’t to isolate Goldilocks, but to encourage and nurture transformations and mindfulness .

Create value by sticking to principles and collaborating


I’ve been reading and writing a lot about creating value.  Value creation is what sustains our spirits as well as insuring us a livelihood. It preserves quality in our relationships as well as justifying our existence.

Does creating “shared value” accomplish the same thing?  creating value

A recent headline in the Financial Times challenged the premise of Michael Porter and Mark Kramer’s ideas on creating shared values caught my attention.  Corporate Shared Value, (CSV) conceptually seeks to align social impact and company success.  A very noble goal, akin to what John Mackey, the CEO of whole foods describes as Conscious Capitalism.  Andrew Crane’s Financial Times article merely wishes the CSV theory found its way into execution and not corporate report window dressing and lip service.

15 years ago, Frederick F. Reichheld  and Thomas Teal working for Bain Capital discovered that too few growth strategies successfully drove profits and explained competitive advantage. Since the traditional profit drivers failed to explain the discrepancy in performance, they turned to study costs.  Their research delved into a firm’s relationship between customer duration and its cash flow  and found the relationship also differentiated advantage. As they had eliminated one metric after another their discovery proved that value starts with building loyalty, growth follows and then profits result. Dual loyalty, they explained isn’t merely the reciprocal relationship between a firm’s leadership and its customers.  The duality extends to employees and includes relationships with investors.The Loyalty Effect: The Hidden Force Behind Growth, Profits, and Lasting Value published in 2001, detailed this research.  For businesses to focus and sustain this value creation process, the authors recognized would require fundamental changes in business practices including new ownership structures.

Porter and Kramer’s CSV theory in part recognizes a similar fundamental shift in business practices.  Their focus seeks to compensate for the historic failure of accounting balance sheets to report and record shared value as an asset.  Is it an output, or is Shared Value part of a  larger social movement?

Mark Cheng, Director of Ashoka UK and Ashoka’s senior advisor on social finance  explains the challenges in this article that appeared in Forbes, How Philanthropists And Investors Can Work Together To Create Social Change. He suggests, that trying to build a social innovation isn’t a company but a social movement and that’s why it requires very different investments.

To change consumer behavior whether you plan to build a new market or a social movement requires organizations to earn people’s loyalty to principles.  Reichhold and Teal explain these learnings as necessary to properly differentiate between creating measurable value and creating profits.  Porter and Kramer hope businesses will value social progress, but this alone won’t re-legitimize a business. A verbal commitment to value can’t create the cost-benefit advantages necessary to sustain the firm.

Social forces of loyalty can and often do bind customers, employees and investors. Indeed they serve as measures of  cash flow and indicate a company’s ability to deliver superior value. The interlocking set of a firm’s operating principles creates both a cause and effect which satisfies, inspires and engages all stakeholders to sustain the firm.

Alternatively, a collective solution and collaborative mindset that aligns around a broader set of principles or values clearly stated presents an opportunity to create shared value. Because the concept of shared value offers people the means to take part with the resources of a firm, these mechanisms also share in, and contribute to, the success of the wider social movement.

Cheng explains that different funders should rightly have different roles.  A social business partnership between a business enterprise and an NGO doesn’t have to compromise or tradeoff its economic goals for the benefit of social good.  Using philanthropic funds to cover start-up costs for the shared venture and utilizing the distribution prowess of the corporate entity is one way to make win-win social impact possible.

Social progress is difficult to achieve by a single player, however a shared operating model based on sound principles can be adopted and replicated to spread the changes more widely.  The goal for the business may be self-interest,  where self-preservation will be a result of its underlying value creation principles and relationships.

Are you getting my meaning?


Sense-making that’s what stories are all about. s
Surprisingly, few of us use this hardwired tool to our advantage. Having recently collaborated with several volunteers to respond to a grantmaker’s overly specified Request for Proposal (RFP), I found myself confronting the multiple meanings and associations around storytelling, from narrative to story sharing.   Was it  Mark Twain who said, ” I apologize for the long letter, if I had time I would have made it shorter?”  Well,  here goes.

It seems that too many of us confuse the message and messengers with meaning makers.  The volume of media outlets and social media sharing channels can overwhelm us and at the end of the day, one of the best contributions the journalism profession provides is the ability to tell a story and tell it well.  Sure the concept of a lead remains valuable as it easily converts into a tweet, or become the teaser to a blog post, right? But it’s the story not the lead that matters and here’s why.

Quantification, numbers, statistics and big data dominate the headlines and yet a powerful  story beats them all.  People are natural story tellers and our brain naturally likes and processes story very efficiently and effectively.  Story parallels the process in our brains that recognizes, sorts and responds to patterns. Our behavior is pattern driven which is another reason stories do more to add meaning than any set of spreadsheets, graphs or even simple analytic notation.

The power of a story

A good story resonates with us, because story literally provides context, perspective and almost always some emotional elements.  Even ambiguous stories are more easily understood than a set of precise numbers. For example, I was quite pleased to read that Janet Yellen the new president of the Federal reserve did something sufficiently unusual to prompt the Wall Street Journal to comment as follows:

While Ms. Yellen’s underlying message on Fed policy was unchanged, her delivery was striking. Central bankers tend to speak in terms of economic theory and statistics, in jargon better understood by investors and other economists than the broader public. Ms. Yellen instead exhibited a personal touch Monday by coloring her comments with experiences of three people who had struggled to gain full-time work.

 

She did what the best of us do when we want to convey a message that will be widely understood. She listened. She sought out specific meaning, rather than relying on her experiences and intuition.  In order to more clearly and precisely understand  what the present economic data the Fed collects really means, she asked people. She called up individuals who met the conditions the data suggested to tell her their story. She invited them to share how are they managing,  their background, work history, skill sets, experiences and feelings.

Her personal interviews provided her a greater grasp and deeper meaning of present economic indicators that “suggest the labor market is operating well short of its potential.”

Telling a story remains the most effective way to deliver consistent clear messages and impart more precise meaning. So she did just that, and it did enliven her message.  She reached out to talk and listen to several people and managed  ” to put a face on the challenges that are out there in the labor market”. Not only did she connect to the people who had stories to tell, she connected their story to help others understand more deeply, personalize the meaning of the economic indicators.

On its face, her inclusion of stories may appear as a politically astute maneuver.  After all, politicians have always found it useful to tell a constituent’s personal story and demonstrate conditions that justify the need or impact of a particular initiative.   Marketers do the same thing, especially when they use vignettes designed to match values people hold deeply and hope they will then transfer those emotions to the pitched product.

The power of narrative

Personally, I think Janet Yellen did something more.  Because she made the phone calls herself and wanted to really understand the reality that produced the numbers.  Isn’t that the first step in problem solving?  We all need to understand the situation more completely and rely on collectible facts to tell us what’s what.  The assumption that  indicators alone convey meaning can be quite dangerous.  On its face the momentary value of the S&P Index or the Dow Jones Industrial Average tell us nothing.  Its only in relationship to their past that we find significance.  Still additional context is necessary to draw meaning.  We try to co- relate measure of activity to news of the day and in this case we often obscure its meaning.  It’s in the qualitative, anecdotal descriptions that often lead us to understand and make new meaning of the measured results.

narratives have guided our work to inspire young people to connect with our community and been a vital tool in driving the significant change – See more at: http://ejewishphilanthropy.com/the-power-of-narrative-to-drive-change/#sthash.mzsnZ7P8.dpuf

Social enterprise and social entrepreneurs have made great use of narrative to help people connect to a community/cause and it also proves vital to driving change.  A personal story has emotional elements that attract and motivate others to go the next level. It can move individuals past understanding and conversation and inspire action. New tactics is a non-profit describes how it’s using narrative as a lever of change.

People and communities use stories to understand the world and our place in it. These stories are embedded with power – the power to explain and justify the status quo as well as the power to make change imaginable and urgent. A narrative analysis of power encourages us to ask: Which stories define cultural norms? Where did these stories come from? Whose stories were ignored or erased to create these norms? And, most urgently, what new stories can we tell to help create the world we desire?

 

The ability to engage

I came to revisit the narrative piece with help  from other astute observers who shared examples made possible by story.  One is Thaler Pekar  who writes for Philan Topic.  She invites organizations, particularly non-profits to try harder to understand not only the problems they are trying to address, but to dive deeper to understand why and what meaning a story they use carries.

It’s impossible to overlook the reality that even if you ask, and even if you listen what story you then tell represents only a partial truth. We fail because there is always the story we are not hearing. Nicola Hughes, a Knight-Mozilla Fellow explains this as unknown knowledge because any number of reasons, rational or cosmic may deny us access. The brain research on this supports what cognitive psychologists like Roger Schank have claimed for a long time.  Stories are a dialogue in sense-making.  We hear a story and have to reconcile it with what we already know.  Sometimes the story like a direct experience will help us expand and extend what we know, and sometimes we shut down.  Consciously we may refuse to accept but emotionally and unconsciously the message may still have an impact.

Janet Yellen wanted to effectively communicate not only the latest economic indicators, but also to signal that she understood and wanted to offer meaning and hope to her audience too.  The emotional elements that stories offer effectively engage us.  Use it to learn not just teach.

Getting to the future


Image

Everyone thinks about the future. The dreams of the Pilgrims  arriving in Massachusetts are no different from our individual aspirations for new possibilities and changing situations and circumstance. What new freedoms will be there,what will people be permitted to  think, wear, eat, live or DO?

My interests and passions to do what I can now to make things betters isn’t unusual.  The company I keep all agree in increasing possibilities and making changes that benefit more people, not just me and my family.  In the season of thanks giving, I’ve noticed the launch of a series of web sites  matching wishful doers with need serving organizations, and in the process create social impact.  The process used by these sites mimics many of the matching sites, whether its capital rich hedge funds seeking people needing to preserve and grow their capital, entrepreneurs on Kickstarter seeking funds to build their business or start their social impact match service. The technology itself minimizes the value of my personal network by making it possible for me to cast a wider net and build relationships that are not based on naturally limiting, real world contexts that form my identity, e.g. where I grew up or where I went to school, or my cultural, ethnic or religious ties. The stumble upon place or the sophisticated search to match my interests still rely upon individuals’ ability to influence others of the information’s value.  The  technology may be new but these resource matching problems are part of an ongoing cycle that doesn’t change, and the match solutions operate within the same system that create the resource gaps.

 

Where’s the change?

Snow appearing on the ground signals another recurring, predictable change, as does the falling price of the iPhone.  Outwardly, we show signs of adapting to this news.  Where you stand in the continuum of variation in response changes your understanding of the  most predictable of change’s magnitude.  It also explains why not everyone seeks to incorporate or welcome the change in their life.

When the obvious answer satisfies us, we ignore or suppress the possibilities that the change may be worth investigation. Changing temperatures or icy, snowy conditions difficult to miss and though we adapt and incorporate the obvious, we all adapt a little differently.  Our experience colors our understanding and response to the change.  Seekers go one step further.  They consider the choices others make and wonder if that too may be worthwhile for themselves.  They are curious about paths that open further possibilities or improve their status, conditions etc.

Seekers both experience and confirm their responses to transition moments by first learning and listening to others before sharing their own perceptions. Going beyond their  response to the change , they are conscious of the potential ripple effects.  Some look harder to find the likely path, similarly they may try to get out front and position themselves to catch the inevitable fall of the lined up dominoes. They don’t merely watch the event unfold, they try to connect what they see to a range of possible experiences and look for possible variations that happen beyond their immediate vicinity, situation or context.

Reporters,  when covering breaking news for example, share or retell what others experience in moments of change.  Often they are  hip or shoulder deep in the same experience as it unfolds, yet, they leverage and try to take advantage of their experience.  They try to reposition themselves for what will come next.  There’s an art to reporting.  It requires  piecing many different perspectives together to fill in what the participants, experts or contributors immersed in the experience overlook, misunderstand and maybe fail to identify.  Reporters are a special breed.  Their descriptive reporting shortens the distance between their audience’s detached experience and the actions and activity of their present surroundings.  Using their own senses to connect the meaning of other’s experiences they help their audience acquire a more complete, multifaceted view.

Multidimensional matters

Strategists and good consultants do this too. They leverage their experience while keeping one eye on the future.  They also help those stuck in the present to connect, hope and inspire an alternative set of prospects. Their job encourages explorations, cuts the distance between present circumstances, progress and a rosy future  for their client’s clients.  The lookout on the Mayflower merely let others know what was in sight before those on board could see it. No one would call these lookouts strategists, or leaders.  Lookouts can’t inspire people to acclimate, though they do warn them of what’s coming. Inspiration comes from a vision that transcends our fears and our expectations, not an easy task.

Today technology changes and innovations come at all of us faster than our ability to fully digest the last ones. Some of the effects cross connect, meaning that adoption of one makes it impossible to ignore the next.  Speed at which the connections happen make it simpler to stand by  and avoid participating.
No one is every fully ready for the future, but strategists can help in those moments of relentless change. their skills and experience naturally connect the dots, explore possibilities and overcome natural resistance.

Knowing your desires or dreaming about an idyllic world won’t get you to the future, though it is an interesting way to start. Regardless of what comfort level and satisfaction you feel with the changes as they occur in your midst, you need to take a wider view.  Challenge your experiences, raise your sensory awareness levels to uncover more possibilities.  Changing your perspective, point of view or the dimension in which you’ve come at the problem  guarantees your advantage as the future unfolds, and should increase the power of your risk assessment by virtue of your  wider stance.