Who should we insist wear Health Tech?

WEARABLE HEALTH TECH

Earlier this year ciChange hosted and promoted #inov8healthjsy and working with Jersey Business and Digital Jersey run a breakfast briefing, lunch networking and evening panel discussion on Health Tech and future opportunities.

I am really interested in this as someone who is a curator for TEDx (Technology Education and Design) I clearly have an interest in these matters. I am also a keen sports person so am interested in health and as an ex-programmer with a technology and change background I am fascinated by this new frontier, and the implications for corporates and individuals. See link 1 below.

MY OWN EXPERIENCE WITH WEARABLE HEALTH TECH

I recently have upgraded my Garmin to track my performance when I swim, bike and run and have always found it useful to monitor and measure both effort and recovery. I also maintain a training log and am aware of the impact of over-training on my mood and physical wellbeing. This of course makes sense for any athlete in training, so I suppose I am used to the merits of wearables.

I have recently also bought a FitBit which offers monitoring of food, water, activity and sleep amongst many other things. It will even connect me with friends to promote healthy competition. I recognise this is a more user-friendly and publically beneficial tool than the Garmin. Currently I find the greatest value in the FitBit is in monitoring my sleep (often over-looked as a vital component of a healthy life-style)

The former does improve the way I train, but the latter has had a more subtle but potentially more significant impact on my lifestyle. The future will be interesting.

SOME BROADER IMPLICATIONS

I heard on Radio 4 (but sadly cannot remember the programme / podcast) someone suggesting that not only will insurance companies be interested in wearable tech but also businesses may be curious to know if people are fit for the tasks ahead.

There are some insurance companies that already fit gadgets to the car to assess your driving, and we already have breathalysers to assess whether we should be behind the wheel. It can only be a matter of time before these judgements on our abilities are applied to professions.

With doctors and nurses working long hours and under incredible stress perhaps a good place to start would be the medical profession.

JERSEY IOD ANNUAL DEBATE

The Jersey IoD Annual Debate, which ordinarily attracts an audience of over 500 people, takes place on Thursday 17 September 2015 at the RJA&HS from 4.45pm – 9.45pm and is open to all islanders. Places cost £80 per person, including a supper, whilst a table of 12 can also be booked via the IoD Jersey Branch Officer on 610799 or jedirector@localdial.com. Further information is available at www.iod.je, the IoD Group on LinkedIn and by following @iodjersey on Twitter. See link 2 below.

LINKS
http://projectspeoplechange.blogspot.com/2015/08/inov8healthjsy-tedx-and-iod-conclude.html
http://www.iod.je/News.aspx?id=iod-annual-debate-2015#sthash.CKrT5Fzd.dpbs


The Author

Tim Rogers is an experienced Project and Change Leader. He is founder of www.ciChange.org and curator for www.TEDxStHelier.Com . He is Programme Manager for the commercialization of Jersey Harbours and Jersey Airport, and previously Operations Change and Sales Support for RBSI/NatWest, and Project Manager for the Incorporation of Jersey Post. He is also Commonwealth Triathlete and World Championships Rower with a passion for teaching and learning and is a Tutor/Mentor on the Chartered Management Institute courses. He is a Chartered Member of the British Computer Society, has an MBA (Management Consultancy) and is both a PRINCE2 and Change Management Practitioner.

Tim HJ Rogers
PRINCE2 - MBA (Consultancy) - APMG Change Practitioner
www.timhjrogers.com | Twitter @timhjrogers | Skype @timhjrogers | Mobile: 07797762051
Curator TEDxStHelier www.TEDxStHelier.com
Founder ciChange www.ciChange.org

Managing committees and shepherding cats

I have a love of sport and over the years have been involved in swim, bike, run, triathlon, climbing, rowing , canoeing and climbing. I have also been involved in the Island Games and the Commonwealth Games. Over an extended period and in different roles I have quite a bit of experience working with clubs and I can tell you: It can be hard!

Unlike businesses where they may be some functional or hierarchical organisation which suggests some rules of protocol, clubs can be a free-for-all based on personality and charisma, either positively or negatively.

Businesses will generally choose the product and customer base, which they collectively feel will best fit the business and the employees are expected to fall into line or leave. It is important to talk with staff, and union representation can be a good thing, but let’s be clear businesses are not true democracies!

The problem with a club is that your “employees” and your “customers” are one and the same, couple that with a pretty flat structure, and management is a non-going and tiring negotiation. People are passionate. Probably a lot more passionate about their sport, club or society than they are about their job. Sport is also a great social leveller so the best at swim, bike, run, triathlon, climbing, rowing, canoeing and climbing isn’t likely to be the best doctor, lawyer, accountant or other professional. This is an organisation where everyone thinks they are the CEO, and at the next AGM could well be the next CEO!

How do you cope?

I have previously blogged about Change Management in Clubs and Community (See link 1 below)

In that blog I offered a number of good examples of successful Change Management in Clubs and Community. The themes were broadly around my ideas including the following.

1. Having a vision, goal, mission or other lofty ambition is a good thing around which to rally people. Their focus becomes the thing to achieve rather than the people, personalities, cliques or cult.

2. Making change visible, tangible and real, is important so that it isn’t just words spoken or a directive written but something that touches people. This can be branding, logos, social media, notice boards, videos. There are all sorts of ways that you can change the environment and social perceptions to make clear that something different is happening.

3. Start making life easier. Improve the admin, streamline the processes, make communication and feedback easier. One of the problems of “selling” is that people push harder and this simply encourages people to resist harder. Often success comes from making it easy to buy, making the task easy to do, making the conversation easier to have. If everything is easier people will perceive it is better and they are more likely to endorse the people, processes and technology which go with that.

4. Reach out and recruit allies. It is important to recognise that it is unlikely that you’ll get someone who if 100% negative about your change to be 100% positive about your proposals. But maybe the people who are 60:40 might tip to 40:60. The idea is to create a tipping point, not to convince 100% of all the people. Careful curatorship and stakeholder management can help, particularly where you can create alignment between individuals ambitions and goals of the organisation: for example a “youth team” a “masters trophy” or something similar.

5. Give people a role and a reputation to live up to. The devil makes plans for people with idle hands and keeping agitators busy doing stuff for the benefit of the club is likely to be a better employment of their energy and generate some kudos for them if they are the “organiser for the XYZ event”.

6. People who are great “people people” should be made captain of this, team leader for that, person-in-charge of the other. These will be the orators and communicators of your vision and values. Others may be better directed to tasks (well away from the potential of creating a mutiny) and they can work independently on “special projects”.

Satisfaction is the enemy of progress

The challenge of the above is that what do you do after you have steered the ship away from the rocks and there is no imperative, no urgent action required, nothing to galvanise and focus the troops?

I have seem a club virtually disintegrate through lack of momentum or passion. The club still exists like a shabby corner shop surviving in the shadows of supermarkets and on-line retail. They have faded trophies, nostalgic membership and know full well that once their tenure is over the doors will close for the last time.

In these circumstances you are likely to have a power struggle or identity crisis. The questions will be “Where do we go from here?” and the response is likely to be “Do we need to go anywhere?”. It’s like being at a crash scene in a desert, are you better staying put, or striding out?

As a leader in these situations do you split the group or stay together. If you split the group, are you the one who stays put, or ventures out?

I have to admit I have a bias for action. This is not necessarily a good thing!

When it comes to shepherding cats, I’m likely to start walking and see who follows. If they choose not to then that is their prerogative and not my responsibility. My duty has to be to the ones that do follow, because if they are following I am their leader.

LINKS
http://projectspeoplechange.blogspot.com/2013/05/change-management-in-clubs-and-community.html



THE AUTHOR

Tim Rogers is an experienced Project and Change Leader. He is founder of www.ciChange.org and curator for www.TEDxStHelier.Com . He is Programme Manager for the commercialization of Jersey Harbours and Jersey Airport, and previously Operations Change and Sales Support for RBSI/NatWest, and Project Manager for the Incorporation of Jersey Post. He is also Commonwealth Triathlete and World Championships Rower with a passion for teaching and learning and is a Tutor/Mentor on the Chartered Management Institute courses. He is a Chartered Member of the British Computer Society, has an MBA (Management Consultancy) and is both a PRINCE2 and Change Management Practitioner.

Tim HJ Rogers
PRINCE2 - MBA (Consultancy) - APMG Change Practitioner
www.timhjrogers.com | Twitter @timhjrogers | Skype @timhjrogers | Mobile: 07797762051
Curator TEDxStHelier www.TEDxStHelier.com
Founder ciChange www.ciChange.org

Public sector reform: Net saving £4.2m subject to States funding £3m

Public sector reform: Net saving £4.2m subject to States funding £3m


CONTEXT

The states of Jersey are seeking to address a funding “black hole” c £130m in part by a series of HR initiatives (£70m) including the following…
• Pay restraint
• Vacancy/attrition management
• VR (Voluntary Release)
• CR
• Service redesign – Lean /eGov /mergers
• Outsourcing
• Regulation
• Stop doing

The purpose of the Voluntary Release Programme initiated 1st June 2015 was to enable:
• employees to apply to leave employment on a voluntary basis
• organisational change and efficiency savings to be made

The Programme was open to all permanent employees of the SoJ across all Pay Groups with a minimum of 2 years service.

PROGESS SO FAR

A total of 329 expressions of interest were received, 129 applications were submitted to the VR panel and 104 have been approved.

The Council of Ministers has approved funding of £2 million in 2015 which has been made available to fund the release packages for 52 of the approved applications. The packages for the remaining 52 employees have been confirmed subject to States Assembly approval of funding later this year and in 2016.

52 – released in 2015 £ 2m
52 – subject to States funding £ 3m
10 – pending
Net annual recurring saving £ 4.2m

Until SoJ has redesigned its services it can’t rule out the possibility of further voluntary release programmes and compulsory redundancies, but it will continue the dual approach of careful vacancy management and using natural staff turnover rate of around 6% to minimise the need for redundancies.

REFLECTIONS

Whilst I commend the States for achieving the net annual recurring saving £ 4.2m I am perplexed why the approach has been to first shed staff and then later pursue service redesign.

Would it not have been better to start with service review and decide what services must, should, could be provided by the States and which might be better outsourced, left to private entities or simply discontinued.

Once there is clarity on service provision and priorities then service redesign can commence (looking at people, process and technology) and once that is complete you can look at the resources required (or no longer required).

The danger of having lost staff without having rationalised the work-load is that there are now less people to do the same amount of work without any clarity on whether that work is necessary. Furthermore this approach has lost some of the spare capacity, experience and expertise that might have been useful in the service review and service redesign phases.

I am not being critical of the staff reduction, but I do believe the same outcome could have been achieved with far greater savings had the approach been different. For staff to be leaving a more efficient and effective department surely has to be better than leaving one potentially in crisis.

Moreover the opportunities to push work into the private sector may have had the double-benefit of streamlining the public sector and creating growth and opportunity in the private sector.

That is not to say that this cannot now be achieved, but I think it will be harder without a “big picture” view of service provision and priorities and the resources to effect the change. It seems to me to be better to disband the team after the work is done, not before.

NEXT STEPS AND EXPECTATIONS

Losing 104 staff from an organisation of circa 7000 is only a start. It is nonetheless and important start, albeit that apparently the actual cost of doing this hadn’t been anticipated and has faltered “subject to States funding £ 3m”

I believe the real challenges and opportunities will come from the following.

• Service redesign – Lean /eGov /mergers
• Outsourcing
• Stop doing

I look forward with anticipation the financial targets and Five Year Plan for these initiatives which will deliver a more efficient, effective, streamline public sector.

THE AUTHOR

Tim Rogers is an experienced Project and Change Leader. He is founder of www.ciChange.org and curator for www.TEDxStHelier.Com . He is Programme Manager for the commercialization of Jersey Harbours and Jersey Airport, and previously Operations Change and Sales Support for RBSI/NatWest, and Project Manager for the Incorporation of Jersey Post. He is also Commonwealth Triathlete and World Championships Rower with a passion for teaching and learning and is a Tutor/Mentor on the Chartered Management Institute courses. He is a Chartered Member of the British Computer Society, has an MBA (Management Consultancy) and is both a PRINCE2 and Change Management Practitioner.

Tim HJ Rogers
PRINCE2 - MBA (Consultancy) - APMG Change Practitioner
www.timhjrogers.com | Twitter @timhjrogers | Skype @timhjrogers | Mobile: 07797762051
Curator TEDxStHelier www.TEDxStHelier.com
Founder ciChange www.ciChange.org

When neither teaching nor preaching works, how do you get people to change?

I hear and I forget. I see and I remember. I do and I understand. Confucius


REVERSING THE ROLES

I used to teach on the Chartered Management Institute Programme for NVQ4 and NVQ5. I would often spend time explaining how to write an assignment, how to do Harvard referencing, and how to ensure that they met the marking criteria and achieved their qualifications. I had varying degrees of success.

One day I decided to give the students an assignment for them to mark. It was a dummy one, but they didn’t know that. What I also gave them was the marking criteria and a stop-watch and explained that a tutor, examiner or assessor might have limited time to mark 50 assignments. I put them in my shoes and asked then to mark and return the assignment.

This proved interesting. First may people said they found it really difficult to match the marking criteria to what was written in the assignment. Others said that the assignment was poorly structured and that made it difficult to discern the key points (and marks). Remarkably there was not much variance in standards: what was a “fail” was recognised as such by everyone.

In the debrief they were quick to criticise the style, structure, content, punctuation, referencing and all the other criteria which cumulatively effect the mood and scoring of a tutor, examiner or assessor.

They go it! After they experienced what it was like to be on the receiving end they had an epiphany, and from that point forward my job became easier and their marks got better!

DO NOT TEACH OR PREACH

It is really difficult not to intervene when you see a situation you know you could “rescue”.

I am reminded of a story about Dave Brailsford….

“I am comfortable in a room getting a group of people together to thrash things around so we know where we’re going. The greatest danger for me is that I am a bit of an orchestra conductor. If I think the violinist isn’t quite in tune, the worst thing I can do is grab the violin and say ‘this is how you do it’, play a little tune which probably isn’t any better and hand it back. I’m not going to make things better and that person is going to feel totally undermined. When I see something not working, I find it very hard not to dive in. So when I was at the races, I found I got caught in the 24 hours that you are in and it just keeps rolling along. You want to get out of it and start looking at the medium term but unless you stop and come up for air you’re almost trapped.”

I have found that it is better to create interest, curiosity and a willingness to learn than it is to teach. This means my approach is more inquisitive, challenging, questioning than directive and my thoughts are laid bare for people to offer feedback or criticism.

This is often made easier as a consultant or interim because my legacy (and future work) is dependent upon the knowledge and experience I give freely, not the ideas that I selfishly keep to myself.

BEING A MENTOR OR FACILITATOR

If you are not a teacher, but you are enthusiastic about learning and development (yours as well as other peoples) you are probably a mentor or facilitator.

I recollect once being asked to “answer any questions and be a sounding board, but don’t do anything”

I found the role of being a facilitator challenging and rewarding. It was challenging because I was keen to offer my ideas, my experience, my solutions but realised that I must not do this. I found it rewarding because being a guide for their ideas, their experience and their solutions both broadened my understanding and upon reflection, told me why my ideas would not have worked.

With an increasingly knowledgeable, professional and educated workforce it is important to commitment, co-operation, collaboration and communication co-create the future. Pre-packed plans may be accepted or rejected depending on elements of trust and resistance to change, but it is my experience that people are always more willing when they are the architects of their future.

Suggestions, feedback and alternative views are very welcome.

LINKS

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/inside-the-mind-of-dave-brailsford-2615#4mJZ7cOyRzORcACo.99


THE AUTHOR

Tim Rogers is an experienced Project and Change Leader. He is founder of www.ciChange.org and curator for www.TEDxStHelier.Com . He is Programme Manager for the commercialization of Jersey Harbours and Jersey Airport, and previously Operations Change and Sales Support for RBSI/NatWest, and Project Manager for the Incorporation of Jersey Post. He is also Commonwealth Triathlete and World Championships Rower with a passion for teaching and learning and is a Tutor/Mentor on the Chartered Management Institute courses. He is a Chartered Member of the British Computer Society, has an MBA (Management Consultancy) and is both a PRINCE2 and Change Management Practitioner.

Tim HJ Rogers
PRINCE2 - MBA (Consultancy) - APMG Change Practitioner
www.timhjrogers.com | Twitter @timhjrogers | Skype @timhjrogers | Mobile: 07797762051
Curator TEDxStHelier www.TEDxStHelier.com
Founder ciChange www.ciChange.org

From Anarchy to Order – how IT decision-making could change

Below is text from a blog by Neil Wells, February 2013 (At that time he was Director of Information Services). I have re-posted (unedited) because I think it is excellent.

How do large and diverse organisations ensure that their information technology (IT) supports their performance goals? How can they ensure that the decisions they take regarding IT give the best value possible, and help the organisation to both grow and remain flexible? In many organisations, while senior executives try to address these questions, other parts of the business are simultaneously making decisions that profoundly influence the value of IT on the firm.

IT governance

IT governance is a process of aligning IT actions with performance goals, and assigning accountability for those actions and their outcomes. To be effective, IT governance must be actively designed, not the result of isolated tactical actions implemented to address that moment’s challenge. But how can this be achieved, particularly within the States of Jersey?

The MIT Model

We can perhaps learn from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Model. It categorises both IT decisions, and the groups, which take them.

The MIT Model identifies five categories of IT decision:

1.IT Principles: high-level statements about how IT is used in the business
2.IT Architecture: decisions about the organisation of data, applications and infrastructure to provide standardisation and integration
3.IT Infrastructure: decisions about the elements that provide the foundation for an organisation’s IT capability
4.Business Application Needs: decisions about the business need for purchased / internally-developed systems and applications
5.IT Investment and Prioritisation: decisions about which initiatives to fund, and how much to invest in IT


The MIT Model also identifies six types of decision-making structure. They are progressively decreasing in their degree of centralised IT governance:

1.Business Monarchy: the top business executives make the decision
2.IT Monarchy: the IT specialists make the decision
3.Federal: the decision is made by a combination of corporate centre and business units, with or without IT involvement
4.IT Duopoly: the IT specialists and one other group (eg business unit leaders) make the decision
5.Feudal: business units make independent decisions
6.Anarchy: decisions are made by isolated individuals or small groups, independent of their department or the organisation

Applying the MIT Model

After detailed research, the MIT study came to the conclusion that only three configurations of these decisions and decision-makers actually worked effectively for corporate IT governance.

Configuration 1 – A division of expertise respecting both technology and business specialisms

1.IT Principles: IT Duopoly - IT executives with individual business unit leaders make high-level policy
2.IT Architecture: IT Monarchy - IT executives decide on standardisation / integration
3.IT Infrastructure: IT Monarchy - IT executives decide on the infrastructure
4.Business Application Needs – Federal - business unit leaders decide together
5.IT Investments and Prioritisation: IT Duopoly – IT executives and business leaders decide on funding allocation

This model lets IT professionals get on with running the infrastructure (and be held to account for performance, naturally), while decisions on principles, business applications and investments are localised to departments / subsidiaries, advised by the IT senior executives. The result is that the corporate centre, and not IT, determines both the business needs and the diversity of business systems.

Configuration 2 – Respect specialisms, but control the overall costs

This is very similar to Configuration 1, except for Business Application Needs and IT Investments & Prioritisation:

1.IT Principles: IT Duopoly - IT executives with individual business unit leaders make high-level policy
2.IT Architecture: IT Monarchy - IT executives decide on standardisation / integration
3.IT Infrastructure: IT Monarchy - IT executives decide on the infrastructure
4.Business Application Needs: IT Duopoly – IT executives and business unit leaders decide
5.IT Investments and Prioritisation: Business Monarchy – corporate executives or business committees allocate funds

In this model, the overall IT investment portfolio is set by the business centre who will test the business case and value for money before approving any IT spend. However each business unit or department has more flexibility in its choice of applications.

Configuration 3 – Business decides together

1.IT Principles: Business Monarchy
2.IT Architecture: Business Monarchy
3.IT Infrastructure: Business Monarchy
4.Business Application Needs: Federal
5.IT Investments and Prioritisation: Business Monarchy

Under this system, IT delivers the IT, but corporate executives make all the decisions. This configuration relies on a high degree of understanding of IT in the business leaders in order to work.

What about the States of Jersey?

MIT found only these three models to be effective, so we should adopt one of them. The question is which one?

The States is a relatively small, geographically compact, but hugely diverse organisation with technically complex IT needs. This would quickly rule out Configuration 3 - the States does not work that way.

The most effective States of Jersey Configuration would resemble Configuration 2. IT Architecture and IT Infrastructure strategies would be decided by the States’ IS executives, who are accountable for performance, resilience and value for money. IS policies, business application needs, and IT investments would be decided and tailored by / for departmental leaders with IS executives.
Currently we mainly have departmentally-based IT decisions being taken and deployed. These fix tactical / critical imperatives at the expense of strategic synergies.

Moving towards Configuration 2 would involve a reform programme encouraging IT governance, but with two short-term caveats:

1.Business Application Needs decisions should be taken by a combination of corporate centre and business units in conjunction with IT executives and departmental leaders (a combination of the Federal and IT Duopoly approaches)
2.IT Investments decisions should be taken by corporate executives and department committees alongside IS executives and departmental leaders (the same combination, but with a greater emphasis on IT Duopoly)

The MIT research provides hard evidence for the importance of governance in all IT-related decisions. It is essential, therefore, that the appropriate configuration is adopted so that all the appropriate groups are properly consulted before important IT decisions are made.

THE AUTHOR

Neil Wells (Director of Information Services)
February 2013

Original Source

http://www.gov.je/Government/Departments/ChiefMinisters/ChiefMinistersSections/InformationServices/Pages/FutureInformationServices.aspx#anchor-0

Big change or small change? The more things change the more they stay the same?

Another saying also rings true: Those who do not study history are condemned to repeat it. Whether in government, business or personal matters, we all know of examples of people who, if they had only stopped to reflect for more than a moment, would have avoided making a mistake. If only…


Catching up with old friends

I recently caught up with some friends whom I have not seen for a while. Both work for the same organisation but one suggested that everything had changed since they last saw me and the other that nothing much had changed.

It struck me that there constants and change around us all the time and our perceptions are based on what we choose to focus upon. As someone passionate about outdoor pursuits I appreciate that the sun, moon, and tide are constant whereas the currents, wind and weather are always changing. This is clearly a factor of whether you focus on the big picture or the small detail.

When embarking on a change programme what you choose to focus upon determines people’s perceptions. If they are worried about change perhaps focus then on the constants that they can rely upon like a lighthouse guiding you in turbulent seas. If they are impatient about change then maybe confidence can be built from incremental steps.

The challenge of leadership is choosing the right narrative which will appeal, galvanise and through a sense of community and shared purpose direct effort.

Big change or small change

I am reminded that Dave Brailsford [Performance Director for Team Sky (Great Britain’s professional cycling team),] believed in a concept that he referred to as the “aggregation of marginal gains.” He explained it as “the 1 percent margin for improvement in everything you do.” His belief was that if you improved every area related to cycling by just 1 percent, then those small gains would add up to remarkable improvement. (See link below)

There is no doubt that we are creatures of nature and nurture and that changes in the environment have a cumulative effect on our perceptions, our behaviours and potentially our values and sense of self.

Roberts Dilts's Neuro-Logical Levels (See link below) suggests that the environment affects us, just as much as we effect the environment. If we are in a nice place (environment) with kind people (behaviour) and feel able (capability) and valued (beliefs) we feel good about ourselves (identity) and potentially feel fulfilled (spiritual).

Approaching from the opposite direction also holds true, if they feel confident, competent, able and valued people will be able to change the environment around them; either by charisma or practically by making physical changes. This is what people seek to achieve when we talk about “empowerment” but this often fails if the components are not aligned.

The above suggests then that the impact of small changes should not be underestimated. However is it better to do 100 things at 1% or 1 thing at 100% or maybe find a sweet spot somewhere in the middle? Conventional thinking says success comes from focussing on what is important, what makes the biggest impact.

This suggest that the grand gesture, the iconic project, the land-mark or milestone should be the focus of attention.

What is the best approach?

So should changes be evolutionary, from within through coaching, support, training, guidance and using incremental initiatives to effect change? Or should changes be revolutionary and fundamentally challenge assumptions and re-direct attentions?

Key factors

1. The circumstances of the organisation will make a big difference. If you’re heading for a crash something radical and rapid may be called for. If all that is required is a small change in course then better to maintain momentum and commitment with small adjustments.
2. The perceptions, experience and expectations of the people will be a key factor: if the people aren’t right and you have little time then a revolution and recruitment may yield faster and better results than a development programme. If your raw material is good the development will reward you with continuity, loyalty and commitment.
3. The impact on key stakeholders including customers, suppliers, investors etc., may be a critical factor. Their perceptions of the products, services, people and leadership will provide the context and potentially the imperative for change.
4. The style and ambition of the leader will have a huge effect. Whether they are there as a fixer for the investors seeking to build a leadership legacy or delivery commercial impact.

Perhaps surprisingly I have put the leader last, albeit that leadership has the biggest impact. This is because I believe that circumstances dictate the choice of leader. History tells us that when circumstances change then new leadership generally follows.

Suggestions, feedback and alternative views are very welcome.

Links

http://jamesclear.com/marginal-gains
http://www.communicatingexcellence.com/wp-content/uploads/neurologicallevels.pdf

The Author

Tim Rogers is an experienced Project and Change Leader. He is founder of www.ciChange.org and curator for www.TEDxStHelier.Com . He is Programme Manager for the commercialization of Jersey Harbours and Jersey Airport, and previously Operations Change and Sales Support for RBSI/NatWest, and Project Manager for the Incorporation of Jersey Post. He is also Commonwealth Triathlete and World Championships Rower with a passion for teaching and learning and is a Tutor/Mentor on the Chartered Management Institute courses. He is a Chartered Member of the British Computer Society, has an MBA (Management Consultancy) and is both a PRINCE2 and Change Management Practitioner.

Tim HJ Rogers
PRINCE2 - MBA (Consultancy) - APMG Change Practitioner
www.timhjrogers.com | Twitter @timhjrogers | Skype @timhjrogers | Mobile: 07797762051
Curator TEDxStHelier www.TEDxStHelier.com
Founder ciChange www.ciChange.org

#inov8healthjsy, TEDx and IoD conclude the biggest issues are: health and education.

Earlier this year ciChange, with Digital Jersey and Jersey Business ran an event #inov8healthjsy which included speakers from Samsung, and the former CEO of Barts Hospital London and BT Health Tech. The day which comprised a breakfast briefing, invitation lunch and evening debate was hugely popular and a great success.

This not only opened the debate about Health Tech and Innovation, but also re-sparked interest in e-Government and the opportunities for Jersey. Samsung’s promotion of its Partnership Programme heightened also local interest of Jersey being a centre for Health Tech.

Very shortly after #inov8healthjsy I attended TEDxStPeterPort, ahead of running TEDxStHelier at little later in the year. Included in the speakers at TEDxStPeterPort was James Maskell of Primary Healthcare, and here too there was great excitement about the future.

The videos from TEDxStPeterPort are be available here.
http://tedxstpeterport.com/tedx-talks-2015/

Finally, following TEDxStHelier I discussed with Andrew Green and Justin Donovan some of the ideas discussed and how they may be applied to Jersey. This included using the idea of BlockBuilders and virtual reality to get community involvement in the design of the new hospital. It included discussion on the future of education, based on the excellent talks of Sir Ken Robinson , Rory Steel, Paul Dunn and others.

We also had the privilege of having Joe Dickinson Social Innovator of the Year as one of our speakers and a man whose idea is sought after by many of the leading businesses including IBM and Samsung.

The videos from TEDxStHelier will be available from September

The confluence of these things have shaped the thinking for TEDx in 2016 and I have outlined our plans on the TEDxStHelier website. We are thinking about combining the health and education as the theme “tomorrow’s world”. We already have some ideas for sponsorship and speakers and aim to turn what started as #inov8healthjsy into something quite spectacular for 2016.

http://www.tedxsthelier.com/tedx-2016/

So with all this coming together nicely I am delighted to see that the IoD’s annual Jersey Debate will be on the future of our health and education. The debate includes many of those involvest in#inov8healthjsy, including Paul White, senior consultant and former CEO of BT Health London, Barts and the London NHS Trust

The Jersey IoD Annual Debate, which ordinarily attracts an audience of over 500 people, takes place on Thursday 17 September 2015 at the RJA&HS from 4.45pm – 9.45pm and is open to all islanders, including IoD members, non-members and politicians. Places cost £80 per person, including a supper, whilst a table of 12 can also be booked via the IoD Jersey Branch Officer on 610799 or jedirector@localdial.com. Further information is available at www.iod.je, the IoD Group on LinkedIn and by following @iodjersey on Twitter.

I look forward to attending.

For those inspired by the IoD Annual Debate, or interested in TED Talks and TEDx with particular emphasis on health and education as the theme “tomorrow’s world” please get in contact and be part of the shaping and planning for 2016.

THE AUTHOR

Tim Rogers is an experienced Project and Change Leader. He is founder of www.ciChange.org and curator for www.TEDxStHelier.Com . He is Programme Manager for the commercialization of Jersey Harbours and Jersey Airport, and previously Operations Change and Sales Support for RBSI/NatWest, and Project Manager for the Incorporation of Jersey Post. He is also Commonwealth Triathlete and World Championships Rower with a passion for teaching and learning and is a Tutor/Mentor on the Chartered Management Institute courses. He is a Chartered Member of the British Computer Society, has an MBA (Management Consultancy) and is both a PRINCE2 and Change Management Practitioner.

Tim HJ Rogers
PRINCE2 - MBA (Consultancy) - APMG Change Practitioner
www.timhjrogers.com | Twitter @timhjrogers | Skype @timhjrogers | Mobile: 07797762051
Curator TEDxStHelier www.TEDxStHelier.com
Founder ciChange www.ciChange.org

Does a successful tribe need management? Or is it better without?

I have recently taken up climbing and although a complete novice I am enjoying it tremendously. I am also a member of the rowing club, triathlon club and canoe club and have always assumed that long-term success depends upon training, development, performance and growth. But those assumptions have been challenged. Could the opposite be true?

My reasoning

My thinking is based on the idea that members come and go and to be successful clubs and societies need to recruit, nurture, support, develop and say goodbye. Inevitably this means catering for a range of membership based on age (youth, juniors, seniors, veterans) and a range of talent (novice, intermediate, advanced, elite). The successful clubs and societies may have separate sections or sub-committees to manage the differing needs, expectations and challenges but overall having the right balance makes for a good community who have a blend of talent and experience to be able to help each-other.

Clearly a club of 3 members is unlikely achieve the above, and one of 3000 is likely to be far too big to be manageable. Most clubs and societies are like tribes and have their own cultures, rules, rituals and relationships and, like most tribes, work best when active membership is between 100 to 250 (See Link 1 below).

It is interesting to note that most people on Facebook have 150 friends, Linked-In assumes most people have < 500 connections. Most weddings apparently have 100 – 150 guests. There appears to be accepted boundaries for the size of a tribe and if membership goes beyond those boundaries we see splits and divisions. Notably there are so many people cycling in Jersey that we’d seen the number of bike clubs go from one to two, and then when each of them had more than 100 members then fragment into 5 separate clubs.

On the basis of the above, I had assumed that any successful clubs or societies would aspire to have between 100 to 250 members and structure itself to offer opportunities to all the ages and abilities of that membership, with just the right amount of organisation to manage the communication, activity and culture that holds it all together.

The counter-argument

Interestingly the counter-argument is a little more laissez faire and proposes that the best communities and bonds are formed when people are tenacious enough to pursue their interests without formal organisation, training, development, support etc.,

In relation to climbing bigger equals more people. There are many crowded climbing venues now in the world. Where people queue for routes; Litter, erosion & wear all become issues with greater numbers. Not to mention conflict.

It has been put to me that “People who are genuinely interested in climbing find their way to us; People with a drive and commitment to go climbing. Come to us and we support them as they learn. They are not trained or drilled. They take time to learn themselves, with our input and advice, and they do it well. The door to this community is open, always, to anyone who is genuinely motivated to make the effort. This effort sorts things out well for us. It reduces the casual have a go people dramatically”

This approach is seen as an apprenticeship, without the need for investing time and effort. Albeit that apprenticeship is not for the young because that way there is no need “…to cater to child protection…” and “... we don’t have to attend training or fulfil any other criteria…”

After years of routine, regiment and training this no rules, no responsibility, community is actually quite appealing.

My climbing counsellor has ridiculed my orthodox thinking and concluded “We like our climbing community, we like it small, strong, colourful and individualistic. We keep our rules down. Climbers have historically been a little rebellious, anti establishment, individualistic, independent. When you’re on the sharp end of a climb, that’s what it takes the ability to think for yourself to move and to take responsibility for your actions. These traits are something a little different from your normal swimming club for example. As such climbers are not organised or structured, they are little difficult to handle but they still get out there and have fun, all the time.”

A new perspective

I find this new perspective interesting because it relieves members of any ‘obligation’ to help others and instead pursues the “sink or swim” approach to natural selection. It inevitably achieves the aim of keeping the tribe manageable without the need for management and relies on talent and temperament rather than tutors and training. Without rules or regime success is a function of resilience.

Maybe more organisations should operate like this?

LINKS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number

THE AUTHOR

Tim Rogers is an experienced Project and Change Leader. He is founder of www.ciChange.org and curator for www.TEDxStHelier.Com . He is Programme Manager for the commercialization of Jersey Harbours and Jersey Airport, and previously Operations Change and Sales Support for RBSI/NatWest, and Project Manager for the Incorporation of Jersey Post. He is also Commonwealth Triathlete and World Championships Rower with a passion for teaching and learning and is a Tutor/Mentor on the Chartered Management Institute courses. He is a Chartered Member of the British Computer Society, has an MBA (Management Consultancy) and is both a PRINCE2 and Change Management Practitioner.

Tim HJ Rogers
PRINCE2 - MBA (Consultancy) - APMG Change Practitioner
www.timhjrogers.com | Twitter @timhjrogers | Skype @timhjrogers | Mobile: 07797762051
Curator TEDxStHelier www.TEDxStHelier.com
Founder ciChange www.ciChange.org

5 Critical Steps to Understanding Customers.

We are all encouraged to focus upon the customer. The customer is king we are told. But I remember a great quote which got me thinking: “120% of our income comes from 80% of our customers” The clear implication being that the remainder are loss making! So what should we do about this?


There is so much written about customers and services that I am either brave or foolish to venture any of my own thoughts on the subject, however it does interest me and in management, leadership and change knowing and understanding your customer is as important as it is in product sales or service delivery.

WHO IS OUR CUSTOMER?
Think: internal, external, chooser, user, consumer, funder,?

For many items there are many customers with different names: consumer; user; client and more. It can however be useful to think of them in terms of their function or role in the transaction. They may be providing the money; specifying the criteria; doing the procurement; using the product/service or responsible for the outputs and outcomes which depend on that product/service.

There is no clear rule whom you might best schmooze to secure a sale. It may be the specialist setting the specification, or the finance person in charge of the budget, or the manager in charge of the outputs or outcome or the operative using the product/service.

Bob Hope once said that you cannot satisfy all of the people all of the time, but the surest way to fail is to try. So on the basis every circumstance is different your first challenge must be to determine who is (are) the key people who have real impact or influence to your product/service.

WHAT DO THEY WANT / VALUE?
Think: speed, price, quality, friendly, efficient, accurate, design, credibility, trust?

If you succeed in your the first quest the next will be to establish what is important to them. There is no point in your product/service being cheap, if what they want is quality. There is no point in your product/service being quality, if what they want is speed. Indeed what they truly value may be nothing at all to do with the product/service but based on their relationship with you.

This needs careful thinking because getting what you offer and what they want aligned is the secret to success but misalignment could create problems or risk. Compromise can be a good thing, but if you are perfectly aligned then compromise is unnecessary. Consider your people, processes, and technology as well as your product/service when seeking alignment with what they want.

HOW DO WE CHECK/TEST?
Think: meetings; surveys; poll; intranet; helpdesk; complaints?

If you get this far you are doing well. However never assume that you have got it right. Check.

In LEAN-Start-Up the suggestion is that rather than go the whole hog and do something 100% and then find out you are 100% wrong, better to do small tests along the way to check you are heading in the right direction. The LEAN-Start-Up approach is to have a Minimal Viable Product, and through testing and evolution develop something based on customer feedback. This is far better than spending all your time and money to launch something that is a flop.

Not only will this approach improve product/service alignment with the customer, but the discussion and iteration is also likely to improve your understanding and relationship with the customer, and in so doing build loyalty and commitment.

WHAT/HOW SHOULD WE MEASURE?
Think: Charter; SLA; KPI; logging?

Measuring customer satisfaction is a huge topic and there are so many ways to achieve this. However I hope that it is obvious that understanding who the customer is, and what they value is a necessary pre-cursor to checking their satisfaction.

Satisfaction can be judged by repeat business or sales, by positive feedback or negative criticism. Increasingly businesses recognise the value of social media as a method of measuring satisfaction. It goes beyond the scope of this blog to explore every possibility. The key thing is to consider what is best for your product/service and/or relationship. Formal, informal, quantitative or qualitative.

WHAT/HOW SHOULD WE IMPROVE?
Think: Kaizan, LEAN, Business Process Reengineering, other changes?

The LEAN-Start-Up approach which effectively is based in PLAN > DO > CHECK > ACT cycle should not finish but continue through the life of the product/service and/or relationship. Things change and people, processes, and technology all need to be revisited to make sure that they continue to align with product/service and/or relationship.

IN SUMMARY

1. Who is our customer? Think: internal, external, chooser, user, consumer, funder,?
2. What do they want / value? Think: speed, price, quality, friendly, efficient, accurate, design, credibility, trust?
3. How do we check/test? Think: meetings; surveys; poll; intranet; helpdesk; complaints?
4. What/How should we measure? Think: Charter; SLA; KPI; logging?
5. What/How should we improve? Think: Kaizan, LEAN, Business Process Reengineering, other changes?


THE AUTHOR

Tim Rogers is an experienced Project and Change Leader. He is founder of www.ciChange.org and curator for www.TEDxStHelier.Com . He is Programme Manager for the commercialization of Jersey Harbours and Jersey Airport, and previously Operations Change and Sales Support for RBSI/NatWest, and Project Manager for the Incorporation of Jersey Post. He is also Commonwealth Triathlete and World Championships Rower with a passion for teaching and learning and is a Tutor/Mentor on the Chartered Management Institute courses. He is a Chartered Member of the British Computer Society, has an MBA (Management Consultancy) and is both a PRINCE2 and Change Management Practitioner.

Tim HJ Rogers
PRINCE2 - MBA (Consultancy) - APMG Change Practitioner
www.timhjrogers.com | Twitter @timhjrogers | Skype @timhjrogers | Mobile: 07797762051
Curator TEDxStHelier www.TEDxStHelier.com
Founder ciChange www.ciChange.org

The difference between a task-force and a project creates significant behavioural issues.

Beware the difference between a task-force and a project. A project has a start-date, end-date, a budget and clear deliverables. However a task-force may go forever, use cash, and constantly find new things to do. This creates significant behavioural issues!


What is the difference?

Being a member of a project team puts people’s focus on the outcome or output of the project with a clear implication that success will come from completion on-time, on-budget, to-specification with lo-risk and hi-communication. The emphasis therefore is on getting to the end having met the criteria with the full knowledge that the team will dis-band thereafter. Relationships tend to be functional and based on the needs of the project.

Being a member of a task-force, is like being in a club where within boundaries you can decide the rules, outcome or output. A task-force to “improve x” can go forever because anything and everything can be improved. The relationship patterns are different and follow the recognised stages of forming, storming, norming and performing. Notably however relationship becomes a bigger factor in pursuit of longevity and in the interests of the members. This is potentially different from the potential tension or short-term friction which is tolerated in a project in pursuit of an end-point.

What is the problem?

We are all familiar with projects that seem to go forever: they are never quite finished; there is always more to do. These have become akin to a task force which rather than conclude and disband will perpetuate the membership as a pastime more focussed on belonging than delivering. People will boast about their membership rather than their delivery.

Projects are not without their challenges: pushing people hard for big goals in ambitious time-scales can be wearing, divisive and create friction and conflict which is only manageable because the challenge is exciting and rewarding and the pain is generally short, with a clear end in sight.

What is the best approach?

I am not sure that you can take the best of both worlds and apply since this compromise may fail the needs of both task-force and projects. Instead I would advocate being clear on which approach is best for the matter at hand. These are my thoughts.

1. If the intention is towards achieving a clearly defined goal, outcome or output then a project approach may be better.
2. If the intention is towards improvement or change then a task-force approach may be better since both improvement and change are constant and continuous processes.
3. To avoid a task-force becoming a “country club” there should be some parameters akin to project management. For example clear objectives for the period ahead, and changing membership as a catalyst for new ideas and a drive for completing tasks before the end of tenure.
4. To avoid a project becoming wearing, divisive and creating friction put in some key milestones and celebrate successes along the way. Use a “thank you” or a milestone party as a pressure release valve for social re-engagement.

Suggestions, feedback and alternative views are very welcome.

The Author

Tim Rogers is an experienced Project and Change Leader. He is founder of www.ciChange.org and curator for www.TEDxStHelier.Com . He is Programme Manager for the commercialization of Jersey Harbours and Jersey Airport, and previously Operations Change and Sales Support for RBSI/NatWest, and Project Manager for the Incorporation of Jersey Post. He is also Commonwealth Triathlete and World Championships Rower with a passion for teaching and learning and is a Tutor/Mentor on the Chartered Management Institute courses. He is a Chartered Member of the British Computer Society, has an MBA (Management Consultancy) and is both a PRINCE2 and Change Management Practitioner.

Tim HJ Rogers
PRINCE2 - MBA (Consultancy) - APMG Change Practitioner
www.timhjrogers.com | Twitter @timhjrogers | Skype @timhjrogers | Mobile: 07797762051
Curator TEDxStHelier www.TEDxStHelier.com
Founder ciChange www.ciChange.org

When is routine a good thing, and when is it dysfunctional?

When is routine a good thing, and when is it dysfunctional?

Routine can be a good thing. People are creatures of habit and “You are what you repeatedly do” as the saying goes. To add weight to this theoretical benefit of repetition “success is a journey not a destination”. However trapped in “we’ve always done it this way” and repeating cycles, roles, circumstances can constrain us. Madness is “expecting change, yet doing the same things”

My story

I am a creature of routine: as a triathlete I have my training routine; at work I have my daily routine and at home I have a domestic routine. Like everybody else it makes my life predictable and manageable, but I do like deviations, holidays, distractions and occasional surprises.

However with all these things we need to keep the objective in mind and be flexible. If I am training for a long-distance triathlon and I feel really tired, maybe that day should be a rest-day. If I am at work and a crisis happens, then maybe I need to re-prioritise and reschedule a bit. What is important is the outcome, not the process and flexibility along the way is essential.

Now this may all be very obvious. Indeed everything I have ever experienced in projects, management and change is obvious. So guess my surprise when this morning when driving to work after significant rain and much flooding I saw some contract gardeners watering the sodden flower beds along the side of the road.

What is the problem here?

I realise it is August and they possibly had scheduled Tuesday to water the flowers. However shouldn’t common sense kick-in and suggest that there may be other things of higher priority now that the circumstances have changed? Watering the plants after flooding just isn’t adding value to the outcome is it?

What lessons can we learn?

Of course this probably isn’t the fault of the gardener. This is the fault of systems and management which operate unthinkingly and without the flexibility to respond to circumstances. What do we need to do to make systems and management work better?

1. Manage the outcomes, not the tasks.
2. Allow people flexibility to achieve the outcomes according to circumstance.
3. Balance routine with random to accommodate both to best effect


THE AUTHOR

Tim Rogers is an experienced Project and Change Leader. He is founder of www.ciChange.org and curator for www.TEDxStHelier.Com . He is Programme Manager for the commercialization of Jersey Harbours and Jersey Airport, and previously Operations Change and Sales Support for RBSI/NatWest, and Project Manager for the Incorporation of Jersey Post. He is also Commonwealth Triathlete and World Championships Rower with a passion for teaching and learning and is a Tutor/Mentor on the Chartered Management Institute courses. He is a Chartered Member of the British Computer Society, has an MBA (Management Consultancy) and is both a PRINCE2 and Change Management Practitioner.

Tim HJ Rogers
PRINCE2 - MBA (Consultancy) - APMG Change Practitioner
www.timhjrogers.com | Twitter @timhjrogers | Skype @timhjrogers | Mobile: 07797762051
Curator TEDxStHelier www.TEDxStHelier.com
Founder ciChange www.ciChange.org