It's been a bad week for mbh this week. We've missed a number of proposals we'd submitted and with staff either sick or on leave, it's taken all our experience in prioritisation and workload management to make sure we keep supporting our clients to the same extremely high standard they've come to expect. Still for every bad week there tends to be a good one so after a couple of days of reflection, I'm now in the lessons learnt phase of the week. I always tend to learn more from things that go wrong than right.
This week's lessons are around proposal writing and having just finished a proposal 15 minutes ago ( and having committed to maintaining this blog) I thought I'd sign in and write down some random thoughts. After finishing the proposal, I asked my partner to have a read and give me her thoughts. Thankfully, she has far superior intellect than me and her communications degree certainly assists in challenging my arguments. Her comment this time related to the use of the term "hot" when referencing a product that is doing well at the moment. We have a four hour project planning course that takes people through a crash course in critical path analysis and network crashing. This course is very popular at the moment and I referenced this in the proposal as a "hot" product. My partner's challenge was "is this formal enough for a proposal" and my response at the moment is yes for when you are competing in bloody red ocean (which we are when it comes to PM training), one has to differentiate yourself as much as possible. However, as always, the doubts creep in.
Thoughts please, is using the term "hot product" too informal for a business proposal?
Showing posts with label business case. Show all posts
Showing posts with label business case. Show all posts
Thursday, July 09, 2009
Monday, September 08, 2008
examples of problems that need an end state
What I love about mbh and my role in the company is that we often get involved in developing cases for companies and governments to invest in potential solutions. What is frustrating, as per my previous post, is the lack of an overall guiding goal or end state to weigh up the worth of these investments. There are many large problems facing society that are being commented on in the mainstream press. What is often lacking from these commentaries is the end state or new world that we are trying to achieve.
The two main examples where we have been involved lately or where I have taken a personal interest is the current water and energy problems around the world. While both problems are world problems, their end state scenarios and solutions to reach said end states differ from region to region. At the moment, global warming and peak oil are being blamed for high energy prices and for problems countries are having with supplies of water. The amount of data in the marketplace on these two causes of problems (i.e. global warming and peak oil) is huge. As an example, check out this awesome website on energy http://peakenergy.blogspot.com/. Not only are the blog entries great, there are dozens of links to excellent and reputable websites for further information. It would be possible to write a business case on a variety of investment opportunities from the date linked within 6 degrees of separation from this one site. The problem would be distilling so much information.
It is almost impossible to distill information and analyse options if we don't know the end state of what it is we're proposing. However, once you put a stake in the ground, or define an end state, the options for investing are reduced to those that facilitate achieving the end state. As an example, this link to a video of a school friend of mine talks about a stake in the ground on CO2 emissions http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbwxF47x5ss. What Saul does is suggest an end state stabilisation of CO2 and then discusses how much demand needs to be reduced by as one option to achieving this end state CO2 figure.
The two main examples where we have been involved lately or where I have taken a personal interest is the current water and energy problems around the world. While both problems are world problems, their end state scenarios and solutions to reach said end states differ from region to region. At the moment, global warming and peak oil are being blamed for high energy prices and for problems countries are having with supplies of water. The amount of data in the marketplace on these two causes of problems (i.e. global warming and peak oil) is huge. As an example, check out this awesome website on energy http://peakenergy.blogspot.com/. Not only are the blog entries great, there are dozens of links to excellent and reputable websites for further information. It would be possible to write a business case on a variety of investment opportunities from the date linked within 6 degrees of separation from this one site. The problem would be distilling so much information.
It is almost impossible to distill information and analyse options if we don't know the end state of what it is we're proposing. However, once you put a stake in the ground, or define an end state, the options for investing are reduced to those that facilitate achieving the end state. As an example, this link to a video of a school friend of mine talks about a stake in the ground on CO2 emissions http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbwxF47x5ss. What Saul does is suggest an end state stabilisation of CO2 and then discusses how much demand needs to be reduced by as one option to achieving this end state CO2 figure.
I'd be interested to know societies expectations on these matters. It would certainly lead to better investment decisions if we debated what goal we were aiming for. Two answers I'd like are around water supply and energy use:
- Is Sydney and most other Australian cities happy with permanent water restrictions or do we feel an end state of watering our concrete whenever we feel like it should be the goal or is it somewhere in between?
- Is the industrialised world satisfied with Saul's reduction in consumption to meet global warming or the fact that we're going to lose various islands, flood parts of every coastal town in the world and have far more frequently dramatic weather events ok with is? Or again, is it somewhere in between and if so, what?
I know in a democracy that a definitive answer to these questions is impossible but gleanings as to general collective preferences would make government investment decision making a whole lot easier.
Sunday, September 07, 2008
ramblings on investment decision making
I've been doing a lot of things around investment decision making lately. Reviewing business cases, teaching people how to complete feasibility analysis and compile business cases, actually compiling business cases for clients and assisting project teams to compile business cases. I've gotten to the point where I need to ramble for a few blog entries to get out of my system some thoughts that have been running around my head.
Real asset investment decision making has been a fascination of mine since University days. The process of discovering if an investment has potential is fascinating. The range of topics you get across is huge.
Over the years I've also discovered the massive political and emotional aspects to decision making too. I've experienced the political and emotional responses through observation rather than participation. Most of my experience in observing the emotive and political response to a problem has been through the review of business cases or cabinet submissions that have been written to get a certain decision up rather than testing and proposing the best option for decision makers. Other observed phenomena is the retrospective business case. This is where a document called a business case is written to cover for the fact that a decision has already been made. What I find interesting in these cases is discovering what was the business case that caused the actual decision to be made. Was it a conversation, a presentation, a site visit or something else. There is always something that is the catalyst for a decision maker or person in power to decide to act. Sadly, it is often some small, quick comment or observation rather than as a result of a sound and well developed business case.
The most frustrating thing for me has been the difficulty in understanding the overall thread or long term goal to investment decisions. They are so often made in isolation with the dependancy and impact on other initiatives rarely considered. Yes, the investment aligns to strategy but does it contribute to an overall plan that leads to some end state that the organisation, community or society finds desirable.
Many new management theories are being explored around complexity theory and the uselessness of trying to predict the future (e.g. through forecasting and modelling). However, I find it impossible to be motivated and commit to investing money in a project that has no clear purpose and cannot be defined as part of some overall goal or end state.
I understand that it is extremely difficult to define an end state, but without one, all common principles of strategic planning and business management are useless and the complexity theorists become 100% correct in their description of organisations as self forming organisms that bumble along much the same way life always has since that first single cell split and became two.
Real asset investment decision making has been a fascination of mine since University days. The process of discovering if an investment has potential is fascinating. The range of topics you get across is huge.
Over the years I've also discovered the massive political and emotional aspects to decision making too. I've experienced the political and emotional responses through observation rather than participation. Most of my experience in observing the emotive and political response to a problem has been through the review of business cases or cabinet submissions that have been written to get a certain decision up rather than testing and proposing the best option for decision makers. Other observed phenomena is the retrospective business case. This is where a document called a business case is written to cover for the fact that a decision has already been made. What I find interesting in these cases is discovering what was the business case that caused the actual decision to be made. Was it a conversation, a presentation, a site visit or something else. There is always something that is the catalyst for a decision maker or person in power to decide to act. Sadly, it is often some small, quick comment or observation rather than as a result of a sound and well developed business case.
The most frustrating thing for me has been the difficulty in understanding the overall thread or long term goal to investment decisions. They are so often made in isolation with the dependancy and impact on other initiatives rarely considered. Yes, the investment aligns to strategy but does it contribute to an overall plan that leads to some end state that the organisation, community or society finds desirable.
Many new management theories are being explored around complexity theory and the uselessness of trying to predict the future (e.g. through forecasting and modelling). However, I find it impossible to be motivated and commit to investing money in a project that has no clear purpose and cannot be defined as part of some overall goal or end state.
I understand that it is extremely difficult to define an end state, but without one, all common principles of strategic planning and business management are useless and the complexity theorists become 100% correct in their description of organisations as self forming organisms that bumble along much the same way life always has since that first single cell split and became two.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
triple bottom line reporting
This blog entry will put forward a case against triple bottom line reporting.
Much of my life lately has returned to capital investment decision making. This area resides with me way back in my roots. I was always drawn to the methods and processes that assisted decision makers in making the decisions that one way or another will alter the course of the organisation. Lately, the focus has moved to assessing investment decisions on a triple bottom line basis. Firstly to jargon. What is triple bottom line? Triple bottom line refers to the observation that any entity, be they an individual or an organisation, has an effect on the human world in three ways; the human world itself (i.e. the society), the natural environment that surrounds that society, and the measure of wealth that exists in that society. With this observation made, it as asserted that each investment decision should be made balancing these three elements. Triple bottom line reporting refers to a report that will measure either qualitatively or quantitatively the effects a decision will have on these three elements. Sometimes it will be referred to as Economic, Social and Environmental reporting. These terms are synonymous in my opinion.
There are many methods of measuring the 3 aspects of the triple bottom line. The most important element to define first, before choosing your method, is time. What time horizon are we looking at in making our decision? If a decision maker's time horizon is very short, then the economic factors will outweigh all else. However, the paradox here is that the decisions made for short term economic effect will have significant medium term and catastrophic long term economic effects (i.e. The measure of wealth will fall). The drivers of this catastrophic economic consequences are the resulting deterioration in society and the environment over the longer term.
If the time horizon of the decision maker is medium term, then the economic effects will still outweigh the social and the environmental. In this instance, the long term economic effects will still be negative and considerable. This time, the main driver initially will be environmental and then this will drive social responses that will then drive economic consequences.
If the time horizon is longer term, then the primary focus of the triple bottom line will be environmental. All things will stem from this. The current measure of this is the economic wealth that is valued in the long term.
There are many definitional issues with the statement above, and like all theories I need to create observations and experiments to prove it. However, if my analysis is correct, then triple bottom line returns to being bottom line reporting and bottom line reporting currently is the measure of wealth. My point is that people misunderstand the purpose of economics. Economics is an abstraction of reality. Wealth is an abstraction of reality. Society and the environment is the reality that economics is describing. By combining the three we are mixing the drivers with the result. Society and the environment are the drivers and economic wealth is the result, or at least one result. Economics provides us with a measure to assist us in making a decision and in tracking performance to that decision. The measure it uses, money, is based on the society and the environment. In essence, triple bottom line is double counting and sometimes triple counting.
Why does it exist? It exists because economics, in its abstraction, does not describe the world effectively enough. In my opinion, either economics has to evolve to better describe the world or a new method of describing the world needs to be developed. The intermediary process of triple bottom line is only confusing the measurement and decision making framework rather than improving it.
Much of my life lately has returned to capital investment decision making. This area resides with me way back in my roots. I was always drawn to the methods and processes that assisted decision makers in making the decisions that one way or another will alter the course of the organisation. Lately, the focus has moved to assessing investment decisions on a triple bottom line basis. Firstly to jargon. What is triple bottom line? Triple bottom line refers to the observation that any entity, be they an individual or an organisation, has an effect on the human world in three ways; the human world itself (i.e. the society), the natural environment that surrounds that society, and the measure of wealth that exists in that society. With this observation made, it as asserted that each investment decision should be made balancing these three elements. Triple bottom line reporting refers to a report that will measure either qualitatively or quantitatively the effects a decision will have on these three elements. Sometimes it will be referred to as Economic, Social and Environmental reporting. These terms are synonymous in my opinion.
There are many methods of measuring the 3 aspects of the triple bottom line. The most important element to define first, before choosing your method, is time. What time horizon are we looking at in making our decision? If a decision maker's time horizon is very short, then the economic factors will outweigh all else. However, the paradox here is that the decisions made for short term economic effect will have significant medium term and catastrophic long term economic effects (i.e. The measure of wealth will fall). The drivers of this catastrophic economic consequences are the resulting deterioration in society and the environment over the longer term.
If the time horizon of the decision maker is medium term, then the economic effects will still outweigh the social and the environmental. In this instance, the long term economic effects will still be negative and considerable. This time, the main driver initially will be environmental and then this will drive social responses that will then drive economic consequences.
If the time horizon is longer term, then the primary focus of the triple bottom line will be environmental. All things will stem from this. The current measure of this is the economic wealth that is valued in the long term.
There are many definitional issues with the statement above, and like all theories I need to create observations and experiments to prove it. However, if my analysis is correct, then triple bottom line returns to being bottom line reporting and bottom line reporting currently is the measure of wealth. My point is that people misunderstand the purpose of economics. Economics is an abstraction of reality. Wealth is an abstraction of reality. Society and the environment is the reality that economics is describing. By combining the three we are mixing the drivers with the result. Society and the environment are the drivers and economic wealth is the result, or at least one result. Economics provides us with a measure to assist us in making a decision and in tracking performance to that decision. The measure it uses, money, is based on the society and the environment. In essence, triple bottom line is double counting and sometimes triple counting.
Why does it exist? It exists because economics, in its abstraction, does not describe the world effectively enough. In my opinion, either economics has to evolve to better describe the world or a new method of describing the world needs to be developed. The intermediary process of triple bottom line is only confusing the measurement and decision making framework rather than improving it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)