What’s Sales Reporting Governance got to do with Bribery?

I lead a Sales Operations team, and one of our objectives for this year is to establish a “sales reporting governance structure”: to ensure that the right reports/tools get developed, with the right specifications, at the right time; and, perhaps most importantly, with the buy-in by the right people.

Essentially this governance structure looks at controlling the reporting life cycle (something like this report life cycle diagram) from when a report is dreamt up in the head of one of our business partners (our “internal customers”), through to when the report reaches its EOL (end-of-life) and can be stopped.

Though you may think this is somewhat dry work, let me assure you that it’s often anything but. Conversations can be excruciating quite colourful, particularly when it comes to prioritisation and negotiating timelines.

Take for example the following conversation between one of our business partners (BP) and us:

BP: “What do you mean you can only deliver it next Friday? I need it by Tuesday.”

Us: “Sure, that can be done, but we’ll need to stop work on the other three developments we’re working on for you that are due next Monday.”

BP: “No, you can’t stop work on those. I need those next Monday, and this one by next Tuesday.”

Us: “Sure, but we’ll have to exclude the new functionalities that you’d asked for.”

BP: “No, you can’t do that.”

Us:“I’m sorry but if you’re not able to budge on re-prioritising the other work, nor reducing the scope, there’s no way we can hit the timelines you’re asking for, especially when you’re asking for this so late in the game.”

BP: “I’m escalating this. You’ll hear from my manager.”

And so on.

In all fairness though, I have to say that in my experience most managers and senior colleagues (and anyone who has worked in, or closely with, IT) tend to understand that we have to satisfy ourselves with but 24 hours a day to do all we need to do.

These sort of escalations tend to end with “the manager” having a cordial chat with us and agreeing on a workable next step forward, none of which involves us engineering more time into the day.

Establishing a Governance Structure

Having a governance structure tends to minimise “unconstructive” conversations like those above, I think largely because of a mutual trust: the business partner trusts our verdict of whether something is possible or not impossible within a specific time frame,  while we trust that they have thought carefully through their requests and won’t be changing or adding to them unnecessarily.

But the problem with establishing a governance structure is that it, well, needs to be established, which can be incredibly tricky to get going. It’s almost like an negotiating a peace deal, where both sides want the conflict to stop, but are worried what might happen the moment they lay down their arms — will the other side take advantage and strike when they are at their most vulnerable?

I will be the first to admit that it takes a leap of faith going from a world of “if I don’t shout loud enough, and often enough, nothing’s going to get done”, to one where we’re all amicably setting and agreeing on priorities, and where promised delivery deadlines are actually being met.

It also doesn’t help that from a developer’s side, without the benefit of having past projects to tune one’s intuition, accurately estimating project scope or determining deadlines is going to be difficult;  often multiple iterations are necessary before this sort of “accuracy” is achieved. What this means is that early on, chances are good deadlines are going to be missed, which doesn’t help in building trust.

After a missed deadline or two, it’s all too easy to fall back into old patterns and proclaim that the process doesn’t work.

There will also be many, especially those more used to the “free-and-easy” days of yore, who will actively fight the change, citing that it creates too much red tape and jumping through hoops to get things done.

“We need to establish our reporting as soon as possible or we’ll just be flying blind — we can’t afford to go through this process!”

But the thing is, we often can’t afford not to.

When the number of development projects are small, I have to agree that the process, this “bureaucracy”, adds little value. We could simply get on a phone call, or write an e-mail, and agree among ourselves what needs to be done and when. If the requirement changes, no biggie, we simply tweak until its perfect – there’s sufficient slack in the system that will enable us to do just that.

But problems will occur when the number of projects starts to creep up, and more stakeholders are introduced.

The Need for a Tighter Process

The first problem is that due to the higher workload, the slack in the system that allowed for changes in between a development cycle will be gone. This means that changes or additions to the original requirement will likely have to be parked until development time opens up, which could be weeks down the road.

Business partners are not going to like that. “It’s a simple change for God’s sake!”

The thing is, no matter how small a change is, it’s going to be work. Somebody’s got to do it, and that means time out from other projects, which also have agreed timelines. If we focus on that change now, it risks jeopardising the timelines for every other project down the line.

If the change is important enough, then maybe we can take time out from another project and put it into executing the change. But it needs to be agreed by the team owning the other project. Which leads nicely to the second problem.

The second problem is that everyone will have their own agendas, and everyone’s pet project will be “of the highest priority”.

What happens when Team A, B, and C all have “high priority projects” that need to be done by next Monday, and development team only has the capacity to complete one or two? Without a proper process or governance structure, can we guarantee that the project of the highest priority for the business will be one that’s completed?

In the end, more time will be spent explaining to each of the stakeholders why their project was not completed; people will be upset, and the next time they’ll just be sure to shout all the louder, and all the more frequently. More time will be spent on meetings and e-mails, people “ensuring” this and that and never really ensuring anything at all. Estimated delivery dates will be given, but nobody would trust them because they know someone else coming in with an “urgent” request would likely take priority. If it’s “last in, first out”, why should I raise a request early only to be relegated down to the bottom of the delivery pile?

This just struck me as very analogous to the concept of bribery, which I was reminded of on my reading of the book Treasure Islands by Nicholas Shaxson:

Some argue that bribery is ‘efficient’ because it helps people get around bureaucratic obstacles, and get things done. Bribery is efficient in that very narrow sense. But consider whether a system plagued by bribery is efficient and the answer is the exact opposite. [Bribery undermines] the rules, systems, and institutions that promote the public good, and they undermine our faith in those rules.

Despite any short-term drawbacks, there are plenty of longer-term benefits, not least that of supporting stronger surrounding report development structures and a generally healthier culture.

Though setting up the governance structure thus far has been tough, with plenty of push-back and many of our business partners trying to circumvent the process we have established, I think it’s one of the most important things we can, and have ever attempted, to do.

On meritocracy, luck, and giving back

Image of a die with "maybe" and "yes"

Kottke’s post on meritocracy, a concept that I had in my younger days considered infallible, reminded me that even those of us who have worked hard and achieved so-called “success” have much to owe to “luck”.

Even the smartest, hardest working, most beautiful of us all, would likely have not fared well, had we been born in the midst of a famine to parents who couldn’t even afford to feed themselves.

And even the dumbest, most slothful, and ugly of us all, would not have fared too badly, had we been born to highly influential and powerful parents whom held us in even the slightest regard.

So let us all remain humble if are ever lucky and become “more successful” than others.

We probably owe more to chance and luck than we think.

Lucky

I met up with a friend last week over lunch, and one of the things that was brought up in the conversation was on our work, our careers. He was genuinely happy and excited for me that I was (finally) going to graduate from my Master’s degree in Analytics.

To him, my having these analytical skills, backed with a Master’s degree, would easily propel me to the top. I would, he said, be in high demand.

Being quite the realist, though, I didn’t exactly share his optimism.  I knew that even if I was the best in the world at what I did, if nobody knew what I did, it didn’t matter. There would be far too many people like me with similar qualifications and experiences.

But I knew where he was coming from.

It was true that my skill set was in demand. And it was true that I probably had an easier time than most in finding career opportunities. Unlike many others I knew, I was in the rather envious position of not worrying whether or not I’d find another job if I left my current one, by choice or otherwise, because I knew I would. I only stayed because I wanted to.

It then occurred to me how lucky I was.

Living the Dream

“I am living the dream,” I said to the group, “doing what I love.”

I was in a management development workshop organised by the company, and that was my response to the question, “tell us something nobody else in the workshop knows.”

It had come spontaneously and was as much a surprise to me as it was to everyone else.

It wasn’t that my career was perfect — I still had much I wanted to do; much I wanted to achieve.

But given all the million-and-one constraints, my career’s turned out pretty good: leveraging my business-IT background, I work within Sales but deal with technology (even doing some scripting and programming) every single day; I develop data products that are used by hundreds, from the frontline through to senior management; I regularly get to present my ideas and train Sales on technology and data literacy; and I lead a team of wonderful colleagues who do excellent work (and at the same time have a great boss); it’s almost precisely how I would have envisioned a “good” career outcome (shame about the pay!)

But it could have been so different.

I knew was lucky.

Right Place, Right Time

I was lucky in that my parents weren’t poor, and had purchased a computer for the home even when that wasn’t a very common thing to do. And I was lucky that I was allowed to use this very expensive toy, which exposed me to technology at a very young age.

I was lucky that I grew up in a time when the Singapore government wasn’t too interested on clamping down on software piracy — I suspect the government did this on purpose because many of us, though not poor, were not rich enough to actually purchase professional-grade software to play around with. 99% of what I know I learned on bootleg software.  This move alone probably bumped up Singapore’s technological literacy a fair bit.

I was lucky that I was never stopped in pursuing my love for technology — when I opted for a technology-focused polytechnic education (i.e. the Diploma route) instead of going the more traditional “junior college” (i.e. the A-Levels route), I never met any parental resistance (which in a way, was because I was lucky enough that my grades were good but never exceptional, and so my parents didn’t really care — had they been exceptional, my guess would be that the would have been far more opinionated).

I was lucky that I was hired for an analytics position at the very last interview that I decided to go for before heading into the world of Financial Advising, thereby leading me to my current world of technology and analytics… what were the chances?

Right place. Right time. And if not enabled by the luck, at least not hindered.

But not everyone will be so fortunate, and it is up to us, the lucky and empowered ones, to give back and to try to provide opportunities to others who may not be as lucky.

Yet.

On Giving Back

My one simple philosophy on giving back: that anyone whom I work  or in any way interact with should find that if I had never appeared in their lives they would have been a little poorer for it.

I seek to be the luck in people’s lives.

Because so often they are in mine.

What you do determines what you see

Author’s note: This post was originally titled “Déformation Professionnelle”, but I had trouble understanding it myself and have renamed it for easier future reference!

This post in three words: Profession -> Perception -> Truth

The following text is taken from the excellent book The Art of Thinking Clearly, by Rolf Dobelli.

A man takes out a loan, starts a company, and goes bankrupt shortly afterward. He falls into a depression and commits suicide.

What do you make of the story?

As a business analyst, you want to understand why the business idea did not work: was he a bad leader? Was the strategy wrong, the market too small or the competition too large?

As a marketer, you imagine the campaigns were poorly organised, or that he failed to reach his target audience… As a banker, you believe an error took place in the loan department.

As socialist, you blame the failure of capitalism.

As a religious conservative, you see in this a punishment from God.

As a psychiatrist, you recognise low serotonin levels.

Which is the “correct” viewpoint?

The above is also what is known as Déformation Professionnelle (what a term!) — a tendency to look at things from the point of view of one’s own profession rather than from a broader perspective.

I’m only too wary of falling into this trap, which is especially easy for me to do because my expertise lies in data and its derivatives and the scientific method , things I hold dear and believe are as close you can get to a panacea for all the world’s ills.

Which is why I often preface the ideas I share with, “if I put on my analytics hat…”, because I know not everybody will share the same view. And I respect that.

A Chinese perspective on business

I’m currently reading a book called Dedication – The Huawei Philosophy of Human Resource Management, by Huang Weiwei. I’m only in the first chapter, but I’m already in love with it.

It’s so, so different from the most western-centric business books that I’m used to.

I’m just going to leave you with a couple of the passages in the book that made me go did he really write that?! because it was just so damn Chinese and absolutely refreshing (reminds me of the books by Lin Yutang, that I unsurprisingly also adore):

For the past ten years, I’ve worried about failure every single day and paid no attention to success. I have no sense of pride or superiority, just a sense of urgency. This might be the reason for Huawei’s survival. If all of us try to figure out how we can survive, we may survive for a much longer time. No matter, what, we will fail one day. Please be prepared for that. This is my unwavering point of view because it is a law of history.

[…]

I love my nation, and I also love my company and my family. Of course, I love my family more than my employees. That is the truth. We can unite our employees only by telling the truth. We need to give meaning to our employees’ work, and make them realize how their work contributes to their country. We also need to avoid empty talk and encourage our employees to start small, such as helping people around them and improving themselves. Working for one’s country and for one’s family are two engines that we need to start at the same time.

[…]

Huawei’s Board of Directors has made it clear that its goal is not to maximize the interests of shareholders or stakeholders (including employees, governments, and suppliers). Rather, it embraces the core values of staying customer-centric and inspiring dedication.

Don’t believe I’ve ever read anything close to that in another business book. Brilliant.

Great, but incompatible

It’s painful how sometimes you can put in lots of effort and sacrifice  into a project (or a career) in the hope that it will pay off, only for it to fall through in the last moment.

It’s worse when the motivation that was used sustain that effort was based on the fact that “there’s only X months to go; we’ll be done soon,” but X months has passed and we’re no closer to our goals than we were X months ago.

And sometimes it’s not even the first time this has happened. It could be the second or third (or forth) year you’re telling yourself, “not this year, but maybe next.”

But there will come a time when we have to tell ourselves that it’s time to cut our losses. There will come a time when we have to realise that the seed and soil may both be great, but simply incompatible.

The question is when, and will we know it then?