Recently, someone kindly pointed out that B.I. is actually DETERMINISTIC as opposed to intelligent by its very nature…. being just a construct of rules and structure within an IT system.

This comment was brought about through a discussion around creating B.I. solutions, what is a good approach.

The talk actually ended sounding more like a Philosophy class than an IT group.  Inductive and deductive reasoning.  Asking questions.  Treating matters objectively.

Stuff about helping management understand their own strategy by questioning manifest business processes.  In order to arrive at answers to seemingly imponderable business questions.  Things like, “What are your business goals?”

Some Focus Points

- Let outcomes guide decisions

- Let goals guide focus

- Let value guide priority

* NORTH STAR Business Intelligence

The above-mentioned firm put on a talk through TDWI (The Data Warehousing Institute) in Vancouver last Friday and I was fortunate enough to attend.  For anyone local who is looking to better understand the B.I. space, these monthly meetings are a good start.  The local chapter is fairly “young”, but it’s been growing and I’ve got to say, the meeting was quite interesting.

Some other points that jumped out were:

- B.I. is a technical issue, but success is a human issue

- Always keep the broader vision in mind

- Understand that business processes, definitions, and meanings change over time

- Greenfield B.I. projects have an advantage [over existing systems (i.e. no baggage)]

- Think big picture, work the details

and – Choose for impact!

It appears the growing consensus in this group is that the technical barriers aren’t what is standing in the way of getting good B.I. spread all throughout the organization.  But it’s organizational psychology that sometimes stinks.

There’s a delicate balance that has to be struck.  Top management don’t want to feel like they are being lectured, or questioned.  But it’s education and Socratic inquiry that are required if the end B.I. solution is going to work.

In my view, part of the difficulty is that management doesn’t necessarily have their strategy worked out to the level of detail really required to get a “perfect” solution.  There’s a lot of moving parts regardless of business size.  But don’t look at me I’m just a software vendor.

Do you think I could be counted on to whip business strategy into shape?

Anyway you slice it, I think B.I. and strategy will always be inextricably linked.  As mentioned in the talk, these are tied into part of a feedback loop.

Helpful to remember this stuff.

Enjoy!

Related posts:

1. Business Intelligence class needs a makeover
2. Defining Business Intelligence
3. Crowing about Business Intelligence

What do all of these people have in common?

These guys all make a living through establishing rapport (trust), listening, and through their skillful use of questions while interviewing.

Think Like a Reporter

As a business professional, whether you’re in accounting & finance, sales, marketing, or IT, you need good information about your environment.  Some of the best information tends to be locked up in the head’s of all the people you work and interact with through the normal course of your day.

Why not try “interviewing” your colleagues?

I’m talking about anything from stuff about business process to procedural and administrative workflows, operations design, and business and financial report requirements. Pick a topic and ask questions on it.

The opportunity exists to understand all the systems operating around you better when you start thinking like a reporter and asking good questions.

Let’s be clear.  I’m NOT talking about badgering, browbeating, hectoring, pressing feet to the fire, inquisition style questioning that’s designed to embarrass or belittle your colleagues.

So, what makes a good reporter?

I’ll go into a few pointers and some media, but I would also encourage all of you to watch the CBC’s Amanda Lang interview some people.  In my view, she is far and away the best question-asker in media right now.  She’s a great example of doing all the right things through the course of an interview to engender trust of both the interviewee and the audience as well as to ask insightful questions that allow for detailed answers.

The Role of a Reporter

Mathew Ingram, formerly a technology reporter with Globe & Mail and now blogger with GigaOM, sums up the job of a traditional reporter beautifully in his recent TEDx Toronto talk, Five Ways New Media Will Save Old Media, as:

“we called people up and asked them irritating questions and then wrote down what they said”

Whoops! Sorry, wrong clip.  Do we have the right clip?  Do we have a clip?

Ah, okay, what he said was,:

“If you’re writing about a story, somewhere someone out there knows more about that story than you.  In fact, a lot of people might know more about that story than you.  So, you should allow them to tell you what they know.”

This is the essence of reporting.

Now, when he said this, he was actually talking about having newspapers incorporate comments and input from readers into the process of journalism and not specifically about interview etiquette.  But, in the New Media world there’s less and less difference between the audience and the subject.  Here’s Mathew’s TED talk where he describes this evolution:

I think Mathew makes a good point as well in recognizing the importance of having a dialogue going.  In “traditional” reporting, there may have been the perception of a one-way exchange.  The reporter asks, the subject answers.  That’s only half the story.  It’s a conversation and like any good conversation it’s a two-way street. But, it’s a conversation with purpose.  You are the guide.

Simple Tips

Broaden your sources

Think about this question: Where do we get our information?  Bob Woodward, one of the journalists that brought down Nixon in the Watergate Scandal, tells us in the following clip that we get information 1) from people 2) from documents (or evidence) and 3) from the scene (observation).

He make a great point about talking to people.  He says, talk to A BUNCH of people.  Not just one person.  In a day, he may talk to a dozen people around the same issue in order to gain that broad perspective of views.

Asking Questions

Basic journalism tells us to focus on the Five Ws (that isn’t really 5… or just Ws, okay, so don’t use Journo’s for calc’ing your Net Profit):

• Who? Who was involved?
• What? What happened?
• When? When did it take place?
• Where? Where did it take place?
• Why? Why did it happen?
• How? How did it happen?

Of course, all questions are not created equal.  Journalism 101 blog lays out some ground rules about the soft skills, but suffice to say I don’t think you want to make people feel stupid.

In general, keep an open mind and ask open-ended questions.  Keep that question engine going in your mind so you can delve more deeply as opportunities present themselves.  LISTEN, so you can key off of what the subject is telling you.

Remember, you are questioning yourself during this process as well.  All of those assumptions you may have embedded in your thinking need to be questioned throughout this process.

Say Thank You!

and, of course,

Be Prepared

‘Nuff said!

Here’s some additional resources that should help you build up your skills.

Media Training Basics: Mastering Tough Questions from the Media by Harvard Business Service

How To Ask Better Questions by Judith Ross at Harvard Business Review

Learn To Ask Better Questions by John Baldoni at Harvard Business Review

The Four Principles of Interviewing by Columbia University

From Chapter 13 of Sun Tzu’s famous, Art of War, on the use of spies:

“The means by which enlightened Rulers and sagacious Generals moved and conquered others, that their achievements surpassed the masses, was advance knowledge.”

“Advance knowledge cannot be gained from ghosts and spirits, inferred from phenomena, or projected from the measures of heaven.  But must be gained from men.”

Added Bonus

Sun Tzu’s Five Types of Spies

1. Local Spy

2. Internal Spy

3. Turned Spy

4. Dead Spy

5. The Living Spy

Enjoy!

Related posts:

1. Understanding Business is a Game of Questions
2. The Meaningful Scorecard
3. Improving Your Month-end Throughput

When I was first approached with an offer to TestDrive a Chevy Volt as part of a GM Public Relations campaign, I was unsure what to make of the offer.  Why was I being included? Am I a media source now?  I tend to think of corporate blogging in separate terms from what I’ll call media blogging and traditional reporting.  A corporate blog is less about reporting “the news” and more about building understanding of a company; the culture, the people, and the product, within the public sphere.  In my view, this specificity of purpose imposes a certain amount of discipline and etiquette upon the writer.  For example, I would not consider it appropriate to rant or “bag on people” in a corporate blog.

In accepting the offer to TestDrive the Chevy Volt, as a corporate blogger, I really had to seriously consider how doing so would relate to Indicee.  What connections could be made that would justify the inclusion of the experience on the blog?  How would it relate to what we, as a company, are trying to achieve?

The offer included both a TestDrive of the pre-production vehicle as well as the opportunity to speak with some of the GM engineers in the Volt product group.

Upon reflection I found that, despite the obvious differences  between the Chevy Volt group and Indicee, there were some commonalities that warranted accepting the invitation.  So, I accepted.

I distilled the commonalities down to 4 themes:

1. Try before you buy: The TestDrive is a time honoured tradition of car companies.  It’s a core cultural belief infused with enough historical precedence that you could probably even call it dogma.  It’s interesting that no one has ever come up with a similar concept for buying a house considering that, apart from Detroit, you’ll pay way more for a house than for a car.  In Vancouver right now, the vast majority of homes are being sold without providing the prospective owners with so much as the opportunity for an inspection the market is so exuberant.  But I digress.

In software circles, particularly in the Saas market where we play, companies have taken that TestDrive concept and added a turbocharge.  We call it “freemium” and it’s a core cultural belief at Indicee.  For us, it’s critical for users to experience an initial success in order to engender belief in the product.  Try before you buy.

2. Performance Management: Indicee is in the business of Performance Management for business, but we’re not the solution that a company like GM will likely seek out.  Although I can’t be certain, I expect GM has highly complex and integrated systems to manage every element of their business; from supply chain all the way to the point at which the car drives off the lot, time and effort is accounted for.  The interesting conversation would be related to how these systems interact and what it means for how these guys do their job; I can become application agnostic for a few moments and investigate the mechanics of their information delivery system.  Who knows; it may well be they are completely underserved by their internal systems.  When it comes to performance management, we have seen some departments in large companies living in the dark ages even while their colleagues enjoy all the best new toys that B.I. has to offer.

3. Innovation & Change: Within the walls of a big company like GM are, effectively, a bunch of smaller companies.  I expect the Chevy Volt product group is like one of these smaller companies.  In a sense, they are a start-up that exists inside GM.  The guys within this group have been tasked with deliberately venturing away from conventional automaker thinking in the same way that Indicee has ventured away from the traditional path with respect to delivering Business Intelligence software.  I was interested in seeing what similarities may exist between some of these guys and the team at Indicee.

4. User Experience: It’s not always easy to try something new.  There’s a risk; and, although it’s not always spoken it is present.  The risk is, “what if I fail?” So really, this speaks to the larger issue of infusing a product with trust.  Following someone into uncharted waters is ALWAYS a trust exercise, and trust is only gained through interaction with the product.  Like Indicee, the Chevy Volt guys are in the trust game.  So, what considerations went into ensuring the Volt user experience instilled that trust?  What feedback mechanisms are in place?

The Result

In the end, the Chevy Volt TestDrive didn’t happen for me.  Without rehashing the specifics, let’s just say I received an apology in place of a car ride.

I’m going ahead with my post about the Volt, not as some kind of social shaming exercise, but to illustrate a point.

Understanding business is a game of questions

Good questions don’t simply materialize out of thin air.  Good questions are the result of thinking through the activities, behaviours, concepts, and relationships at work within the context of what you are trying to achieve.  Thinking about how things connect.  What are the commonalities?  Where do the commonalities diverge? What’s the essence of the matter?  What are the themes?  In my view, this is a strategy for finding answers.

Enabling answers, an answer-friendly environment, should be the overriding consideration when asking questions.  The motivation underpinning a question should always be getting an answer.  Therefore, framing your questions within a context familiar and relevant to the person being queried is probably going to be helpful.  After all, how much good is asking questions when there is no one around left to answer them?

-

Focus on outcomes

For example, what outcome was I trying to achieve with this Chevy Volt thing?  Was the outcome being able to say I drove the car first?  No, probably not.  I would say, despite not driving the car or meeting the guys, that a positive outcome was achieved.

I was able to relate our product, Indicee’s Saas Business Intelligence platform, with a product that folks will likely feel like they understand, a car.  In that sense, I consider the experience a success despite not having any questions answered.  In this case, my questions were academic.  There was no pressing business problem to solve (or media story to break).  The questions, these connections, were more important than the answers.

That said, my prepared questions did go unanswered.  So, below I will list a few of them.  If there are any GM guys reading this, feel free to take a shot at answering in the comments.

1. What do you think companies can learn from the TestDrive concept?

2. What would you consider the defining moment of this project and how did you come to this realization?  Was this a “measurable” moment from a performance management standpoint?

3. A lot has been said recently about how Design Thinking contributes positively to innovation. Are you familiar with the concept and do you subscribe to it?

4. What was done to ensure a positive user experience?

Enjoy.

Related posts:

1. Strategic CFO: Get in the Game
2. Sharpen your Business Analysis: Think Like a Reporter
3. Business Intelligence Adds a Dimension to Your Strategy

This isn’t a month-end tirade.  Instead, I’m feeling nostalgic so I thought I would share a story from my past.  It’s been some time since I’ve been subjected to the time pressure of month-end & period close activities. For as much accounting has its common elements, every company’s month-end experience is different.  I’ve worked for a number of different companies in a number of different sectors, and no two were the same.

One of the things about Accountancy, and it’s often cited as one of the profession’s advantages, is the ease with which one can move between industries.  The common elements enable it; bank rec’s, financial statements, “the binder”, you know the drill.  I think this is true to a point; however, I have also noticed that we can build up domain expertise as well as anyone in an organization. I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts on this bit.

Today, I’m thinking about some work I did for a mid-sized media company here in Vancouver.  I was brought in as a chair-warmer Analyst while the company restructured and relocated its back office to Toronto.  My predecessor had jumped ship early (before his job was scheduled to disappear), but Toronto wasn’t quite ready to steer the department so the local Controller (who was also on the block) needed someone to wait it out with him.

This was not one of those nightmare month-ends ( I’ll save my nightmare stories for closer to Halloween… and maybe April Fool’s).

I had some pretty standard stuff to do; the bank rec wasn’t pretty, standard payroll auditing for a few hundred employees, a systems conversion meant that we had to chase down some entries that got dropped from one of the back office systems, and then there were the Revenue Reports for the managers.  The Controller did all the financial reports.  He would often describe his month-end consolidations style as the brute force method.  He understood 1) the importance of having a process and 2) the tenacity that is a requirement for the profession.

I’m going to focus on the Revenue Reports for the managers that were part of my month-end process.  I would collect data from the accounting system, from the system that recorded the advertising sales, and the system that generated the physical page layouts (capacity).  This business has a number of publications being produced.  Each publication required a report.  After which, the completed reports were emailed and yes, were printed, for each of the managers.

You’ve probably guessed buy now that I put all of this data into a spreadsheet.  Thinking back, could the company have benefited from Indicee? It probably would have taken a bit of work to set it up and the reports would have looked a bit different, but Indicee probably could have provided the information I was putting into these reports.  But that’s not what I want to tell you about.

I want to tell you about how I learned the process of completing these reports.  The incumbent, clever fellow, had developed his process for these over a number of years and in relative isolation.  He had it down to a science; but, all that knowledge was locked up in his head.  When he walked out that door, the process walked out the door with him. Typical in mid-market companies.  Documentation on complex processes that have evolved over time tends to be weak.  In this case, the damage would be shortlived because these reports were being killed when the head office transition was completed.  In the meantime though, I was left to decipher and de-engineer the reports and get them out to the managers.

To the point:

In the course of my investigation, I found that neither my boss nor some of the other managers actually knew what large parts of the reports meant!  Or why they should care! The process of creating the report, even with practice, was big.  Why was I going through all of this if the end users had no clue what I was giving them? Why had my predecessor done so over the course of a number of years? A pretty big portion of the reports were just wasted effort.

My theory is that reports evolve over time.  This one had evolved, but it hadn’t “lost it’s gills” so to speak.  It was standing upright and talking, but it had a tail.

http://www.cafepress.ca

Tightening up your month-end throughput means recognizing the Darwinian nature of your reports.  Questioning your end users, your internal customers, is key to understanding what parts are no longer relevant.  You’ll need to be persuasive within your organization in order to overcome the natural tendencies toward the status quo.  Be prepared to quiz people.  This part is easier said than done, but with tact and a collaborative attitude gains can be made.  I suggest using the analogy of accounting as a manufacturing process.

Month-end, like any good manufacturing process, needs to be free of waste.

It’s a question of throughput.

That’s my story for today.  For more on stories, I recently produced a guest blog post on the Sage Peachtree Community site called, The Importance of Stories.  Don’t worry, month-end will be there when you get back.

Enjoy.

Related posts:

1. The Importance of Stories
2. The Meaningful Scorecard
3. Sharpen your Business Analysis: Think Like a Reporter

What percentage of managers actually read them?

Prove it.

The Email Marketing industry has developed sophisticated tools for measuring the success of email campaigns.  You can see who opens the email, who downloads the attachment and when they do it.  (BTW, only about one in about 12,500,000 junk mails results in a sale – 0.000008% response rate)

Have you ever considered using this technology for monitoring the performance of your reports?  What might it reveal about the usage patterns of the end users?

What sort of benefit could this information have when it’s time for the meeting to discuss the numbers?  Maybe Mr.Grumpys’ tirade would be cut short if it was known he hadn’t even read the reports.

There’s more at stake than just compliance and fear-based coercion though.  It’s about understanding what’s important so that the information being provided has meaning.  If no one is opening your reports, maybe they don’t find them useful.  Maybe that’s the real issue.

Of course, reading a report isn’t the end of the story.  It’s the beginning, the foundation.  Reports provide a focal point for management meetings.  The content and presentation of the report will influence the discussion so you want to be aware of the direction your reports send the discussion.

If your reports point to trivial matters beyond anyone’s control, they will spend time hand-wringing about trivial matters beyond anyone’s control.  If your reports point to the drivers of the business, the time is likely going to be more well-spent.

I am convinced that it’s a good idea to gather metrics on report usage.  If a manager only takes a passing glance at the numbers every three months, it’s worth asking the question, “why”?  There’s plenty of intelligence that can be gained by looking at the usage patterns; lots of possibilities to think about.  Maybe by the time the reports are available, they are already out of date.

Now what if you could measure the entire usage cycle of your reports.  In Saas applications like Salesforce.com, like ours, each user leaves a history.  Perhaps the unintended consequence of software-as-a-service, or cloud computing as it’s sometimes called, is that every second of every page view is collected and available for analysis.

Here’s an opportunity to find out exactly how your reports are being consumed.  Use this knowledge to ask specific questions of the users gaining insight as to what they believe is RELEVANT.  You’ll know it’s relevant when everyone agrees the process is worth the time and effort.

Much better than just sending an email out into the darkness, vanishing like a cry into the night, never to be seen or heard from again.

So that this:

“Hey Bob, did you get my email?”

becomes this:

“Hey Bob, I noticed that you only ever view the Revenue per Employee Report.  What is it about that report that makes it so meaningful?  What is it about that inter-relationship that provides a basis for your decision making?”

I encourage taking the academic view on this process; using it to learn, collaborate, and grow.  Rather than the disciplinary view; using it to browbeat and punish.  But hey, I can’t tell you how to live.

Enjoy.

Related posts:

1. The Meaningful Scorecard
2. Improving Your Month-end Throughput
3. Sharpen your Business Analysis: Think Like a Reporter

(There are number of definitions out there, but I think the above serves the purpose)

There’s a lot of Buzz around the concept of Design Thinking at the moment.  A great deal of content has been produced, but I’m not sure how much has been directed toward the accounting and finance community.  During the past 2 years for us, listening to someone talk about “radical innovation” usually entailed mostly hand-wringing and, well, … expletives.  It’s understandable to have missed some of this.

So, I’m not sure how much about the topic has filtered in.  Maybe that’s a good discussion point for the comments:

• How much of the Design Thinking paradigm has filtered into the accounting and finance community?
• How applicable is this school of thought to accounting and finance?
• Do you believe there is a place for Design Thinking in accounting?

I’m interested in “jumping in” because I think there’s a natural connection between the way of thinking that underlies Design Thinking and the way of thinking underlying big parts of accounting.

The three main activities of Design Thinking are actually used extensively in our field.

I think we can all relate to:

1. The Mystery: pondering questions to enhance understanding of what is, or has, happened

2. Developing a Heuristic: a rule of thumb that helps narrow the field of inquiry and work the mystery down to a manageable size

3. The Algorithm: formal system for managing knowledge

We might consider this process when reviewing month end variances, or considering an asset’s useful life for amortization purposes.  Maybe we are reconciling transactions, ascertaining fair value, or while planning business combinations.  There’s an investigative nature to accounting that requires these critical thinking activities.  Maybe it’s something we wish we did more of.  Maybe these lessons bear repeating.

Viewing it from this perspective, the accounting and finance functions are subject to the same pressures affecting any other group as we try to balance the broader vision with our day-to-day routines.  When does the complacency of routine dull us to the level of engagement required to maintain the effectiveness of our critical thinking?

The choice is between being truly able to internalize this active, participatory way of thinking; or, just looking in the file for what was done last year.

Roger Martin (Thought Leader in the field and Dean of the Rotman School of Management at University of Toronto) cautions against casual use of the term, Design Thinking, when he was questioned recently by Nora Young on CBC’s Spark podcast.

She closes the interview with this:

Nora Young: The other part of me, the cynic, thinks ‘this is just another management buzzword’.  How do you get people to take this really seriously and do the kinds of stuff that’s really required to rebuild the organization rather than just paying lip service to it?

Roger Martin: Well, I think it already has passed into management buzzword; right so, and I think this has happened many times before, where the world of business gets excited about some concept and typically that concept has some validity and some utility; but then, it gets pushed far beyond what it should have… and lots of people who know nothing about it actually hop into the terrain and it gets diluted…

If it hasn’t already happened with Design Thinking, it will.  I don’t have rose-coloured glasses on about that phenomenon.

You can see that Martin differentiates between the inevitable decline into buzzword status of “Design Thinking” with the value of the concepts at its core.

Let’s look at the core stuff while accepting the dilution of the term.  And, if Martin has no illusions, neither should I:

I could be one of the very people Martin warns of.

In my view, the core concepts are more foundational, more universal; this construct of Design Thinking is just the shiny, new wrapper.  The way of thinking that underlies the theory is the critical component.  What it’s called tends to change, but what’s required to make it happen does not.

Peter Senge, author of the well known management book, The Fifth Discipline, and Director of the Center for Organizational Learning at the MIT Sloan School of Management sums it up in an exchange with another management guru, Bill O’Brien (deceased), ex-CEO of Hanover Insurance here:

Peter Senge: If everybody thinks this is so great, how come it doesn’t exist?

Bill O’Brien: We have no idea the kind of commitment required.

In this exchange, they are referring to the management paradigm of their day, Systems Thinking (circa 1990). The difficulty in achieving benefits from these theories turns out to be every bit as universal as the underlying concepts.

The equation is, easier said than done multiplied by talk is cheap.  Without action, nothing happens.  Without action, regardless of whether we talk about Systems Thinking or Design Thinking, it’s “just another management buzzword”.

In Systems Thinking, it’s about exploring patterns of interdependency, dispelling the myth that we are all highly independent.  A lot of it involves the same stuff as Design Thinking; asking questions, revising assumptions, understanding relationships.

Think: Action

The Design Thinking model is really well defined in this excerpt from the Noise Between Stations blog:

Based on a review of writing on the topic, I have synthesized for myself what I understand design thinking to be…

Collaborative, especially with others having different and complimentary experience, to generate better work and form agreement

Abductive, inventing new options to find new and better solutions to new problems

Experimental, building prototypes and posing hypotheses, testing them, and iterating this activity to find what works and what doesn’t work to manage risk

Personal, considering the unique context of each problem and the people involved

Integrative, perceiving an entire system and its linkages

Interpretive, devising how to frame the problem and judge the possible solutions

Read more: http://noisebetweenstations.com/personal/weblogs/?page_id=1688#ixzz0WPzb9vRa

This is all substance over form stuff.  How does stuff actually get done?  What happens when what something is called does not match what it is?  How does structure influence behaviour? And vice versa.

We know about this stuff, but don’t always think actively about it.

What’s our next move?

As a group, it’s our responsibility to take the lead on innovating our financial and managerial reporting and accounting systems.  I’m mainly referring to Operations Reporting here; but quite frankly, I think Financial Reporting could use a look too.  How can we more effectively achieve our reporting goals while enhancing value for users?  Where is optimal value and how does that value point change over time?

The following clip is Tim Brown, CEO of Ideo, discussing Design Thinking.  I encourage you to watch and then think about how Design Thinking can be applied in our field.

Roger Martin on Tim Brown:

“he’s great at designing relationships with his clients, ways of getting stuff to actually happen”

Share your thoughts in the comments!

Remember; the links throughout the article lead to additional content if you want to learn more.

Related posts:

1. Accounting for I.T. in the Finance Department
2. Accounting for Interdepartmental Language Barriers – Accounting and IT
3. Accounting for Interdepartmental Language Barriers – Accounting and IT Part 2

“Hard work is a prison sentence only if it does not have meaning”
- Malcolm Gladwell, author of Outliers

“Finding the one or two key numbers that drives success in your business, and bringing them to everyone is very powerful in a business”
– Joe Knight, co-author of Financial Intelligence

The inspiration for this post was a management improvement video (13 minutes) posted on You Tube by http://www.harvardbusiness.org of an interview with Joe Knight, co-author of the book series “Financial Intelligence”, Business Owner, and Harvard Business.org blogger.  The central message of the interview was that everyone in an organization benefits from understanding the numbers by which success is measured within a business.  The trick is finding the right numbers.  Particularly in today’s climate hearing about transparency is nothing new, but what doesn’t get as much play is this idea of narrowing the focus on measures of performance.

With respect to the numbers: Thanks to technology, we now have ALL the numbers available ALL the time. Reports have become super-robust because they can.  Although there’s an argument for providing surplus information and letting the end user choose which parts to digest, there is also a great danger.  Knight argues that providing less information to end users can actually produce better business intelligence.  The process of asking the questions and finding the underlying systems within an operating group can enable a more focused, effective approach to providing reports. First, understand the work flow and underlying system of work for operations groups; then, develop measures around them.  It’s easy to say, but when was the last time these conversations have taken place in your business?

“Business is like a game, and if you don’t understand the finances, you’re basically playing a game where you don’t know score”
- Joe Knight

According to Knight the emphasis should be, and this is where the interview really resonates with me, on providing a small number of operational metrics in a simple way and providing them to everyone.  He rightly points out that the people receiving this information probably don’t want to be accountants, and have little or no interest in double-entry accounting “no matter how exciting it may appear to be”.  For Accounting and Finance guys like us, it then becomes an exercise of translating Business Intelligence into Practical Intelligence in the reports we create to achieve an optimal value.  It would be like one of us attending an advanced physics lesson.  We would get way more out of it if someone simply dropped an apple on our heads.  Sometimes less is more.

The implied point here is that results are distributed throughout the business, not just to top managers.  Doing so, creates what Knight dubs “psychic ownership” so that even though employees may not BE owners of the business they start to ACT like owners.  This occurs when an employee can make the connection between his/her own actions and the financial result.  That is why the choice of what gets communicated is so crucial.  Finding one or two key drivers to the business that correlate with the financial results will accomplish this task.  Malcolm Gladwell, (author, and columnist for The New Yorker), makes a similar point, in his best selling book Outliers, about the importance of being able to see the link between effort and reward.  Gladwell contends there are 3 important qualities that define “meaningful work”, 1) autonomy, 2) complexity, and 3) a connection between effort and reward.  FYI, Outliers provides some interesting views through a number of entertaining anecdotes ranging from Bill Gates’ early days to The Beatles.

The book is about elements that contribute to the conditions for success.  The effort-reward piece is illustrated using The Garment Industry of 1890s NYC.  This turns out to be the roots of several top litigation firms in New York.  The moral of the story is that being able to see the connection between effort and reward creates a positive feedback loop.  Hard work becomes meaningful work.  I highly recommend it.

Ultimately, the “score” of the business is represented by the Financial Reports, right?  As accounting professionals, we know the complex process whereby these reports are created. As well, there are the intricacies and nuances associated with the interpretation of these reports.  We have the proper training to derive meaning from them.

Based on my experience, most of us are keen to share any and all of this information (confidentiality permitting) with colleagues.  In the video, Knight argues that we may be guilty of over-sharing; providing far too many KPIs.  If “KPI” is being used to describe every line item in the P&L, you’ve got a problem. The Law of Unintended Consequences kicks in, inadvertently confusing people.

There have been several studies recently on the behaviour of shoppers that would appear to bolster this line of thinking.  Shoppers who are given an abundant choice of product buy less than those given just one or two choices.  If we view the recipients of our internal management reports as “shoppers” and the reports we create as our “product” in conjunction with this behavioural insight that Knight suggests, we can create more effective reports.  At which point, as Gladwell illustrates, we will be able to show the link between effort and reward.

The result is the Meaningful Scorecard; communicating the numbers to people in “a way that gets at what’s important” and “how it affects them”.

So, the question is, what actions and activities correlate with success in your business?

Related posts:

1. RELEVANCE
2. Running the gauntlet of Year End Business Reporting
3. Improving Your Month-end Throughput