The Single Biggest Mistake in Business Transformations

supply chain management

 

If I have seen it once, I have seen it a hundred times.  A new person is brought in with a clear mandate. The things are meant to change. Out with the old, and in with the new. The new person comes in with a great fanfare, and takes over. Then he/she starts taking stock of the situation. And takes more stock of the situation. Gets the consultants. Does a study. And, more studies. And more stock of the situation.

Meanwhile, the chairman is stewing in his chair. The board is exasperated. They see a lot fancy reports from the consultants. But they are waiting for action. Which comes in small dribs and drabs. Seems like one step forward and three steps backward. They start saying things like – ‘even the wrong action is better than no action.’

And, that is when you know that the single biggest mistake in business transformation is being repeated again.

Here is a typical scenario:

It had been two months after the internal announcement about achieving a milestone, and no one had seen the spark of business transformation yet. The momentum has been lost. When employees clapped their hands a couple of months ago on hearing the speech about successfully increasing efficiency by 10%, an impressive quick win, management should have taken the opportunity to introduce the next initiative.

Unfortunately, cases like this are not rare. Driven at the wrong speed without an appropriate line-up of actions will extinguish the initial enthusiasm, causing boredom and even withdrawal. As we have seen in my book UNCHAIN YOUR CORPORATION, the journey from supply chain 0.0 to 1.0, to 2.0, to 3.0 is very interesting, and challenging. Here is the relevant framework from the book:

supply chain management

Obviously, if your company enjoys healthy margins and is in relaxed circumstances, you can move just one step at a time – from SCM 0.0 to 1.0 or from SCM 1.0 to 2.0 or from SCM 2.0 to 3.0. All you might need is a slow evolution over number of years, where your company comes to the realize the need to change over 2-3 years, and then gradually carries out that change over another 2-3 years.

During this process, if the market conditions change and, margins experience a squeeze, your company can always hasten the cycle by deploying professional change managers, where a six-year planning and execution cycle can be easily halved to 2-3 years.

However, companies can also jump one step in the process, from SCM 0.0 to 2.0, or from SCM 1.0 to 3.0 by deliberate supply chain transformation, which helps them achieve faster results, with less risk of always chasing the trend. In this particular case, the danger is real that the process can be carried out too slow or too fast, depending on how the transformation is created.

To give you an example of a transformation which was carried out too fast, let’s consider the case of British Petroleum and its oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico. The full case study is our book Outsourcing 3.0 but here we will repeat just the most pertinent facts. Obviously, their supply chain 3.0 was configured with a number of suppliers of BP, including the owner of the rig, the operator of the rig, the supplier of the underwater equipment used on the rig, which failed, and the user of that underwater equipment. Unfortunately, the transformation had been carried out so rapidly that the risks were not being managed prudently enough. As a result, a small failure in the supply chain resulted in massive losses, amounting to tens of billions of dollars and a blame-game at the end of it all.

On the other hand, examples also abound where companies drag out the transformation too long, at the pace of slow evolution or change management. We have seen numerous companies go bankrupt, rather than hasten the transformation process.

supply chain management

In fact, take a look at any company declaring bankruptcy, whether in automotive, aviation or any other sector, and you will see apparent signs of failed transformations due to a slow pace, or a lack of understanding of the various stages along the way.

On the other hand, if you want to see examples of companies that have carried out the transformation just right, try and examine those whose share prices have gone up significantly in comparison to the market benchmarks, and then discern whether this result is due to a stroke of luck – for example, a fertilizer company getting lucky thanks to the right amount of rain 3 years in a row – or whether it is the result of a professional business transformation, carried out from one stage to next in a systematic manner.

supply chain management

Care? 'Share'

FREE - Get An Extract From Any Of Our Books!

All you have to do is - comment below. Your opinions are vital for building a vibrant global community of professionals. In time, you will be proud of your contributions:

  • Share Your Opinion

  • Participate in The Conversation

  • Contribute to The Community

FEATURED COMMENTS WILL EARN A FULL COPY OF ANY OF OUR BOOKS.

What are you waiting for?  Share Now, and Win.

 

Vivek Sood

I write about "The Supply Chain CEOs", "The 5-STAR Business Networks", and, how to "Unchain Your Corporation". In my work, I help create extraordinary corporate results using several 'unique' supply chain methodologies. Contact me for interesting, high impact projects, or, to get access to my IP for creating transformations using these methodologies.

  • SCM logistics says:

    Here is the one common mistake is “Change Governance.”
    Organizational change efforts need clear and thoughtful governance as much as the organization’s operations do. What roles are needed to lead and carry out the organizational change? Who will fill these roles? Who will have authority for decisions? What will the people in charge be chartered to do? How will they meet, communicate, manage the information of the effort, and interface with operations? All of this needs clarity to expedite a rapid and coordinated organizational change start-up.

    In the rush to get organizational change efforts moving, many leaders press for a plan of action or delegate to project teams without giving them the authority to make key decisions about how the change should be run.

    Conscious change governance requires a clear definition of change leadership roles: sponsor, change process leader, change leadership team, initiative leads, project teams, and change consultants.

  • Jeremy says:

    The biggest mistake I have seen is when you add up consulting expenses, people’s time, and operational disruption. The root of the problem was simply thinking that a simple understanding of a change management methodology was sufficient for success and expecting the consulting company to do everything for them.

  • Manoj Sharma (Trainee SCM) says:

    I’m researching for mistakes in business transformation, I found Mr. Vivek which is known as Mr. Supply chain in the SCM industry to provide 7 biggest mistakes in Business Transformation. I would like to get a free report about it. Please provide me the free report, so I can do better in this field.

  • G Thomson says:

    When I read the title of blog it was missing sub-headlines. Good title – biggest mistake for business transformation. It would be good if you have given sub headings or punch line to describe it.

  • Alexiane says:

    One of the critical, and possibly fundamental, roles of leadership is managing change. Leadership is about guiding your team forward through a shifting environment. And determining the pace of transformation is one of the key ingredients of managing change.
    Many organizations often judge the pace at which they do things based on internal measures and factors. Is our team ready for it? What experience have people had? How fast have things been done before? The pace you set might be your personal best as an organization, but that does not mean you are going to cross the finish line first.

  • Amy Perez says:

    Ask any CEO who has overseen a corporate transformation what should have been handled differently, and you are likely to get this answer: “We should have, and could have, moved faster.” Such executives have a long list of regrets: They wish they had unified the leadership team right away. They wish they had engaged employees sooner and quickly drummed up support for the new vision. They wish they hadn’t waited so long to test their assumptions and refine their key initiatives. And they wish they had generated some visible returns early on, to accelerate the commitments and reinforce the expectations of employees, customers, suppliers, and investors.

  • Babineaux-Smith says:

    Any corporate transformation, launching the next major phase in an organization, executing a new corporate strategy to achieve breakthrough performance, enabling a new executive leader to take charge, or integrating an acquisition, is fraught with challenges. Transformation launches must be bold and rapid to succeed. Yet, embedded in most organizations are six kinds of “speed brakes” that can slow things down to a grinding pace.

  • Regina Dennis says:

    When companies pursue variations on the same business model for an extended period of time, they become preoccupied with incremental improvement. Rather than teeing up big ideas and targeting big results, executive decision makers try to avoid big mistakes. They hunker down in their respective areas of responsibility, believing they are too busy with daily operations to get involved in reimagining the entire business. The problem is, transforming an enterprise requires intensive cooperation among executive peers. Strong traditional units have to share resources with unproven or under-performing units, and often they must sacrifice something they value for the good of the whole.

  • Christopher says:

    One of the basic, and perhaps central, jobs of the initiative is overseeing change. The initiative is tied in with managing your group forward through a moving situation. Furthermore, deciding the pace of change is one of the key elements of overseeing change. The pace you set may be your own best as an association, yet that does not mean you are going to cross the end goal first.

  • Lucracia says:

    Managers who have previously managed a corporate change are probably going to aid you in finding this solution. A number of administrators have a non-insignificant rundown of disappointments: They wish they had brought together the authority group immediately. They wish they had drawn in representatives sooner and immediately rustled up help for the new vision The aspiring managers could also create a few noticeable revenues and returns.

  • Daniel Pontow says:

    Change dispatches must be strong and fast to succeed. Any corporate change, propelling the real stage in an association, executing another corporate procedure to accomplish achievement execution, empowering another official head to assume responsibility, or coordinating a securing change situation is full of difficulties. However, some sort of change methodologies inserted in many associations has enough potential that can back things off to a granulating pace.

  • Dyln says:

    At the point when organizations seek after minor departure from a similar plan of action for an all-encompassing timeframe, they become distracted with gradual improvement. They dig in their separate zones of obligation, trusting they are excessively occupied with day by day activities to get engaged with reconsidering the whole business. The issue is, changing an endeavor requires concentrated collaboration among official friends.

  • >