Our recent Business Autopsy
Posted on July 30th, 2009 by Paul McArdle – 24 CommentsNo, we’re not dead. We’re doing decidedly better (even) than an “ex-parrot” nailed to the perch.
1) Where we are doing well
In fact, just last week the guys in the office put together a document listing a large number of things we have going for us, or are doing right. Here’s my short summary of what they said:
(A) Business Vision
There was universal agreement that the underlying vision for the business was sound (after all, most employees, and even a few ex-employees, have invested in the company in Round 3 or Round 2).
It was also reiterated that our chosen business model was also one of our advantages.
We are also not afraid to pause for introspection, such as discussed here.
(B) People & Culture
The consensus was that we have smart, dedicated and hardworking people in the company (and we also benefit from great input from a bunch of active external shareholders – whenever they can find the time). Our employees have also demonstrated a willingness to change, when that has been required.
The working environment is very friendly, respectful and flexible (so long as the work gets done) – which enhances everyone’s enjoyment of work.
We have a commitment to continuous learning for everyone, which is shown (for example) in the book reviews progressively popping up on this blog, and in what we learn at seminars and elsewhere. Coupled with the learning is our willingness to tolerate mistakes.
It was also noted that we have open communications (such as sharing financial information on company performance), which is different than the experience some have had in other companies.
(C) Products
It was noted that individual responsibility for the quality of our work was a positive.
It’s good that we actively seek feedback on where our products fall down, and we generally respond well to criticism (though it was noted we’re sometimes not as good at implementation, as discussed below).
(D) Clients
We have a great (and diverse) bunch of clients, who generally love us – or, at least, the products we provide! Quite a number of clients have invested considerable time in providing us feedback – to the point where they feel some sense of ownership of the enhancements that result.
Most of our clients from the early days have stuck with us since the early days, and our retention rate is high.
Generally speaking, it was felt that we treat our clients as friends. We have received compliments from a number of clients in this respect, which is always nice.
(E) Results
We have grown revenues from software sales consistently every year since we started in 2000-01.
This should set us up for ongoing, sustainable, expansion of the business – if we manage ourselves properly.
2) Where we could be doing much better
At the completion of 2008-09, we decided it was time to take stock. We had done a number of things right, but we had still missed some of our targets for the year.
In a nutshell, we’ve been experiencing some of the growing pains discussed in the book “Ready, Fire, Aim” – though in our case we’re experiencing several of the challenges at the same time.
Hence, we convened a 1-day planning session recently, during which we dissected many aspects of the business to identify the root causes of the disappointments we had inflicted upon ourselves.
The list the guys put together (above) was prepared mainly to provide a starting point for discussions about all the various ways we’re not meeting our potential. The summary above came from the good points, but there was a longer list of areas in which we could improve.
No, I’m not going to include the full listing here, but will outline some of our main challenges at present:
(A) Product Development
There are a range of different ways we are not currently meeting our potential, in this respect.
Shane has already noted, in his own inimitable style, how we goofed in the process of developing NEM-Watch v8. This was a good example of how we are not always actually getting things out on time, and to the instant satisfaction of clients.
In addition, we’re generating a load of good ideas for new products in-house, but still grappling with the best way to get them into the market quickly, to test them out.
(B) Marketing & Sales
We’re certainly not meeting our potential in terms of marketing and sales.
We are growing, but we could be achieving a whole lot more. This is due, in part, to the non-streamlined way in which our marketing & sales processes run.
We have a project underway already that is seeking to address that (Kim commented about one part of this already), but there are also a number of things we can do in the shorter term – a number of suggestions were made by the guys.
We’ve also tried, and failed, at a number of initiatives, which has dented our confidence somewhat.
(C) Reporting
As noted above, we are very open in terms of sharing financial information (about the company’s performance) with everyone in the company.
It was generally agreed, though, that the reports provided (whilst they might be useful from a management point of view) were confusing or misdirected for the staff (and external shareholders).
3) What were the outcomes?
Here’s a brief summary of some of what was implemented during the day:
(A) Restructuring
The guys resolved to restructure themselves – with the main purpose being to allow each a better focus on different aspects of our business:
1) Some will focus on the nitty-gritty of coding better solutions
2) Some will focus on determining where our mature products will head for the future, and on managing upgrade projects such that these upgrades are delivered as planned.
3) Others will focus on more effective and efficient prototyping of our crazy ideas for new products.
4) etc…Makes sense to me – though time will tell how we go in the delivery. To this end, we have set ourselves some defined targets to be achieved in the months ahead.
In my view, it was important that this decision was made in this way (i.e. decided collectively by the team), in order to ensure that it gains traction over time. If the exact same solution had been imposed from “on high”, it would not achieve the same results.Despite the fact that I read the book 15 years ago now, my recollection is that this was one of the core points in Semler’s book – i.e. it’s a big step beyond just being nice to employees (and in my view it’s not even the same as activities spoken loosely labelled under the “empowerment” banner), it is devolving holistic responsibility to them and allowing them to sort themselves out to deliver whatever’s required.
Of course, such an approach to management operates hand-in-hand with the concepts of trust, which are well outlined in “The Speed of Trust”.
It certainly aligns with my personal beliefs.
(B) Marketing & Sales
We spent some time outlining our general philosophy of Marketing & Sales, as it aligns with our business model.
Turns out, some guys were not fully aware of all that we have been doing to date (there is some method in our madness). It was certainly beneficial, however, as:
1) It did give us the opportunity to identify a few “quick wins” that will be implemented immediately; and
2) Our Product Managers will now be able to base their planning on a fuller understanding of what our Marketing Department (massive institution that it is) requires.(C) Reporting
After a bit of navel-gazing, we did identify a number of ways in which we can improve the clarity of the financial reports released internally with respect to the company.
For external active shareholders seeking more details, I’ve added some additional notes here (finally on 14th Nov!), accessible under your log-in accounts.
4) Closing thoughts
Whew! I’m glad that one’s out of the way.
For a couple of reasons:
1) First and foremost, we really needed to do it. We’ve been spinning our wheels in some ways for a while now with these growing pains, which has been disappointing for everyone.
2) Secondly, they are not fun. Only a sadistic crazy-guy would enjoy the process of having their weaknesses viewed collectively under the microscope (I might be crazy, but I’m not sadistic). Hence, we do it because we need to do it - a bit like a visit to the dentist to fix a tooth ache.
I distinctly recall that we have done this a couple of times in the past – each time there were different challenges, but the emotions and stresses were the same. Each time we were able to come out the other end, reinvigorated and were pleased to see the fruits of our labour emerge over the following months.
We will see, in the months ahead, the degree to which the changes we have just made have improved our performance – stay tuned for more…
[...] chart and see all the boxes on the chart staring back at you, with your name in it.
[...] just been through our own company autopsy (which was intensive/painful enough over a single day), I can’t start to imagine what it would [...]
[...] part of our ongoing business restructuring process (discussed here) I have had a promotion-of-sorts and it is now my job to turn our clients of NEM-Watch and [...]
[...] 12 months, and the company was starting to deliver results for shareholders.
[...] the great
[...] agree, which is why I am concerned whenever I hear people talk with religious fervour about the need to map and document every process, and to document job descriptions.
[...] For us, it is currently not a major (or even really a minor) topic of conversation, though I do want to ensure that our remuneration structure is aligned with the value we deliver to our clients – especially with the changes in roles we’re in the process of implementing. [...]
[...] completed our business autopsy back in July and implemented a number of changes resulting from this, we have not left it at [...]
[...] sure that all of our Product Managers (in their new roles created only a few short months ago at the autopsy) all have the chance to read this [...]
[...] is clear to me that this is the stage where a number of our employees were at, around the time of our autopsy (indeed, it was explicitly noted to me that the measure by which some were judging their [...]
[...] all the changes we have had on the go in the company since the autopsy, I have been very conscious of the need to ensure that all employees are still engaged and aligned [...]
[...] of our central focuses back in our Business Autopsy in July (which we’re now starting to think of as Autopsy 1), was the fact that our software development [...]
[...] that does not make sense… This page is meant to compliment two pieces of information: 1)
[...] in July we performed our own Autopsy 1 – which was done in a day, and delivered some benefits.
[...] A public post was produced the week afterwards that gave a high-level overview of what had gone on. 2) A restricted post, which was only partially [...]
[...] a result of the restructure we put in place with Autopsy 1, we have had some Product Managers accept responsibility for the scheduling of development work [...]
[...] It was my failure to do this successfully, and the (lack of) results that followed that led to us completing Autopsy 1. [...]
[...] (who have a maximum of 5 years working experience now, mainly with us) were in this boat.
[...] UPIP project being canned indefinitely.
[...] keeping informed of the machinations at work in our company over the past 6-12 months (through the Autopsy 1 day, and the Autopsy 2 process) will recognise that we’re [...]
[...] for me, I have had to accept that the failures that triggered Autopsy 1 and led into the Autopsy 2 process were ultimately because of some things I had done wrong in the [...]
[...] autopsy 1 process did have the effect of buying some time, and autopsy 2 helped as well (following from the [...]
[...] and it was hurting us, so we had to flip our focus back to creativity again.
[...] What does this mean, in practical terms? I’ve been reflecting on this message since our first business autopsy several years ago.