Any industry be it Retail, Manufacturing, Healthcare, Education, Pharmaceutical, Mining, etc will have a middlemen in the whole process starting from procurement to consumption. Always there is a talk on eliminating the 'middleman' which just pertains to removing the layers and gaining advantages on costs.
Well, my discussion of today is on identifying the 'middleman' correctly - as 'middleman' can be a physical entity, a human interface or a 'thought process' which seeps in and add costs, budget to the overall process expenditure.
Lets take a case in IT perspective (where commodity is software) - most of us get an opportunity to start small as a basic developer while coding for a particular product. Some of us also have an opportunity to sell the product & see it earn acceptance via a huge chunk of users but then why most of the organisations suffer to deliver a product quickly or adapt a change or transformation quickly, after all it's a bunch of developers working to flush out a change or product teams working to revise the process. Well, it's because of the 'middleman' & here it can be either the 'thought process' or that the talent which created the product and is no longer present.
You might think that a group or a bunch of people who work to create something exceptional might be rewarded to stay and shape it, well - may not be, as someone who creates a product understood by another might just be taken over by a 'middleman' posing as a creator to resell it back to the management to generate long term value. Insecurity of the middleman might be the reason for developer to not be rewarded or be completely swapped out & it's very common, the result - focus shift & cost to company at the end (but who cares), question is ---> How do you identify such a scenario - doesn't exist & it might have broader implications on long term costs/agility?
It's simple - ask for changes on the product and the cost generation quotient will start triggering. More people needed, learning curve, chaos, developers leaving the project/organisation, blame game. All these are costs to the company. A good pattern to visualise is when number of people entering and leaving a group is more or less - constant, changes to teams impact costs, value generation and loose the objective.
A creator always tries to enhance the first built product, a creator always has a roadmap, a middleman never has a complete roadmap or complete understanding of the product.
This is just one case, other case is when we are working in a particular setting our thought process resists change & hence we try to use the route we always travel. The creator would have a number of ideas in the mind but wouldn't share the same as they have always been questioned to follow the predefined route. This is where the stale thinking needs to go with taking small risks, identifying areas where a simple change might not be risky but be beneficial on a large scale, key is agility of the change and immediate inception & adoption rate. Benefits are new thought processes and team confidence, latest process/technology adoption and company adoption to stay ahead or compete with competitors.
Key factors enhancing this are automation at various levels, automation serves to build up maturity in processes and right analytics serves to build up long term product roadmap.
The biggest drawback to above synergy is the developed thought process via a group of people resisting change, this is where the management needs to step in to break that chain of thought.
Hence it's important to - eliminate the 'right' middleman to obtain technological success trend & process agility.
Well, my discussion of today is on identifying the 'middleman' correctly - as 'middleman' can be a physical entity, a human interface or a 'thought process' which seeps in and add costs, budget to the overall process expenditure.
Lets take a case in IT perspective (where commodity is software) - most of us get an opportunity to start small as a basic developer while coding for a particular product. Some of us also have an opportunity to sell the product & see it earn acceptance via a huge chunk of users but then why most of the organisations suffer to deliver a product quickly or adapt a change or transformation quickly, after all it's a bunch of developers working to flush out a change or product teams working to revise the process. Well, it's because of the 'middleman' & here it can be either the 'thought process' or that the talent which created the product and is no longer present.
You might think that a group or a bunch of people who work to create something exceptional might be rewarded to stay and shape it, well - may not be, as someone who creates a product understood by another might just be taken over by a 'middleman' posing as a creator to resell it back to the management to generate long term value. Insecurity of the middleman might be the reason for developer to not be rewarded or be completely swapped out & it's very common, the result - focus shift & cost to company at the end (but who cares), question is ---> How do you identify such a scenario - doesn't exist & it might have broader implications on long term costs/agility?
It's simple - ask for changes on the product and the cost generation quotient will start triggering. More people needed, learning curve, chaos, developers leaving the project/organisation, blame game. All these are costs to the company. A good pattern to visualise is when number of people entering and leaving a group is more or less - constant, changes to teams impact costs, value generation and loose the objective.
A creator always tries to enhance the first built product, a creator always has a roadmap, a middleman never has a complete roadmap or complete understanding of the product.
This is just one case, other case is when we are working in a particular setting our thought process resists change & hence we try to use the route we always travel. The creator would have a number of ideas in the mind but wouldn't share the same as they have always been questioned to follow the predefined route. This is where the stale thinking needs to go with taking small risks, identifying areas where a simple change might not be risky but be beneficial on a large scale, key is agility of the change and immediate inception & adoption rate. Benefits are new thought processes and team confidence, latest process/technology adoption and company adoption to stay ahead or compete with competitors.
Key factors enhancing this are automation at various levels, automation serves to build up maturity in processes and right analytics serves to build up long term product roadmap.
The biggest drawback to above synergy is the developed thought process via a group of people resisting change, this is where the management needs to step in to break that chain of thought.
Hence it's important to - eliminate the 'right' middleman to obtain technological success trend & process agility.
No comments:
Post a Comment