Comments on: Quackery, Snake Oil and Local Fixes

By: grahamoakes

grahamoakes — Sat, 03 Nov 2012 13:28:26 +0000

The question of applying local fixes comes up a lot in my mind. As a consultant, I rarely have access to the full organisation, so I’m always restricted to local fixes at some level. That’s often true even for the biggest consultancies, and for most managers and even executives within organisations. The best I can do is push at the limits of the scope as currently defined, to try to see if better solutions can be found by expanding the box a little.

One thing that does occur to me that we often think of locality in terms of scope within the organisation / process / system. But locality in time is also very important. Sometimes we need to make a local (in scope), suboptimum fix in order to demonstrate that our ideas work, build confidence, etc. Call it an experiment, if you will.

Perhaps we should recognise that no consultant can ever bring a fix, but only an experiment? If the experiment delivers promising results, then the organisation still needs to internalise it and work out how it applies in the wider context? The consultant can help with this, but the client has to take final responsibility.

Blaming consultants when clients don’t take such responsibility isn’t helpful. But consultants do deserve blame when they encourage the client into dependency, such that they (the client) can no longer take responsibility.

By: flowchainsensei

flowchainsensei — Sat, 03 Nov 2012 10:58:53 +0000

In reply to Mike Burrows (@asplake).Hi Mike, Thanks for joining the conversation. I was writing in this post specifically about the travails of the local fix, as I have recently had conversations with suppliers bemoaning their client's demands for (dysfunctional) local fixes, and with organisations bemoaning their suppliers' delivery of local fixes which have proved less than stellar.It seems to me that both sets of parties have yet to even realise that a large part of their underperformance (poor results) have come specifically from trying to apply local fixes, contrary to the advice and observations of e.g. Ackoff and Goldratt.- Bob

By: Mike Burrows (@asplake)

Mike Burrows (@asplake) — Sat, 03 Nov 2012 10:33:41 +0000

I’ve seen first-hand a reputable organisation brought to its knees after acting on poor advice from a big name consultancy – a far from pleasant experience. But good people and good approaches are out there too, and it would be lazy of us to leave it there. How about some “further reading” that offers something useful?

The size and locality of the fix is irrelevant if it’s based on poor understanding of the problem, blind faith in the solution, or is implemented in a way that is incompatible with the organisation’s ability to undergo change. So I’m all for fixes that improve understanding, test (and help disseminate) the models and assumptions on which both diagnosis and cure are based, and create bright spots of both performance and change capability. Think that through, and there’s the germ of a method waiting to be (re)discovered.

By: changearc

changearc — Fri, 02 Nov 2012 11:26:33 +0000

I’d add that many “Consulting Organisations” knowingly prescribe Tylenol and stronger pain killers, even when they know the organisation has cancer! The reason is that the patient will be continually coming back with a string of complaints that you’ll charge them for. Furthermore, when it’s time for the anything resembling a “real cure”, they get to do more work! If the patient dies though, in this context that’s not a problem as like a video game, they just do a “re-spawn” and if the CO has played their cards right they get to do it all over again!

Of course, because the real root cause was never addressed, the result is of course the same, thus creating a positive feedback loop which can only end in two ways: 1. The Org actually does change or 2. The Org dies as it has run out of resources (Yell anyone? ;). The truth of the matter is that the “Doctor” is “The Cancer”…

By: Nils Wloka

Nils Wloka — Fri, 02 Nov 2012 10:36:01 +0000

Setting aside the obviously unethical practice of not explicitly stating “the promise, risks and limitations” of whatever a coach or consultant is selling, I wonder how the problem of sub-optimisation can effectively be addressed in a (business) world in which most actors are highly specialised.

Addressing local problems (but not necessarily optimising for a local situation), facilitating a “healthier lifestyle” for those parts the whole business your are comfortable working with, and then expanding outwards from there seems to be a plausible compromise. I wonder whether there is a way of doing this without falling into the trap you described in /2012/03/14/agile-coaching-is-evil/ and guess it depends an whether enough energy can be created to overcome organisational gravity.

Also, I’d love to hear about other, more promising solutions.