Things We Do Not Do
... we prevent a planned success make things worse
Go2Cab has a list of Things We Do Not Do. The “we do not do” is a list of classical methods used to undertake the “as is”, “to be”, gap analysis, the construction of operating models, roadmaps and alike. Unlike the traditional methods, Go2cab Evidence Based Decision Making framework avoids wasting Client’s time when undertaking business transformation.
Things We Do NOT Do include:
>> Go2Cab avoids wasting Client’s time during business transformation.
>> We do not tell what you already know.
>> We do not ask classical questions and forget (or ignore) asking the right questions.
>> We do not collect numerous posted notes with content that has little or noting to do with addressing your real pain.
>> We do not author ambiguous, non-traceable or non-testable business or systems requirements that may look cool but neither add value to your “Value Chain” nor make sense when compared with your desired targets.
In cases where reports become evidence, such facts are no more than a visualisation of raw data as charts, tables and percentages over time. If and when there is any analysis, one can bet that the analysis is averaging data. We have seen Clients trapped into using the wrong evidence, be it data collected from a survey where the classical report is a bar chart and percent of responses per category or, a collection of bubble charts or heat maps presented as a consolidated outcome of the situation. Ironically, one of the mistakes is treating categorical data collected from the survey as a score (say from 1 to 5) like numerical data. Another common mistake is relying on the height of a bar or percentage to reflect the significance of the topic.
Another “We Do NOT Do” is drawing procedural-like workflows where the majority of Clients are ill-advised to start with the “as is” situation. For a start, neither the facilitator nor the audience has the knowledge of the best practice. The sessions turn into gathering opinions and issues discussed lead to a confusing “workflow”. The outcome is then generalised to topics representing the inefficient operation such as Communication, Stakeholder Management, Lack of Automation and Reporting. Such topics are the same regardless of the domain. People ignore the details in an attempt to simplify the situation so that workflows are drawn using some notation or a “magic” tool as if the notation or the tool will sort out the organisational issues. Large sums of money is spent and people are hired to draw numerous pictures with no one asking questions like “Do we really need this part or that process”. In most cases, people refer to “processes” without knowing what it means. In the end, no one uses such pictures and money is obviously wasted.