woolfson's posterous

I am grateful to my friend and colleague Clint Evans who co-authored this post with me.

RISK IS REWARDING

In this short post we pose some broad questions about risk and whether we are ready as businesses and individuals to regard risk as a strategic competency.

Risk is one of those words that are easily said and often heard. You hear it in meetings and exchanges between managers and leaders – "what's the risk to my current business / project / job / cash flow?.  You hear it in informal chat – "that sounds risky" or "I wouldn't risk it".  We see it in project initiation documents especially from the IT department (if you have an eye for this sort of thing, watch out for the section highlighted "project risks", you may be the only person that reads it).  We read  the global risk reports produced by the large accountancy networks,  specialist risk boutiques and those who have an inherent requirement to understand risk as part of their business model – particularly the  Insurance sector. So risk is all around us and we are familiar with risk as understood in the functional phrase "risk management". The risk management department or manager is often where we send issues of a compliance nature, but probably less so for issues relating to behaviours, ways of working, skills and commerciality. The economic uncertainties within our ineluctably changing world means we are reading more often about the board members of the large listed Corporates taking more of an active role with risk. It's increasingly getting onto their agendas either to get involved directly with solving a risk or regulatory problem or in an oversight capacity to minimise risk. Perhaps now is the time to recognise risk in the management mainstream.  But for this to happen our view is that some seismic changes in attitude will be needed to turn the default stance of risk aversion in business to one of risk loving and mastery.

Many years ago (over 10, I think that qualifies for  terming it “many years “), along with an emerging global force in the world of strategic and operational collaboration, Roger Bromley  of Internetworks and myself set about creating a new model to deliver research services across non-competitive professional service businesses.

I wanted to provide a better service to my then professional services employer. I wanted them to get more from their investment; I wanted my internal clients and therefore their clients to get a brilliant product, service and consistently brilliant outcomes; I wanted to offer engaging work and ownership to the researchers; I wanted to get the same buzz I saw professional consultants & advisers receiving when they provided great results for their clients. 

I knew I couldn’t afford and maintain a team of top level of performers on my own. I knew I couldn’t purchase or even always know what to purchase and select for use just on our own (we would always miss out on something or not be able to afford key content).   I knew if I went to a research outsourcer I would be a little disappointed at some point: cultural and engagement distance would get in the way of consistently brilliant outcomes. 

So together with Roger we talked through what I could do to solve the problem. we ended up with a collaboration proposition:  to improve our research capability with economies of scale and scope.  If there were others outside of my firm in the same broad domain with similar desires then we should be able to work out a way forward. 

Collaboration was the device to deliver the benefit. It wasn’t collaboration for its own sake. If I could have improved the research service on my own with an affordable solution then that is what I would have done.  But there is a view: there are always more smart people outside than within your own business (it’s a bigger pot outside).  

I was collaborating as I had a gain in mind.  Roger introduced me to the concept of "Collaborative Gain". We pitched the proposition; we built a financial model and business plan. A shared service providing economies of scale, scope, a culture of excellence driven by focus on research,  service delivery and a detailed knowledge of the domain.  But this shared service retained its spokes into the founder businesses; the hub was a virtual one which held the management, quality, operational and commercial protocols: an intelligent hub.  We felt it was a new business model for research which would reduce costs and improve outcomes without losing touch with our firms. 

So what happened; well we met with many firms; we pulled in initial seed money from a large number which financed the commissioning and publication of a research benchmark made up from the participating firms.  We then brought all together for a great day. The lunch was good, the debate was lively; we managed to bring in a number (ca 5) “founder firms” who were keen to explore further.  But and here’s the rub we couldn’t reach out to a next stage.  

It became obvious that there wasn’t enough management energy or time available at both the functional operating level and the corresponding Board level to actually develop the new research model.  It did require an initial spike in activity across all the areas you would expect (people, finance, budgets, SLAs etc etc and probably many more etc's which we hadn't considered).  

Sadly we had to let it go; “let it go Andrew, move on”.  Roger and myself have remained in touch ever since and have worked together on other initiatives. The model is still a good one but the professional services sector had its own pace at that time.  

But I detect now that the pace has changed. Everyone is trying out new models; debates about contingency working, open innovation; crowdsourcing; non-compete collaborations are not seen as strange. The strategic challenges to professional services are the same across many firms and at the same time: talent, economic uncertainty; innovating management structure; a dual focus on “how we do it” as well as “what we do”. So maybe it’s time to lift the dust covers off and refresh the collaboration model in combination with today’s opportunities, tools and drivers.  Could be interesting; must email Roger.....

I have a love of fine art black & white photography. One day walking around Carmel I spotted the photographywest gallery and after a very short time walked out with a Don Worth photograph. Don is now no longer with us, i think he died a couple of years ago. Anyhow,he used large format cameras and he had this brilliant way of using light and the surrouding conditions to convey a depth of understanding to the image. The more you look the more you can feel , the more you can talk about it in wonder.  

The particular image i bought was of Aspens in New Mexico - do a search on Google "Don Worth Aspens" and you'll get a glimpse of what the photograph will be like. 

Don was an assitant to the great Ansell Adams; now i have none of Adams work. He is famous for his photography especially of Yosemite. But what fascinated me was that Don Worth's photograph of Aspens was taken at roughly the same time as one taken by Ansell Adams of the same subject.

Its hard to tell from a copy but i looked at the two and felt Don Worth's had a mystery to it beyond that of his teacher and master.  

There are many times when you seek to bring new ideas into a place of activity whether its work, sport, leisure, culture or wherever. And then someone comes along not steeped in your experiences and with less years to show for themselves than you. Then they show an intrinsic understanding of the domain, bringing a connection and deep understanding for others. I came across this last week when summer students were with us for a whle.  They soaked up information; listened to new ideas and approaches. They then turned in such a brilliantly on point presentation with an understanding - in this case use - of social media tools and their relationship to CSR (Corporate Social Responsibiity). There migtht be many reasons for this - whether its individual experiences or whether the adrenilin of the moment. I prefer to think the fabric of online tools are in their culture and not just at the margins.

The master will do well to listen to the apprentice if they are to maintain their mastery.

Sitting in a wine bar; not at this very moment. Start again - sitting in a wine bar last night. Three of us sitting in a wine bar with an idea; well two had the idea and I listened. The idea: a place to meet like-minded people in a positive response to negative feelings about conferences.  Idea comes my way after the 2nd bottle. The idea gets morphed..and we start looking for a name. That's how it works; ideas get shaped with others and then we have to name them.

We got to "Line of Sight" - a meeting of un-like minded people but who have a curiosity to hear new ideas and have an in-decent or decent conversation from as many disciplines, parts of life, cultures, outlooks as possible. The three founder members will invite one person each to the first event (a dinner date in a fitting club in London). Then  the next event..the three new invitees will invite 3 more and so on.

It will reach a place and become what it wants to become as we grow the connections. Only "almost rule" will be no invites for people who are very well known  by the inviter. Rules though are there to be broken.

"Line of Sight"; well we were looking at a shop sign from the wine bar: it was in a line of sight from our table...it sort of works. 

Simple way of thinking:

Understand the context of business you are in, its people, motivations, relatonships and organistaional demands.

Think through the wider picture of how indivuduals operate, perform, are rewarded, andthe nature of their relationships.

Think "outside in" back from clients, relationships, influencers to the individual, the firm and the context within which all are working and living.

Look at patterns of work and current tools fix counter-intuitive solutions with new tools to support natural ways of working.

Constantly refresh thinking to ensure individuals' selfish benefits are being met and always seek to derive a collective gain from any proposed solution. If no collective gain then don't sell it as such but don't slavishly throw away the individual benefit just because there is no collective gain.

Review the ways of working, collaboration is only sensible if it gains you more than the effort.

Very personal:

Stay outside

Keep your humour

Reduce details 

Think practical outcomes

Be strategic but don't talk strategic ad nauseam

Don't fall into functional traps

Innovate

Reach out and bring back in

Deliver more than words

Write stunning communications

Don't be marginalised

Have your own opinions and say them