In my consulting work, there’s almost always a point in the client discovery phase where I find a spreadsheet that holds all the programs that are in queue. In most cases, they are color-coded green if staffed and underway. Yellow is reserved for those that are promising, but “below” the line for staffing.
Then there is the curious category of red. These are the ones that are below the line of projects that may have a big impact, but that are outside of our comfort zone in terms of their variance. While more sophisticated firms may have them mapped over to a 2×2 matrix, there is almost always a rich set of ideas and concepts that are “below the line.”
When I sit with the individuals involved from the team, they always lament their programs being “below the line” as if it’s a reflection of their personal value. Having now done this for many firms, the one thing I know for sure is that it’s incredibly hard to know a disruptive approach from a bad idea – and most firms struggle to make the call.
The truth is that there is a lot of gold in that portion of the list. The trick is to know how to mine it.
The Key Issue? Assumptions that Lead us Astray
The instincts of an established firm lead it toward doing things with internal groups, and usually those groups are formed around existing product lines and services. They typically develop a powerful group competence, which is why it’s pretty straightforward for them to do the resource priority work “above the line.”
There are three subtle assumptions buried in this competence that lead to the gold being stuck on the bottom of the page:
1.The Assumption: If it’s hard to value, it must be of less value.
The reason this hurts the funding of the program: This is much like the punchline of the gentleman who was looking under the streetlamp for his car keys (because he could see there). Every program that activates a powerful new market is hard for the firm to value at the outset. But by breaking it down, you almost always find a handful of value drivers that you can get clarity on. And once you begin building your model, you’ll typically find more underlying value than you anticipated. With judicious use of outside resources, you can add a foundation to the model that gives you the confidence to move forward.
2. The Assumption: If we have a group meeting to evaluate those hard-to-value projects, we will somehow be smarter and more insightful.
The reason this hurts the funding of the program: What is really going on here is that we are using our lack of knowledge to stave off personal risk. We need to reintroduce real group work by carefully building these sessions using the Monte Carlo model. This method raises the bar and puts the tools of critical thinking back into play to develop a unique viewpoint and an investable thesis for the program.
3. The Assumption: Resources are the same whether they are working on any of the projects on the list.
The reason this hurts the funding of the program: You need to match the team’s motivation and ability to the projects on the list. A “flat view” is a close cousin to the “mythical man hour” paradigm that says all contributors are interchangeable machine parts. The truth is that the alignment of the capability and interest of the participants can result in huge swings in performance. Some of the below-the-line programs could activate people to go above and beyond, allowing you to get more done with the same talent.
The Three-Step Process Through These Issues
The good news is working your way through the bottom portion of the list is not as daunting as you might think – the key is to shrewdly use a combination of tools to drive individual insights and team action.
Inception
The goal: Improve the list before you start choosing, as the creation of the key building blocks of insight reward reflective work. I have seen very good results when a select, small group of individuals have been asked to complete a pre-read and answer some thought-provoking questions – individually. When you then bring people together, you have a much richer discussion, and avoid the “fast followers” piling onto the first idea floated.
Maturation
The goal: Join the fresh insights formed in the inception phase with the original list and “bracket” the programs. In this phase, we build small nimble teams of people to quickly do a number of interactions inside and outside the firm. By rapidly seeking and compiling information, we can dismiss dead ends, refine the range of impact and get a sense of the potential business case.
Execution
The goal: Build a diverse and agile implementation team. This is where the real uphill climb of getting the unknown unknowns gets done in earnest – which is best done by skilled individuals set up in cross-functional process structures. To keep this work joined to the firm’s strategy, be sure to use the mini-BOD approach described here. For more on a unique process for this work, see posts here and here.
Wrapping it Up
The above process consistently unearths a very high-value project that are below the line. By adding a dash of outside insight, a pinch of focus and a few tools, we are able to mine value from what has been typically stiff armed for quite a long time.
The true value will last long beyond the first program you do. The mindset, processes and insights you gather will set in motion more balanced approach that adds consistent value to your firm.
To get started on this journey, please give me a call at 847-651-1014 or use this link to set up a 20-minute, (no-strings-attached) consult.
