Skip to main content

Decisioneering; the Art of too much process

Okay, I now believe I am onto something. And not like Walker Texas Ranger with the mono-expressive mug and the kick somebody’s ass in the process onto something, oh no, it is more of an “Ah-Ha!” moment like Agent Dave Kujan in the Usual Suspects when he realizes he just was spun a tall tale by Kaiser Soze himself.

Decision process has been addressed by many, and almost all more qualified in formal, scientific and practical education then me. So I take the position of being one of the
Cult of the Amateur, (great read by the way), monkeys and I proffer; Decisoneering (TM Pending Viral Adoption).

Decisioneering is the over-engineering of a simple decision because you can. In fact by using Decisioneering often the event that drove the decision point is over, closed out and has expired by the time the Decisioneered solution has been finalized. It is the equivalent of deciding whether to swat and kill a fly now with whatever is at hand or, via researching, proposing, socializing, re-researching, re-proposing, and finally deciding to kill the fly via an elaborate
Rube Goldberg device which is well researched and effective, but the fly has left the room.

The point here is, when there is a lot of intellectual bandwidth for a decision in the room, resist the temptation to max bandwidth and get to the right decision more efficiently.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

When the Details are the Devil

Nice turn of phrase and very appropriate for a client I am working with. The client is growing; in fact it is growing so fast it has decided to implement process to handle the growth. The process is so detailed that it is actually slowing growth and in some areas, forcing a decline in growth. So I was asked why. The why was very straightforward to discover. You have a sub-$10M company implementing the same process as a $3B company. Not only is the process decisioneered beyond rational thought, it is so complex that asking a single person to manage it is crippling. For example; When a company sells a product that adds onto or works with another product, infrastructure, or application the process should reflect the “aftermarket” nature of this business. Look at Home Depot. They do not sell houses, but they sell about every aftermarket part and piece for homes (and outside the home) you can imagine. And they make no bones about it. One does not go to home depot to re-engineer their house ...

Death of a Sales Team, One by One

While participating in a rather tedious discussion of the sales team effectiveness, well in this case its ineffectiveness, I heard the following; “They (meaning any sales person on the team) can just call on their contact network while we ramp lead gen.” Yikes. While the words stung my ex-sales person ears I thought there has to be an “ism” for this start up phenomena. That is a start up hires a salesperson who has a strong Rolodex and expects them to generate business from this Rolodex as a means to ramp to quota while the company gets its marketing house in order. The inevitable end result is the salesperson exhausts his or her contact database and ends up on a PIP (Performance Improvement Plan) and then is let go for under achieving. Then it hit me; Rolodeath. This is the “ism” I am looking for to describe this group think outcome. Imminent death for a salesperson occurs by allowing them to exhaust their personal network with no real lead gen in sight. Anyone? Buehler?

Masterebate

This is the second time. Fool me once shame on me, fool me twice I am a pathetic loser like Harry in D&D. Now I am not one of the silicon valley intellectual, financial, and cultural elite. How do I know this? Because they stopped calling me back. Yup moved on to the next level and here I sit in the baby pool awash with other people’s… Apologies that one got away from me. That is another post entirely. So here I sit looking for the following items because Canon will graciously: “…(might) may be able to resubmit your request for processing if you are able to provide copies of your submission information. If you have retained a copy of your disclaimer page in lieu of the UPC, you may fax them to the number at the end of this email, or mail them to us at: Mailing address: Canada: Customer Service Department PO Box 979 Fonthill, ON L0S 1E0 USA: Customer Service Department PO Box 52901 Phoenix, AZ 85072 If you wish, you can also send your documents via email as a...