VOC & Fast Focused Change

Nice-to-haves are a serious cause for overruns. The solution is simple and at the same time a though mindset and discipline.

It doesn't matter what indusry and it doesn't matter at what stage of development it is. I know that 20 years ago the same difficulty existed and continues to exist.

The solution sounds so simple: create and only create what is minimaaly necessary. What is preventing us and what can we do about it?

Some of my achievements

The achievements are the result of a team. I do know that in all the cases below, without me, it would not have been easy or possible at all.

Sometimes I had to teach myself new things. Sometimes I had to completely develop new things).

Busy with BPR-Toolbox

Past couple of weeks I've been busy helping to further develop the BPR-Toolbox from Eforis.

From a personal perspective a very nice and interesting job. Lots of stuff going on, working with really smart people that like to push things and be reasonable as well. One of the first requirements was: we want a sexy application. Given the feedback we get, we managed this nicely.

MIN=MAX-rule

What is needed minimally to achieve the objective, is the maximum we're going to do. This is the  MIN=MAX-rule.

Projects tend to have some unnecessary and missing 'luggage'. The MIN = MAX-rule is ideal in determining the scope of projects. A good remedy for scope screep. And, it is also a good way to decide to included things while this was not obvious within the scope.

Undercurrents, saboteurs and control freaks

Sometimes there is a complaint about undercurrents in an organization. Undercurrents that slow down a change and make the transformation difficult.

Find the saboteurs. Make undercurrents visible. An open culture of mutual respect and sincerity is a necessity to work efficiently and effectively together

Really? Or is this a selling point of control freaks who want to push their own agenda?

Why throw away the baby with the bathwater?

Too often ideas are too quickly rejected because they are not quite perfect. And that's a pity.

A pity because it ignores the human aspect.
A pity because an idea can often be made al lot better with a little effort.
A pitty because it is a missed learning opportunity.

Within the Theory of Constraints (TOC) there is this beautiful technique to handle this in an interactive and well-communicable way. This technique is called Negative Branch Reservation, a mouthful and therefore according to good use abbreviated to three letters: NBr.

3.0 Consultant???

What I believe makes a 3.0 Consultant different from other types of consultants evolves around the concepts: interactive, flexible and cohesion.

To picture the context in which a 3.0 Consultant is of most value:

• A solution is desirable / is a necessity
• All the known has been tried or rejected
• too expensive, too time consuming, doesn't feel good, too uncertain, too little support
• Multiple disciplines/silos/stakeholders are involved

In short, standard solutions are as usefull as a hammer to drive in a screw. A big hammer, a small screw-thread and plenty of force will probably work. However, this is not the 3.0 Consultant way.