Author: Group Solutions

Established in 1989, we have worked with hundreds of companies and executives around the world on break-through strategies that rely on transparent and open input from employees, customers and stakeholders. Expertise: Our use of decision-support technologies and structured planning models reduce the time and complexity associated with strategic planning, stakeholder engagement, restructuring, strategy development, complex project management, and operational planning initiatives.

Establishing business trust is an iterative journey between two or more organizations. Each party is continuously asking and re-asking itself the following questions:

Motives
How do I feel about your stated and unstated motives?
Do I believe you are stating your true goals and intentions?
Do I believe you are seeking an outcome that benefits me?
Do I disagree with your intended or perceived gains and outcomes?

Believability
Do I believe you understand my needs?
Do I believe your stated actions coincide with achieving my goals?
Do I believe your words and actions to be for my benefit, our benefit, or your benefit?

Credibility
Do I believe you have the skill and ability to do what you say you can?
Are your successes verifiable?
How do I confirm your stated competency and success?
Do I believe you will deliver on your commitments?

Predictability
Can I foretell how you will respond in a given situation (positively or negatively)?
Can I easily guess what you will do in any given situation?Are you consistent in your responses and actions?
Are your reactions consistent when facing similar situations?

Reliability
Do you do what you say you will?
What does your track record indicate?
How do you handle failure or non-performance?

Data shows that we do not expect 100% performance as a requirement for giving our trust. We know that there will be disappointments and can forgive. Doing what you say you will, about 8 times out of 10, is an acceptable track record for most business partners.

brett boston, Governance, Group Process, Public Engagement Strategies, Strategy

A Growth in Public Sector Partnering (Part 2)

December 10, 2017 Group Solutions

In the first article of this series we discussed how flat-to-declining public sector budgets are making partnerships more attractive to government agencies. We discussed the concept of “collaborative capital” as a means for the public sector to enhance skills, funding, data, staff, and competencies that it no longer possesses.

Further, we outlined 4 distinct resource types needed by partnerships.

Intellectual Capital: the data, unique processes, software, and insight that is the basis of each partner’s business model. It includes the ability to confer legitimacy on any of the above.
Political Capital: the ability of each partner to influence public policy, regulation, law, and public budgets.
Labor: the staff and volunteers each partner can commit toward ongoing governance, developing solutions, and implementation.
Financial Capital: the actual dollar funding each partner provides toward the solution.

Each of these 4 elements of collaborative capital are generally required to solve public sector problems. Not surprisingly, financial capital is the element most often in short supply. There are 3 main reasons for this:

Public sector budgets are flat or have been declining for over a decade.
Public sector partnership members tend to be from other public sector agencies (federal, state, and local), nonprofit organizations, universities, and quasi-governmental groups like advisory councils and planning authorities. These groups generally have resource elements 1, 2 and 3, but little financial capital.
There is an ongoing reticence for public sector groups to partner directly with the private sector. The private sector could be a great source of financial capital, but there are concerns about:

The private sector having different motives – profit motives. Profit motives are generally viewed by the public and nonprofit sectors as preventing altruistic funding. The common view is that few private sector entities define altruism as essential to their business model and the funding they provide has strings attached.
The motives for partnering are as important as the goals of the partnership. Suspicion of profit oriented motives can lead to mistrust and suspicion of the private sector by other sectors. “What are they after?”, is a question we often hear.
In the case of nonprofits, partnering with the private sector can be seen by their membership as “selling out”.
Additionally, public sector partnering with the private sector is complicated by laws, policies, and formal oversight rules that increase the burden of compliance and administration.

It’s all about perceived risk.

There is an inherent risk that all parties in a partnership must subscribe to – mainly the risk that one’s partners will do something negative and the fallout will impact everyone’s reputation. Right or wrong, public and nonprofit sectors often perceive this risk to be higher, or more likely to occur, when working with private sector partners.

Our experience has shown partnerships that include the private sector are no riskier than partnerships between public sector entities and between the public sector and nonprofit sectors.

Partnerships within the public sector – between federal agencies, or between federal and state agencies – have all the same real and perceived risks as partnering with the private sector.

The perceived risk items for private sector partnering listed above are identical to partnering within the federal, state or nonprofit sectors. Money from any source other than the private sector is viewed as a good thing. This aversion by many to private sector funding and participation is the next great hurdle for public sector leaders to address. The decline in public funding for critical programs and priority projects may just be the catalyst that breaks the ice for some.

As public sector budgets continue to decline, access to outside financial resources will, of necessity, become a key source of funding. It will become necessary to seek out private sector entities willing to bring financial resources to the partnership.

Breaking down the perceived risks and barriers to include all sectors in a partnership involves unpacking the elements of business trust. In the next section, we will cover those elements and outline how to apply a model of business trust to expanding beyond the traditional and obvious partners.

brett boston, Governance, Group Process, Public Engagement Strategies, Strategy

A Growth in Public Sector Partnering

November 8, 2017 Group Solutions

partnership (1)

noun part·ner·ship \ ˈpärt-nər-ˌship \

Definition of partnership

:an arrangement in which people engage in an activity or business with one another or share something with each other

There is growing public sector interest in partnerships. Once found only in the private sector, the concept of partnering is increasingly important to how the public sector approaches:

resource constraints,
increasingly complex problems, and
implementation of sustainable solutions.

In this new series of articles, we will discuss new concepts in public sector partnering. We outline the elements of a good partnership. We also provide some suggestions for assessing partnerships governance and performance.

It is important to define partners as being different from stakeholders. Partners bring resources to the fight. Stakeholders bring issues, points of view, and positions. Partners invest time, talent, and treasure – the 3 Ts – to mutually determined problems.

As public sector budgets remain flat, or decline, hiring and contracting for services are no longer options. The public sector is increasingly seeking partners to provide the skills, funding, data, staff, and competencies that it does not possess. We refer to this joining of resources as “collaborative capital.” Collaborative capital is the sharing of intellectual capital, political capital, labor, and financial capital among many organizations to address a defined problem.

Intellectual Capital: the data, unique processes, software, and insight that is the basis of each partner’s business model. It includes the ability to confer legitimacy on any of the above.
Political Capital: the ability of each partner to influence public policy, regulation, law, and public budgets.
Labor: the staff and volunteers each partner can commit toward ongoing governance, developing solutions, and implementation.
Financial Capital: the actual dollar funding each partner provides toward the solution.

Each of these 4 elements of collaborative capital are generally required to solve public sector problems. Each partner should provide some or all the 4. Some partners bring only one of the above and others all four. The most successful partnerships have the necessary and sufficient partners to provide all 4 types of collaborative capital.

In the next segment, we will discuss each of the collaborative capital elements in more detail, and how they play out in public sector partnering.

brett boston

Innovative solutions for “encouraging” walkable cities

March 16, 2015 Group Solutions

If you want to be a walk-able city you have to provide more information for walkers. This involves standardizing signage and providing visitor and residents a sense of the distance to the destination.

I recall being in London on a business trip with an extra day to spend. After visiting some new sites, I deciding to go to 221 B Baker Street. This was in the 1990 (pre-smart phone for the youngsters reading this) – the “dark ages” for having up-to-date information and digital anything. Paper maps were the only form of navigation. Getting there involved reading a stylized paper city map of London. The mapmakers had not seen fit to include 221 B Baker Street, which made for extra challenges.

After a 3-mile walk (that only appeared as inches on the paper map) I arrived at the correct street address. Unfortunately, this was before anyone decided to erect a museum or put a plaque on the wall indicating the world-famous detective that once had a residence here. The problem, according to Wikipedia, is that the street numbers for the location of the residence were changed in the 1930s. The block of odd numbers from 215 to 229 was assigned to an Art Deco building known as Abbey House, constructed in 1932 for the Abbey Road Building Society, which the society and its successor (which subsequently became Abbey National plc) occupied until 2002. The residence of Sherlock Holmes was not recognized as such. It is now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/221B_Baker_Street

So without any map application or a smart phone, and without any Internet information for the change in address, I arrived at the correct “address”, but was not at the correct “location”. A long trek that came up short and deprived me of a visit to my favorite detective’s museum. Good exercise, but a disappointment.

Every city in the world has a similar problem for visitors. How do city employees recognize all the locations that visitors might be interested in? Further, how do they provide signage the helps create a walk-able city? Check out this new solution for signage; one that helps walkers enjoy the visit.

http://www.citylab.com/design/2015/02/diy-wayfinding-signs-are-about-to-go-mainstream/386081/?utm_source=SFFB

Governance, Group Proces

Inter-organizational teams are the new norm in addressing complex problems.

February 26, 2013February 26, 2013 Group Solutions

Organizations have internally addressed the problems they can tackle alone, and are now reaching beyond their organizational structure to address problems for which they have only partial control or impact. This means participating in inter-organization bodies with the mission to solve the problem by working collaboratively across partner organizations to create solutions.

Inter-organization problem solving creates huge problems for traditional managers and management theory.

Loss of Control
It is uncomfortable for organizations and managers to give up control and decision-making to inter-organizational bodies. Establishing business trust is THE essential element for real progress and support for the work of inter-organizational team’s to be successfully implemented.

Prioritizing Resources
Participation on inter-organizational teams requires that resources be offered up to the team, and people’s time is only the start. Resources go beyond meeting participation and include redirecting each participating organization’s resources to the effort: information and data sharing, re-prioritization of existing effort, communication, and changes to strategy are always part of the mix.

Decision-making and Governance
Determining decision-making models, beyond pure consensus is a new area in management theory. The key questions is: “If we can’t reach 100% consensus, then what level of agreement is necessary for you to support the solution if outvoted?”

Delegation of Authority to Representatives
Participation in inter-organizational teams requires delegation of authority to (often) lower level managers who will then have the authority to commit the resources and name of the organization to a solution.

Complexity of Communication
Communicating decisions and progress back to the organization for work that is outside the organization’s structure is not a process that now exists. Until inter-organizational teams are formally viewed as part of the organization’s business model, they will remain in a communication gray area with their work effort not well understood by the organization.

brett boston, Public Engagement Strategies, Strategic Thinking

Can a type font help a city make a comeback?

February 17, 2012February 17, 2012 Group Solutions

A recent article in Good Design discussed how three type font designers are creating a cohesive look for the City of Chattanooga. All on their own. Without asking for permission or having a commission. I find it to be an incredible story of how vision, strategy, and change can occur, without having to check in with the power’s that be, or leverage a hot new technology or market trend.

For strategists, fonts might seem a strange beginning point for a discussion on shared vision, shared future, and a major urban planning effort. Even more surprising is the ignition point for the change happened in a coffee shop, when two of America’s font designers (this is a job?) started a conversation on type fonts that grew into a vision for their community.

How do we get from font designs to large-scale urban planning, change and shared vision. Easily it seems. Using fonts as a means to a design end is similar to what Apple or Nike do for product marketing. Creating a unique and representative look and feel is a standard marketing and branding strategy. The rub is that businesses generally do not start planning efforts with a font and move to a product. It’s typically the other way around.

From a simple discussion on fonts, the designers segued into how to use font to create a branding strategy for an entire city. It is a bold notion; visionary, radical, insane, and really, really smart. For all of us that have tried to do any form of urban or community planning its simplicity is sublime and enviable. Sure, these guys will get their share of egg-throwers, font-wannabee critics, and folks that are just against anything (and for nothing). And yes, the change effort will require just as much work as any traditional planning effort. The same amount of convincing, selling, involving, political wrangling, and public input. They will need the same commitment to see it through as all planners to create any plan that involves change. But darn it, you just have to admit that it looks like a lot more fun to do it their way.

Business strategists and community planners take note. The sparks that ignites strategies and large-scale change are occurring more and more in the realm of social media technologies, art and the design world. Staying current with cultural trends, not just marketing trends, business, and “go to” sources for competitive trends, will round-out your strategy palette.

Opinion, Scenario Planning, Strategic Thinking

Are rising gasoline prices due to lower demand?

February 16, 2012 Group Solutions

A recent article in BusinessWeek, “Rising Gas Prices mot Demand-driven” makes the case that lower demand for gasoline is the culprit causing the recent price to climb. Now that is counterintuitive to all those that studied economics of supply and demand. Microeconomics teaches that when demand drops, prices should drop.

Looks like higher prices are caused by the “crack spread”, the cost for refineries to buy the oil, crack it into petroleum product, and sell it. Refineries are apparently closing down, due to the economics of the crack spread, which pinches the supply side of the equations and keeps prices high; and in fact is driving them higher. The current predictions are that the US will see $4 per gallon by May at a time we are using less. This argument implies that the economic constraints within the petroleum market are now working counter to supply and demand. Or more serious, the market economic model for petroleum is broken.

What are some implications?

A very disturbing scenario is $4 per gallon is considered by some industry watchers as the place where the national economies can stall – the price for energy reaches such a high cost that manufacturing, travel, and power production are negatively affected, reducing or reversing the recovery underway.

Another more troubling scenario is that Petroleum manufacturers are creating their own price points by restricting supply (closing refineries) and thus elevating prices. We can be sure that a case will be made that they are “artificially” keeping prices high to make sure profits remain high.

The net result of $4 gasoline is that demand will continue to drop, setting off another round of counter to supply and demand economic price increases. If energy is indeed market-driven, then we may be seeing fundamental changes occurring in the petroleum sector that will have cataclysmic and rapid changes on how the US public views and consumes energy.

The implication for broad sectors of the economy – automotive, alternative fuels, manufacturing – are clear. If these sectors follow observed historical trends when facing sharp increases in petroleum pricing, we can expect a rapid movement to high fuel mileage vehicles, demand for more domestic drilling, and growth in alternative energy production. This cyclic dance has been going on since the OPEC shockwave in the 70’s. Prices go up, people make consumption changes to reduce demand. Alternative energy sources start a mini-boom. Then prices “miraculously” go down. But if the “crack spread” has in fact shifted and the economics of refining petroleum has changed, we will not see prices below $4 as a consequence of reduced demand. Pricing will continue to rise in the face of falling US demand.

A lack of a consensus on a national energy policy, and the ongoing politicization of the issue, has prevented objective dialogue and discussion on the US supply and demand for petroleum. Cheap energy is and always has been, the main driver of the US economic miracle. Expect turmoil, rapid price increases, and gas-bag punditry on the solutions. You should be use to it by now. What you shouldn’t expect is a rational discussion or national policy aimed at keeping America competitive by transition from a petroleum-based economy to an economy that can sustain itself for another century or two.

brett boston

The Strategic Advantage of Culture

February 8, 2012February 8, 2012 Group Solutions

A recent article in Forbes (link below) covers a topic I discuss almost weekly with clients — the competitive advantage of culture.

Cultures like Google and Apple are renowned for creating competitive advantage through fostering creativity and great new product offerings.

One often overlooked aspect of having a fantastic culture is the value to the company of recruitment and retention. Many of my clients bemoan the fact that they cannot offer competitive salaries – particularly those in the public and non-profit sectors – and therefore lose-out on the “best” talent in the market. Additionally, many feel that low salaries cause a high turnover rate among their best employees leading to a talent-brain-drain within the organization.

During the recent recession, lower paying companies have been able to hire extra-ordinary talent. But they fear, with good cause, that these same people will be heading to other higher paying opportunities once the job market improves.

The competitive component that most organizations are missing out on is the quality of their culture. Working within a fantastic culture is one of the key strategies for retention of great talent. Articulating and carefully cultivating a great culture can help all companies hire, develop and retain an above average, talented workforce.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/georgebradt/2012/02/08/corporate-culture-the-only-truly-sustainable-competitive-advantage/

brett boston, Governance, Operational Planning, Public Engagement Strategies, Scenario Planning, Strategic Planning, Strategic Thinking, Strategy

home

February 4, 2012February 10, 2012 Group Solutions

Short-term thinking is in the ascendancy.

A lack of long-term perspective is impacting all aspects of modern society:

There are no national strategies on energy, future technology development, and for the first time in generations, no societal commitments on a shared vision for a better future.
Short-term focus on huge investment returns is leading to expectations of returns well beyond what was once respectable. This is driving investor expectations that can only be met through complex derivative and mathematically driven financial instruments that few understand, and that are so highly leveraged, that the global economy now pivots on unexpected global incidents.
Most organizations are head down in tinkering around the edges, with few attempting to reinvent themselves with dynamic and innovative models of organizational design and product innovation.

My posts will focus on the value of strategy and shared vision to addressing some aspects of these issues. I will cover the creation of informal multi-organizational partnerships and how they can cooperatively serve to address increasingly complex issues. How to create intentional strategies that move the needle toward a shared vision held by any organization or multi-organizational entity. As importantly, we will also explore the value of involving a broad array of interested, but nontraditional partners in today’s strategic thinking and show how inclusion of these new and unconventional players complicates planning, but greatly improves implementation.

Together, let’s explore what’s possible in strategic planning and vision setting.

Looking forward to a creative and fruitful dialogue.