Archive for the ‘Continuous Organizational Innovation’ Category

Measuring — Beyond FSI Nuclear Winter

Tuesday, September 30th, 2008

By Mark P. Dangelo

www.Innovative-Relevance.com

Another week has come and gone – more failed institutions, more lost jobs, and more botched policies.  A circus-like atmosphere has been the backdrop to the largest bank failure in American history, as the perverse “fundamentals” of prior operations and judgment underscoring the folly of the industry “acceptable practices.”  What strikes me as very peculiar is what was being measured?  What were the risk-driven “levy stages” and when were they breached?  Did innovation and technology provide a false sense of security, or did we completely miss what was important, their interdependencies, and the complexity of the “real markets?”  It seems the only thing missing was Emperor Nero.  It is past time to move forward with new ideas and leaders.

Since 2004, the ability of our industry specialists to measure and integrate disparate data sources has exponentially increased.  We are able to use highly complex, GUI, web-based software that provides unprecedented analysis of both static, transactional, and summarized databases and repositories.  Our industry has been focused on standards, registration, and storage – all requirements for robust and comprehensive assessments and projections.  Holistically, these process and technical components, if used properly, can lead to decision innovation and market insights previously unattainable.  Super job to the visionaries and technologist who provided these abilities!

However, if we had these disruptive innovations at our fingertips, then why weren’t they telling us of impending value destruction?  Where was the fundamental nexus between business and competitive needs versus operation performance and risks — mentioning just a few of the potential key indicators (e.g., performance, management, and industry)?  Like the financial plans being bantered in Washington, the understanding of the issues and their solutions are neither trivial nor commonplace.  But, unlike some, I decided a picture may be the best method to frame discussions, improve our situation, and make our future environment just a little better.


When I completed the macro model above, it became apparent that the simplistic and siloed world that previously provided noted pundits and vendors with their “claims to fame” were no longer extraordinary or, dare I say, innovatively relevant.  So let’s leave the yelling and screaming to the politicians and see if we can determine where we go from here.  Consequently what is the environment that must be measured and how has it appreciably changed? 

There is no singular prescription or one size that fits all for everyone.  Each must be tailored to the organization and their business model.  Yet, convergence of ideals and practices can be reached if we ask the proper questions allowing a focusing of energy and organizational resources. 

  • Is the mere pontification of measurements and monitoring mechanisms sufficient?  What are the various, multi-level indicators that must be interconnected to promote improved understanding at many, distinct levels?
  • Is the organization able to quickly act upon the measures and associated indictors before the circumstances are unavoidable?  What is the cause-to-effect correlation and significance?  What are the typical false-positives that must be factored out objectively and subjectively?
  • How can the discipline of Knowledge Orchestration benefit the linkage of “old school sources and uses” with new databases and techniques needed for complex interdependencies?  Are there one-time indicators and aggregation demands that can be both historical and proactive?  How will orchestration help with conflicts, divergent standards, multiple dashboards, and multi-dimensional analytics?
  • What are the techniques and methods that must be organizationally internalized to ensure action and adaptability?  What are the key categories that must be measured not just in isolation but in collaboration with various new data sources all with vast degrees of statistical confidence and completeness?
  • How will the investor issued financial instruments (e.g., covered bonds) be managed operationally as these products require a complete linkage of e-assets (e.g., origination, servicing, securitization, market pricing, ratings, et al)?  Who will be responsible for creating these visionary solutions and where will they get the skills needed for assembly and adaptability?
  • With the regulatory oversight pendulum set to swing to the extreme part of the behavioral and psychological continuum, how will singular compliance data sources be integrated?  How can multiple competitive repositories be proactively and efficiently linked to meet local, state, and federal requirements?

And the list above goes on.  As I said earlier, the availability of tools and methods to help organizations have rapidly improved and will continue to expand with new delivery methods and mathematical understanding.  Templates, models and advanced dashboards have been a great assistance since 2000 in providing insight into operational and governance processes.  Now, we must move beyond the singular innovation of common dashboards and BI (business intelligence) solution sets into a more thorough and adaptable series of measurement layers that can aid more than one group at a time.  The innovation is available – we only have to reach out and embrace it.

In closing, as the echoes of thunder reverberate across the sky shaking the ground and its inhabitants to their core.  Industry rain turns into sleet.  Sleet gives way to a blizzard.  The piles of frozen assets and illiquid lubrication for the financial machines have turned off the spigots of funds for both Wall Street and Main Street.  “Financial Nuclear Winter” has demonstrated its cleansing, brutal wrath.  Nevertheless, unlike poetry and the movies, our story doesn’t end here – it is just beginning. 

If we are to believe in our American future and the future of our workforces and jobs, our measurements and the associated monitoring of business and operating practices must be fundamentally different.  We cannot allow the so called industry pundits and leaders of the past to permanently taint our future.  They, like the toxic assets they left, must be jettisoned.  If not, the cold and brutal silence of Nuclear Winter will remain for a long time.

 

Organization — Innovate Thyself

Tuesday, September 23rd, 2008

By Mark P. Dangelo

www.Innovative-Relevance.com

It has been said that to get noticed in the media and at events you need to make a spectacle of yourself and the ideas you are trying to communicate.  For us “bow-tie guys,” that is an interesting notion given the risk dysfunctionalities that created the latest crisis in the history of financial interoperability.  However, in that shock-jock vein, here’s what I have to say –taking a page from the 1976 movie Network, I wanted to say, “I’m as mad as h*** and I’m not going to take it anymore!”  Has commonsense left the mortgage and FS markets or are we indeed facing a catastrophic series of events that will make the 1930’s seem like the servicing of “AAA” paper today?  Is there a way out with innovative technology and processes and if so, what are they?  Do we really think government nationalization of the leading free-world capital market financial system is good for business and innovation?

To allocate groups and personnel into winner and loser columns is increasingly difficult and fraught with egomaniacal risk.  To be provocative, the only winners were the executives that profited via their golden parachutes, outsourcing and vendor patronage, and financial government backstops.  So, as “old school” leadership heads for the sidelines, how are we going to innovate – what’s left?  What does that even mean when we face illiquid markets and regulatory divesture mechanisms that haven’t even solidified 24 hours?

Let’s start with the basics of where to begin.  But first, let me again be provocative – cost cutting is not innovation, and neither is outsourcing.  The aforementioned are merely techniques and tools to achieve innovation.  Ok, so let’s begin of focusing of ideas and control limits – let’s see what it means to YOU.  As always, I’ve created a graphic for framing the discussion as part of my overall “industry treasure map.”

  • Does your organization have a formalized approach for accepting new (radical) ideas on technologies and processes?  How are these ideas vetted and at what organizational level?
  • Is innovation merely tied to ROI, process, quality or all the aforementioned?  What other categorizations are utilized to ensure pull-forward value?  What are the pegs and dashboards that would be needed to support these and what are the KPI’s?
  • Does the organization have a culture that is amenable to change and new ideas?  What has been the track record?  Do we have the right personnel to understand and support the innovation? 
  • How do you measure innovation acceptance, sustainability, adaptability, and adoption?  Is innovation a “one-off” event for the organization and its program initiatives?  It is measured for scalability and duration? 
  • Is innovation something that comes from your vendors?  Competitors?  Cross-industry?  Globalization?  Is it best-in-class?  It is best-practice?  Is it simply something new?
  • Is innovation orchestrated?  Is it collaborative?  Is it facilitated?  It is a solution set?  It is what the executives say it should be?  Is it the last vendor or outsourcer in the corporate office who is willing to agree to onerous terms and conditions?
  • With lasting government market and customer intervention, what will the innovation(s) be?  Can it be achieved or will it require government / regulatory approval?  What are the new timelines?  Do we even know what regulatory body needs to approve the plans?
  • Does the organization have a budget for innovation options, research, and internalization? 
  • What are the legal ramifications of “innovating the markets” – personal and corporate? 

The questions outlined above are representative of what innovation should mean to your organization.  Depending upon your unique situation and current environment, the situational assessment and projection you deploy may be different. 

Complex, structured financial products are not innovation.  Lowering of credit standards is not innovation nor is increasing them to unrealistic extremes.  The impairments subsequently created by misguided “innovative” products and securitization have out distanced regulatory guidance and market understanding.  The downstream impact and recovery now appears to be measured in years – not months.

There is nothing like failure to spur real innovation in technology, process and business.  As we now know, the once successful and highly competitive “old school” organizations full of success and arrogance have lost their bids for independence.  Yet, as they “bet” on vaults of complex securities that turned out to contain toxic financial sludge in the form of interdependent, mispriced risk, they never thought “they” could fail – they were too smart and too sophisticated. 

Like the blended culture in which we live, prior American immigrants came to his county in search of a new life and homes.  They, like the bankers, Wall Street high-flyers, and countless investors believed the roads were lined with gold.  Reality has a way of changing perceptions.  Market conditions and unchecked leverage – sometimes layered between internal corporate divisions — has been colonic. 

As the blood continues to collect in the financial streets, it is as I stated earlier this month, “This great ‘awakening’ has yielded extensive casualties.”  Innovation is a key answer.  Organization, you must innovate thyself. 

Someone said to me this week that “you’re the guy the industry loves to hate.”  “Perhaps,” was my reply.  However, someone needs to advocate change and real innovation that makes holistic business sense– we shouldn’t adopt instruments, processes and technology just because we can, no matter how our competitors behave.  Perhaps it is time for organizations to ditch the pat answers and move into the new, innovative reality?

 

“Old School” Redefinition

Tuesday, September 16th, 2008

By Mark P. Dangelo

www.Innovative-Relevance.com

To say we live in uncharted times is embracing a cliché.  As we desperately grasp at innovative business, process, and technical solutions hoping for relief, the once commonplace world and domestic markets are continually being altered – permanently altered.  Our housing value chains and corporations linger at toxic levels of dysfunctionalities.  The MBS securitization world has been blown up, the GSE’s have simply become taxpayer sponsored government enterprises, and we’re sick and tired of the continual headlines screaming layoffs, closings, and failures.  So what can be done?  Is technology the only answer as some suggest?  Are we prepared for the medicine and the cures – can we aggressively act?  Will we know “the answer” if it stared us right in the face?

As the market rants and reels against “old school” technologies and solutions, pundits postulate that that they can be fixed using automation, a reduction in paper, improved controls, and increased data standardization.  All good ideas – but they should be regarded as the catalysts as part of a much greater innovation dynamic that is becoming increasingly apparent.  We need these solutions and the solution sets they represent, but only as much as they support the new markets, changing consumer demands, securitization requirements, due diligence, compliance, and the list goes on. 

Like many new ideals that are facing an industry under relentless bombardment, they are foreign.  The innovation demanded, if we can call it that, is organizationally widespread.  It is best termed architectonic or fundamental redefinition.  Repositioning, a subset of business redefinition, was once thought of only in terms of marketing.  Today, it involves the quintessential essence of what business, processes, and solutions are sustainable and profitable as shown in the following illustration. 

 

  • Is the mere pontification of measurements and monitoring mechanisms sufficient?  What are the various, multi-level indicators that must be interconnected to promote improved understanding at many, distinct levels?
  • Is the organization able to quickly act upon the measures and associated indictors before the circumstances are unavoidable?  What is the cause-to-effect correlation and significance?  What are the typical false-positives that must be factored out objectively and subjectively?

Is the repricing of risks and offerings being factored into non-customer relationships?  Are your traditional outsourcing relationships helping, hindering, or just a non-factor?

  • Will the focus on core and primary market segments yield clarity in selecting or retaining vendors as part of a huge push in identifying consumer niches needed for profit?
  • Are we prepared for the reeducation and revitalization of our workforces in lower-cost domestic operational areas or do we need new ideas like “co-ops” that are layered and stretched into non-origination, high-value sectors?
  • How much will the value of your business be enhanced with the integration of discrete technology or process solution sets?  It is merely dragging forward basic ROI, and has it been discounted for market risk and uncertainties?  What are the precise pegs and measures?
  • Are we prepared for the new-market governance demands that move beyond “command and control” governance into a collaborative and then an orchestrated series of interdependent processes and procedures?

Like many value based financial equations, the ability to be creative and understand the end-to-end operating principles and implications is no small feat when “new school” analysts continue to speak in “tongues” – just listen to the financial media talk shows for 30 minutes to get a flavor.  The channel noise is so great that for many of us it is nearly impossible to decide what actions are worthwhile when considering “old school” repositioning.

Whereas “new school” may involve many of those ideals or issues, the real challenge is moving beyond the discussions and into iterative, profitable programs in support of critical initiatives aligned with the organizational capability to deliver.  When discussing the troubled investment bank Lehman Brothers late last week, an article in the Financial Times stated, “Arrogance and wishful thinking have foreclosed the firm’s options.” 

Let us trust that the same will not be said of our personal actions and industry ability to adapt and reposition towards an innovative “new world reality.”  Let none of us have a tombstone that reads, “Intelligent, Respected, Stubborn, Failed.”  Fundamental repositioning will be demanded – it is also unlikely that we will be completely successful deploying a single initiative. 

“Old school” is not necessarily the “best school” no matter how much we yearn for the good old days.  So as the government reaches its threshold of bailouts – Bear, Fannie, Freddie, FDIC (via the failed banks), et al—are we prepared for the aggressive business, process, and technological redefinitions that must be implemented as part of this fiscal year?  Will you be a upcoming casualty?

In closing, I was asked why “give away” the drawings in my column since they take a lot of time to devise and create – “Why not charge for them?”  The answer is simple.  I personally believe that we all know what the “end state” should be for the result of our efforts even if we can’t articulate them sometimes. 

The drawings help focus our actions via an “architecture for success,” but the methods, techniques, and iterations needed to get there in a given time is an equation of a different class.  Let me state this axiom in a more common vernacular, “the answer is easy – getting there is hard work.”  I guess the latter reality is what keeps me in business!

And yes, if you assemble my many drawings from this column and my reports over the last year, there is a general roadmap that can be utilized to move forward – think “Da Vinci Code.”  This is the “The KO Professor” saying, “Keep your head up and have a superior week.”