Archive for the ‘Process’ Category

The Forgotten Equalizer

Tuesday, July 29th, 2008

When we reflect on innovation, especially technological innovation, we envision multi-faceted solutions, global teams, and well, lots of technology.  Mention the individual within technological innovation and it appears to be an oxymoron – a necessary evil but hardly innovative.  After all, individuals are devious, self indulgent, and egotistical, no?  Just as team builders advocate “there is no ‘I’ in team,” there is also no “team without I.”

Teams are wonderful, make no mistake about it.  They allow us to leverage individual thought threads and innovations into collective work products and solution sets that could not be achieved without collaboration.  Without teams, complex and compartmentalized software could not be implemented in a single lifetime.  From my experience, high-performance teams are only as strong the weakest individual contained within them.

Let’s face it, data centers, disaster recovery, and business continuity would all be dreams without teams of orchestrated groups working in concert against a set plan of action or operation.  Without teams, the old and new wonders of the physical world would never have been realized.  Imagine, if you would, a single individual trying to completely control and improve the end-to-end delivery of mortgage products — from origination to securitization in addition to being responsible for the global exchanges on which they trade – a complete impossibility.

However, as the world moves into an Olympic year, the dreams of self discipline and sacrifice reach a crescendo with the athletes seeking to be world class – more to the point, the best in the world.  They did not get there alone and neither does technological innovation and its individual contributors.  But, without the drive and determination and yes, proper “training,” would they have reached such recognition?  Will the mortgage industry achieve a rebirth without individual innovators dispersed within our organization?  Has innovation become singularly owned by our vendors and outsourcers?

As our headlines scream out a global credit crisis and our industry wrestles against “whispers” that send institutions into the arms of the FDIC or M&A’s, the force-multiplier of the individual has never been lower.  We only have to look at the parade of FSI executives being publically put on “trial” if we had any doubts. 

Some sources have tallied that the mortgage industry since the start of 2007, has lost over 150,000 jobs with more to come. So where and how are we investing in our corporate innovators – and our future?  What are the proper and forward looking human capital programs that must be deployed under intense budget cuts and brain-trust drains?

My fear and the apparent reality of the next several years will be the demise of the internal innovator as investments in education, training, and certifications are reduced.  Human resource management (pick your acronym or phrase) has become increasingly about layoffs, separations, litigation mitigation, payouts, and retirements.  

I must point out the obvious, human resource management is not a singular responsibility of a named department.  It is the responsibility of every department and manager.  I still believe that the individual innovator as part of a collaborative team environment is a requirement for survivability — albeit I seem to be in a shrinking minority. 

So I ask everyone, what are you doing to foster the innovators within your operating environment?  How can you be successful without a robust human capital innovation program, or has our industry simply become focused on continued existence?

In closing, I found an interesting quote on www.Thinkexist.com, attributable to William Pollard that permeates this week’s entry, “Learning and innovation go hand in hand. The arrogance of success is to think that what you did yesterday will be sufficient for tomorrow.” 

Hocus Pocus?

Tuesday, July 22nd, 2008

By Mark P. Dangelo

www.Innovative-Relevance.com

The struggle or dissonance between what is right and what is easy could be written as the epitaph for the mortgage industry.  However, I’m not prepared to go quietly – how about you?  As our industry begins a rebirth with new ideals and new players, we are confronted with a contemporary set of principles of operations that cannot be ignored and are not necessarily simplistic or intuitive – the ideals of “going green.”

When I listen to the environmental leaders and Noble prize winners, I get passionate.  I want to go tend my garden, plant a bush, convert my home to solar, and even hug that oak tree in the front yard.  Yet, as I look at how the FSI and mortgage industry plans to “go green” I am confused and astounded. 

Like a pilgrim in search of religious awaking, I began to ask questions on my journey to find the magical words or dispel the heresy.  What is the real value chain within a FSI / mortgage green offering and how do all the pieces get assembled into a sustainable series of iterative offerings?  Moreover, is it profitable beyond the seemingly shameless marketing promotion of “green” in an effort to rebrand a non-green product or poor process? 

Hmmm.  I needed to reach out and seek additional guidance. 

I spoke with Cary Burch, founder of Green Score Network and CEO of LSSI, about his views of green FSI and mortgage products.  “I believe there is a growing and necessary call to action for our industry.  For too long our operations were mired in the automation of manual processes.  We claimed success with green initiatives because we had standards, did imaging, and in general promoted ourselves as being ‘e’ compliant.  However, we failed to understand the comprehensive nature of green for our industry and the implications of its adoption.  We touted progress, but we had limited metrics, measures or independent scoring to provide an objective baseline.  As of late, we have become all about data and technology, yet we are repeating the same ‘sins of the past’ without understanding their context and their usage.”

Adding focus and clarity for this column, I need to ask is “green” innovative, or by merely uttering the word “green” the magic happens?   Yet do the ideals of green represented create an Innovative Dissonance™ where the adoption the green innovations require the disassembly and sun-setting of “accepted” operating beliefs?  Is the pain of doing away with the old (e.g., process, relationships, technology, and personnel) too horrible to reconcile in the face of new realities? 

So in the headwind of too many questions, even after talking with personnel within and outside of our industry, I reverted to my comfort zone to avoid my own dissonance – I began to draw.  After several iterations, the result was something I was not intuitively anticipating. 

FSI Green Architecture 

The above model pointed to a “stack” of green cross-sections rooted in ideals that extend well beyond the influence of the mortgage industry.  However, the stack is something we can control and extend into our operations to bear fruit.  The harvest of our planting takes many forms and sizes – ‘e’ solutions, environmental products and services, investor demand, and profitability to name but a few.  Each cross-sectional stack is interrelated and co-dependent upon the ones it touches all the while being influenced by external factors and resistance to change.  The model, like the tree it represents, was meant to grow and change as part of a circle of renewal (e.g., see symbolism of the sun in the sky, the hawk, and the mouse, et al).

I showed Mr. Burch my model.  He responded, “Our historical discussions on green were excellent starting points for the industry.  We need to move beyond those embryonic ideals and recognize the growing complexity as we expand from these disjointed efforts into a series of streamlined green processes that promote environmental and operational success.  I foresee a growing base of ideals that help organizations assess, rate, and improve their ‘green score’ over a period of time.  If we recognize and embrace a comprehensive value chain of green ideals, we can achieve not only benefit for the environment, but also for sustainable bottom line results, investors, and yes, our customers.  How we react as an industry and individual organizations will determine our operational survivability.”

All these discussions caused me to pause and reflect — “Most people are on the world, not in it - have no conscious sympathy or relationship to anything about them - undiffused, separate, and rigidly alone like marbles of polished stone, touching but separate.”  When John Muir, the founder of the Sierra Club, made this statement in 1873, he could have never thought how true his words would resonate over the next 135 years.  However, as we eagerly and necessarily embrace green ideals and operating principles within the FSI / mortgage industry, we must come to grips with what is marketing, what is easy, and indeed what is a necessity as part of the expanding “green” value proposition. 

Here’s an interesting question as we mull over the future of green — out of the $24.3 trillion USD in outstanding household and small business debt, how much of it is related to “green” investments, products, assets, and securitizations?  What percentage will be green in five years and how much of its market share will you influence?  Will you be a player at all?

If you are looking for a different POV and the input from other industry leaders I spoke with during this last week, seek out my other article entitled “Green Identity.”

Specchio, Specchio…

Tuesday, July 1st, 2008

By Mark P. Dangelo

www.Innovative-Relevance.com

One of my mentors used to tell me this story as a humbling, learning lesson.  A few years back, one of our American presidents was on a PR campaign.  He was visiting a nursing home.  He met a man walking down the hallway and went over and shook his hand.  He said, “Do you know who I am?”  The man looked at the president, but did not recognize him.  He replied, “No I don’t sir, but if you ask one of the nurses maybe they can tell you.”  

Contemplation is a humbling experience.  If you ask the right sequence and series of questions, sometimes, just sometimes, business and technological innovation can surface in the strangest ways.  The relevance of innovation is frequently revealed amidst the failures of our past. 

Recently, I was asked by a group of potential investors what I thought were the top business and technological questions on the minds of mortgage / FSI executives – what encompasses their innovation and survival agendas.  Listed below are a few of the categories and questions that came from these rigorous reviews in our struggle to frame relevant innovation.

·         Customer and Privacy:  The consumer is vanishing — so where are they going?  What effectiveness can be realized, sustained and made adaptable?  Do we really have a product and service strategy that makes sense?

·         Personnel:  Do we have the skill sets of yesterday or the ones needed for tomorrow?  How will we find and retain those personnel that can lead us forward with a strategy yet to be crystallized?  Can our personnel be revitalized and reeducated?  How?

·         e-Strategy:  With all the coverage and euphoria on e-solutions, what makes the most business sense for our firm?  What will it take to achieve and at what cost?  Can the return be sustained and made into a competitive distinction for advantage and profit?  Can mortgage processes assimilate orchestration improvements from the trading world (e.g., SIA, DTC, STP, T+n, FIX, exchanges)? 

·         Process:  How can we holistically examine the processes from end-to-end and remove those that are archaic and non-value added?  How can technology be used as a catalyst to ensure efficiency and rigor?  Do we even know what processes we must develop to meet the changing market, consumer and regulatory demands?

·         Sourcing / Outsourcing:  With labor arbitrage no longer the driving force, what are the criteria needed for selection and on-boarding?  What will be involved with knowledge processes in terms of transition, transformation or governance?  What will “level 3” rigor and insight provide as we begin to commoditize ITO and BPO offerings?   Will travel, security, privacy and public sentiment deliver a new operating mix?

·         Regulatory Compliance:  Can SOX and Basel lessons learned be utilized to create an integrated operational compliance solution addressing current and proposed guidelines?  How can we avoid costly “one-off” solutions and vendor relationships?  Where can we find knowledgeable guidance?

·         Orchestration:  How can orchestration, driven by manufacturing techniques, provide a transformation and restructuring agenda?  Do we know how to orchestrate as compared to simple integration?  Do we possess the innovators and new thought leaders, or are we just using old practices with new labels?

·         Architecture:  What are the iterative blueprints for catalyst change?  Are they cohesively identified and modeled?  What disciplines and methods are we using and are their better ones that we must consider?  How do ITIL, SaaS, widgets, SOA, and the rest of the “alphabet soup” of acronyms fit into the mix? 

·         Infrastructure:  What is it really costing us for the value returned?  Does it conform to the architectural strategy and models or are we divergent from planning to execution?  How can it be “ever-greened” without a “lift and shift” or total replacement?  Who do we trust?  What are the real life-cycle costs? 

·         Data and Standards:  What is the totality of our data and how can it be used?  Are standards useful or part of the “old guard” dogma influenced by aging ideals?  How can we manage the vast array of disparate data types and sources for documents, reporting, integration, investors, legal reviews, and compliance?  What will it cost?

·         Due Diligence, Risk Management, and Legal Representation:  In good times, IT due diligence consumed 1% to 3% of budget – what will a caustic operating environment inflict on marginal pressures?  Do our legal practices and practitioners represent our “best face forward” or are we inflicting even greater damage on our brand and reputation with existing loss mitigation and foreclosure practices?  Should we treat the AG’s (attorney generals) as foe or embrace the need for change – compromise?  How much “fraud” has been endured and taken into our portfolios within the CDO / MBS instruments?

·         Competency and Investment:  What centers of competency need to be expanded or developed for new market practices and offerings?  With top line revenue evaporating, LOC frozen, and PE ratios at historic lows, how can we be expected to reinvent ourselves without sufficient capital?  Moreover, what infrastructure is even demanded given the legacy environment already in place?  Should we outsource anything not deemed to be core? 

·         Community:  The housing indices point to communities and homeowners in complete disarray (e.g., Shiller, MBA), so how will our actions be aligned with the “right thing to do” and our ability to stay in business?  How can we embrace not-for-profits and community activists without incurring additional liabilities or negative coverage? 

So why did I frame these particular questions?

Just nine months ago we thought everyone knew us and respected us.  Our leaders were icons of success.  Our solutions revered by the establishments, our support teams, and those that sought to acquire our operations.  When asked by consumers, investors, and politicians, many individuals and organizations thought they knew us – we were evidently someone else.  Today, we are like the story.  No one is sure who we are and we’re not sure how innovations (e.g., process, business and technical) can be used for offerings we must possess – if we only knew what they were. 

We cannot be like the old CIO who once said, “You start coding, and I’ll go figure out what they want.”  So when you contemplate your next move, review that next system, or determine your next series of layoffs, ask yourself, “Am I asking the right questions for the new business and economic realities?”

If you are wondering about the title, it is Italian for “Mirror, Mirror.”