National Education Curriculum: a Done Deal

Agamedes notes that a government's idea of "public consultation" is not likely to take notice of any form of public consultation.

I see that the federal government will put its national school curriculum out for public comment. Of course you can comment all you like -- it will not make a scrap of difference.

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

The curriculum is up for comment until May 2010.

Meanwhile -- it will be rolled out from 2011 and must be introduced from 2013 ("Warning on Sorry Day", The Sunday Times, 28 Feb 2010). So, while parents, teachers, other stakeholders are all making comments -- schools must be preparing to implement.

When the comments are in, will the curriculum be changed? Could it be delayed, if stakeholders point out too many problems? You have to be joking!

This is typical government "public consultation": Here is what we will do, put in your comments, your comments will be ignored.

What a farce.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Public consultation: an anecdote

A few years ago I was involved -- as a participant -- in a "public consultation" exercise. The question was, Should Logue Brook Dam become a water supply for the metropolitan area. Some background:

Logue Brook Dam provides water for local irrigation. It also provides a recreation area for locals and visitors. There is boating, swimming, walking, driving, camping. Logue Brook Dam is an existing water catchment which is within easy piping distance of the metropolitan area of Perth. Perth's populate and/or perish growth strategy means that the city area is perpetually short of drinkable water.

The government considered adding water from Logue Brook Dam to the metropolitan drinking water supply. Only trouble is, nobody wants to drink water that has been swum in, boated in, collected from areas which are walked in, driven in and camped in. All of this human recreational activity adds pollution to the water.

What to do? The government proposed a number of possible actions:

• Ban all recreational activities from the catchment area around Logue Brook Dam. This is the standard approach: ban all human activity from a drinking water catchment area.
  
• Allow recreational activity, put extra effort into cleaning and sterilising water as it is pumped out.
  
• Leave the status quo, with Logue Brook a source of irrigation water and recreational activity to continue.
  

Those are the essential options. Several hundred people were gathered for a day of facilitated discussion, to provide input to the decision.

Several hundred people gathered for a day, to satisfy the government criteria of, "Must have public consultation".

A day of facilitated discussion

There we were, several hundred people, in tables of eight people each. A good cross section of people with an interest: farmers, people involved in recreation, locals, visitors, environmentalists, campsite manager... All being a part of "public consultation".

The first activity was, to survey our opinions. Of the three major options, which did we prefer. A good place to start.

Then there were several presentations, Q&A sessions, activities, discussions... A variety of activities to allow us to consider various aspects of the situation. We listened, asked, acted, discussed... The day ran smoothly, the facilitator kept us interested, we maintained our interest and our focus.

The final activity of the day was, to survey our opinions... again. The questions were exactly the same as at the beginning. A good idea, we thought. After lots of discussion -- have we changed our minds?

The facade crumbles

As the final survey papers were being collected, the facilitator went into wrap-up mode: Thanking us for our participation, telling us how helpful we had been, assuring us of future feedback, that sort of thing. And then, possibly due to her own exhaustion, the facilitator made us aware of the true purpose of the day's exercise:

"We have asked for your views at both the start and the end of the day. We hope that you have changed your views. After all, if you have not changed your views, then the day was unsuccessful."

If you have not changed your views, then the day was unsuccessful. So the purpose of the day's meeting was... to change our opinions! And there we were, thinking that we were part of a public consultation exercise. When really, we were there to convince us to support the government view.

Really, we were there to allow the government to tick, "Public consultation" against the decision that they had already made.

This was reinforced in subsequent communications. "Surely you can't expect me to recommend against the government's decision!" was the theme of the "outcomes" paper. The decision had been made. As for "public consultation" -- we were just for show. Our views were irrelevant -- except for the stated intention to change those views.

Public consultation? What a farce.

Commonwealth Bank: 50 cent Motivation

Agamedes points out why Commonwealth Bank will not win the customer satisfaction wars. If they were our clients, we would also point out the winning strategy.

An interesting snippet in today's (28 Feb 2010) Sunday Times, in an article which is really about the star of a bank commercial... Under the heading, 'Barbara' beats the banks, the final paragraphs are about banks and their concern with customer satisfaction ratings.

There is an example, of banks chasing customer satisfaction. The article doesn't say much. But it's pretty clear why the Commonwealth Bank is losing.

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

According to the article, "the Commonwealth offered staff nearly $90 million in bonuses and chief Ralph Norris nearly $12 million if it reached No.1 in ratings..."

How de-motivating is that?!

Check out the Commonwealth Bank's website. The bank website tells us that, "Our full-time staff equivalent is more than 38,000." So that "huge" $90 million equates to something less than $2,400 per full-time staff equivalent. Or, less than $11 per work day per staff member.

The boss, on the other hand, could get $12 million. That's more than $54,000 per work day. Yes -- more than 54 thousand dollars for the boss, per work day during the year.

Now think: who actually deals with the customers? Norris? You have to be joking!

So, for an average of less that $11 per day... less than $2 per hour... possibly 50c per customer dealt with... bank employees are being asked to be nice to customers. "Be nice," they are told, "And we will give you 50 cents. Oh, and we will give your boss 12 million dollars."

But wait, there's even less!

You can bet that the "bonus" is scaled, depending on salary. So bank tellers -- who deal with customers all day may get a cent or two per satisfied customer. Branch managers may get a few dollars per satisfied customer. Head office staff -- who never see a customer in all of their working life -- may get a few hundred dollars per satisfied customer.

And the big boss -- who believes that the board and shareholders are the real customer -- he could get $12 million... if the drones at the customer interface can just be encouraged to smile all day.

Can you see your bank teller being motivated to make you more satisfied?

Nope. Nor can I.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Mosman Park Mess -- Solved

Agamedes offers a compromise solution for a stoush between ratepayers and their council.
..o0o..

Mosman Park council is having a bit of biffo with its constituents. Council believes that it has the right -- and duty -- to plant trees in public open space. Some house owners believe that they have the right to control land beyond their boundary fence, in order to preserve the views and values of their land.

The house owners are clearly up themselves. However, a bit of compromise would not go astray.

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

The council will "plant" wooden stakes where they plan to later plant trees. House owners will be able to see where the trees will be planted.

So what?!

Council could easily take just one simple step, to allow home owners some say in tree planting. Plant the stakes. Allow house owners to check the view, and the potential for views to be lost.

• Allow for house owner input: House owners can ask council to shift each stake, up to 5m either way.

If a new tree will -- possibly -- block the best bit of a view -- ask for it to be moved. Before it is planted.

Oh yes, council will need to leave the moved stakes in their new positions for a few weeks. Allow other house owners to ask for another shift. If two (or more) people want the same stake shifted -- arrange a meeting. Let the house owners sort it out amongst themselves. Within a 5m limit of movement.

When everyone has had their say -- then plant the trees.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Aboriginal Law -- or Corporal Punishment

Agamedes points out that Australia operates under a form of democracy. One important point is, one and the same law for each and every one of us.
..o0o..

The West has had a few articles and letters about Aboriginal tribal law. Is it acceptable to physically punish a car driver who crashed a car and caused death? Is it acceptable to allow tribal punishments -- which are otherwise illegal -- for Aboriginal people?

The letter from Rosemary van den Berg (Letters, 26 Feb 2010) get close to a reasonable answer. It stalls on a them-versus-us attitude to the law.

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

What van den Berg and others miss, is that we are living in a particular form of democracy. In particular we -- the voting majority -- have decided that we have one law for all and that everyone is equal under that law. Sure, it doesn't always work: money and physical threats are great un-equalisers. But the concept is there: one law for all.

If we allow tribal justice for one group of Australians, we allow it for all Australians. If you want to allow tribal justice -- raise it as an election issue. But it must be universal tribal punishment. Not just when you feel like it.

An Aboriginal child crashes a car, kills another Aboriginal child. Subject to tribal punishment? Yes -- if the appropriate Australian law is passed. A non-Aboriginal child crashes a car and kills an Aboriginal child. Subject to tribal law and punishment? Under Australian law, all people are equal, so the answer would become, Yes. No-Aboriginal kills non-Aboriginal... still subject to the same law, if it were passed.

People who support Singapore-style corporal punishment may also support Aboriginal-style tribal punishment -- as long as it applies to everyone. Equally. Raise it as an election issue, you may get support.

There will be some problems to overcome.

• Is there a court of appeal, against tribal punishment? I think it will be needed, if Australia accepts tribal -- corporal -- punishment. I do not support corporal punishment. But if it happens, I hope that there will be safeguards against its misuse.
  
• Have you noticed that physical punishment is always set and administered by the person with the biggest stick? I don't want any Australian law to maintain that inequality.
  
• Who determines when corporal punishment should be used? Will it be tribal elders? If so, which tribal elders? Will we all identify ourselves as a member of a tribe, so that we know which elders will determine our punishments? We will need Australia-wide guidelines, to avoid misuse of tribal elder power.
  
• Who will cover the cost of hospital care after tribal punishment? Will the tough-love tribes pay higher taxes?
  
• What crimes will be punishable by corporal punishment? Also relevant is something that I just noticed in Wikipedia: "The phrase Nulla poena sine lege (Latin: "no penalty without a law") refers to the legal principle that one cannot be punished for doing something that is not prohibited by law." Put it in Australian law and it will be "real" law.
  

In truth, I can see plenty of benefits to tribal -- corporal -- punishment. I don't like corporal punishment. But I can see that, for some people, it works.

What I don't see, is any reason for one group to operate -- within Australia -- under their own laws. If you don't like the law -- try to get it changed. Don't break it -- fix it.

Use our democracy

If you see a better answer -- try to get it implemented. Under current laws, bashing and spearing children is illegal -- don't do it. If you have a suggestion that works -- and that can be designed with safeguards against misuse -- then we can try it. Our existing laws have safeguards such as courts of appeal; new laws will need the same.

Australia is a universal democracy, of sorts. Use it.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Risk Assessment, Risky Projects

Agamedes believes that Peter Garrett has tripped over the same risk management challenges that trip up a large number of other project owners and managers.
..o0o..

Peter Garrett has copped flak for his inept -- or inexperienced -- handling of the risks of his home insulation project. Is he any different to any other project manager?

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

In projects, risk assessment is often seen as an essential but separate part of the project. There are project plans, project meeting, project reports. And -- separately -- there are risk management plans, risk management meetings, risk management reports. Yet risk -- the potential for things to go wrong in the future -- is an integral part of any project.

Garrett -- so we are told -- had plenty of warning of the potential risks. In particular, external consultants provided a report on project risks. Mistake number one: Garrett did not read the report until well after the risks became actual.

Let's call Garrett the "project owner". Somewhere in the department of the environment is a faceless bureaucrat who is the "project manager". Then there is the "consultant" who reported on project risk. And the "other stakeholders" who are said to have raised all sorts of risk-related warnings. Consider some questions of "risk":

• Was the project manager aware of the report from the consultant? If not: why was the report commissioned? Who was hiding the results? A project manager is responsible for successful conclusion of a project. If someone else was getting significant reports -- and not passing them to the project manager -- this smacks of intra-departmental politicking, or perhaps incompetence. The results included several deaths.
  
• If the project manager had the risk report from the consultant, were the risks -- and their mitigation -- included in the project plan? Or were they simply shoved aside, delegated to a risk management team, effectively ignored.
  
• What happened to the warnings from other stakeholders? Did they reach the project manager? If not -- why not? If the project manager did hear the warnings, were they incorporated -- as project risk -- in the project plan? Obviously not successfully -- unless four deaths were considered an acceptable risk.
  
• Back to the consultant's risk report: Were the risks stated clearly? Or were they hedged about with weasel words; written with the thought that the report recipient may wish to gloss over the risks... Did the report really say, don't do this or people will die! Or did the authors cover their backsides with obfuscation, statistics and deniably indirect indications.
  
• When the report finally reached Garrett, was there a clear statement of what it all meant? Yes, Garrett was in charge of the department. But that means that his mind was on a lot of separate issues. Every report needs an "executive overview". And that overview must clearly and concisely convey the essential message. Can you read the executive overview and see that, clearly, this project is likely to cause four deaths? If not -- why not?!
  

Okay, we have a minister who stuffed up. That's not all.

Will we learn these lessons?

Project management is a common responsibility for managers, in business and in government. We often stuff it up and suffer the consequences. Sometimes we stuff it up and other people also suffer the consequences.

1. Risk assessment and risk management are essential parts of project management. Risk mitigation will generate tasks and costs within the project. "Note that cost estimates come after the risk management plan. Risk management may cost money; that money is an integral part of the project cost." (I stripped project planning to its essentials; an overview is on my website.)
   
2. Project management is more than just filling in forms, allocating resources and spending money. The project manager is also responsible for delivering results.
   
3. A consultant's report may contain as many pages of detail as you like. It must also include an overview which clearly points out the key results and recommendations.
   
4. A senior manager -- or executive, or minister -- has limited time available to evaluate each project. Write your report overview with that in mind.
   
5. If you are too cautious, or too afraid, to clearly state the problems that you have identified -- do not write the report. You are being paid to give "expert advice". Provide expert advice -- or give back the money.
   
6. Make sure that all relevant information goes to the relevant project manager. This is the responsibility of stakeholders, of the project manager and of any other faceless bureaucrat who receives possibly important advice. If necessary, add a sentence highlighting why this information may be important. Then pass it on.
   
7. The project manager must think of everything. Tough. It's your job.
   
8. The project owner must check the project. Does it seem to be on track? Does it appear to cover major issues? Are you getting the updates you expect? Ask for them. Do you understand the information you get? Demand that it be written for its target audience -- you. If you want the project to happen -- then care enough to follow its progress.
   

Sure, the insulation project appears to have been run by incompetents who did not pass on relevant information. Or who ignored relevant information. So it was a typical project.

Transfer some of the guilty. Punish some of the innocent. Promote the uninvolved. But also learn how to successfully manage a project.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Medical Editor Misses Meaning of Slang

Agamedes notes the Rudd influence on a journalist's language: appealing to the masses through misuse of the Australian language.


"Smoko tradition runs out of puff" screams the headline (The West, 27 Feb 2010). "Perth health experts are sounding the death knell for that longstanding tradition among Australian workers -- the smoko", writes Cathy O'Leary, Medical Editor.

If you don't understand the word, perhaps you should avoid its use.

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

The "smoko" may have begun as a break to allow smoking of a cigarette. As long as 40 years ago -- by my memory -- "smoko" meant the morning or afternoon break for tea. Yes, it's a chance for a smoke. The meaning of smoko, however, was -- and still is -- a break from work for tea and a snack.

O'Leary: please check Wikipedia. Or the Macquarie Dictionary, if you want to be more formal. "Smoko" is a break from work, a tea-break. In Australia at least, the association with actual smoking has long since disappeared.

A nice play on words. A clever attempt to use slang like a Rudd: and wrong.

Sorry, O'Leary, would you like to try that again? And check the correct meaning of each word? Meanwhile, stick to the medical reporting. And fire the sub-editor who was out at smoko when this article slipped through the checking.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Livers for Life: Donate Yours Today

Agamedes points out that recent debate over liver transplants is misguided. It is not, "Should this person get a new liver?" The correct question is, "Which person will you sentence to a certain death?"
..o0o..
On Friday 26 February, the Editorial in The West missed an important point. The Editorial describes the impossibility of taking the emotion out of "a decision ... when the alternatives are giving ... a chance of a future and consigning her to a likely death". The "decision" is to not put a person on the waiting list for a second liver transplant.

The particular person is either "a 24-year-old mother of two small children" or "a heroin addict" -- depending on which emotional strings you wish to pluck. In truth, of course, Claire Murray is (or has been) both.

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

As an aside, let's look at my previous paragraph. Claire Murray is or has been a mother of two small children? Well, how small is "small"? We make them small children in order to elicit more sympathy. A mother of two great hulking teenage brutes would have less emotional impact. And she is or has been a heroin addict: she has been "clean" for eight weeks. Eight weeks? Is that "clean" or is it simply a minor delay in the supply chain...

"Heroin addict" has pushed Murray off the waiting list for a third liver. (The first was her own, the second she destroyed by use of heroin.) "Mother" and "clean" are emotional attempts to get her back on the list.

The actual decision

The decision is not, Should Murray get a liver? The actual decision is, Who shall we kill in order to give Murray a chance at life?

There is a limited supply of donor livers. If Murray gets one of that limited supply then she gets another chance at life. The decision will also condemn another person to a definite death.

It is not a choice of liver or no liver. The true choice is, Who shall we condemn to death?

The correct corrective action

Everyone: Sign up today to allow your liver to be donated! Tell your family, let it go, I want to donate. Encourage all of your family -- and friends, and casual acquaintances -- to allow liver donation. What we want, is enough livers to satisfy the entire demand.

Sure, some people may go through a liver a day. If we have livers to spare, who cares! Sure there is a limited number of surgeons to do the work. While we're waiting for the potential donors to die -- we can train up some specialists.

The key limitation is the supply of donor livers. Today is the day that we can act to -- eventually -- remove that limitation.

And now... back to reality

Australians are, it seems, reluctant to donate livers. So there is a shortage of donor livers. How do we deal with that shortage? How do we decide who gets on the waiting list?

No, sorry, that's the wrong question. Or, rather, we can simplify the problem by asking a better question:

• How can we prioritise the people on the list to be liver recipients?

Being put on a list means nothing -- except some minor assurance that someone cares. Being off the list means death. Being on the list means that there is, at least, some hope. If there is a sudden surfeit of donor livers -- you are in with a chance.

We still have two problems: (1) There is a shortage of donor livers, and (2) different people offer different chances of putting a new liver to good use. All that means is, that we need (or want) to put some people nearer the top of the list. So do it!

1. Put every potential liver recipient on a list for a possible future liver transplant.
   
2. Separate them by blood type -- or whatever it is that determines compatibility with a donor liver. It's no use fighting over a liver which is not compatible with your body; each liver "type" may as well have its own waiting list.
   
3. Each person on each list gets a score out of 100, based on the current transplant criteria. For example: has been drug addict, minus 50 points; is now "clean", one point per clean week; lives with supportive parents, plus three points...
   
4. Do the current criteria include factors such as time on the waiting list? If not, add a few points for each month on the waiting list... More bonus points for those who are closer to death... Extra points for "cute", or "per child under ten", or "donates to charity"... or whatever criteria are acceptable, measurable and agreed.
   
5. A liver becomes available. Check the list for this "type" of liver. Whoever is at the top -- of the relevant list -- gets it.
   

The choice is not, this person can or can not have a liver. The true choice is, if we give this person a chance at life then this other person is condemned to death. It would be nice to give everyone a chance at life -- but there is a shortage of resources; there are too few donor livers to help everyone.

But everyone can be on a list; everyone can have hope.

Oh, and if you are convicted of murdering all the people ahead of you on the list: that's 100 points off your score. But there is still hope... Because, after all, everyone deserves to have some hope.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

No Reason for Planning

Agamedes explains why a project plan is useful, as long as no-one follows that plan. Tongue in cheek? Or perhaps a valid opinion...
..o0o..

I've just read a very strange book with some rather interesting ideas... In one scene, the revolutionaries are discussing the plan for the revolution:

"You mean you believe that [your fellow revolutionary] will not follow the plan? But you're not necessarily giving him the real one. No wonder he doesn't trust you."

What -- you may be asking -- is the point of a plan if people can not or do not follow that plan?!

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

"Any plan is better than no plan, right?"

(For those who are interested -- and I do not recommend it -- the book is Five Jade Disks by Chang Hsi-Kuo.)

The man in charge of the revolution has more to say about the role of plans and planning. There's a lot of truth in what he says.

• The people who plan are different to the people who follow plans. Good point! If we're going to do it ourselves, why plan? We know what we need to do! It's those other people who need to be told what to do; the plan is for them...
  
• By making a plan, the planner feels important. They feel that they are doing something worthwhile. Planning keeps the planners occupied, makes them feel important -- and keeps them out of the way of the "doing" people, who will then be free to not follow the plan.
  
• How are battles -- and businesses -- won? By individual skills and initiative, of course! Who has ever won fame and fortune by following a plan? No-one! If you want to be a loser -- follow someone else's plan. If you want to be a winner -- use your own initiative.
  
• As soon as two people work together -- initiative is lost.
  
• So who -- in their right mind -- would ever follow someone else's plan?!
  

There is no plan. There is only do, or do not.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Genetically Modified Canola

Anyone who has driven through the wheatbelt will know, it is impossible to keep a crop entirely within a single paddock. Barb-wire... mesh... a seed will easily blow through. Look at the verges of a country road: whatever has been grown in the paddocks is now also growing beside the road.

Western Australia allows GM (genetically modified) canola to be grown by our farmers. It's pretty clear that the GM seed will spread. How can you guarantee that you will never be eating GM canola?

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

GM canola will spread. In trials, there were "only" a few instances where GM canola contaminated non-GM canola. That was from a few dozen GM trial crops.

What will be the contamination rate when there are thousands of farmers growing GM canola? Does any sensible person really expect that GM canola will never be accidentally (or deliberately) mixed with non-GM canola?

There could be thousands of paddocks growing GM canola. These will be interspersed with thousands more paddocks growing non-GM canola. Already, crops have crossed fence-lines, to grow along road verges. Soon, GM canola will be growing in paddocks which officially hold only non-GM crops.

How can you avoid eating canola which has been contaminated?

Does it matter?

Okay, that's an interesting question.

Does it matter, whether or not the canola that we eat is GM or non-GM? Well, I don't know... Okay, I'd rather be safe than sorry. I'd like to see some solid, scientific support for "safe". But really, I'm uncommitted.

On the other hand -- there are quite a few people who would rather not eat GM canola. So what do they do?

Eat canola -- or canola oil, or a product which includes canola oil -- and the chances are, you will end up eating GM canola. What can you do to avoid that?

Stop eating canola!

If you really care: stop eating canola. Stop using canola oil. Avoid buying any product which includes any form of canola or canola oil in its manufacture. When you eat out, ask, Do you use canola oil? If the answer is Yes -- eat somewhere else.

Your impact may be small, or it may actually make a difference.

But you will probably be safe from eating GM canola. And that is possibly the best option that you have.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Do Your Customers Hate Waiting in a Queue?

Still on the topic of knowledge brokering... McKinsey Quarterly gives some interesting examples of "a systematic approach to seeking external ideas from people in a variety of industries, disciplines, and contexts and then of combining the resulting lessons in new ways." That is, don't just think outside the box... look outside the box.

The McKinsey article describe a UK bank which spoke to experts in traffic management, theme parks and groceries. The bank wanted to reduce complaints from customers about long times spent waiting in bank queues.

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

Disney theme park managers suggested that customers could make appointments, rather than just wait in a line. You could extend that idea: use the internet, allow customers to book an appointment through your online diary. Mind you, you had better be available on time!

Of course there is a risk. Customers may recognise that you don't really want them in your office. They may change from your business, to one where there are enough counter staff to provide real service.

Disney also pointed out that customers really hate to see how long a queue they are in... So design the customer area with several queues -- out of sight of each other.

In other words, hide the problem. Hide the problem from the customer, anyway. After all, it is only the customers who complain about those long queues.

Tesco introduced the bank to "dynamic queuing", where back-office staff become front-counter tellers when there are customers waiting. You can see that in action at places like the Herdsman, where checkout staff appear and disappear as customer queues come and go.

This seems to be an idea which really attempts to solve the problem: customers want service, provide enough staff to give good service. Specifically... deal with customers when they are there. Deal with routine work when there are no waiting customers. (I will also be suggesting dynamic queuing in hospitals, in a later posting.) Of course, if routine work is more important that customers... well... perhaps you should not be running a business.

Getting ideas and advice from a range of external experts is -- in the latest management jargon -- knowledge brokering. It's a great idea. Be careful that you select solutions that solve your actual problem.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Put Stop to Funding Private Schools

Put stop to funding private schools -- the headline on a letter to The West today (22 Feb 2010) -- I could not have said it better myself. Why should the government pay money to schools which cater for people who refuse to use the government-funded state schools?

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

In his letter, David Carlson compared private school subsidies to private car subsidies: "The government provided bus services and if you chose to use your own car then the costs were your concern." This, he wrote, was the argument in 1950, when governments were under pressure to fund private schools.

When Catholic education was the only option for poor families, then fine, support the Catholic schools. They were providing de facto government schooling. That argument no longer applies: the government provides state school facilities for everyone. For everyone who wishes to attend a state school.

Are there parents who wish to insulate their children from those violent children who attend public schools? The more you back away from those issues, the worse they become. The more funding you take from public schools -- to fund your private educational havens -- the less money there is to help the children at public schools.

Are there parents who are afraid that their children will be tarnished by those nasty heathens who are allowed to attend public schools? If your religious -- or other -- views are so weak, so suspect, that they can be altered by talking with other children, perhaps you do need to isolate your children. By all means, brainwash them in a private institution. But do not expect the government to pay for support of your questionable minority views.

Take what is given. Or be prepared to pay the full cost of your chosen alternative.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

The Real Cost of Sport

Peter Barrow, president of a suburban basketball club, wants more participation in his sport (The West, The real cost, Letters, 20 Feb 2010):

"From a grassroots basketball perspective, we want as many people playing our sport as possible." Well said!

The government builds a $40m sports centre. How many suburban basketball players will that help? How many suburban basketball teams are based within easy travel distance of that one centre? Very, very few. Why does the government think that a single, central sports stadium is any good to sport?

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

Oh, of course: It's nothing to do with the large numbers of people who actually play sport...

Governments build large sports stadiums because it's easy and because it's visible. Take over one small area of land, spend a heap of money amongst the rich and influential building companies, wait for the publicity when the stadium is overflowing, during a large, international sports show.

Of course the stadium is effectively empty for the rest of the year.

And when it is full, it is overflowing with spectators. A large stadium, with occasional "big" events, is ideal for watching sport.

How many "state" basketball teams are there? One, I guess. Two, if you count the commercial team. How many "suburban" basketball teams are there? Dozens...

Peter Barrow is worried that teams, their families, volunteer helpers will be expected to pay more, for court hire, parking, admission to the venues.

Let's guess that there are 400 suburban basketball teams. Instead of $40m for one, central, limited-use basketball stadium, we could have given each suburban team $100,000 towards court hire, parking, admission to venues. Wow! There would probably be enough left over for uniforms! And equipment, and transport to games...

One central stadium supports, perhaps, a few dozen highly paid players. Plus their well-paid coaches, agents, trainers, hangers-on. Plus many thousands of people who, perhaps once a year, are willing to shift from in front of their TVs to in front of the hot-dog stand at a central basketball stadium.

400 suburban teams -- with government funding or without -- support at least 4,000 active, participating sports players. Plus a lot more unpaid or underpaid coaches, supporters, family, hangers-on.

Where will government money do the most good -- for active participation in sport, rather than for high-publicity vote-buying?

Put more money into suburban sports participation. It is cost-effective. And if the aim is to actually benefit sport -- investment in suburban participation is going to be very, very effective.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

The Role of Schools

What, do you think, is the role of schools?

There's a letter in today's (20 Feb 2010) West, headed ADHD solution. The issue of ADHD is serious, I'm not going to tackle it in this posting. But the letter raises another issue: What is the role of schools?

In the letter, "(for ADHD kids) reading and writing are very difficult to learn. So why do we put them (ADHD kids) into a system where the emphasis is so much on reading and writing?"

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

School is about education, not child minding. A school is there to teach students. Or, possibly, to provide an environment in which children are able to learn.

The basis of learning is reading and listening; to demonstrate your knowledge you need to be able to speak and write. So a school will emphasise reading & listening, speaking & writing. That is the absolute basis of education. Most children learn at home, to listen and to speak. Which leaves the school to teach reading and writing.

When the student has mastered reading and writing, they are ready to learn far more that the teacher can communicate in a classroom. Reading, in particular, allows the student to leverage their learning -- to use a small amount of learning in order to access a whole lot more.

No wonder the school emphasis is so much on reading and writing!

Education and self-esteem

"It is almost as though the education system is out to make it difficult for them to develop good self-esteem." That may be half right.

If you are unable to read and unable to write -- are you an absolute loser? Or do you have some other skills. Do you need to be able to read and write, in order to fulfil a worthwhile position in society? Not in my... books.

If you go to school yet fail to learn to read or write, then that may be unfortunate. It does not stop you getting a job. Just don't expect to get a job that requires the ability to read or write. Get a job where reading and writing are not required... you may need help redefining the job... and keep your self-esteem.

If you fail to learn to read and write, and friends, family or total strangers make fun of you, that is very unfortunate. That's a reflection of the lack of social sympathy of those friends, family, total strangers. Or, simply a reflection of their lack of sympathy and understanding. You lack certain skills that others have. This does not make you "better" or "worse" than those other people.

Look past the insensitivity of others. Do not reflect that insensitivity in your own response. Look at the person behind the comments. Hope that they, too, will learn to look past your differences, to look at you as a person.

Back to school

Back to the letter: A school is a place for learning. If, for some reason, your child is unable to learn the basics -- you need to look for an alternative.

Sure, schools are expected to carry a huge burden of social responsibility. Every failure of parents towards their children seems to result in more demands for social education from schools. Every failure of society to care for children, results in calls for schools to take on the burden of caring. Every accident of birth, resulting in learning difficulties, results in calls for schools to be more "inclusive".

All of these social demands, calls for caring, demands for inclusivity -- they all stretch the resources of the school. Yes, the school has a role in each of these areas. Unfortunately, each attempt to provide a social service reduces the ability of the school to provide an educational service. And the "average" student receives even less.

Please do not demand extra services for your child. If your child does have special needs -- request the extra help. And, if at all possible, help your school to gain the extra resources that will be needed.

Do we actually believe that a school exists in order to provide an education? If so, then it really is time to re-think our demands on each school. We need to be more flexible... If a child is not able -- or not willing -- to gain an education, why force them to go to school at all?

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Broadfield Tugs his own Forelock

Because we -- Perth restaurant owners, that is -- have just opened two new restaurants, Rob Broadfield can stop tugging his own forelock. Don't blame me, that's what Broadfield writes in today's West.

It's "the beginning of the end of our forelock-tugging comparisons with Melbourne" (Bar laws breed hip new eateries, 20 Feb 2010). So who is it that has been tugging at those forelocks?

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

Perth is, we are told, a boring place to live. "Dullsville". Why? Because -- we are told -- we do not have the same exciting... whatever... as places like Melbourne. Whatever it is that Melbourne has -- eateries, concrete river fronts, exotic night life -- Perth needs it.

I wonder why so many people choose to live in Perth?

I wonder why so many people enjoy living in Perth?

I wonder why Rob Broadfield is still living in Perth? (Hmmm... Perhaps he's one of the columnists who just glosses over where he lives, so that his articles can be published nationally...?)

Sure, Perth is quiet -- compared to Melbourne, Sydney, New York... Yes, we lack some of the facilities that make life more acceptable for people living in the bigger cities. But I, for one, am quite happy with the way we are.

If we open smaller establishments for eating & drinking: great. If we don't, well, that's probably a sound commercial decision: I'll survive. But I won't pretend that a lack of small eateries makes Perth somehow worse than Melbourne.

Rob Broadfield may be a professional cultural cringer, that's his problem. He may wish to tug his forelock at cities which -- in his opinion -- are better than Perth. But he is, after all, tugging only at his own forelock. Broadfield is free to be embarrassed at whatever he likes, whenever he likes.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that all of the people of Perth are similarly slavish in their support of Melbourne over Perth.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Knowledge Brokering: is Breakdown a Successful Strategy?

Here's a quote from McKinsey Quarterly, a management journal which is available online:

"The first step is to approach the business problem at a level that encourages effective brokering. If the problem is too high level or complex, few potential solvers will have the experience to address it. By considering a problem’s constituent parts, companies increase both the pool of solvers and the odds of good results -- much in the way that carefully selecting the terms of a search engine query increases its usefulness." McKinsey, Jan 2010

The article is a "conversation starter" about ways to get a range of internal and external help in solving a business problem. People with ideas may be put off by the complexity of the challenge. Break it up, in order to allow manageable parts to be discussed and solved.

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

Which is all very well -- as long as you know enough about the solution to be able to break up the problem... Let's look at a similar process: searching the web for information on a particular topic:

Someone has told you that "knowledge brokering" -- as described in a McKinsey article -- is an interesting idea. You do a Google search on "knowledge brokering" mckinsey. And get 4,200 hits. All well and good. You knew that you wanted to find out about "knowledge brokering". Further, you had heard that McKinsey had provided an article. So you searched for "knowledge brokering" and "mckinsey".

Unfortunately, the actual problem is about "knowledge brokering". Only "knowledge brokering". By adding "mckinsey" to the search terms -- you have restricted your search.

Try searching for just "knowledge brokering". Google returns 62,800 hits -- more than 14 times the number of hits.

More detail, less flexibility

As you restrict your search -- with more detailed search terms -- you also restrict the number of possible results. Similarly, as you break down your quest for "knowledge brokering", you are restricting the potential scope for solutions.

There may be just one person -- somewhere out there amongst the potential knowledge brokers -- who has a radical solution which will make your fortune -- which is so new that it will catch the competition by surprise. Put up the entire problem and you may just get that very new solution.

The only way to break up a business problem is to assume certain aspects of the solution. As soon as you assume certain parts of the solution -- you are losing the chance to come up with that one, big, new idea which will be an absolute world-beater.

Sure, you will improve your chances of gaining help with the small parts of your pre-determined solution. But you will lose the (admittedly small) chance of gaining a major breakthrough. Yes, the odds are stacked against you. But you can always break down the question after the big solution has failed to materialise.

If you really do not know the answer -- open up to the possibility that there may be a new and untried solution just waiting for the opportunity to be noticed. You may just be the next big winner!

If not... there is always time to try again, to make assumptions about the answer, and to go for the second-best result.

But as a first step: try to be an absolute winner. It may just work.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Conserve & Protect, or Develop & Destroy

The north of Australia is, we are told, not suited to be a major food source for the world. Why not? There just isn't enough water. This is what we are told in a report by a government-appointed taskforce.

Paul Murray begs to differ.

In Lies, dam lies and statistics (The West, 13 Feb 10), Murray points out the faulty assumptions of the Northern Australia Land and Water Taskforce. It takes as a given, that there will be no more dams because state governments of WA, NT and Qld have said that there will be no more dams. Then there is the lack of actual, scientific data on water availability.

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

Murray quotes from the report: "A key limitation on the project lay in the lack of water-related data for northern Australia." Apparently, the report "relies on computer modelling of the small amount that is known." Murray continues, "Sounds like a version of Climategate."

From the report's admission that they have built models based on limited data, Murray leaps to the conclusion that the entire report must be wrong! From an admission of weak data, to an unsubstantiated implication that the entire report is wrong! Talk about lies, damn lies and ignore the statistics!

Murray has now dismissed the entire report, on the grounds that the writers admit that data is scarce. On the other hand, Murray has no data whatsoever, yet is absolutely certain that his own conclusions are correct... To be fair, Murray's report is headed as "Opinion". It is not claimed to be either truth or journalism.

Damn the north of Australia

The other key thread of Murray's opinion is, that the Taskforce report is biased towards conservation. "Frankly, the final report is a national embarrassment on such a fundamentally important issue. It reads like an undergraduate thesis on green and indigenous ideologies. However, if adopted, it will impose tight controls on any agricultural development in the north."

Did Murray not read his own Opinion piece? Murray quotes Joe Ross, the chair of the taskforce, that they were no longer "simply looking for new agricultural ventures" but were now "charged with considering indigenous futures, the potential market for ecosystem services, improved governance arrangements and the potential impacts of development, among other issues".

Feel free to read that again. The taskforce was not simply looking for new agricultural ventures. A kind reader could almost believe that they were looking for cultural sensitivity, potential green markets, better land management and protection of the natural environment against over-enthusiastic development.

Murray, it would seem, just wants to build big dams, clearfell the bush, flood the land and the market and make a heap of money. Dam the rivers. Damn the environment.

Is there a basis for decision?

It all boils down -- in my opinion -- to our point of view. Do we want to develop the north as a new source of agricultural income? Do we want to preserve the north as an environmental showcase? Murray goes one way, the Taskforce report goes another. Perhaps the answer is somewhere in between.

One thing for sure: Once you clear the land for agriculture -- it will never return to its original, natural state. The impact of agriculture is irreversible.

Do we want to develop? Do we want to preserve? Do we want to set rules for some intermediate compromise? The Taskforce report seems to want to support the status quo, to preserve what is left. Murray appears to want to get in there and clear the land.

Let's try to agree our intentions before we send in the first bulldozers.

One thing I do like about Paul Murray's Opinion pieces. He provides enough information, within his own articles, to hang his own ideas out to dry.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Buzzword Managers

Have you ever had a manager who spoke -- and believed -- in management buzzwords?

At GECITS, a multinational IT service provider, I had a manger who would come back from the latest executive warm-and-fuzzy meeting with all the latest buzzwords firmly implanted in his vocabulary. Whatever had just been spouted by the executive, my manager insisted that we would all follow along. Only trouble was, as often as not, he did not understand the words that he had memorised.

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

He was a senior and climbing manager but he was not a great manager. He was a fine example of promotion-by-agreeing-with-your-manager -- until he fell. On the other hand, he did give me one very excellent piece of advice. Which I may pass on... maybe. But not today. Anyway:

Have you ever had a manager like that, one who heard the latest ideas, failed to understand the latest ideas, insisted that all subordinates followed those latest ideas?

Here's today's example

We were sitting in a cafe, sipping coffee, eating a blueberry muffin. It was the StreetPerson Cafe... not the official name. There are youth-oriented posters. The staff wear grungy clothes (jeans, woolen beanies, food-stained tee shirts, that sort of thing). Food and coffee are fine, service is friendly. We think the manager is aiming for the young, modern image -- in a staunchly middle-class shopping centre. We call it the StreetPerson Cafe.

So we are sitting, sipping, nibbling... and reading the literature that comes with the cafe. I was browsing the Feb 2010 issue of BOSS, which appears to be a monthly liftout that comes with The Australian Financial Review. There was an article on trends, either past or coming.

(And here I should apologise. I was just skim-reading. The coffee was good, the company was good, the magazine was just for light entertainment. So all facts in the post may be completely false, even the ones shown as "direct quotes".)

From BOSS: "The information superhighway has become the information supertollway. We now buy our books, clothes, food, services on the internet." What is wrong with that comment?

Well, okay, I'm a bit behind the times. I didn't even realise that the information highway had become the information super highway. Now consider that clever change of words, from superhighway to supertollway...

What do you do on a highway? You travel. What do you do on a tollway? You pay to travel. No, you do not buy anything on a tollway, except the right to travel on that road. If we want to buy our books, clothes, food, services... we may drive along the tollway -- but only to get to the shops -- where we do the actual buying.

So: "The information superhighway has become the information supertollway. We now buy our books, clothes, food, services on the internet." Those two sentences cover unrelated topics. Yet the editors of BOSS considered that they -- the two sentences -- were clever enough to be printed as one joined buzzphrase. What a bunch of idiots!

If a highway becomes a tollway then you pay to travel. As a separate issue, you may or may not use those tollways to travel to your shop of choice. Yes, the toll may cause you to choose shops in a more convenient location. But you will not be driving along the tollway buying food and clothes.

This is typical of the foolish manager's use of the latest management fads: Read them, quote them -- then demand that your subordinates follow them.

What to do when your manager spouts buzzwords

Your manager reads BOSS. After all, the magazine does target up-and-coming managers with an eye to impressing their own managers... Your manager tells you, "The information superhighway has become the information supertollway. Get out there and sell something on that supertollway."

Do you just quit, in despair of ever getting a sensible manager? No, you play the game...

"Yes, boss, certainly boss, I'll get on it right away!"

Then you tell your own subordinates, ""The information superhighway has become the information supertollway. Give me monthly summaries of our sales via the internet. Starting last month."

"Yes boss," they reply.

Then, each week -- just before your boss thinks of asking for it -- you give your boss "your" report: the figures provided by your subordinates plus your own 200 words. These words will either (a) blame someone else if trends are down, or (b) praise your boss, yourself... and your team... if trends are up. At least 50 of the words will promise vast, future improvements.

You are now well on your way to upward management mobility.

Oh, and if you also want to be a good manager... Don't waste too much time on the supertollway reporting. Get it out of the way as quickly and painlessly as possible. And spend the rest of the time actually being a good manager.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Marketing of Politics in Australia

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

In Australia we have two major political parties, Labor and Liberal. Each party has its own distinct approach to marketing itself. Check, for example, Paul Murray's piece in today's West (11 Feb 2010), Not all gaffes are created equal.

Barnaby Joyce claimed that Australia would never be able to clear its national debt. This is the standard, Liberal, scare tactic. Oh woe is us, we're all doomed!

Lindsay Tanner responded, "It's a freak show and he has taken charge, Mr Speaker." This is the standard, Labor, make a personal attack tactic.

At the local level, the Liberal Rob Johnson scares us with crime. The Liberal Colin Barnett invents statistics to scare us out of Northbridge. Labor's Eric Ripper demands that Police Minister Rob Johnson be sacked. Again: the big scare versus the personal attack.

Are these deliberate marketing strategies?

Would you rather have politicians arguing on policies? Oh. Well. Too bad.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

That Tired, Old Boxing Kangaroo

In The West today (11 Feb 2010) Dan Silkstone writes under the headline, "Time to KO that tired, old Boxing Kangaroo". He makes a big point -- several times -- that the boxing kangaroo is a commercial trademark.

My first thought was, What an idiot! The BK (boxing kangaroo) flag is owned by the AOC (Australian Olympic Committee), the AOC sends Australian athletes to the Olympics, so the BK flag is as good as an Australian flag -- in the Olympic context. How wrong I was!

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

Am I the only fool who believed that the AOC is a government body set up to manage Olympic affairs on behalf of Australians? Total misunderstanding! In my defense, I just never thought about it...

The AOC does not represent Australia. The first "object" of the AOC -- as published in its constitution -- is, "to develop, promote and protect the Olympic Movement in Australia in accordance with the Olympic Charter and all regulations and directives issued by the IOC". The AOC is the local office of the IOC.

So by flying the BK flag at this year's Winter Olympics the Australian athletes are saying -- consciously or otherwise -- that they are not there for Australia. The flag is telling the world, "We are here for business not for nationalism." Is that good or bad? Who knows. Who cares.

Which flag is that?

Sure, the Australian flag is there as well. A few small Australian flags are visible -- dwarfed by the enormous BK flag.

Who would know which country is represented by the Boxing Kangaroo?

Oh, yes, nearly everyone.

I would like to guess, that more people recognise the BK as "Australian" than would recognise our authentic national flag. It's like the national anthem... Anywhere in the world, "foreigners" would know -- and be able to hum -- the Australian song, Waltzing Matilda. How many "foreigners" would recognise Advance Australia Fair? Not many at all...

The BK is trivialised, commercialised, themed with violence. Great for sport, hardly the best image for a nation. On the other hand -- it is instantly recognisable as "Australian".

Perhaps it really is time to go for a new flag and a new anthem. Take off the gloves, put a pie in one hand and a thumbs-up, she'll-be-right gesture on the other. And bring back Waltzing Matilda as our official anthem.

I would like to see us all celebrate the joy, the good humour, the we're-happy-to-be-who-we-are attitude of being Australian.

Footnote 1: Disclaimer

I've never been happy with Advance Australia Fair as our national anthem. I honestly prefer Waltzing Matilda. I have heard Waltzing Matilda sung and hummed around the world, as soon as I have been identified as being Australian.

On the other hand, I am a quiet but staunch supporter of the current Australian flag. As I wrote this post, the relationship between flags and anthems and being proudly Australian just became -- to me -- a lot clearer. There are plenty of flag attempts which I would reject out of hand. But, now I come to think about it, I would be very happy to accept Waltzing Matilda as the national anthem, and a similarly cheerful, uniquely Australian flag as our national flag.

Footnote 2: The real reason for this post

Okay, my mind has been wandering. The new-flag-and-anthem idea was distracting. I had to double-check several sources because I would have written "euthanased"... My apologies to Dan Silkstone; I was totally wrong... it is "euthanised".

But this was the original point that I intended to make:

"An Australian flag should represent something other than the dumb, unconsidered violence of an animal trying to impress a female of the species..." Absolutely true! But what we have here, is a flag at the Olympic village. And that's what sport is all about: "the dumb, unconsidered violence of an animal trying to impress a female of the species."

Footnote 3: Just wondering

Dan... how did you manage to sex that kangaroo?!

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Selecting a "Good" Manager

In today's West (10 Feb 2010) Daniel Kehoe writes an opinion piece on selection of a manager. He points out that a person who is "technically competent" will not necessarily make a good manager.

Quite the opposite, in fact.

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

Kehoe writes that, "In today's workplace, managers need different sets of skills." You can forget that bit about today's workplace -- that's just a filler, like "Umm" or "Err". "Management" and "technical" skills have always been different.

But that's a minor point... You probably already know that a good worker will not necessarily make a good manager. How, though, does Kehoe identify a good manager? He asks questions... Such as:

• What do people want from a manager?

Okay, fair enough. Listen to the answer. Listen also to -- as Kehoe suggests -- the way the person responds to the question.

• What are the things that motivate people to excel?

Another good question for a potential manager. In order to motivate people, the manager must understand the basic motivation drivers. Although there will be some excellent motivators who cannot clearly state the reasons for their success; they are just naturally good at it. Those people may stumble and hesitate... perhaps you can ask a better, less theoretical question about their approach to getting people to work effectively.

That minor difficulty now gets worse.

• What do you strive to concentrate on when you are engaged in one-on-one communication?

Well hang on, what is this interview all about? Here we are, having a one-on-one conversation -- and you have to ask me where I focus my efforts? Isn't it obvious?! Or rather, isn't the result obvious? Whatever I am doing -- in this one-on-one interview for a management position -- whatever I am doing, it should be having a positive effect. If not, I am failing the interview test. If you can't tell how well I am doing then you fail the interview test.

Can you please explain what you are doing?

Kehoe's questions are good, but not as straight out questions. I've been a university lecturer; I know that there are people who can say what they should be doing -- but they just cannot (or do not) do it. Understanding the theory is essential. But...

Understanding the theory of management is essential. Explaining the theory is a bonus -- if you are a lecturer. Explaining the theory -- explaining how they act in order to be a good manager -- may be beyond a good manager. Application of the theory is the essential.

I once attended a presentation by a manager who was "an excellent communicator". He had obviously been trained by experts, he practiced all the techniques...

He covered all of the audience: talking to this quarter of the room , then to that quarter. By the end of the talk, he had spoken directly in the direction of each and every individual in the audience. He had spoken and smiled at several members of the audience, even to a few at the back of the room.

This expert speaker had begun with a joke. He had spoken clearly, with a mixture of serious, meaningful, heavy and light. There was a sprinkling of humour, an occasional, personal anecdote.

He introduced his topic, followed a clear path, summarised and concluded. This was a professional talk, by a professional speaker.

At the end of his talk, the audience reached collectively for their brown paper bags.

This senior manager was an "expert" speaker. He knew -- and used -- all the best tricks and techniques. He was so obviously false that the audience was appalled.

And the moral is...

Sure, you can ask all the right questions. And your potential manager may provide all the correct answers. But please, if you really do want a "good" manager, find out what they really do and feel and think.

You can ask all the questions. You can listen to all the answers. But the correct answer may be unspoken.

As Kehoe says, "The way the person responds to these questions should give some insight..."

It's not the answers that matter. It's what you learn, from listening to the answers. If you simply ask those questions and write down the answers -- you may only learn that a trained parrot makes the best manager.

Oh well. I guess that's a change from the usual trained monkeys.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

My School is... My School

The new My School website was launched with a great deal of publicity. How useful is it, really? Why did it crash on the first day? And what do you do about it, anyway?

Why did it crash?

The My School website crashed because it was overloaded. Why was it overloaded? Because of all the journalists who hit the site -- over and over -- trawling for a story.

Journalists?!

Well, let's look at The West Australian. They had an interesting article which compared various schools. They must have looked at a few dozen schools, to get the detail for their report. So there's a few dozen hits on the My School website... Probably repeated, over and over, until the reporters were satisfied that they had a good (or well researched) story.

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

Extend that thinking, to every newspaper... every tv station... every news outlet... around Australia... No wonder the website was overloaded!

I wonder if any parents were able -- or interested enough -- to access My School on that first, frenetic day.

How useful is the My School website?

Well, that depends on what you're looking for. The site was obviously good for journalists, looking for a good back-to-school story.

Is the website useful for parents? See the next section...

What do you do about it, anyway?

There is a general feeling, that the ability to compare schools -- by the results achieved by students -- allows a parent to select the "best" school for their child.

Is this a good thing?

Years ago I read some research that found, the further a student travels -- the worse their school results. This is a strong argument in favour of sending your child to a "local" school.

If your child makes friends at school, will they want to meet with them outside school? It's possible -- but far less possible if the school friends live in different suburbs which are each a long way away from the school. You drive your child to school. You drive your child home. There is no time to drive your child to and from a friend's house...

If all of the children live so close to school that they can walk, then they can also walk to and from friends' houses. (Admittedly, in some suburbs you may want to send an adult to walk with them. It's still easier than driving a car.) Children who live close to a school, make friends who live close by. This is another argument in favour of a "local" school.

So far, all I've said is, send your children to the local school.

But the school is not good enough for your children!

Should you run away from the problem? Should you invest time and money, to send your children to a school which -- last year, anyway -- looked good? Possibly because it happened to have a good batch of students?

Here's a better idea: Invest some of your own effort -- and help your local school to improve its academic results.

Become a part of your school community. Instead of spending an hour a day driving your children to and from school -- spend that hour a day supporting your local school! Offer to help in the classrooms. Offer to help in the playground. Offer to help gain funding for necessary equipment. Just offer to help...

You could just run and hide...

Yes, you could look at the My School website and take the easy option. You could select a school which -- last year -- did quite well on a small number of measures. You could use the power of your time and money, to push your children to the distant school which -- for reasons which you probably don't know -- managed to look quite good, last year.

Or you could do something worthwhile, yourself.

Send your child to the local school. Check the school's results,on the My School website. And if you don't like what you see -- move heaven and earth, to improve the performance of your local school!

You may enjoy being able to help. Your children may enjoy being with their community of friends, at their local school. Your local school may get better and better.

With one final benefit... You will no longer need to move your children to a "better" school each year. Because the "better" schools are sure to change, given time.

But your children will be able to stay at the one school, as that school -- your local school -- gets better and better, every year. Thanks to the efforts of the teachers, the children -- and thanks to the efforts of you, the community of parents in the local school community.

It may not be easy. But the rewards should be worth the effort.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Total "Quality" Management

TQM -- Total Quality Management -- is almost past its use-by date. Like a lot of management fads, it has been superseded by today's buzzwords, by today's newly-minted feel-good pay-now-gain-later sure-fire consultant offerings. Or has it?

The concepts of TQM still exist. TQM itself, however, has been updated: by back-to-the Japanese-source-of-all-quality Kaizen, by GE-is-so-big-it-must-be-right Six Sigma, by we-are-a-big-name-consulting-firm Our Methodology... Yet the central concepts of TQM are still there.

And at the heart of TQM -- and of its successors -- is "Quality".

The other day, I was browsing a library book on TQM: Understanding Total Quality Management in a week, by John Macdonald. Not a bad little book. Good for an experienced manager. Like an MBA: teaches you just enough to know when to talk with an expert. The book also reminded me of the source of much confusion, amongst managers who attempt to implement "quality processes".

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

The book gives three possible definitions of quality:

• Fitness for purpose
  
• Conformance to requirements
  
• Delighting the customer by continuously meeting, and improving upon, agreed requirements
  

The problems is, that quality "experts" seem to think that all three definitions are equally applicable. That we can implement "quality" processes that provide "quality" under each of the three definitions. Those experts who do not think at all, believe that each definition of quality is somehow equivalent.

Which all leads to a serious problem: we will be attempting to implement quality processes with contradictory aims.

A quality question

In my first ever "quality" workshop, the instructor gave an example, to explain the meaning of quality:

"Suppose you own a lawnmowing round. You need a new vehicle, to tow your trailer-load of lawnmowing gear, from lawn to lawn. What sort of vehicle do you choose?"

Several of the students settled on an old but well-maintained Range Rover.

"Wrong," said the instructor. "An old ute would be better. It would do the job, at minimum cost. You should not waste money on a Range Rover, even if it is old and cheap..."

Let's consider that idea, in light of the three definitions of quality.

Fitness for purpose

An old ute would be fit for the purpose, if the purpose were wholly and solely to tow a loaded trailer from lawn to lawn. As long as all lawns are beside the road, that none are on the other side of a vacant, sandy block. As long as -- in the days before dual cab -- as long as the lawnmowing is done by no more than two people.

The "fitness for purpose" definition is saying, it may be rubbish, but as long as it can do just this one job, that's fine.

Conformance to requirements

Let's guess that this refers to, Conformance to customer requirements...

Is the "customer" the lawnmowing contractor, the person buying the vehicle? If so, is this person willing to use the ute only for lawnmowing? Or is there some expectation that it will also be used to take the family to the beach, on weekends? Then there are the other possible "customers": the people whose lawns are being mown... Are they happy when a battered old ute rolls up at their front door? Or would they prefer to see a Range Rover... Or do they even care?

The main thrust of this definition of quality is, don't ask us -- ask the customer! That is, Whatever you -- the customer -- say, we will deliver. Does it work? Who cares -- don't blame us -- you asked for it!

Delighting the customer ...

... by continuously meeting, and improving upon, agreed requirements

Under this definition, the Range Rover would be preferred. Preferably a brand new Range Rover. Either a ute or a Range Rover will do the job -- but the Range Rover will delight the customer! Well, it will if it costs the same, and if it fits the entire family plus luggage, and if it looks good on the street while the lawns are being mown...

But this definition is a direct contradiction of each of the first two...

It depends on agreed requirements. No matter whether or not it is "fit for purpose", as long as the customer has defined these requirements. Back to, all care but no responsibility. Though you could try to get a reasonable definition by extending the definition: "... agreed requirements which are fit for purpose."

Does the definition expect that you will conform to requirements? No... you are expected to improve upon requirements. Don't give the customer what they asked for -- give them more! Too bad if they did not want more, we'll give it to them anyway. And they will be delighted, if they know what we say is good for them...

So what is "quality"?

Pick a definition; they are all quite good -- in their own way.

But be absolutely clear that you know which definition of quality you are using. Know what that definition means about quality. In simple terms:

• It's cheap but it will work, or...
  
• You'll get what you ask for, no more, no less, or...
  
• Leave it to us, we know what we're doing
  

Select one definition of quality. Understand that definition. Follow that definition. And use TQM as the basis for processes which support your definition of quality.

TQM can work. But only if you understand what it is that you're trying to do.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com