Problems create opportunities for development and advancement if the right solutions could be found to solve them. Problems become a money pit if they are poorly diagnosed or assigned to incompetent people or the wrong or inappropriate tools are used to solve them. Sometimes initiatives are started based on overzealous publicity about benefits to accrue once the solution is in place. Sometimes they are started based on exaggerated consequences of letting the problem experienced remain unresolved.
Either way, if performance is not strongly managed, and problems correctly and thoroughly diagnosed, or options for solutions inadequately reviewed, or envisioned solution not simplified or the sufficiency of the solution in solving problems systematically and incrementally is not tested, such initiatives would likely cause new problems and an overrun in solution costs. Such a situation should be avoided much earlier and decisively. By Nimroth Gwetsa, 31 March 2023.
How often has a simple problem become a major one requiring large sums of money invested to resolve it? How often do initiatives aimed at solving such issues cost less initially and suddenly experience rapid rise in costs? Costs rise rapidly because of the fear and failure of writing off the initial capital already invested in the initiative failing to realise benefits earlier. Such problems happen in professional and personal lives and no one is spared from such experiences.
The gross mistake often made that results in costs overrun, is the inability or reluctance or trivialisation of setting earlier conditions and checks for stopping initiatives failing to realise benefits expected to accrue earlier. Focus is more on milestones to be achieved than on setting markers that would indicate that some failures are realised earlier in the implementation of the initiative. The earlier detection of such failures should necessitate the review of the management and implementation of the initiative. And if failures are inadequately resolved or much time wasted in attempts to solve them, termination or a change in direction or reassignment of the execution team of the initiative should be considered to prevent or reduce further losses.
The other issue prolonging failure is exaggeration of the benefits of such solutions before any tangible outcome from such initiatives is implemented. The overselling of solutions before they are implemented causes pride and fear of facing consequences of having sold the wrong solutions or the wrong decisions being made. It causes people to dig in their heels in what seemingly is the wrong direction, hoping to find a solution along the way. However, such solutions often never come and by then, huge costs may have been incurred.
By way of analogy, satellite navigation devices usually suggest a detour to recalculate new directions when the wrong direction is taken. Only under extreme and unavoidable situations do they recommend making a U-turn. Likewise, having chosen the wrong direction in the implementation of initiatives should not mean that all is lost. Benefits can still be realised if pride and egos can be set aside and truth and pragmatism elevated. Not all is and should be lost when it becomes clear that the benefits expected to be realised earlier are not materialising. Incidentally, it might be necessary to redesign the solution or milestones into smaller deliverables to salvage the poorly performing initiative.
Sometimes delays are caused by observation of business as usual “bureaucracy”, which often adds unnecessary overheads, requirements, delays and involvement of irrelevant people just so “tick-boxes” can be marked. To overcome such difficulties, perhaps special dispensation should be considered to hasten decisiveness and the implementation of such initiatives. The “special” dispensation should not cause important rules and governance requirements to be missed or overlooked. They should ensure that the right people responsible for their enforcement are appointed on such initiatives and given the mandate to make important decisions quickly if need be. Hastiness often leads to mistakes and adoption of wrong solutions. However, delays can cause solutions to be redundant or overtaken by events or time. The balance between managing speed and delays of implementation can be struck if the signs of early failures and milestones are managed simultaneously, and decisions made quickly and decisively.
Sometimes solutions targeted at few beneficiaries often cause more problems than had those benefiting the majority been prioritised. Many serious hurdles are encountered when the solution is supposed to be scaled to serve the requirements of the majority. Often, it is best to start with the end in mind and only considering the requirements for the nuanced minorities as the last step. In that way, it would either be realised much earlier that the wrong solution is pursued or that the right solution is given earlier to most users. Afterwards, focus can shift towards specialised and highly tailored offerings meeting the needs of the niche market. Many engineering works follow this basic approach. Other sectors should consider lessons from such sectors and avoid repeating avoidable and preventable mistakes.
Generally, there are many ways to arriving at a solution. Thus, adopting a rigid approach may be undesirable. Ongoing measurements of steps to realsing benefits and the observation and tracking of signs of early failures may be the answer to achieving success.
Let us manage resources prudently.
