At what point of the protracted implementation can one “know” if one’s chosen technological solution is the wrong one and that it was now time to “disinvest” and revert to the basics? How do companies even test for soundness of reasons advanced at business case review stage when such solutions are punted? Can there be a viable and face-saving way of salvaging protracted implementations in a manner that earns decision-makers compliments?

I now understand why companies in some sectors use the same technology solution despite there being equally superior alternatives. Though technology does enable companies to differentiate themselves from competitors, the scarcity of higher skills to sustain the differentiation is often the reason many companies avoid using unique technologies for differentiation, but rely on commonly used solutions. By Nimroth Gwetsa, 30 April 2018.

Publicity and focus on #StateCapture sharpened many people’s awareness on how special interests could result in inappropriate and expensive solutions being chosen over reasonable ones whose outcomes could benefit many. Many are now reviewing opportunities presented and decisions made with a critical eye, looking for evidence and justification for their preference by their proponents. Many are now prepared to ruthlessly and harshly deal with anyone suspected of wrongdoing or having wrong motives for pursuing opportunities at the expense of the welfare of the public.

Such sharpness in scrutiny will either cause proponents for change to be more objective and discerning in their decision making or result in those bent on stealing to find even more creative and sophisticated ways of privately diverting resources to themselves without detection. Either way, life will no longer be the same, unless we lose energy to be vigilant, and will make it even harder for even simpler decisions to be made.

When an organisation has prominent people calling for change, especially if that person has had a string of other successes in the past, it becomes difficult, unless the critic has an equally larger personality than the other, for anyone else to call them to order. We’ve heard of “personality cults”, where an individual is so idolised that many see them having little propensity to doing wrong, and issues of #StateCapture or #WMC Capture. These self-serving interests are nothing new, but a variety of familiar practices. The difference between them being the scale of influence concerned. So long as people yearn for reward, power, fame and success, we cannot discount the presence of populism and “capture” ills in our lives.

Leadership makes a difference. A change in leadership amidst a toxic atmosphere already filled with warring sides and almost everyone believing they know what is best for the organisation, can be heart-wrenching. I now understand why “the winner takes all” approach sometimes makes sense in new leaders wanting to exert control of the situation. That’s because without the presence of a strong base of skilled people in critical areas to depend on, it would be almost impossible for any leader to calm the situation and produce results that can meet different people’s needs.

At the same time, introducing change anticipating the inappropriateness of the current solution to meeting future needs, can be equally difficult in such an environment. In this climate, often many become daring, making promises of continued unprecedented successes if their proposals could be considered. By then, many are focusing on achieving success, that little attention is paid on reviewing the small detail. Any dissenting or critical voice is drowned or pushed aside as it is seen as antagonistic and reactionary.

Since no one knows the future, even if we may believe we have a view of it and use historical performance results and trends to anticipate future outcomes, the future remains a mystery. It becomes a case of going with the decision of the bolder and incumbent influential leadership.

As significant time goes by, large capital expended and it becomes clearer that the attainment of the goals of the chosen solution is becoming more elusive, some decision-makers find themselves still unable to make the right calls on what best to do next. Faced with the choice of terminating the investment and declaring losses or halting further investment to assess how current outcomes could be leveraged to recoup some investments made, many, rather, opt to continue spending more money hoping to salvage the decline in performance. Instead of rescuing the situation, often such further injection of funds exacerbates the problem because desperate people panic, and in their panic, their unity of purpose becomes lost resulting in backstabbing and sabotage inadvertently being entrenched. Then losses occur quicker and at faster rate than before.

A change in leadership in such situation does help to some extent, provided the new leadership doesn’t skirt issues or is “afraid” to make bolder decisions. That’s because, even then, sound reasons would still need to be provided and justified for either course chosen. Again, without a strong base of skilled people in key areas, whether coming with the new leadership or already in place, even the new leader would not be able to make the right calls. The cycle of wastage will thus continue.

If your organisation is already in such a vicious-cycle, it would be best that acquisition of services of an independent expert in that field be considered. Such a step is good and important to enable the right solution to be found. Its correctness is founded on the acknowledgement of the problem and desire to finding its solution. Since large capital may have been laid out already, cancelling and stopping the work at that stage may not be feasible. Then, the brief to finding a solution should thus not only be about identifying wrongs, but also on finding best and simplified short-actions practical strategies.

Just as a critical patient has dedicated emergency health-officials attending to them, the business problem expert sought should, likewise, be given similar resources and opportunities. Care should be taken to ensure the expert is also not given the latitude to “capture” the organisation, seeing the situation being dire and desperation among people heightened. Focus of actions taken should be on attainment of short, visible and achievable goals. Care should also be taken to avoid fatigue once a series of successful results have been attained. The intervention should be maintained until the “danger” has been fully averted. Otherwise, there is a risk that the organisation could again slide back into decay once the focus has been shifted from the incomplete implementation of the solution.

Of all decisions to be made, the most important is the decision to seek independent advice sooner than deferring the decision hoping the problem will somehow disappear or the situation improving on its own.

We cannot always overcome strong personalities, but when troubles and difficulties arise, we need to boldly and speedily rise to the occasion to confront the problem and be part of the solution.