The Inquisitive Project Manager

I once heard a Toronto entrepreneur for the Rogers Communication company give a speech about choice in the marketplace. He said customers make choices on what they can buy, but those choices are provided by the organizations selling those products. In other words, "a customer's choice" is pre-selected for him/her by those who own the means of production. Nonetheless it is still a choice, all be it limited. This selection of choice is no less apparent than with Apple, Google, Facebook, and Amazon.

The big 4 are so prevalent in our lives that it's hard to imagine life without being influenced by 1 or all of these 4 companies. Probably no different than households being influenced by the industrial revolution or the introduction of automobiles into the marketplace many decades ago. Technology has become more of a need than a want. Wants are always greater than needs. But converting a want into a need is far more profitable. It creates a form of dependence on a product, which is exactly what has occurred with Apple, Google, Facebook, and Amazon.

Take travel 25 years ago, for instance. Flights were booked via travel agents, and often group travel deals were popular. Maybe even travellers cheques were used. Calling on a land line to book hotels was the norm. All this planning took days, weeks or months. Now, to book a flight one need only to do a Google search for an available hotel or flight, pay online using a credit card or bank transfer, save the receipt or flight bar code on the phone (to be scanned during pre-boarding), and wait to eventually board a flight. All these steps can be done within minutes of each other. The time between completing a transaction and enjoying one's purchase is negligible. Compared to 25 years ago and today, transactions are so much faster and efficient. But, what is the price we pay for this efficiency?

Big brother is ever more prevalent than before. George Orwell's book 1984 is perhaps a past reminder of how much further we have come into the world of technology. The big 4 play a huge part in that role, whether it be someone filming a crime in action and posting it on Facebook; CCTV cameras catching suspected criminals, and having it posted on YouTube; or DNA in databases being used to discover missing persons or long lost relatives which a quick Google search on a MacBook might be able to find.

Perhaps at a closer look Apple, Google, Facebook, and Amazon may appear to be working more as an oligopoly, rather than allowing the invisible hand of laissez-faire economics to take it's natural course. Makes one think whether innovation is contrived and limiting, rather than allowing creativity to bolster.

Of course, it looks like we Westerners are overwhelmed with the big 4. But, it's nothing compared to how China has embraced technology. Having recently lived in China for a while, Alibaba has far surpassed Amazon in every way shape and form. Physical money is virtually obsolete in China's arena of hyper competition. Even the person selling food along the street uses a bar code to have customers pay via WeChat or AliPay apps. One phone number or one email address connects your bank account, to your WeChat app, and pays for everything with a quick phone swipe across a bar code. When and if the West will ever catch up to China electronically is yet to be seen. It's just another testament to the power of influence that the big 4, and some even bigger tech giants have over the everyday lives of everyday people.

John Bates in his book Thingalytics, details how connected devices today far surpass the number of humans on earth. We have seen the Internet of Things change from 500 million connected devices in 2003, to over 50 billion connected devices in 2020. This growth, which the big 4 are a monumental part of, have made not so much a Leviathan of Things, but more so a Perspective of Things, which has undoubtedly changed our everyday lives forever.

To be sustainable does your own company culture need to change? How?

Perhaps Walt Disney expressed it best when he said "It's kind of fun to do the impossible.". The Disney corporation has managed to be sustainable within it's organizational culture, by doing what might appear as the impossible. That is, by building franchises while adapting to change.  

Walt Disney did a fabulous job in embedding a solid foot print in the franchise business. Later Michael Eisner, as CEO of the Disney corporation, filled those leadership shoes well, by focusing on creativity, branding and synergies. But by the late 1990s, Eisner's centralized management style had created a rather contentious culture. Older management styles were not working. A sign of the times no doubt.
  
Since change is constant, Robert Iger, having taken over the reigns as CEO from Michael Eisner in 2005, showed fresh modern visionary thinking. Iger's more unifying framework helped to integrate executives internally. This allowed him to better align with the external environment, such as promoting cooperation by mending sore wounds between Disney and Steve Jobs of Pixar Animation Studios. But most importantly, Iger's early sustainable strategy was to adapt to changing competition and market forces by embracing a less rigid, and more flexible system with self-managing teams, allowing employees a wider span of creative control. 

Walt Disney's horizontal organizational design with a flattened non-hierarchical structure, needed to become highly organic under Robert Iger, which is better suited to a faster changing business environment. Especially, where the emphasis is on the Internet and increasing globalization. By delegating autonomous business units, Iger increased trust and accountability throughout all levels of the business. 

By incorporating creative content, technological innovation and global expansion, Iger had the recipe for modern day success. This combination had a disruptive effect because Iger recognized how to take an external market force, like technology, and make it an opportunity to expand Disney's financial arm to reach across the world, enveloping many complex and sometimes simple-unstable forces. Thus, Robert Iger restructured Disney to comfortably fit into the external environment, by using their resources and capabilities to create a competitive advantage.

Iger created a business vertical whereby the Disney corporation could produce and distribute its own products and services, and diversify in investments and acquisitions of companies like Lucas Film, Touchstone, Marvel Studios, worldwide theme parks, media networks like ABC, licensing deals, comic strips, TV, and publications. Take a box office hit movie and capitalize on it with merchandise and product spin offs: an impetus for proud profits. Adding a video streaming platform was the icing on the cake. And, accessing emerging markets like Latin America, Europe and China helped to bolster beyond predicted profit margins. 

By focusing on core business drivers for change, Iger was able to overcome key obstacles. And, by exploiting technology, what might appear to be a threat to some, the Disney corporation was able to succeed and thrive substantially in the external environment. 

Though it might be impossible to believe, I'm sure that Robert Iger found changing Disney's company culture to a more efficient and effective business model, kind of fun to do.
 

There are many ways to analyze an organization or business. For a Business Analyst it is best to focus on a purpose and ask why you need to analyze a company. Being able to understand the cultural characteristics that comprise a company, where it stands in the marketplace, who its competitors are, and where it plans to be in the short and long term, can provide an initial starting point. Using standard business tools or frameworks helps to provide this analysis. Let us take a closer look at a comparative analysis of two types of tools, SWOT and PESTLE, and see how they can be used to influence change in an organization.

SWOT
SWOT attempts to categorize Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats of an organization, which can heavily influence business objectives. SWOT can provide clarity to formulate an route to achieve these desired objectives. The end result is to craft a profitable fit within a business environment through key decision-making and optimal strategic planning. For example, we could attempt to transpose a weakness into a strength, or exploit a threat by turning it into an opportunity. 

SWOT can be applied to a multitude of industries, whether the military, government, project management, business analysis, consultancy, technology, health care, etc. This range between public, private or non-profit industries is what gives SWOT its flexibility.

Internal forces, which effect an organizations strengths and weaknesses could include corporate culture, principles, values, skills and resources, staff morale, time pressures, or even leadership styles. External forces, which create and influence opportunities and threats for an organization, could include technology, the economy, wars, natural disasters, or government policies and procedures.

Though SWOT does not spell out a strategic plan, it can provide a suggested direction to the next stages of the change process. For example, during the scoping phase of the project a SWOT analysis can be used to identify risks which could be recorded in a risk plan. This would alert the project team on how to exploit a risk into an opportunity, and how to reduce the exposure to threats, thereby reducing the probability of risks.

Of premium importance is how to ask crucial questions. For strengths one may ask what valuable assets or resources does the company have. For opportunities you could ask if there are any emerging trends or potential partnerships beneficial to the company. For weaknesses you could ask where are we vulnerable, what are our limitations, where can we improve, or what are our gaps or barriers to success. For threats you could ask what economic or environmental conditions or public policy will affect our restrict our product development, or what would happen if we lose key staff members, and what are the challenges we need to overcome. In full, you want to reveal where priorities of change are possible. Based on answers to these questions, an organization can start to make an assessment on where to focus their strategic plan for the near future.

The above diagram shows a SWOT matrix where a list of information pertaining to each category (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) can be listed in point form.

Advantages to SWOT
The advantage to SWOT as a valuation method is that it allows for preliminary research. It is less theoretical and can be applied in a practical way to a business environment, for strategic planning and growth. And, it can be exercised at an enterprise level or higher.

Disadvantages to SWOT
The disadvantage to SWOT is that it is difficult to quantify strategic elements or dependency factors. SWOT focuses more on qualitative analysis like skills and professional expertise. This means there is an assumption that some factors might be independent of other factors, which may not always be the case. Thus, SWOT by itself is not a very comprehensive evaluation, and may appear a bit superficial or incomplete. Hence, why it is best to employ a hybrid approach, combining SWOT with other tools like PESTLE, for instance. Together, these tools can provide a more comprehensive decision-making outlook. It is noteworthy to be cautious that SWOT may not provide transparency if a lack of openness culture already exists in an organization. Be aware that this could hinder growth, if that growth is the end goal.

PESTLE
PESTLE can provide a wider depth on the external side of a business, allowing us to see things from a different perspective. As a strategic framework PESTLE is an acronym for Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Legal and Environmental issues. These are all external elements that affect an organization, from the planning stage, through execution, to policies and procedures, as well as corporate culture. PESTLE is a tool predicated on macro-environmental factors to ostensibly look at market influences in areas of business position, growth, and decline.

The political side looks at tariffs, labor or environmental law, goods and services, war, or maybe even tax policies. Economic encompasses areas like interest and exchange rates, export prices, employment, and elements that invariably affect business growth and operations. Social looks at social and cultural trends, demographics, lifestyles, population, all of which can influence consumer demands for specific products. Technological elements may focus on AI, technology, research and development, licensing, all of which stimulate innovation, quality, and levels of production. Legal has to do with many aspects of the law, whether antitrust, employment, regulatory bodies, safety, and so on. All these items influence the demand and ultimately the cost of products. Environmental are those factors like weather or climate change which can have a profound impact on industries such as travel, tourism or farming. COVID-19 is a perfect example of how the travel and tourism industry has been unduly curtailed because of an imposing virus. Or, take the example of an initial demand to build hybrid cars because of a conscious awareness to reduce air pollution, as was the case with the PESTLE study by Toyota.

In SWOT, internal forces within an organization are specific to a company or to a project within that company. However, external forces are often uncontrollable or are less known from an organization’s perspective. External forces are ever changing. Therefore, it is markedly important to have PESTLE factors reviewed and revised on a regular basis. These frequent updates can detect trends, which make PESTLE even more effective in identifying items which otherwise would go unnoticed.

PESTLE can help businesses avoid embarking on projects that would potentially fail. And, it can clarify assumptions and constraints about business markets. Like SWOT, PESTLE requires specific questions to be asked to spark discussion, which aim at resolving particular needs of the business. With precise answers to these questions, PESTLE can help businesses minimize or manage risk.

The above diagram shows an example of a PESTLE analysis template where one can enter appropriate points attributed to each category. This can provide a clear and visible description of areas that need to be reviewed.

Advantages to PESTLE
The advantage to SWOT and PESTLE is that they are both easy tools to utilize and understand, but their purpose can have far reaching effects in the sphere of strategic thinking. Both tools can lessen or anticipate future threats to a business, and expand or advance potential opportunities

Disadvantages to PESTLE
A disadvantages to reviewing PESTLE data sources is that it might be cumbersome or time consuming. But, it is well worth it in the long run. Different perspectives on PESTLE data takes time to collect. Because of constant change within the environment, gathering data might be difficult to obtain, or anticipating events might be hard to foresee. By all means it is imperative to avoid analysis paralysis from gathering too much information, which could impede the main purpose of PESTLE in identifying threats.

Review
It is important to understand that SWOT and PESTLE do not often apply uniformly to an entire project or business department. Some parts may have more severe implications on certain departments or specific sections of projects. Pinpoint exactly where and why SWOT or PESTLE affects some areas more than others. It is paramount that one tool not be used in sole isolation.  A more comprehensive study can be brought to light by using both tools, which complement one another well, when analyzing prospective change within an organization.