The Surprising Reasons Why America Lost Its Ability To Compete

Blog post
edited by
Wiki Admin

Our Architecture Services Lead found this interesting Forbes article on “The Surprising Reasons Why America Lost Its Ability To Compete” written by several Harvard Business School MBA alumni. The article ultimately calls out management, not external factors as the reason for failure. 

 if there are disastrous shortfalls in the ability to compete, then surely the quality of management itself—the art and science of getting things done—must have a lot to do with it

Specifically, the focus on short-term and blaming external factors. At Xentity, we agree that though we understand management pressures in private and public sector have very impending issues to keep the organization within budget (public sector) and maintaining shareholder margins (private sector), but without and investment in outyear and next generation transformation, workforce, and research, the bailing water approach to management will not allow the organization to survive without adaptation. The article outlines:

  • Management trending to blame external factors instead of innovating, adapting, overcoming.
  • Management shifted to short-term focus and today’s numbers, versus investing in shared resources and pooling for longer haul
  • Managers have focused innovations and transformations more on cost-efficiency and cost-reductions and less on value-adding and increasing relevancy
    • Management education partly to blame focusing on short-term financial outcomes
    • Management shifted to focusing on maximizing shareholders outcomes while ignoring stakeholders needs
  • Instead of focusing on workforce/talent strategy, research, management instead continued focusing on short-term needs
  • Management can complain about government, external factors, but unless management finds way to not just focus on short-term needs, there is limited factors that government execution of new policies can do to stimulate growth
  • Management didn’t mention customer once in the report. C-level types have lost sight of understanding the communities of use, supply, and understanding their market
    • Management has lost ability to look back at the purpose of the program – to create the customer and balance with shareholder value

These observations from the study are very in-line with the Xentity’s published list of anti-patterns core architecture concepts towards view on transformation. As we published back in 2008, Our concepts are biased towards the next “generations” concept. The solutions recommended by the article generally align with our focuses on change as well:

Achieving continuous innovation and customer delight lies outside the performance envelope of firms that are built on hierarchical bureaucracy and focused on short-term gains and the stock price. It requires a fundamentally different way of leading and managing—in effect, a paradigm shift in management. It means:

Harvard Study: Management shiftsXentity Core concepts on addressing change

a shift from controlling individuals to self-organizing teams;

We are growing partners.

a shift from coordinating work by hierarchical bureaucracy to dynamic linking;

We think big on change, while changing small bits at a time

a shift from a preoccupation with economic value to an embrace of values that will grow the firm; and

We support executives transform their visions into action.

a shift from top-down communications to horizontal conversations.We share our concepts and supporting assets openly.

The article solutions wrap with balancing shareholder/budget-interests focus with stakeholder/relevancy focus:

 The article had some follow-on reads relating to this problem and emboldens many of the articles points:

And read also: 

In private and public sector, the management challenge is the same – external factors are continually battling against the mission, but management is doing the same thing to respond: Short-term cost-efficiency or cost-reduction approaches only with focus on the shareholder (private) or year-to-year budgeting (public). Management is not finding ways to balance the short-term and the long-term relevancy, and only education and leadership can help address, not waiting for external factors to make it easier.

We can approach architecture for other implementers

Blog post
edited by
Wiki Admin

For a large majority of consulting companies both design and implement for ALL projects.  Though profitable for many firms, the best design can end up biased towards the agenda of the implementer which may be to sell more components, get more bodies. Now, we have the capability to implement architecture, but our end goal is not to design an architecture that is for us to implement, but an architecture that is implementable. 

Many times, the client knows that the implementer will design with a bias, so the client chooses to or must design blind without considering the maturity of what an implementer can provide. In those cases, we can come in, architect, and be a third party to help do the concept, design, and design the requirements and performance work statement basis.

This approach with these services buy-back risk to your implementation and increase the likelihood of achieving your metrics and goals.

  • In Architecture, We can design and not implement. Though all our designers come with deep experience in implementing, and we can, in cases as independent designers, we can provide the best design recommendations without bias for implementation.
  • In Management Consulting, we can stand-up program management, execute a program management or governance support in lieu of existing support, or transition to existing support. 
  • In FedBiz, we train, support, and consult implementers on federal business management, so they can focus on delivering a solid implementation. Quality contractor support to implement a design, project, or program is hard to find. Compliant, Responsive, Reliable is even harder in Government space
  • In Communications, we help promote the transformation effort
  • In Research, we continually re-invest in new models, patterns, and constructs that go back into our designs.

 Why do we do it? We are all stuck if there are not good implementers or integrators to implement the designs, so it is more important for us to see the transformation designs move forward.