Posts Tagged ‘ki’
Is your organisation #Fit4Purpose? Watch out for SSSHARKKSS.
Is your organisation fit for purpose?
Or are you #SurvivingNotThriving or perhaps Diving?
Think about these nine elements of being fit for purpose.
Are you on top of them? Think SSSHARKSS.
Strategy. The #MartialArtsPrinciple is #Simplify
Why do you exist?
What’s the endgame?
What are the priorities?
Strengths. The MartialArtsPrinciple is, #Look4Leverage
Are you #PlayingToYourStrengths?
And maintaining our future edge?
Structure.
Is it fit for purpose?
Do we have the right skills and roles?
Happen. The #MartialArtsPrinciple is, Do you #KnowTheScore?
What’s your performance like?
Are your measures meaningful?
Actions. The #MartialArtsPrinciple is, Are you #PractisingProperly?
Do we combine engagement and discipline?
Resilience. The #MartialArtsPrinciple is, Are you managing by
#PulsebeatsNotPostmortems?
Are your risks understood and actively managed?
Ki. #MindsetAndBehaviour
Do we comply with spirit and letter of good practice and integrity?
Sustainability.
Are you replacing your capital, be it human, intellectual or other?
Stakeholders.
Are you balancing the interests of our wider stakeholders?
Please feel free to comment this post. You can also contact me here:
Acknowledgements: The last two questions suggested by Calum Byers in a comment on the earlier version of this post. The second question by John A Gelmini in a comment.
Shark image by TheHikingArtist.
The governance of the Child Sex Abuse Inquiry: SSHARKSS.
UPDATE ON PUBLIC INQUIRIES
Over the period 1990 to end Dec 2017, £639 million has been spent on 68 public inquiries. Amongst the best known are: Bloody Sunday, Chilcott, Mid Staffordshire Foundation Trust, Harold Shipman & Soham murders. Some issues are cost, delays and implementation of recommendations.
This was my attempt in 2016 to analyse the governance of this Inquiry in terms of SSHARKSS.
It seems to have gone quiet with this inquiry. The Chair would probably argue that they are making good progress and getting on with the job. It may also reflect concerns about other events like Grenfell, MeToo, Brexit and so on.
02112016. First written update on progress was published on 31102016. It included background, objectives, achievements and commitments.
30092016. An announcement that the Counsel (senior lawyer) to the inquiry had resigned. The Times also reports that the ex Chair wrote that there needs to be a full review of the Inquiry and basis and scale of the inquiry.
The Home Secretary rejected this view but announced two practical pilot projects – safe houses – on 11092016 on the Andrew Marr show.
The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) is currently led by Professor Alexis Jay.
The Prime Minister recently queried the governance of large businesses. What about the governance of this inquiry?
Here are eight questions to ask (SSHARKSS).
Strategy.
What’s the end in mind and what are the priorities?
The IICSA seems to have three purposes:
- Catharsis;
- Prosecution; and
- Stopping abuse in the future?
But what are the priorities between them?
If it is stopping future abuse, do you really need to try to uncover all historic abuse first?
Surely not?
Structure.
Does it have the right skills and roles?
It has had four chairs in two years.
A wide range of skills are needed such as leadership, management, legal, administrative, IT, child, institutions, evidence and case management.
Technically the inquiry looks like a “portfolio” of projects but there seems to be no mention of project skills.
It is unclear how various leadership roles fit together under the Chair.
Happen.
It has massive scope – all instances of abuse in living memory in all institutions in England and Wales.
Is that do-able?
What’s actually happening in performance?
It is difficult to tell. It has c200 staff but little has been reported.
Actions.
Do its actions combine engagement and discipline?
There are no published deadlines, not even for emerging findings.
“Justice delayed is justice denied.”
In my experience, no project (and the inquiry is a collection “a portfolio” of multiple projects) can really work without deadlines.
An internal review of its approach to investigations was announced by the new chair.
Resilience.
Are risks understood and actively managed?
The appointment risks didn’t appear to be.
If, as some argue, it has been an establishment conspiracy, then it is difficult to appoint figures from the establishment.
Ki. Does it comply with the spirit, and letter of good practice, transparency and integrity?
On the one hand, victims’ memories will fade of the details of historical abuse.
On the other hand, some people will be mistaken.
Is it fair not to allow cross examination by representatives of the accused?
Sustainability.
Are there biased incentives?
People paid by the day have little incentive to speed things up.
Fantasists may hope for damages.
Establishment offenders want to cover things up.
Stakeholders.
Can it retain any credibility with victims?
Those convinced of a wide ranging establishment cover up are likely to see the delays and problems as part of that, rather than due to bad luck, mismanagement or flawed policy.
Civil servants, many seconded from the Home Office are also likely (unfairly) to be seen in that light.
Images. Jumping to conclusions. The elephant (in the room?) is too big to grasp.
Please feel free to comment on this post or to contact me here:
Governance: 6 key questions (SSHARK)
I recently attended a Round Table on governance issues at the Institute of Governance.
Good governance has become more challenging in these Volatile, Uncertain, Complex and Ambiguous Times (VUCA).
Here are 6 key questions (SSHARK):
Strategy. What’s the end in mind? Why do we exist? What are the priorities?
Structure. Is it fit for purpose? Do we have the right skills and roles?
Happen. What’s happening in performance? Are measures meaningful and manageable?
Actions. Do actions and behaviours combine engagement and discipline?
Resilience. Are risks understood and actively managed?
Ki. Do we comply with the spirit, and letter of good practice, transparency and integrity?
In my experience, few organisations can answer positively to all six questions.
RESPONSES RECEIVED:
One person (a non executive director) felt that his organisation could answer “yes” to the 6 questions (most of the time). A corporate lawyer feels that Board remuneration should be mentioned. Twenty five likes.
Mike Barnato 