You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Operational Intelligence’ category.

In some parts of the world, bribing government officials is still considered a normal cost of doing business. Elsewhere there has been a growing trend over the past 40 years to make it illegal for a corporation to pay bribes. In the United States, Congress passed the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) in 1977 in the wake of a succession of revelations of companies paying off government officials to secure arms deals or favorable tax treatment. More recently other governments have implemented anticorruption statutes. The U.K., for instance, enacted the strict Bribery Act in 2010 to replace increasingly ineffective statutes dating back to 1879. The purpose of these actions is to enable ethical and law-abiding companies to compete on a level playing field with those that are neither. A cynic might wonder about the real, functional difference between, say, Wal-Mart’s recent payments to officials in Mexico to accelerate approval of building permits and the practice in New York City of having to engage expediters to ensure timely sign-offs on construction approval documents. No matter – the latter is legal (it’s a domestic issue, after all) while the former is not.

Moreover, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have increased their oversight of bribery. At the beginning of 2013 they jointly issued the Resource Guide to the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. For its part, the SEC has stepped up enforcement using its own resources. Recently, it charged a group of bond traders with enabling a Venezuelan finance official to embezzle millions of dollars by disguising the money as fees paid to the broker/dealer to handle apparently legitimate transactions. Tellingly, though, there was another relatively recent bribery issue that involved Morgan Stanley where the SEC declined to include that company in an enforcement action because it had demonstrated diligence to prevent it.

Before anticorruption laws, it was expedient for corporations to pay government officials to close business, get preferred status or prevent punishment. Once the laws were established, that stopped being the case. However, from a management standpoint, compliance with the law became complicated because of the dual nature of the corporation, which is both an entity and a group of individuals. In the case of the latter, when an individual breaks the law, is that person at fault, is the corporation or are both? Regardless of how a case is decided, there can be severe reputational damage to a company found violating the law, and that will have repercussions for corporate boards and executives.

This question leads to the agency dilemma, an important consideration in enterprise risk management. Economists long ago recognized the agency dilemma when the modern corporation separated the roles of its principals (that is, the shareholders) from its management. The agency issue exists where the best interests of the principals are either not aligned or in conflict with the interests of the agents (the professional managers running the corporation). But agency issues also extend to the company’s executives and may be rife in any large-scale business. Within the management group, authority to act independently is delegated down through the hierarchy, and the interests of the lower-level managers may be in conflict with those of senior executives, the board of directors and shareholders. For example, suppose that a local manager believes his performance evaluation, compensation and prospects for promotion hinge on the timely opening of a new facility. Confronted with a culture of payoffs for permits, that manager may try to find a way to pay officials for expedited consideration, especially if he is local to the area. From that individual’s perspective, corrupt activity may be the norm, and he may believe himself to be clever enough to violate company policy without detection.

It was once acceptable for a company to claim that it had a stated vr_grc_operational_risk_effectivenesspolicy prohibiting bribery and that executives were ignorant of an employee’s actions. Absent proof to the contrary, that often was enough. However, the FCPA changed this norm, imposing the need for diligence and affirmative actions on the part of companies to prevent employees from breaking the law as well as to detect and report any such violations that do occur (which is how the Wal-Mart situation came to light). Public standards, too, have changed since the 1970s. Despite its self-disclosure after the fact and the steps it took to address the corrupt behavior, Wal-Mart suffered severe reputational damage. Yet even with the likelihood potential consequences, our benchmark research reveals that just 6 percent of companies have effective controls for managing reputational risk.

We assert that the most effective control is to prevent illegal activity from taking place at all. Short of that, companies that can demonstrate that they have taken all reasonable steps to prevent a violation of the law are in a better position to claim that the individual, not the company, is at fault.

An organization should have clearly articulated and documented antibribery and corruption policies and procedures, institute mandatory training of and signed acknowledgements of having taken it by executives and managers, and put in place incentives and disciplinary measures. However, these required measures are increasingly insufficient to demonstrate diligence in preventing corrupt activities. Companies also must have a software-supported internal control system that flags suspicious activity immediately and triggers a rigorous remediation process that analyzes, investigates and documents the disposition of each incident. Incidents that are detected long after their commission are more difficult to cope with and pose much higher legal, financial and reputational risk.

vr_oi_information_sources_for_operational_intelligenceSoftware is available that helps detect activities that violate anticorruption laws and regulations as they occur or shortly thereafter; this is far more effective than waiting for internal audits or (worse still) whistleblowers to uncover malfeasance. To prevent violations of the FCPA and other antibribery statues, corporations must be able to monitor their financial and other systems for warning signs. These applications take advantage of operational intelligence, a class of analytical capabilities built on event-focused information-gathering that can uncover suspicious actions as they occur. Our research on innovating with operational intelligence shows that companies use an array of systems (led by IT systems management and major enterprise applications such as ERP and CRM) to track events, analyze them, report results and create alerts when conditions warrant them, as detailed in the related chart. The research also shows that about half (53%) use 11  or more information sources in implementing their operational intelligence efforts. In the future, effective FCPA software increasingly will need to look at a wider range of internal data as well as information from external sources and social media to determine, for example, whether a consulting company that just received a finder’s fee is run by or employs a relative of a government official. Today, companies can utilize software from large vendors such as IBMOracle and SAP, as well as vendors with FCPA-specific software such as Compliancy and Oversight Systems.

Bribery and corruption are unlikely to disappear entirely. Regardless of anyone’s best intentions, corporate boards and executives can find themselves enmeshed in a scandal not of their own devising. The best defense in such cases is plain evidence that the organization has done everything reasonable to prevent its occurrence and has discovered and dealt with it promptly if it does. Policies and training are vital components, but software can be the extra component necessary to improve the effectiveness of monitoring and auditing to support anticorruption efforts.

Regards,

Robert Kugel – SVP Research

The idea of devising and using maturity assessments to improve business performance has been a staple of management, functional and strategic consultants for decades. It’s based on two unassailable principles. One is the general assertion that companies differ in their ability to do anything along a range from nonexistent to advanced. The second is that at any time it’s possible for a knowledgeable individual to construct a scale of competence for some business function from least to most mature based on the important characteristics about how an organization designs and executes that function. Using maturity scales is a handy way for executives and managers to size up where they lie on a continuum of capabilities and an easy way to define the steps necessary for improvement. Maturity assessments have the advantage of being straightforward, but there’s the danger that they can be overly simplistic.

Ventana Research does benchmark research that assesses the maturity of organizations across four dimensions: people, process, information and technology. One aspect that differentiates our maturity assessments from others is that we separate the information element from technology – usually they are combined. The reason we separate them is that our experience shows that the information dimension (which covers issues such as accuracy, adequacy, accessibility and timeliness of data) is a separate domain from software, hardware and networks. Data issues are pervasive and become increasingly severe with the size of an organization. Because the underlying problems with information are different, they must be addressed in different ways from technology issues. Another aspect of maturity that we believe many consultants do not handle well is laying out the business issue to be addressed in a way that recognizes the interconnected relationships among the four dimensions. Addressing only the people-related issues of some challenge a company faces (such as communications, training or management style) may produce positive results in the short run, but these gains are likely to fall short of their potential or prove to be transitory unless related process, technology and information problems are tackled at the same time. Our comprehensive approach is the foundation for our research. It’s why we think our benchmark research is different and relevant to executives and managers.

Our maturity assessments demonstrate that companies that are more mature on the people, process, information and technology dimensions get better results than those that do not, and there is a strong correlation between a company’s level of maturity and the results it gets. For instance, one of the most important ways to measure the quality of a company’s planning, budgeting and forecasting is their ultimate accuracy. Our recent integrated business planning benchmark research revealed that 22 percent of innovative companies (those at the highest level of maturity) say their budgets are very accurate, while none of the tactical (lowest level) ones do. Meanwhile, 15 percent of the tactical companies say their budgets are inaccurate but none of the innovative ones do.

A useful example that illustrates the futility of failing to take a holistic approach to improvement initiatives is the New York City subway system. Starting in the late 1960s, the city began starving the subway maintenance budget to fund other things. When tax revenues proved increasingly inadequate to meet the city’s needs, the situation got worse. As a consequence, track maintenance was performed less frequently. Tracks that are out of alignment or otherwise less than perfect increase the wear and tear on the subway car “trucks” (the wheel assemblies) and may even damage them. This increases the cost of maintaining the subway cars. However, because there wasn’t enough money to keep up with repairs, damaged cars rattled along, causing further damage to the tracks. As the condition of the tracks worsened so did the condition of the trucks. As the situation spiraled downward, trains increasingly had to be taken out of service, causing delays and overcrowding. Poor service caused ridership to decline and revenues to fall, further straining the budget. Trying to fix a problem this severe in a piecemeal fashion is futile. Money spent on track and truck maintenance was going to waste because the systemic issue was not being addressed.

The subway system greatly improved in the 1980s because New York City made a sustained, multipronged commitment to reverse the decade of decay in its subway maintenance efforts. Money was a big part of the solution, but so too was technology. In this case, it involved rebuilding the track using welded rails and keeping the rails in alignment using advanced fasteners rather than old-fashioned spikes. Rather than continuing to accept a roadbed configuration that was state-of-the-art when the subway system opened in 1907, the city invested in technology that lowered maintenance, improved reliability and improved the customer experience by increasing reliability and reducing noise levels.

All corporations can benefit from the same holistic approach even if their challenge is not mechanical. For instance, sales force improvement initiatives often focus exclusively on training or coaching (in other words, the people dimension) or managing the sales “funnel” in disciplined fashion (an element of the process dimension). Too often, these efforts do not pay attention to data-related issues (could account executives better prioritize their sales efforts with more or more up-to-date information?), or to whether the right software is being used to manage the process or provide the ability to tailor incentive compensation on the fly to adapt to changing market conditions. Sales force consultants tend to be skilled in people and process issues but often don’t have the mandate (or the understanding) to address information and technology.

Finance departments’ shortcomings are routinely driven by a cocktail of poor process design or execution, use of the wrong software (misuse of desktop spreadsheets in particular) and data issues. Trained as accountants, finance executives often suffer from an inability to manage to an appropriate level of detail and fail to see the forest for the trees. In other words, they are plagued by a set of self-reinforcing issues related to process, technology, information and people. Our recent financial close benchmark research found that companies on average are taking a half day longer today to close their monthly and quarterly books. An attempt to accelerate the completion of the accounting cycle (and increasing the maturity of a company’s close) almost always benefits from a combination of efforts. These include a systematic process of fine-tuning the process design, using up-to-date consolidation software and eliminating the use of desktop spreadsheets wherever possible. As well, companies must have the determination to close faster and explicitly set and reinforce a faster close as a departmental goal.

Ventana Research’s maturity assessment enables companies to quickly identify the root causes of a business issue. Because the maturity assessment evaluates the usually interconnected people, process, information and technology factors that drive performance, it enables a more comprehensive solution. Our benchmark research consistently finds that while enough companies are able to excel along all four dimensions to demonstrate that top performance is feasible, a majority lag in their ability to execute core business processes.  Executives and managers are usually realistic enough to want to make steady incremental improvements to increase their competence rather than attempt to do a wholesale transformation in one fell swoop. Our maturity assessments make it possible to determine where there are opportunities for incremental improvement so that an organization can begin to address them in a comprehensive fashion.

Maturity assessments can be a useful tool for companies to improve performance. Achieving lasting gains in performance requires a comprehensive approach to addressing all underlying people, process, information and technology issues that prevent an organization from achieving sustainable progress. Maturity assessments that cover these four dimensions are the best way to establish goals that can reliably improve corporate performance.

Regards,

Robert Kugel – SVP Research

RSS Robert Kugel’s Analyst Perspectives at Ventana Research

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

Twitter Updates

Stats

  • 127,122 hits
%d bloggers like this: