Saturday Edition

Get the Blog Feed
What is RSS?

dispatches from the new world of work

The "PSF" "Debate"

My colleague Madeleine McGrath, co-head of our UK firm, is a practicing devotee of the "PSF" idea—and more aware, than anyone else I know, of what, perversely, a hard sell it is. (I say "perversely," because the "PSF delivered-value concept" is, among other things, actually the only sound defense against the international outsourcing tsunami. Yes ... only.)

She offered this Comment to yesterday's Schlumberger post:

Tom's first publication on the subject of PSF (that I possess) is a Tom Peters Group Occasional Paper dated 1988, so, I can see why the idea could be described as "dated." However, my experience of working with Tom and helping our clients apply his ideas is that the lag between the idea being presented and its more general application can take many years. For heaven's sake, In Search of Excellence, now over 25 years old, still attracted a massive audience to hear Tom speak in London last October.

However, I think there is an important reason why the PSF thinking has been difficult to apply, aside from the unhelpful associations that Ben [Commenter] mentions. [PSF equated with overpaid, under-experienced MBA-consultants working for a Big 4 firm.] PSF requires a major mindset shift for many well established organisations in that it puts the "professional" at the centre of the organisation. What great PSFs know is that they must find the world's best professionals in their field, and then create a context for them where they can do their best work—in which case the practice benefits and they get great rewards. My experience is that this orientation goes against the much more scientific and rational approach to management that has become embedded in much western corporate thinking of the 80s and 90s. Becoming "talent centric" is not a quick or easy journey, and requires leaders who have ambition to be different.

I am convinced that the PSF orientation will be at the heart of the revolution that is undoubtedly taking place in organisations over the globe, and that its impact will eventually be as great as that of the production line thinking that dominated the organisation thinking of the 20th Century.

To try and reflect the much more expansive potential of PSF thinking, in Tom Peters Company, we describe the approach as the "Future Shape of the Winner."

The big question is, who is "up for" this massive shift in thinking? It's more often seen in start-up companies, particularly in the high-tech arena, where talent is so critical for success. But you might argue it is much easier for them as they have no status quo to disturb. What about existing organisations—can they change?? Examples like the one Tom has pointed to in Schlumberger seem the most promising approach for larger organisations—find a piece of the business that can be "PSF'd" and give them the scope to try to be different.

[TP note: I am 100% sold on the "PSF-ing" as the best-almost only way to add high value, à la IBM and Schlumberger, mentioned in yesterday's Post. Before being canned for other reasons, CEO Bob Nardelli was doing this at Home Depot—"PSF-ing" the "retailer" by creating turnkey client (contractor, homeowner) packaged services, such as economical employee healthcare programs and turnkey accounting services for his small-contractor customers—I'm convinced it would have been a big, "transforming" winner. Madeleine has more passion for this than I do—and the tenacity of a bulldog. But over my very noisy moral objections, she and her colleagues last year renamed our related service "Future Shape of the Winner," as she said in her Comment. That was solely because that in a decade she was rarely able to light a fire with the "PSF" fuel. I am convinced that the principal reason is what I call the "parasite axiom." As in, "Those accountants-consultants-lawyers-ad guys are parasites—they've never done a real day's work in their adult lives." That may or may not have once been true, but now it's downright silly. When it comes to "parasites" and "real people," the parasites have won out. We don't need the product of most of our work, except to keep us occupied. Basic food and shelter, the relentless pursuit of the species for millennia, perhaps occupy less than 5 percent of us in developed economies. The rest of us are at work on frivolous things—iPod design, software creation, accessories for Hummers, "home entertainment centers," fashion goods—and what isn't a fashion good these days including toilet-bowl mops and screwdrivers, courtesy Target et al. Brink Lindsey, in his superb book The Age of Abundance, argues persuasively that we are only a few scant decades beyond an economy geared to produce necessities. And the fact is that we are floored by the whole thing. Some primal instinct says that if I, Tom-male, am not out tossing spears, or at least working in Welsh mines or Pittsburgh's steel mills surrounded by the fires of Hell, well, I'm not a real guy. So the world of "soft" value-added, the economy based on "desk stuff," is still troublesome to us. No matter, Madeleine and I shall soldier on, me with my "PSF," she with her more commercially viable "Future Shape of the Winner." I sleep well, damn well—because in one of those veeeeery rare cases, I know I'm on the right track with this—and I am certain, yes, certain, that "The Schlumberger Solution" is the bedrock of our new economy for you and me and Schlumberger alike.]

Tom Peters posted this on 01/09/08.

Comments

And I find myself at a very comfortable place...right in the middle of Tom and Madeleine. Yes, it has been a HARD sell. But some of my most exciting, and quite frankly, productive work at tpc has been delivering the psf concept internally to staff areas. Specifically, after conducting a psf intervention at Heineken in the finance department, talent was redeployed around their skils & PASSION, and they began conducting their work less as an administrative function and more as trusted financial advisors. My client took the concept from Heineken America to Heineken Corporate when he was promoted. That led to similar interventions with sales rethinking their traditional lens, and finally HRD and OD. I don't care what we call it (that's why I am not in marketing :) FSW takes this proprietary viewpoint and translates it into a manageable path, not for the fainthearted. then again, we kind of prefer the courageous client anyways.

Posted by Mike Neiss at January 9, 2008 7:50 PM

I think Tom's right on this one, but as a former product manager - and I define product manager to mean someone who actually goes out, takes disparate services and components and systems and people together to try and put together a "productised service" offering - I have some remarks...

There are a lot of people out there - intelligent sophisticated buyers - who believe that they are in the best position to put together something on their own and they want "stripped down" services, also called "unbundling".

How do you reconcile the PSF - productised, reliable, WOW packages - with the trend in unbundling - and the associated pricing challenges?

I think the solution lies in creating personal relationships with clients and building your brand "within the organisation" so that requests for unbundling do not take place.

But I'm open to other suggestions too! What do you guys think?

Posted by Arun Sadhashivan at January 10, 2008 4:03 AM

To add to the PSF debate kicked off by Tom's Schlumberger blog and amplified by my colleague Madeleine's response, we have found some fertile arenas in which big companies can work productively with our PSF/FSW methodologies. One such place is executive teams, where questions like "are you sure you are collectively worth your wages?" and "can you prove it?" usually provokes some resentment, a healthy debate, and then generates fresh thinking and a modified agenda. Management is usually the most expensive professional service in a business and, if it were to be purchased in from an outside provider, there would be extensive procedures in place to ensure that the costs were justified in value added terms. As executive salaries rocket, the more likely it is for the executive management service to become detached from the "value added" criteria that are so rigourously enforced in most other situations. From aerospace manufacturing to financial services, I have seen executive teams transform their contribution by "businessing" themselves and becoming a value for money internal PSF.

Posted by Richard King at January 10, 2008 4:55 AM

Arun - you have some most pertinent observations about the way the world of work is developing. Here's my take on your "dilemma".

For me a most important dimension of the PSF 'model' is its dynamism. If we really do have the best professionals in our team, then we need them to stay at the leading edge of their capabilities. And the relationship with clients is pivotal here, as you imply. In TPC we encourage PSF's to see the client relationship as a partnership, and as part of that partnership, to share knowledge and develop the expertise of the client to be able to take on many of the functions that the PSF currently offers. That leaves the PSF with the challenge of creating the next level of service offering - and who better to do that?

The unbundling you describe is a perfect example of this process going on in your world. I see this happening a great deal in the world that I know best, oprganisation consulting services. Today, most of my clients can now do for themselves a good deal of the basic development work around their people: training courses, meeting facilitation and organisation development, that used to be done for them by outsiders like myself. So what I must offer is fresh intellectual property and alternative approaches that enrich and stretch the client. As you say, this presents its own reliability and pricing challenges, but with the right relationships and talent, we have to navigate our way through this. This dynamic equilibrium is all part of the PSF chemistry.....

What does anyone else think?

Posted by Madeleine at January 10, 2008 5:44 AM

I think most people find the theory of PSF an easy swallow. They recognise the PSF imperative and probably even the treat of non-implementation. The implementation of PSF however is an entirely different prospect and MUCH less palatable.

In implementing PSF we are turning upside down the traditional 'order' of the organisation. A talent centric organisation is easy in theory, hugely threatening to the expensive end of the hierarchy in practice. Instead of 'staff' being grateful (and therefore malleable and subservient) for a job at the company, Brand You's now have a lever to wield. And their bosses don't like it.

The mustn't grumbles are on the way out. The post war grateful for a job generation are now in senior management soon to be retired positions and despairing at the 'precocious behaviour' of their talent that wont play their game.

No surprises then that PSF is well received in seminars but runs quickly in to hot water on implementation.

That is not to say it is the wrong thing to do. Quite the contrary. It is a survival strategy. Evolution has never been kind to the change resistant

Posted by Chris Nel at January 10, 2008 6:01 AM

First line above - That was the "threat" of non-implementation! Wishful thinking from an old white guy!

Posted by Chris Nel at January 10, 2008 6:41 AM

As a specialist I usually end up with a small team in a big organisation, We had the advantage? of being so small we could have been discontinued without the business noticing... individuals would feel the pain ... but the whole place would soldier on. So we had to make an impact bigger than our size. This is where PSF comes in... because you have to consider every department and every manager as a potential source of funds... money, projects, endorsement... whatever currency gets you known.The key to survival is to be in or leading a memorable department.. the one leaders want to visit on their travels, the one people are pleased to get involved with their projects, the one suppliers want to see even though we don't buy anything. I led a group that had the task of taking a foam model from a design house and turning it into a production ready 3-dimensional computer model for use by the suppliers. We redefined our role as working with others producing knowledge to facilitate faster, better quality decision making... and by the way here is the specification. The change in perspective enabled the team to catalyse an annual 30% change in speed to production reducing time-scales from 3 to 1 year approximately. That required us to absorb all 3 of the BrandYou, PSF50 and Project50 when they were first published, and to act on the knowledge acquired in discussion (reading groups!).
Our key act is to start with a big ambition (and a story to tell) and make space by a small win (chapter 1), followed by a bigger one (chapter 2)and soon...
Remember reading this?
"At first people refuse to believe that a strange new thing can be done, and then they hope it can be done, then they see it can be done - then it is done and all the world wonders why it wasnâ€™t done centuries ago.â€

Frances Hodgson Burnett
The Secret Garden

Posted by Jim Rait at January 10, 2008 7:16 AM

Jim Rait: two for the price of one!

(1) Your PSF analysis is brilliant.
(2) The Secret Garden is just about my wife's favorite book--I gave her a first edition for her birthday a couple of years ago.

Posted by tom peters at January 10, 2008 7:36 AM

I bought into this PSF mentality a long time ago and have been trying to apply it in every job over the past eight years. Like Clint Eastwood, I could bore you with the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly but I wonâ€™t. My thought is where can we share the experience of PSF framework implementation? Despite CEO magazines, and books telling us what would happen if Jesus was a CEO, most of us wonâ€™t make it that level in a Fortune 100 company. Soâ€¦.. Where can we share stories of the little guy implementing these concepts? Why doesnâ€™t Tom Peters.com create a PSF Wiki where people can share, build, and expand on these 50 items. Take for example #34, Embrace Marketing; what is everyoneâ€™s experience in implementing marketing and branding within the enterprise? My success is that many groups now understand the power, value and utility within the Information Technology community. Sadly, most do not. What frameworks do people use? I use the three tiered model with a foundation layer, messages/strategies layer, and a vehicle layer. My point, if I have one, is that there is a long drive from â€œEmbrace Marketingâ€ to actual implementation, evaluation, and modification. Perhaps, we as the TP Community, should embrace 24B and share that knowledge.

Posted by RTodd at January 10, 2008 7:41 AM

Tom inspired me ...have a look at
http://ic-pod.typepad.com/the_secret_garden/

Posted by Jim Rait at January 10, 2008 9:44 AM

The Tom Peters Seminar: Crazy Times Calls for Crazy Organizations rings so true, some 18 years later, with a clarion voice. â€œTomorrowâ€™s economy will revolve around innovatively assembled brain power not muscle power.â€ How true is this!?

It appears that the sell of the PSF is not the need for it, but perhaps beginning with the perception of ourselves; our professions are not us, but rather we are what our clients need. I am not an engineer. I am not a designer etc. I am functionally what the client needs.

The talent then becomes the brand the client needs, not the professional. The talent becomes the being brand. It is the becoming, the re-visioning of the clientâ€™s needs that becomes the focal point. And in the process we have essentially changed ourselves. Would this chameleon affect be felt by the client, while we revolutionize the company in small strategic ways? Is it a matter of approach? No one will argue with results.

Perhaps how we see ourselves could also get to the core of our creativity so expressed through our own individual experiential professional prisms, collectively assembled. Maybe the brain would then create more than mere â€œfrivolous things,â€ more than duplications of variations on a theme in various colors and schemes.

â€œIf you can touch it, itâ€™s not real,â€ said an executive in The Tom Peters Seminar. I love it! Such a seemingly dictohomy requires the brain to adjust to that which first begins in the imagination. (Simplifying some things does not necessarily add to value, does not require thought, no imagination.) The real is that which is conceived before materialization.

Why is it that the book is always so much better than the movie? Both could be excellently written but the movie never quite measures up. Itâ€™s not necessarily that the book is better written, which is often the case, but that our imagination co-creates images and scenes in color that a movie could never duplicate.

Our rich imaginations are better than any materialized thing, hence the need for forever creating. As consultants, should we become co-creators of our clientâ€™s re-vision?
Perhaps it is the assemblage of collective innovative brain power of the client and consultant that makes the real realâ€¦again and againâ€¦

My head spins with each post; this is powerful stuff! I doubt myself while writing each comment. I am a thinker (and doer), but perhaps not a professional or expert.

Posted by Judith Ellis at January 10, 2008 10:28 AM

I worked for the third biggest employer in the world for over 30 years and one thing I am certain about is â€˜bigâ€™ just doesnâ€™t get stuff done. In my experience in the NHS small teams of passionate, enthusiastic, focused and committed people get things done (I mean as few as 2 person teams) These â€˜teamsâ€™ REALLY make an impact and lead change. Merely being â€˜bigâ€™ (in numbers) has a negative impact on progress in my opinion. I am not at all proud to say â€˜the NHS is third biggest employerâ€™ - it means nothing - BUT I am very proud to say 'I knew that team of Fred and Mabel who did really great work, made an impact and achieved meaningful change.'

Some genuine questions about PSFâ€™s - and this may be naÃ¯ve â€“ forgive me if so.

Why not let proven high performing teams fly and go their own way completely?
Why do they have to stay and be â€˜quasiâ€™ part of the organisation?
Why not float them off and let them just get on with changing the organisation? buy viagra online worldwide

It feels to me like PSFâ€™s that remain WITHIN organisations is like being half pregnant.

Change can come from within but Iâ€™ve always felt that people â€“ being people - are more likely to rattle a cage they are â€˜outside ofâ€™ rather than the cage they sit comfortably inside on their perch.

Posted by Trevor Gay at January 10, 2008 10:35 AM

Absolutely sold on the PSF approach for creating a world-class, service-driven organization. But like somebody mentioned earlier, it is a hard sell. It is sounds wonderful in theory but I would really be interested in seeing some metrics and/or analysis with real data. Maybe one of you can point me to where I can find that.

In any case, availability of quality talent and the ability of firm's management to be able to organize and distribute it in an effective manner, seem to be some of the top CSFs for PSF implementation/operationalization. In my 15 yr career (combination of mgmt consulting and traditional operations roles) what I have observed is that good talent gets stretched thin. If you are a rock-star in your area of talent, word gets out quickly and you will be in demand, and that will in turn result in your plate getting even more fuller. PSF success also requires excellant focus and scope management skills, and this could be a challenge for organizations that want to cross-staff/rotate their top performers (helping groom them to be future company leaders, etc.)

Posted by Uday Kumar at January 10, 2008 2:33 PM

Uday, We are very interested in PSF metrics too and have started to collect data using our Future Shape of the Winner model. The instrument we have developed to do this, the Navigation Aid, looks at current and future desired status on fifty PSF attributes extracted from Tom's and TPC's work. We plan to use the survey data to help raise the bar on PSF wisdom and understanding, and to point our clients in the most promising directions in their quest for future "PSF based" excellence.

Posted by Richard King at January 11, 2008 5:56 AM

â€œWisdom is the principal thing. Get wisdom and in all thy getting get understanding.â€ Wisdom and understanding are keys that unlock every door from IT to finance. I look forward to applying PSF wisdom and understanding, learning even more about its strategies and application.

Posted by Judith Ellis at January 11, 2008 1:41 PM

I also don't like to sound naive but I am struggling to see and understand the challenges of integrating these concepts in the areas of the organization that we control or own. I see linkages between this and the "business-ing" of jobs ("Crazy Times Call for Crazy Organizations") which was easy to sell at my level and below. There is nothing on the planet that can change minds above you like getting results? What are the barriers?

Posted by Dave W at January 12, 2008 10:46 AM

I have worked in a PSF model for 20 years, mostly running small management consulting firms but also specialist product development units within corporates. I can see the advantages of blending one model into the other - and we did this with resource allocation of business analysts and project managers to good effect in a programme environment. It keeps people focussed on what they need to achieve. One essential trick is to have staff monitor time spent to order to better follow allocated priorities (and identify and manage downtime "on the beach"). Many large organisations don't do this so leave it to the individual to prioritise on a daily basis. It is a lot easier to do when "living in the projects" than for more BAU roles.

Posted by Tony Eyles at January 24, 2008 7:06 PM