Have you noticed how data is getting more respect than knowledge these day? How new industries are sprouting out of the insatiable need for numbers to crunch? Why risk making a decision on your own when you can quote data instead, right?
No, not right.
Of course you need data to make an informed decision. Heck, you need data to know if you have the data you need (stop me). But I'm terribly uncomfortable with the way that data has become a cover to hide behind or a curtain that separates groups within a company.
Take Six Sigma, for example. I love the fact that Six Sigma uses a PROCESS to arrive at a conclusion. Oh, I love process. I love Deming. I'm a bit of a geek that way. There's nothing lovelier than a good, solid, clean and clear process. But I see many Six Sigma'ers (what do you call them?) focusing so much on gathering data and then presenting that data in the approved Six Sigma way, that the original objective is forgotten. The data BECOMES the objective - the means AND the end. People fall in love with how impressive the amount of data is and how cool the data looks. Who wouldn't be impressed by a 24 page Excel Workbook full of numbers, graphs and pivot tables? But how do we know the numbers are correct? Where did the data come from? What was the objective of the data gathered? What does it all MEAN anyway?
Okay, okay... take a deep breath.
Not long ago, I read a wonderful article by John Ribbler titled "Analytics are for Cowards." Besides shaking me up with a terrific title (I'm a sucker for a good title), the actual article didn't disappoint me. It was filled with thought-provoking statements such as:
"Without intuitive, creative visionaries, who understand what motivates and satisfies people, there are no products and no customers. Without managers, accountants and engineers, the products do not get built, delivered or serviced correctly. Is it true that the members of the first group are generally daring and the people in the second group cautious? Yes it is. A balance between the two is the perfect order of the business world."
Cool, right? Remember Myers-Briggs? Emotional IQ? I like this guy. Anyway, Mr. Ribbler continues:
"Yet, as a company gets larger the chances increase that it is run by the risk aversive, fearful group, in partnership with financiers — people who have no knowledge of the customers, products, manufacturing, distribution or service. When that happens, they sustain themselves with analytics and statistics, the business world’s universal shield for cowardice."
Wow. Yeah.. We all know companies like that - good, solid companies that lost their way.
I love numbers. I've always loved numbers. And because I love numbers I know that when numbers are generated without fully understanding the assumptions on which those numbers are based, well... numbers can lie. It's not hard to make numbers lie. It's not hard to manipulate data. It's the sport "du jour." And plans based on lies, as Mr. Ribbler says, are "the tools of cowards." "You need insightful business people working with numbers crunchers in order to deliver real solid value."
I couldn't have said it better myself. Right brain, left brain working together towards a common goal. Not at war, but in sincere appreciation for the value each brings to the table. I know we can go there again.
Maybe next time I'll discuss the companion article to the one above - "Less Numbers and More Math." Am I getting too heavy, people?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
data, schmata, what one needs is experience, what the companies have not caught on to yet is they have to pay for experience, instead companies fill these position with kids right out of school that they will "train", but these empty chairs bring nothing to the table but the ability to research and interpert data. while an experience person can make decision based on what happened in the past that acutally worked to solve issues, and increase profits.....
ReplyDeleteHarvey, now you're making me defend data... Well, okay, I will - but only up to a point.
ReplyDeleteYes, of course experience is key. Nothing beats functional expertise. A good kid or empty chair as you call them (don't you remember you were once one yourself?) with good guidance from a functional expert is a beautiful thing.
There ARE ways to look at problems and many have created processes for that. You know.. X Y Analysis, etc. I use them and I like the order it makes my functional expertise work in.
In business, there are many agendas and individual objectives. It's not a bad idea to come up with a common language.
What I don't like is the languages that are created to separate instead of to bring people and departments together.