(This post adds to proposed concept of management competence stack.)
How to choose from methodologies occupying the same cell of the management consultancy stack?
Let’s consider the customer centricity as an example:
- it can be found in TQM (quality means meeting clients’ expectations)
- it can be found in reengineering (radical improvement of a business process which is a sequence of activities providing a valuable output to the client)
- it can be found in Rummler-Brache methodology, Toyota Production System and Lean (a value chain)
- and yet now there is a new Outside-In concept once again claiming the primacy of customer centricity
Certainly there are differences between these methodologies but here is the paradox: if we look at two capable consultants following different methodologies then the difference between what they are doing probably will be smaller than the difference between the best and average admirers of same methodology!
An illustration to this is the corruption of reengineering ideas. When reengineerng became mainstream, Michael Hammer himself was horrified and wrote in his articles repeatedly that he is not a supporter of what is being done under the reengineering flag.
This is how it happens:
- visionary people offer a new concept
- they and their followers apply it with success
- this success attracts masses of consultants of, shall we say, different qualifications
- the original concept first erode and then become corrupt
- at some point a visionary person makes himself a name by criticyzing bad current practices and offering a new solution - see #1
So at the end of the day, who brings the methodology is more important than how it is called.
As an advice - pick up a reasonable methodology, apply it with creativity and develop it. It’s better than following management fads.