|
|
‘Past performance is no guarantee of future results’ is a sound principle to remember. But, if you like an impressive record as evidence, how about this one? Sixteen gold medals across two Olympics, back to back victories in the Tour de France and a million people actively and newly involved in cycling on a monthly basis. All of this in a short period in a country where cycling was off the sporting radar a decade or so ago and where the national team was regarded as a joke. The above is the record of the performance director of the British and Sky teams, Sir David Brailsford.
Brailsford uses a method – the science of marginal gains. This is a holistic approach. He says it is far from being just about technology, which tends to get the highest profile. He cites, among many other factors, nutrition, good sleeping, the best massage gel. Not much misses the scrutiny of team Brailsford. He says, ‘Each improvement may seem trivial, but the cumulative effect can be huge.’
But what’s this got to do with running an opticians? Just this: as well as sporting organisations hoping to get his input, so too are global corporations looking for an edge. I rather imagine that the gains to the Brailsford bank account therefrom will be anything but marginal.
Let’s not pretend that cycling’s success has been achieved without big bucks being put into the sport. But if you like an outstanding return on investment (ROI), there it is. The editor of the leading trade magazine confirms that the industry as a whole is seeing the benefit.
You may have heard of the Edwards Deming method that transformed Japanese industry, although, outside Japan plenty haven’t. A key element of that was the principle of individuals, from top to bottom of an organisation, taking ownership of their part in achieving a quality outcome.
Brailsford makes the same point for marginal gains: ‘Undoubtedly, the key thing is ownership. People don’t like being told what to do. Forget the dictate and control mantra. If you give people ownership over how they improve, that is the biggest game changer.’ I suggest that might more likely have come from a management guru than a sports coach. (And that guru wouldn’t have 16 gold medals to support his case).
It’s a method not a theory
My personal take on this is that most of the effective people in an organisation go very cold, very quickly on any business theory that even hints at some deep philosophy. They like practical solutions. They like them better still when they are chopped up into little pieces that they can implement progressively. Note that Brailsford refers to marginal gains as a method not a theory or a principle. I doubt there’s a business owner who wouldn’t like a bit more method and a bit less theory in his organisation.
People also like any programme with tangible evidence of success. That is why any such programme which is proven in the sporting arena has a fair wind behind it – people can see the results and hold them in respect. That said, you still need to translate it into the business environment – not everybody is a sports fan and equally not everyone can make the mental leap of ‘It helped Team Sky, it can help us’.
The management approach at Cycling GB is to analyse to a fare-thee-well all aspects of a programme. You would be entitled to say that you don’t have Brailsford’s budget, but you don’t need it, partly because your competition isn’t as tough as his and partly because you can focus on those areas for marginal gains you already know about. In essence, business owners do much of that in-depth analysis on a daily basis, without thinking of it in those terms and consequently don’t implement the results.
A key lesson that business owners should take on board from the marginal gains method is that there is no silver bullet. Over recent decades there has developed the idea that if you analyse a significant amount of data it will produce the magical answer. No it won’t. What it will do is produce four or five questions rather than one answer. Five seemingly trivial and unrelated things we can do to get better. Excellent news! Which one shall we do first?’ ?
