Seeing money
At the request of readers, I tell you what was part of the project to increase profits, mentioned in the "Corporate Elephant" .
Within the framework of the project, several organizational and technical solutions were developed and implemented. Under each decision lay a certain concept, principle, methodology. Unfortunately, or fortunately, looking only at the concept, or only at the technical solution, or - only at the organizational measures, one can get a wrong idea about the essence of the project.
Everything would be fine, but in this case the project cannot be reproduced - well, you never know, suddenly you have such a desire. Reproduced only the part that was possible, or rather - wanted to understand. The one that went through already formed neural connections. For example, if you are a programmer, of which there are few, then you can easily understand the technical component - even an intern will cope with it. If you are a manager, you can implement the proposed control system in one day, because it is simple, like digging into the nose. Well, if you are a philosopher, a lover of socializing, you will understand the premises and the main essence, but you will not be able to put it into practice.
So, concept number one: seeing money.
All you know about the disease is the rapid growth of companies. Here was a small business of five, or even two people, and, under a certain set of circumstances, it began to grow rapidly. Everything turns out, everything rushes, money goes, rapid expansion begins. The owner, he is an entrepreneur, he is a director, completely immersed in the process, lives by him, sleeps with them and dies by him, if, with rapid growth, he does not "exit the OS."
The more the company grows, the faster the pace of its development. In absolute terms, a business can grow faster, but in relative terms, growth almost always slows down. There is no longer that liveliness, mobility, quick reaction to changes in the external environment that were the main company at the very beginning.
Typically, in articles and books, this effect is explained by the loss of direct manual control. While the owner had everything at hand, in personal contact, and often in independent execution, things were going. But, when there were a lot of people, fixed assets appeared, territorial distribution, it became impossible to manage independently and individually. Managers appear - sometimes effective, and sometimes "effective."
But these new people cannot, do not want and will not work like the owner. The difference in motivation is understandable, and no scheme, except for a share or options not widespread in Russia, will make employees work for the business as the owner does.
So the problem is clear. But it is not clear how to solve it. There are standard recommendations - to build an effective management system, an effective motivational program, automate processes, etc. The implementation of these recommendations is involved, one way or another, all companies. You know the results, I wonât go into details.
And here it is, a dilemma. The problem is clear and chewed in many sources. Trying to solve it by standard methods - you will get the next managerial bureaucratic monster, and the terms for implementing the decision are measured in months and years. And when there is no result, you can justify anything.
Business programming, the follower of which is the hero of the Corporate Elephant, does not suit this approach. We need a solution, not justification. Therefore, it is proposed to return to the roots, i.e. to a situation in which, like, everything is clear - to where the business has grown rapidly - and try to understand what are the differences, except for the proximity of the owner.
Let's try to compare the work of an accountant who worked directly with the owner - probably the only one in the company - and one of the two dozen accountants working in a relatively large company.
In a large company, an accountant does a lot of different things. He is constantly dragged documents for registration. Shipping invoices, arrival invoices, service notes for debiting, posting, requirements-invoices for debiting to production, etc. The accountant simply draws up all these documents, approximately in order of entry into the work. With a little understanding of business processes, it processes shipping faster than, for example, cancellation. But, even then, if some very meticulous sales manager stands above the soul. And if itâs not worth it, quite standard situations arise when the machine boots for implementation in half an hour, and then stands for four hours in anticipation of paperwork.
In a small business, every piece of paper for registration is an event. They are few, only a few per day. And the pieces of paper for shipment are generally an event. The owner personally approaches, and gently says - Luda, make out! Shipment to LLC âAss at the gateâ! Everything turned out, I convinced them! Immediately took two hundred thousand! Come on, make out everything beautifully, so as not to find fault - nevertheless, for the first time we ship it!
See the difference? Or maybe you feel? At first glance, the difference is the same as dozens of books are written about - the ownerâs attention to the task. But, if you look a little deeper, what else changed during the transition to big business? Alright, you've already read the title of the article. In small business, money was visible.
The accountant knew for sure that the processing of shipment of two hundred thousand rubles is the highest priority. Not only because the owner is above the soul - he could send the task by e-mail, and it would be completed as soon as possible. Because the accountant sees the money - a task that will really bring the company revenue.
And what about the big factory? Does the accountant see money there? Theoretically, yes - when making out the shipment, the amounts are visible there. But he makes out these shipments twenty a day, and sees either a hundred thousand, or two hundred million. He ceases to perceive it as money - they become amounts. The attribute, attribute of the document, or its line.
If the accountant draws up not shipment, but, for example, write-off, transfer - i.e. internal documents, then there are no sums at all. Accordingly, the concept of money is completely absent. The amounts will appear later, at the close of the month, as a result of the calculation, in the form of postings. The magnitude of these amounts of the accountant will also not particularly worry, only the absence of errors in accounting.
All other services behave similarly. They do not see money, only abstractions invented by either managers or programmers. Tasks, projects, memos, assignments, plans, etc.
The management classics have figured out how to replace money in management â priorities. Theoretically, this, plus or minus, is the same. If the accountant has ten documents for execution, then the priority should be the one that will bring more money, and, like, everything should work out. But, as stated above, priority is a management tool. And who runs the accountant?
Chief accountant, deputy chief accountant, head of the site (in large factories, accounting is divided into sections - material, payroll, fixed assets, etc.). Who sets priorities in this case? That's right, boss. And what matters, for example, deputy chief accountant, about money? Especially during the closing month.
Any boss shakes only one thing: for which he can be blown up. Dryuch deputy chief accountant for incorrectly placed, from the point of view of money, no one will be priorities. But for the late submission of reports - how else.
As a result, the entire control chain turns into a dead phone. The owner still wants to make money. But he does not know how to convey this to his subordinates. He does it âas is customaryâ - he tries to decompose his desire for money in the form of goals, objectives, plans, assignments and KPI. The quality of decomposition depends on his management skills.
Further, the bosses decompose to subordinate, line managers. Part of the ownerâs message has already been lost, and with the second decomposition, even more is lost. As a result, something like âwork, blah ...â comes to the final performer.
The control chain is turning into a chain of money loss. If you run a test signal through it, then it will never get from start to finish.
For example, if you go from top to bottom - the owner gives the goal in money. Having reached the final performers, he will not find a single task that obviously works for his purpose.
If you go back, it will turn out even funnier. The owner will approach the accountant, take a photo of his day, list the responsibilities and tasks, and try to rise up to his goal - and he wonât be able to. If you go up from the accountant, then it may well turn out that the company exists for reporting.
So, the problem is clear: the loss of the concept of âmoneyâ in the control chain. The first impulse is to improve this chain, make the right decomposition, explain each duty, priority and task in terms of making money by business. The task, frankly, is so-so. And, unfortunately, it will begin to stupidly pull by the ears, because both the starting and ending points are clear. The brain of any person likes to solve such puzzles - eliminate contradictions. And he will definitely come up with how picking a janitor in his nose helps the company make money.
And you can do it easier - do not use decomposition, replacing money with priorities. Let money be a priority. Let people see the money they are working on.
An accountant, when filling out pieces of paper, knows how much money costs for the company. It turns out that the service, which is worthless and asking to deliver some item to the parish, is worth ten million, because non-standard equipment assembled for shipment cannot be assembled and not shipped - only this item is not enough. A half-million shipping lying nearby will wait - although without seeing money, this is not obvious.
The lawyer, when negotiating agreements, let him see the amount that is behind this piece of paper. It doesnât matter to him, in general, to agree on a framework agreement for the purchase of an office, or for the supply of carbide nozzles from China. The office is even easier, and he, in order not to torment his monkey, will start with what is easier.
Technically, organizing a âvision of moneyâ is not difficult. Objects in the system, for the most part, are. There are also initial, primary objects that determine the amounts - orders, contracts, projects, etc. It is enough to ensure the availability of end-to-end analytics from top to bottom.
If, for example, integration of the accounting system and some workflow or task manager is used, then it is enough to ensure the exchange of âmoney-containingâ objects. What is missing, for example, in typical 1C integrations - there this information is trimmed. Well, for a programmer, this is not a task at all.
The main thing is not to try to make sure that all tasks have money visible. It may well turn out that many tasks - including, alas, among programmers - are in no way tied to money. One can lament about this, but one can seize the moment and benefit from it. For example, arrange an audit of tasks and responsibilities, which, at first glance, do not lead to anything related to money. Just do not pull them by the ears into the scope of the money. It may well turn out that the company does not need these tasks, or maybe these people.
Well, with technology, it seems, it should be clear. We provide the availability of money in tasks. We bring them to the lists of tasks, assignments and memos. We prioritize money. Let people see the money.
And we use âhot potatoesâ - this is such a children's game when they throw a ball to each other, pretending that it is hot potatoes. Only our hot potatoes will have money.
When we have money tasks, money orders, and money services, it becomes fun to manage. Previously, as it was: a person has ten overdue tasks. Well, they scolded, sighed, threatened with a finger and forgot. And now a person has not ten overdue tasks, but two million hanging money.
A lawyer, economist or accountant is sitting and holding two million. We now know this amount for sure - tasks with money. Moreover, if we use Iceberg (measuring the duration of negative conditions), then we know that these two million have been hanging with him for two weeks now.
And if you collect the tasks of all accounting in money? The chief accountant at an operational meeting with the owner through the floor from shame may fail. Especially if we do not count the money at the moment, but for the period of lying out, at least at the refinancing rate, or according to the turnover with which the enterprise works, it will be just a nightmare. Or fasten the dollar stock of the stock.
Then hot potato appears - no one wants to keep the money of the owner, to put it in his pocket. Everyone will want to transfer them further along the chain as soon as possible.
The priority system is built by itself. As soon as an âexpensiveâ task hit the stack, you need to do it as soon as possible in order to return to your comfort zone and continue to tinker with free garbage, such as analyzing indicators, forming a development concept or finding mistakes.
It is important not to forget in such a system to build either an escalation of tasks, or a general report on hung money. Roughly speaking, so that the owner or director can see both specific hanging tasks in money and the total amounts by department or his deputies.
Operational management, in this case, becomes insanely simple. You donât need to suck out the RAM agenda from your finger, ask everyone âhow are youâ - you just look at the report and find out why the money hung there and there.
From the point of view of automation, we must not forget about such a thing as throwing money back. Anyone will immediately understand - you just need to quickly throw the task further, albeit unfinished, in order to "reset the counter" of the time the money hangs.
There are at least two options. The first is technical, very simple: eliminate zeroing as an entity. Suppose that the countdown for a task that is returned to a person begins not from the current moment, but from the time it was first taken to work.
For example, an agreement came to the financier on 01.08.2019 to check the terms of payment. The financier, in order not to delay the money, immediately kicks him further - in coordination with the security service, to check the counterparty. Then he reaches, for example, a lawyer or director, and it turns out that the terms of payment are simply horse-drawn. Suppose this happened on August 3, 2019. The task is returned to the financier, but the starting point will be August 1, 2019 - i.e. unhappy girl dynamite money for three days.
The second solution is from the field of motivation systems, called "Bullet". Iâll tell about him another time.
The goal of all this is simple to disgrace - to provide a simple, fast and transparent flow of money. As grandfather Goldratt bequeathed. Increase duct, or the rate of money generation. The faster the money goes from entering the company to leaving it, the more the company earns.
Within the framework of the project, several organizational and technical solutions were developed and implemented. Under each decision lay a certain concept, principle, methodology. Unfortunately, or fortunately, looking only at the concept, or only at the technical solution, or - only at the organizational measures, one can get a wrong idea about the essence of the project.
Everything would be fine, but in this case the project cannot be reproduced - well, you never know, suddenly you have such a desire. Reproduced only the part that was possible, or rather - wanted to understand. The one that went through already formed neural connections. For example, if you are a programmer, of which there are few, then you can easily understand the technical component - even an intern will cope with it. If you are a manager, you can implement the proposed control system in one day, because it is simple, like digging into the nose. Well, if you are a philosopher, a lover of socializing, you will understand the premises and the main essence, but you will not be able to put it into practice.
So, concept number one: seeing money.
All you know about the disease is the rapid growth of companies. Here was a small business of five, or even two people, and, under a certain set of circumstances, it began to grow rapidly. Everything turns out, everything rushes, money goes, rapid expansion begins. The owner, he is an entrepreneur, he is a director, completely immersed in the process, lives by him, sleeps with them and dies by him, if, with rapid growth, he does not "exit the OS."
The more the company grows, the faster the pace of its development. In absolute terms, a business can grow faster, but in relative terms, growth almost always slows down. There is no longer that liveliness, mobility, quick reaction to changes in the external environment that were the main company at the very beginning.
Typically, in articles and books, this effect is explained by the loss of direct manual control. While the owner had everything at hand, in personal contact, and often in independent execution, things were going. But, when there were a lot of people, fixed assets appeared, territorial distribution, it became impossible to manage independently and individually. Managers appear - sometimes effective, and sometimes "effective."
But these new people cannot, do not want and will not work like the owner. The difference in motivation is understandable, and no scheme, except for a share or options not widespread in Russia, will make employees work for the business as the owner does.
So the problem is clear. But it is not clear how to solve it. There are standard recommendations - to build an effective management system, an effective motivational program, automate processes, etc. The implementation of these recommendations is involved, one way or another, all companies. You know the results, I wonât go into details.
And here it is, a dilemma. The problem is clear and chewed in many sources. Trying to solve it by standard methods - you will get the next managerial bureaucratic monster, and the terms for implementing the decision are measured in months and years. And when there is no result, you can justify anything.
Business programming, the follower of which is the hero of the Corporate Elephant, does not suit this approach. We need a solution, not justification. Therefore, it is proposed to return to the roots, i.e. to a situation in which, like, everything is clear - to where the business has grown rapidly - and try to understand what are the differences, except for the proximity of the owner.
Let's try to compare the work of an accountant who worked directly with the owner - probably the only one in the company - and one of the two dozen accountants working in a relatively large company.
In a large company, an accountant does a lot of different things. He is constantly dragged documents for registration. Shipping invoices, arrival invoices, service notes for debiting, posting, requirements-invoices for debiting to production, etc. The accountant simply draws up all these documents, approximately in order of entry into the work. With a little understanding of business processes, it processes shipping faster than, for example, cancellation. But, even then, if some very meticulous sales manager stands above the soul. And if itâs not worth it, quite standard situations arise when the machine boots for implementation in half an hour, and then stands for four hours in anticipation of paperwork.
In a small business, every piece of paper for registration is an event. They are few, only a few per day. And the pieces of paper for shipment are generally an event. The owner personally approaches, and gently says - Luda, make out! Shipment to LLC âAss at the gateâ! Everything turned out, I convinced them! Immediately took two hundred thousand! Come on, make out everything beautifully, so as not to find fault - nevertheless, for the first time we ship it!
See the difference? Or maybe you feel? At first glance, the difference is the same as dozens of books are written about - the ownerâs attention to the task. But, if you look a little deeper, what else changed during the transition to big business? Alright, you've already read the title of the article. In small business, money was visible.
The accountant knew for sure that the processing of shipment of two hundred thousand rubles is the highest priority. Not only because the owner is above the soul - he could send the task by e-mail, and it would be completed as soon as possible. Because the accountant sees the money - a task that will really bring the company revenue.
And what about the big factory? Does the accountant see money there? Theoretically, yes - when making out the shipment, the amounts are visible there. But he makes out these shipments twenty a day, and sees either a hundred thousand, or two hundred million. He ceases to perceive it as money - they become amounts. The attribute, attribute of the document, or its line.
If the accountant draws up not shipment, but, for example, write-off, transfer - i.e. internal documents, then there are no sums at all. Accordingly, the concept of money is completely absent. The amounts will appear later, at the close of the month, as a result of the calculation, in the form of postings. The magnitude of these amounts of the accountant will also not particularly worry, only the absence of errors in accounting.
All other services behave similarly. They do not see money, only abstractions invented by either managers or programmers. Tasks, projects, memos, assignments, plans, etc.
The management classics have figured out how to replace money in management â priorities. Theoretically, this, plus or minus, is the same. If the accountant has ten documents for execution, then the priority should be the one that will bring more money, and, like, everything should work out. But, as stated above, priority is a management tool. And who runs the accountant?
Chief accountant, deputy chief accountant, head of the site (in large factories, accounting is divided into sections - material, payroll, fixed assets, etc.). Who sets priorities in this case? That's right, boss. And what matters, for example, deputy chief accountant, about money? Especially during the closing month.
Any boss shakes only one thing: for which he can be blown up. Dryuch deputy chief accountant for incorrectly placed, from the point of view of money, no one will be priorities. But for the late submission of reports - how else.
As a result, the entire control chain turns into a dead phone. The owner still wants to make money. But he does not know how to convey this to his subordinates. He does it âas is customaryâ - he tries to decompose his desire for money in the form of goals, objectives, plans, assignments and KPI. The quality of decomposition depends on his management skills.
Further, the bosses decompose to subordinate, line managers. Part of the ownerâs message has already been lost, and with the second decomposition, even more is lost. As a result, something like âwork, blah ...â comes to the final performer.
The control chain is turning into a chain of money loss. If you run a test signal through it, then it will never get from start to finish.
For example, if you go from top to bottom - the owner gives the goal in money. Having reached the final performers, he will not find a single task that obviously works for his purpose.
If you go back, it will turn out even funnier. The owner will approach the accountant, take a photo of his day, list the responsibilities and tasks, and try to rise up to his goal - and he wonât be able to. If you go up from the accountant, then it may well turn out that the company exists for reporting.
So, the problem is clear: the loss of the concept of âmoneyâ in the control chain. The first impulse is to improve this chain, make the right decomposition, explain each duty, priority and task in terms of making money by business. The task, frankly, is so-so. And, unfortunately, it will begin to stupidly pull by the ears, because both the starting and ending points are clear. The brain of any person likes to solve such puzzles - eliminate contradictions. And he will definitely come up with how picking a janitor in his nose helps the company make money.
And you can do it easier - do not use decomposition, replacing money with priorities. Let money be a priority. Let people see the money they are working on.
An accountant, when filling out pieces of paper, knows how much money costs for the company. It turns out that the service, which is worthless and asking to deliver some item to the parish, is worth ten million, because non-standard equipment assembled for shipment cannot be assembled and not shipped - only this item is not enough. A half-million shipping lying nearby will wait - although without seeing money, this is not obvious.
The lawyer, when negotiating agreements, let him see the amount that is behind this piece of paper. It doesnât matter to him, in general, to agree on a framework agreement for the purchase of an office, or for the supply of carbide nozzles from China. The office is even easier, and he, in order not to torment his monkey, will start with what is easier.
Technically, organizing a âvision of moneyâ is not difficult. Objects in the system, for the most part, are. There are also initial, primary objects that determine the amounts - orders, contracts, projects, etc. It is enough to ensure the availability of end-to-end analytics from top to bottom.
If, for example, integration of the accounting system and some workflow or task manager is used, then it is enough to ensure the exchange of âmoney-containingâ objects. What is missing, for example, in typical 1C integrations - there this information is trimmed. Well, for a programmer, this is not a task at all.
The main thing is not to try to make sure that all tasks have money visible. It may well turn out that many tasks - including, alas, among programmers - are in no way tied to money. One can lament about this, but one can seize the moment and benefit from it. For example, arrange an audit of tasks and responsibilities, which, at first glance, do not lead to anything related to money. Just do not pull them by the ears into the scope of the money. It may well turn out that the company does not need these tasks, or maybe these people.
Well, with technology, it seems, it should be clear. We provide the availability of money in tasks. We bring them to the lists of tasks, assignments and memos. We prioritize money. Let people see the money.
And we use âhot potatoesâ - this is such a children's game when they throw a ball to each other, pretending that it is hot potatoes. Only our hot potatoes will have money.
When we have money tasks, money orders, and money services, it becomes fun to manage. Previously, as it was: a person has ten overdue tasks. Well, they scolded, sighed, threatened with a finger and forgot. And now a person has not ten overdue tasks, but two million hanging money.
A lawyer, economist or accountant is sitting and holding two million. We now know this amount for sure - tasks with money. Moreover, if we use Iceberg (measuring the duration of negative conditions), then we know that these two million have been hanging with him for two weeks now.
And if you collect the tasks of all accounting in money? The chief accountant at an operational meeting with the owner through the floor from shame may fail. Especially if we do not count the money at the moment, but for the period of lying out, at least at the refinancing rate, or according to the turnover with which the enterprise works, it will be just a nightmare. Or fasten the dollar stock of the stock.
Then hot potato appears - no one wants to keep the money of the owner, to put it in his pocket. Everyone will want to transfer them further along the chain as soon as possible.
The priority system is built by itself. As soon as an âexpensiveâ task hit the stack, you need to do it as soon as possible in order to return to your comfort zone and continue to tinker with free garbage, such as analyzing indicators, forming a development concept or finding mistakes.
It is important not to forget in such a system to build either an escalation of tasks, or a general report on hung money. Roughly speaking, so that the owner or director can see both specific hanging tasks in money and the total amounts by department or his deputies.
Operational management, in this case, becomes insanely simple. You donât need to suck out the RAM agenda from your finger, ask everyone âhow are youâ - you just look at the report and find out why the money hung there and there.
From the point of view of automation, we must not forget about such a thing as throwing money back. Anyone will immediately understand - you just need to quickly throw the task further, albeit unfinished, in order to "reset the counter" of the time the money hangs.
There are at least two options. The first is technical, very simple: eliminate zeroing as an entity. Suppose that the countdown for a task that is returned to a person begins not from the current moment, but from the time it was first taken to work.
For example, an agreement came to the financier on 01.08.2019 to check the terms of payment. The financier, in order not to delay the money, immediately kicks him further - in coordination with the security service, to check the counterparty. Then he reaches, for example, a lawyer or director, and it turns out that the terms of payment are simply horse-drawn. Suppose this happened on August 3, 2019. The task is returned to the financier, but the starting point will be August 1, 2019 - i.e. unhappy girl dynamite money for three days.
The second solution is from the field of motivation systems, called "Bullet". Iâll tell about him another time.
The goal of all this is simple to disgrace - to provide a simple, fast and transparent flow of money. As grandfather Goldratt bequeathed. Increase duct, or the rate of money generation. The faster the money goes from entering the company to leaving it, the more the company earns.
All Articles