There but for the Grace of God...the tale of BP

There is an old phrase which goes "There but for the Grace of God go I." And when we look at what has happened with this environmental disaster on the shoulders of BP, this phrase came to mind.

There has been a lot of talk about the cost-cutting measures that BP underwent and how they had a risk profile of the drilling which identified that there was a potential of a spill (although I'm sure that risk profile never calculated anything quite of this magnitude). Yet this is what many companies do, on a regular basis.

I'm not excusing BP, as I wouldn't excuse any other firm that put lives at risk, however minutely, in the pursuit of a few more dollars. But let's be real...it happens all the time. Do you really think that every little screw that goes into holding an airplane together is the best money can buy? It will certainly meet standards but why get the Cadillac when the Volkswagen will do?

Procurement organizations throughout the world are being asked to find every nickel and dime and sometimes this means compromising quality and taking risk. Why have a relief oil well standing by, at a huge cost, when the risk of ever having to use it is minimal? I'm sure at this point BP wishes they had spent the few million more, as opposed to the billions they now need to fork over.

So all of us need to ask how much risk is acceptable. There is no magic bullet on this one...but I do believe that there is a lot of scrambling around the world in corporations today asking that question. I think often the risk assessments fall short...they deal only with the percentage of the risk...and don't go to the worst case scenario and analyze in great detail the potential downsides Why? Because of course, when does that ever happen?

Ask BP...it can happen and does....so before making risk pronouncements and cost cutting,(and make heroes of the CEOs who increase shareholder value by decreasing costs) let's have a more robust approach to the risk analysis..

But before everyone goes patting themselves on the back because this didn't happen to them...let's remember...there but for the Grace of God go I.

Keeping up with the changing times

There were a couple of situations today that caused me to think about how in some cases "everything old is new again" and also about how some companies are spending money on things that will soon become somewhat irrelevant. And as they say in the opener of Law and Order "and these are their stories."

Old is New

Besides the retro clothing and the music of my youth making a resurgence I ask you to consider the situation with bags. We have all been inundated with the "plastic bags are bad" facts and pictorials and there is no question that the use of plastic bags has gone out of control. I can see making someone pay $.05 per bag at a grocery store, where sometimes people walk out with legions of bags, but when you are buying clothing...it doesn't make sense to put this into a cloth bag. Furthermore, I doubt very much that the charge for these bags are going to environmental initiatives....more likely they go to a corporation's bottom-line.

I was in a grocery store today, and in some other stores recently, wherein paper bags are issued. Convenient, sturdy and made from recycled material....and as such potentially less harmful to the environment than the use of cloth bags (because who knows what goes into some of them).

The reason this is in the old is new category is because growing up, there was nothing plastic...milk came in bottles...delivered every couple of days...as did eggs, cheese and even vegetables....so much for the discovery of the organic movement! But you brought groceries home in paper bags...and there was no recycling where they could be thrown...they just went out with the trash...if you think about it....some retailers have found the magic formula...to providing their clients with something to take home their product in, without unnecessarily polluting the environment....just like we did year's ago, except now, we can recycle....Nostalgic, isn't it.

Phone numbers that say something

How many of us have heard on the radio, read on signs, or trucks, or benches...phone numbers that spell something out? I'm hoping all of you and for a while, this was quite a trend....whether for a store, a real estate agent, a chiropractor, and even charities...the list goes on. I realized the other day how problematic this was when I wanted to make a call in reference to something I saw and went to my Blackberry Yup, I had no clue what the number was because the letters on the Blackberry have a QWERTY keyboard...that won't work for phone numbers that are letters....so sale lost. I don't think quite honestly that many companies have thought about this. You keep seeing new phone numbers popping up with some cute naming convention, but hey, doesn't work for a large part of the population now...if you are advertising anywhere where people are mobile...guess what, give the phone number, not the name...perhaps you can try for an easy to remember phone number...but drop the names...now...may even save some money on your bottom line!

The Business of Philanthropy; What happens if there is a cure?

Recently there has been a lot of news swirling around a potential cure for Multiple Sclerosis. MS has always been considered a progressive neurological disorder, but that notion is being challenged by an Italian vascular surgeon Dr. Zamboni. The Liberation Treatment or CCSVI, has had amazing results. It takes MS to a vascular vs. a neurological disorder, whereby MS patients with clogged veins in the neck are "liberated" by opening these veins and allowing the blood to flow unrestricted.

Promising results have been reported and studies are underway, and rightfully there has been resistance by some, including the MS fundraising societies, to ensure that proper, repeatable, scientific studies are done to ensure this is not a false hope situation...and that it is not "the cure."

However, it got me to thinking about what happens if this is "The Cure" and what happens if cures are found for other diseases. Not what happens to the patients, and the researchers will always find something new to research, but what happens to the large infrastructure that has been put together to raise funds for the disease?

Because let's make no mistake about this...these societies that raise funds, provide awareness, support etc. are large corporate machines that employ hundreds if not thousands of people. So what happens if there is a cure? What happens to this large corporation which has basically lost its one "product" and now has nothing else to sell?

It is an interesting question...one that most of us in the corporate world do not have to consider, because most corporations do not rely on just one product/service offering...there is usually a slate of options...potentially related, but not alone.

How does this philanthropic organization wind down? Where do the monies raised go? Many, many questions...and as far as I know this has never happened since fundraising has become somewhat of a big business.

It will be interesting to see. From everything I've read to date and the reports coming forward it seems that Dr. Zamboni's CCSVI treatment may be the first real cure for a major disease that we have seen, and I hope it proves out. But the implications go beyond the thousands affected by this disease, the implications will also be felt by those who are employed by the societies some who have dedicated their entire life to the pursuit of a cure and may soon find themselves without viable employment!

The disruption of the organ donation supply chain

We have a short memory. Although I am quite confident that there were many more contingencies in place since 9/11, however, once again we are being forced to recognize the fragility of the supply chain when modes of transportation are affected.

Although there are obviously many other modes of transportation that are unaffected, such as ships, rail and truck, there are many other items which actually do get flown with the likes of FedEx, DHL, and others that are now grounded.

Probably one of the things that has the most profound impact -- truly life and death -- has been the transportation of organs for transplant. In Europe, organs for the last week, have been going to those within driving/rail distance wherein the organ's viability is ensured.

It's interesting that as I consider myself to be a Supply Chain expert, that I hadn't actually thought of organ donation as having a very intricate supply chain aspect to it. In fact, considering the limited time for transport, it is probably one of the most complicated supply chain's around.

Firstly, if there is a mistake, it literally means life and death. Because the person on the receiving end, may not live until another organ donor becomes available. In the case of the volcanic ash from Iceland, there are surely dozens of people, whose life is now at risk or perhaps they have even died, because air transport is not available. Of course on the other hand, there are others who may very well be alive, because of the disruption. Waxing philosophically this is an inevitable yin/yang scenario.

But if you think of organ donation as an end-to-end Supply Chain issue consider these points.

• you never know when your "product" will become available
• you have multiple products coming from the same "supplier", which are going to different destinations, with a limited shelf life -- with the shelf life for each "product" being somewhat different.
• you need to obtain the "product" from the "supplier" with specialists and each extraction requires a different approach. Furthermore, until the "product" is actually viewed/extracted, its viability is unknown
  
• when it is known that a "product" is becoming available, there is a search to find who the customer is who is most in need. The customer could be a few kilometers/miles away or possibly hundreds
• As the customer is identified, there is a need to assemble specialists at the "customer's" location for "installation" of the part
• And during this entire time, the actual logistics for the transport will need to be put in place in a last minute scenario, with transportation "experts" accompanying the part/product

I know that putting life/death scenarios into these simplistic supply chain terms may seem a little harsh, but the reality is that this is exactly what it is. It makes me think that in reality, everything we touch, everything we deal with is somehow intertwined with the supply chain, and although I had already encompassed most of the world and activities in that thought process, I had missed organ donation as part of the vast world of supply chain.

I feel sorry for those who have lost their opportunity for a transplant and may die because of it. On the other hand, one can understand that there may be some rejoicing by some that the volcanic eruption in Iceland occurred.

Let's hope that the wind shifts soon, and that the supply chain world of organ donations can begin to deliver to those most in need.

THE GUARDIAN OF THE CORPORATE REPUTATION -- WHO IS IT?

You are probably thinking that this is an easy question to answer, because by all logic it is everyone. But not everyone is affected by a misstep, and not everyone thinks about the ramifications of breaches -- ethical, legal, financial etc. -- which would irreparably harm an organization's reputation and potentially lead to its eventual demise.

In a recent conversation which I had, the question was posed "Is procurement the keeper of the keys to the corporate reputation vault?" And quite honestly, from my perspective, procurement has probably the most important role to play. But let's first look at the other players.

• Legal: Well, there is an excellent argument to be made that legal is the inevitable authority on what could get an corporation into legal trouble. But considering the massive amount of interpretations that the law could take...this is an important consideration, but not the final one. Because often what is legal and what is not in important regarding fines, imprisonment and reputation as well...but there are things that might be perfectly legal, but are seemingly questionable -- ethically, morally etc. -- and might make a good headline in the newspaper...Legal yes, but a strike out on the reputational front.
• Internal Auditor: Again, the internal auditor has an important role to play, but is often fiscally focused, although some internal auditors can be used as sounding boards for other issues. But the actual title "internal" auditor, harkens to the focus is internally and yes, ensures that things are being done correctly so that the organization can pass an external audit..but just like legal....not necessarily bigger picture focused.
• Marketing/Communications: I put these two areas together, because they are impacted by the same issues to a certain extent. Certainly Marketing and Communication "spin" the message....trying to get clients to buy their product/service. When a misstep occurs both are severely affected -- communications trying to get ahead of the story and spin the issue, and marketing considering their options for messaging based on the headline story -- and how it is going to affect the brand. And although Marketing helps to build the brand, the message is a pitch and doesn't look at internal operations trying to figure out what could hit the company in the backside. And communications? Well there is a lot of reactivity there...and not the "keeper of the keys" activity.

There are other areas within organizations that could be discussed, but if I listed them all this would be a very long entry. So let me get to Procurement and why with the global view that procurement has, one needs to seriously consider the impact on the corporation's reputation, and also one needs to consider how some of the measurements that are used to determine a procurement team's efficacy may in fact be counter-productive.

First, let me go back a step and talk about the definition of "keeper of the keys". I want to make sure that no one believes that what I'm suggesting is "policing". That is not or never should be the role of procurement. This is at a higher level, which looks at moral, legal, ethical issues -- risk mitigation and the like.

Procurement has a 360 degree lens into the internal and external aspects affecting the organization. With appropriate market intelligence a good procurement department understands potential issues with suppliers -- including how they do business (around the globe) and the risks associated with those who have questionable business practices. Also, procurement has a lens into conflict of interest issues....and hopefully has a full disclosure policy to ferret out any potential issues regarding impartiality of the evaluation team.

How about sustainability? A lot of sustainability initiatives to date have been driven by the proverbial "low-hanging fruit", and that is in building operations (turn off the lights!), recycling etc. But what about the rest? What about travel and potential alternatives, such web conferencing etc. -- Travel is usually managed and negotiated through the procurement office -- so what better place to initiate positive change?

How are suppliers meeting their "global" obligations re sustainability? Right now, there is too little done within procurement organizations here -- beyond putting something into RFPs which says "Are you Green?" Reality check here -- no one is going to say no, and unless you are actually going to audit them and beyond them -- their suppliers as well -- their is absolutely no point in putting this into an RFP. Yet the point remains the same -- this could and should be driven by procurement.

I could go on ...but this posting is already too long...Nevertheless, I have one more comment to which I alluded to earlier, which is about counter-productive measurements. This brings me back to the nit which I have always had, regarding the inordinate amount of focus on cost savings -- which unfortunately drives the focus to be on price (and let's be serious here -- we can talk about total deliverable costs -- but often the measures issued by the powers that be end up being price driven) -- this pushes procurement to make decisions which may in fact be contraindicated when trying to focus on the corporate reputation -- not always, but it does have significant impact.

So the question becomes -- when it comes to the corporate bottom-line what is more important? A few thousand dollar savings, or a long term excellent reputation? I'm sure these days if you ask Mattel or Toyota you'd know what they'd say...the loss to the top-line can be measured by decisions made as a result of incompatible metrics....

....So procurement in my mind, should be the "keeper of the keys"....but the savings metric needs to be relegated to a lower status for procurement to become effective in this role.

THE TRICKY QUESTION OF EMAIL ETIQUETTE

There are a lot of opinions out there on what is proper email etiquette. As a rule, I've always liked to say thank you or acknowledge an email receipt.

Yet this is becoming a questionable practice given the number of emails some people get in a day.

So I'm beginning to be careful about to whom I write a thank you, or in fact whose email I acknowledge. If an email says "I'll get back to you", then isn't it somewhat redundant or even pushy to say "Thanks, I look forward to hearing from you"?

At that point it could be said that they could write back to you and say "Yes I will" or "Me too", and then you'd have to answer again. This could result in an endless number of polite yet totally unnecessary emails.

I'm not sure about what the correct protocol is, but then again, I don't know how many folk do...and what's right for one person, might be wrong for another.

Which means there is no real solution to this quandry...so I decide to mix it up and judge the scenario based on the individual...and I hope that I get it right!

Internal vs. External CEO's: What's the Right answer?

In a story today in the Globe and Mail, a study by the executive recruiting firm Spencer Stuart indicates that CEO's who are external hires tend to boost the market value of the company....in the first three years.

I wrote about the three-year CEO cycle on my blog last August "The Three-Year CEO Cycle...for Better or Worse". Basically I gave a compelling (at least I think so) indication that when corporations bring in outside CEO's and they stay for three years or less...then yes...the shares go up....and because of the PR spin...it seems like the corporation is doing well...Yet, time and time again, when these external CEO's stay for more than three years..the "Hawthorne effect" wears off and many corporations have seen that gutting the soul of the corporation has consequences.

When I see this kind of study, I first question the motivation. Spencer Stuart is an executive recruiting firm and as such has a vested interest in corporations hiring externally. This is not to say that their study is false in anyway...I am just pointing out a potential conflict of interest.

Secondarily, when you look at a three year cycle...it is like looking at what is to be a long term investment...say for retirement...and judging your investment solely on the last three years. If you look at mutual funds and the like...you can be misled by considering only the short term returns. A five to ten year retrospective gives you a lot more insight.

So I personally don't think that three years as a CEO enables anyone to state that external is better than internal. Personally I believe it is the quality of the leadership and that can come from within or externally.

I hope that corporations and shareholders won't be looking at this study and say, "well maybe we should consider an external hire" the first step should be to outline what the leadership qualities are and what short and long term outcomes are desired.

I am all for change and I don't think there is a good or bad approach....unless the only focus is short term shareholder value...I've seen the devastation caused by this and it is not pretty.

Kijiji and how buying and selling keep morphing...

I am moving in a couple of months and have gone to the internet to sell my excess goods. What a difference from when I moved five years ago and the real only choices you had were garage sale, charity, put a posting on a board (which for me would have been akin to putting your phone number on a bathroom wall) or just giving it away for free.

Mostly 5 years ago I did the latter and we all know that if you put things into a garage sale...well, if it has a value over $5 don't expect to sell it for anymore.

But on Kijiji and Craigslist, within a couple of weeks I have sold quite a lot of things...not anywhere near what they are worth (and don't we always think our things are worth more) but certainly I have sold many things for basically what I was asking for them....and I continue to do so. I find this process so much better than eBay, because on eBay, you pay a percentage to eBay and then you have to incorporate shipping costs -- in fact with the likes of Kijiji and Craigslist, I would suspect eBay will have its own comeuppance soon.

It made me begin to wonder about how there should be a Kijiji for corporations. Not only would it be fiscally responsible, it would also be environmentally a sound approach.

Just think about it...instead of buying all new stuff, all the time...you can scan for items at a significantly reduced cost and you just go get it. In fact, the first step would just to be able to do this within the boundaries of a corporation and then expand between corporations.

I think this could truly revolutionize how business is done...result in a more collaborative approach between entities, reduce costs and save the planet...all with one simple process.

Yes, of course there is always a downside....if "new" stuff isn't bought, then it isn't made, which results in lost jobs...but I think the upside trounces the downside.

Maybe it should be called COjiji or some such for corporations...anyway...I'm off to sell more of my personal stuff on Kijiji...but think about your organization and how much you could benefit from such an approach!

Thinking about tomorrow, today!

This is just such a great deal...let's do it now!

How many times have you heard someone say that? And yes, often it is a great deal if all you do is look at the item at hand. But what is often forgotten is the cost of consumables, services contracts etc., not necessarily by procurement folk (although under pressure to "close the deal" they may sometime capitulate) but from those who can only see two feet in front.

If you look at some of the offers held out for consumers....there is not a great deal of difference on how sales folk wave the magic wand that eliminates rational thought.

Why are printers relatively low in price? Because the cost of the ink is where the most money is made.

Why do telcos offer "free" cellphones when you lock into three years? Because that $100 that you saved (and remember that is not their cost, that is retail price...their cost for the phone is a lot less) is going to make hundreds of dollars for them in revenue.

Extended warranties to protect you? That is the biggest cash cow for many retailers and suppliers alike...

So as always, it is buyer beware. The good deal is good for today. But if you haven't calculated in the tomorrow, chances are this is a wolf in sheep's clothing deal.

Olympics and the need for input

I have been watching the Olympics...cheering my country on and I've been known to yell at the TV every once in a while. Yet I'm not going to write here about the athletes or the medals...because from my perspective any athlete who has the skill and dedication to make it to the Olympics deserves a medal.

What I'd like to address is the insular thinking that seems to have marred some aspects of the Olympics...which is in my home country and thereby causes concern.

Yes, there have been glitches and quite honestly the Olympic organizers do not control the weather...although I think given the warmest winter on record some of them might have sold their soul to be able to do so...

What irks me is some more fundamental things that quite honestly have caused me to cringe to date.

The first thing was the opening ceremonies....I like our national anthem....so why did we allow a sixteen year-old singer to make it jazzy and provide her own rendition as opposed to belting it out...strong, proud and free! This is not American Idol, where you get praised for making it your own...this is our identity...what were the organizers thinking...oh well, let's just make the anthem a little more contemporary? We will show the world ...that hey, we don't really like our anthem...we will bastardize it to show we are hip? Strike one for the organizing committee...had they spoken to any regular folk they would have been told flat out that you don't mess with the anthem...

The second thing....opening ceremonies again....every stereotype that every one in the world has about Canada was reinforced....certainly there is the historic perspective and I am a big fan of showcasing the native culture in our country....but we have a multicultural mosaic second to none in the world...we are so inclusive and proud of that and we have amazing cities to showcase...not just the wheatfields and snow...come one...first you try to make us hip with the anthem and then you make it look like we are stuck in some sort of 19th century backwater...Strike two.

Strike three is the Olympic cauldron....the Olympics are to be about inclusion and harmony. So what do they do? They put the Olympic cauldron behind a ratty chain link fence...to keep the ne'er-do-wells away....reason...because they chose to put the cauldron in an area where they media has their outlets and as such it is a security perimeter...Huh? Why would they put it there and keep the key symbol of the Olympics away from the people....and the attitude from the organizing committee has been nothing short of arrogant in this regard....somewhat of the "too bad, so sad" attitude, until today...where they realized they had a mounting public relations disaster on their hand and needed to deal with it...But once again..had they asked the general public what they would like to have access to and see (that doesn't cost anything) it would have been the flame.

In reality this is also what happens in corporations....the "group think" from senior leadership that doesn't seek input from those most impacted by potential decisions. As I noted in my previous entry about the Undercover Boss series....same thing....wow, what a difference when the CEO sees what it is like to be on the ground...

Perhaps next Olympics...the organizing committee should team up with Undercover Boss and consider themselves as tourists...as opposed to putting something together that seems to smack of insular thinking.

Undercover Boss: Mandatory Leadership Training

After seeing my team the New Orleans Saints win the Superbowl last night, I though I'd watch the new CBS show Undercover Boss. The premise of the show is that the CEO/President of a major corporation goes "undercover" to act like a new employee, doing entry level jobs, and finding out what the reality is of the "workers" and how the decisions from corporate effect the workers.

I found the show quite interesting, because in this first episode you have the President of Waste Management, Larry O'Donnell picking up garbage, cleaning toilets, sorting recycling etc. What I found amazing (and perhaps I shouldn't have) is his constant statements of (and I might be slightly paraphrasing here) "I didn't know how my decisions at head office were affecting the workers. This experience has changed me."

Good for Larry, but the issue is that had CBS not come along with this show (and let's face it, the company probably agreed to it because realistically it was one hour of free advertising for Waste Management) Larry would still be making ivory tower decisions without a thought to the ripple down effect -- and of course there is no saying how long Larry's epiphany will in fact effect corporate directives.

I have often said that if you consider an organization like a bunch of cog-wheels...if you have a big one at the top, they make what they consider a decision that in the grand scheme of things they think is small. So this "big wheel" moves one click. The couple of smaller wheels below, end up clicking twice to keep up. Now if you think of the next row of wheels...they are clicking several times...and so on. By the time you get to the bottom "little cogs" they are just spinning trying to keep up with that one, "minor" decision that the upper echelon made.

We need, as leaders, keep in mind that every day we are dealing with people's lives...and not just theirs...all the other people that depend on them in their lives....for Larry O'Donnell to say "I didn't know about how my decisions impacted the worker" is a sad testament to top leadership. He should have known, and cared. (and by the way, it was interesting that none of the workers remotely recognized him)

Now I am realistic....the CEO can't know about every person's issues...but every corporation can set up some method to get input from every level. I used to have monthly coffee meetings with a cross-section of folk who worked at all levels, just to get them comfortable with me and having the opportunity to put forward issues/concerns. Also the opportunity exists to have facilitated sessions, again with all levels, to determine how decisions are impacting them, but also get their input before you even go down that path.

Every organization will have in its mission statement something about valuing people and people are our most valuable asset. Well, most corporations don't walk that talk. When the going gets tough, they usually downsize on the people part, heap more work on those remaining, and then say, "well you should be glad you have a job!"

Wouldn't it be better to be honest with the employees in a corporation and tell them you need them to give you ideas....you need them to step up to the plate to help reduce costs or enhance efficiencies, so no one loses their job?

It might take a little longer, but the changes would be sustainable over time and the loyalty you would buy from your team would be immense. As Undercover Boss showed....the top leadership doesn't quite know what is happening downstream....it is about time for corporate leadership to step up to the plate and recognize that they aren't the only one's with ideas!

STATE OF THE UNION -- COUNTRY AND CORPORATIONS

I was struck the other day by the visible partisan split during Barack Obama's State of the Union address. And what struck me, was that this wasn't about what was good for the country...it was about self-interest.

Now please understand, I am not here to make a pronouncement on either side of the coin...Democrat or Republican. I have been around long enough to know that making a political commentary in writing has very few upsides....but what I was struck with was how the "what's in it for me" as evidenced by the clapping or lack thereof during Obama's address, is very much what we see in corporations as well.

As a consultant, I bring leading edge ideas, challenge the status quo, show clients new ways of approaching old problems and the like. But you know it wasn't like I went into some sort of self-actualized metamorphosis when I became a consultant....I was providing the same insight and approach when I was an executive in corporate. Yet, as a consultant my ideas are readily accepted by all parties, and seen as a road map for the way forward.

While in corporate, as I said, I did the same thing...and yes, often times I was able to move an agenda forward because of following the same principles as I do in consulting. But, you know, it was never as easy. Because when you are working in the corporate environment as and "employee", your ideas are taken with a grain of salt, because others may believe that you have an "agenda", not quickly obvious to them, or, worse, that by moving forward on your proposal, even though it is better for the corporation, it may put you in the limelight and potentially, from this colleague's perspective, diminish them....or they see it as turf encroachment...or...or...or....

As a consultant, you are not a threat, you don't seemingly have an agenda and as such your thoughts and ideas are more readily acceptable.

But it causes one to wonder, if individuals in corporations, as well as the government, could put their partisanship aside and agree to a go-forward strategy, putting the business or the country ahead of their own egos and agendas, how much better both the country and those corporations would be!

Change Mis-management and the NBC Fiasco

I have always been a proponent of stuff happens and as a corporation you've got to figure out how to fix it. Fixing it, however, does not mean having a heavy handed, this is the way it is approach. It is not about knee jerk reactions and it is also about getting buy-in.

Hence we get to the NBC Leno/O'Brien fiasco. Obviously NBC just came down with dictates and in the ivory tower back rooms decisions were made. Not only that, the easy decisions were made and again...although I understand the here and now of this media type of decision making, I don't believe a lot of thought was given to the demographic shifts, technology shifts etc.

You see, I like Jay Leno on at 10pm. I never watched the tonight show because quite honestly it was on too late...the time slot was great and I actually enjoyed having something on at 10pm that I could turn off if I wanted to, and made me go to sleep laughing. Yup...I'm one of those boomer types who needs my 8 hours sleep.

Yet beyond the shifts in how we lead our lives (those with young children are also often too exhausted to stay up that late) there is also the increasing use of PVRs and show "taping". So I tape all of the drama shows, watch them at convenient times and then reserve my before bed TV to light fare like Jay Leno.

And although I know I'm not alone...let me bring this whole discussion back into the realm of corporate and the mess that has been made of this.

I'm not sure what went on in the backrooms, but I have seen too much hammer-headed moves by the ivory towers when it comes to implementing change. The thought process goes only a few feet out, and the collateral implications are never considered. People are told, not consulted beforehand and as such, revolts begin, reputations damaged and businesses become unproductive because the staff are spending most of the time lamenting the change and not working with the leader or corporation to provide input, insights and assist in a proper implementation.

The whole NBC drama smacks of this type of approach. I'm sure there is a lot of hand-wringing happening, and as well I wouldn't be surprised if a few corporate scape-goats are handed their walking papers...Change can be implemented extremely effectively, but it can't be done with such little foresight, and dare I say arrogance.

So sorry Conan and sorry Jay....I won't be watching either of you (unless of course Conan...you get a 10pm time slot)