AFL, NRL, NFL, NBA, NHL, A-League, EPL, MLS

Showing posts with label continuous improvement. Show all posts
Showing posts with label continuous improvement. Show all posts

Sunday, December 9, 2012

Organisational Change

I came across an interesting article last weekend initially posted on Forbes back in July 2011.  I liked it because it further combined the message I have been pushing about leadership versus management enveloped in organisational change driven by understanding what is wrong in the first place, before setting out on a journey.

“Change takes place no matter what deters it… There must be measured laborious preparation for change to avoid chaos”- Plato

So what does Plato’s statement tell us?  Well, it’s nothing new, it is deeply embedded in our genes, and it is also what creates some of our resistance to change like:

·         Fear of the unknown. Could change make the situation worse?  What will others think, especially if it doesn't work?
·         Psychological egoism.  Are we really always motivated by self-interest?  And if so, are these the reasons we worry about outcomes of change related to income and status?
·         Is change forced upon us by external forces?  If so, does this create automatic resistance because it wasn't our idea?
·         Been there, done that.  Maybe we tried something similar and it didn't work.  Even if it did work, was it worth the effort?

There could be many more factors, but at the end of the day, every situation is different, and as our environment changes, so will how we approach change.  However, with a detailed plan at hand, and innovation from within, change should be ongoing; we may also refer to it as continuous improvement.  For more information about change and how it can affect your business in a positive way please visit www.chaseperformance.com or call me on 1300 880 338.

I hope you enjoy the article below by Steve Denning “The Four Stories You Need To Lead Deep Organizational Change”, originally posted on 22/7/2011 at http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2011/07/25/the-four-stories-you-need-to-lead-deep-organizational-change/

RADICAL MANAGEMENT: Rethinking leadership and innovation
|
“It’s only when you drop yesterday’s assumptions that you can glimpse tomorrow’s patterns and possibilities. To see deeper, unseen first.”  Umair Haq

How does Wal-Mart [WMT] unlearn its failing 20thCentury business model and move into the 21st Century? How does GE [GE] detach itself from the traditional management baggage that is dragging down its share price and move into the future? How does Cisco [CSCO] unlearn the business model that made it for a brief time in the 20th Century the most valuable company on the planet and start managing itself with a successful 21st Century business model?  How does Merck (MRK) or the other big pharmaceutical companies escape from their trajectory of declining returns and move, as suggested by Don Tapscott and Anthony Williams in MacrowikinomicsDescription: http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=&l=as2&o=1&a=1591843561&camp=217145&creative=399369, into a collaborative mode with high returns? How does the World Bankshed its rigid culture of hierarchical bureaucracy and acquire the agility to become a significant player on the world stage?

Reasons by themselves don’t lead to change

At this point, we know what needs to be done: focus on delighting customers and stakeholders, managers enable self-organizing teams, accountability through dynamic linking, values that grow the firm and horizontal communications.

We now know precisely how unproductive traditional management is—declining rate of return on assets (one quarter of what it was in 1965), declining life expectancy of firms in the Fortune 500 (less than 15 years) and lack of engagement of workers (only one in five workers is fully engaged in his or her work.)

But to make any of this happen, leaders and managers have to unlearn the management practices that were so successful in the 20th Century but so unsuccessful today. How do we unlearn the things that we still believe in our heart of hearts are true?

Facts and statistics don’t get the job done. Charts left listeners bemused. Prose remains unread. Dialogue is just too laborious and slow.

By contrast, leadership stories can get inside people’s minds and affect how they think, worry, wonder, agonize and dream about themselves and in the process create – and recreate – their organization. Storytelling enables the individuals in an organization to see themselves and the organization in a different light, and accordingly take decisions and change their behaviour in accordance with these new perceptions, insights and identities.

Four leadership stories are key
The story of the future
Springboard stories of the future
The story of the past
The story that explains why the story of the past is no longer viable

1.  The new business model story

The first story is fairly obvious: it’s the story of the business model of the new way of operating. It helps the sponsors or managers see how the business will work when once the change is undertaken.

A business model is a story that explains in effect “the theory of the business.” It’s a story set in the present or near future. The narrative is tied to numbers as the elements in the business model are quantified. The business model answers questions like these: Who is the customer? And what does the customer value? How do we make money in this business? What is the underlying economic logic that shows how we can deliver value to customers at an appropriate cost?[i] Its validity depends on a combination of narrative logic—does the story hang together?—and quantitative logic—do the numbers add up?

2.  The burning platform story

The problem with the business model story as a rhetorical tool is that it’s a future story. As such, it’s typically not believable to people who have operated in a different fashion for years, perhaps even decades. It also doesn't include any explicit reason why the organization needs to change to this strange new way of operating.

So the second story you need is a burning platform story, a story that explains why the way of operating in the past that was so successful is no longer successful and is leading to disaster.
In the case of the shift from traditional to radical management, it will be the story of two major shifts.

Over the last couple of decades, there has been an epochal shift in the balance of power from seller to buyer. For the first two-thirds of the 20thCentury, oligopolies were in charge of the marketplace. These companies were successful by pushing products at customers, and manufacturing demand through advertising. But this situation changed. Today customers have instant access to reliable information and have options: they can choose firms who delight them and avoid companies whose principal objective is taking money from our wallets and putting in their own. The result is a fundamental shift in power in the marketplace from the seller to the buyer: not only do customers not appreciate being treated as “demand” to be manufactured: now they can do something about it. If they are not delighted, they can and do go elsewhere.

The second is a fundamental shift in the workplace where the nature of work has shifted from semi-skilled to knowledge work. Meeting the business imperative of delighting customers can only be accomplished if the knowledge workers contribute their full talents and energy to contribute continuous innovation. Treating employees as “human resources” to be manipulated undermines the workforce commitment that is needed.

As a result, the 20th Century management system—the goose that laid America’s golden egg—stopped delivering. There is thus a need to change.

3.  The springboard story

The weakness of the business model story as a rhetorical tool is that it isn't believable because it’s a future story. Future stories are inherently unbelievable.

The weakness of the burning platform story is that it’s negative. And negative stories get people worried but they don’t generate positive action.

To get action you also need a story that will move people into the future: a springboard story.
The springboard story is a story about the past—something that’s already happened. So the story is easy to tell. There’s no need to invent anything. And because it has already happened, it is very believable. Because it is positive, it tends to spark action.

I first come across this at the World Bank in the mid-1990s when I was trying to get people to support efforts at knowledge management—a strange notion in the organization at the time. I had no success until I stumbled on the following story:

In June of 1995, a health worker in a tiny town in Zambia went to the Web site of the Centers for Disease Control and got the answer to a question about the treatment of malaria. Remember that this was in Zambia, one of the poorest countries in the world, and it was in a tiny place six hundred kilometres from the capital city. But the most striking thing about this picture, at least for us, is that the World Bank isn't in it. Despite our know-how on all kinds of poverty-related issues, that knowledge isn't available to the millions of people who could use it. Imagine if it were. Think what an organization we could become!

This simple story helped World Bank staff and managers envision a different kind of future for the organization. When knowledge management later became an official corporate priority, I used similar stories to maintain the momentum.

A springboard story elicits a future story in the minds of the listeners—the listeners start to imagine what the future could be like if they implemented the relevant change idea embodied in the story in their own contexts. Consequently it’s the listeners who do the hard work of inventing the future. Even while the speaker is talking, the audience is soundlessly generating future stories tailor-made to their own situations, and hence grounded in reality. What’s more, as the future unfolds, the listeners continuously update the stories they have generated so as to fit the new reality. The springboard story itself doesn't need updating because it doesn't change: it’s already happened.
Moreover, because the springboard story’s listeners invent the future for themselves, they are much more likely to find that future alluring than if some stranger had dreamed it up for them. The springboard story thus sidesteps the problem of telling a compelling future story.

Not all stories have the springboard effect. Thus springboard stories need to be told from the perspective of a single protagonist who was in a predicament that is prototypical of the organization’s business. The predicament of the explicit story is familiar to the particular audience, and indeed, it is the very predicament that the change proposal is meant to solve. The stories have a degree of strangeness or incongruity for the listeners, so that it captures their attention and stimulates their imaginations.

To communicate the idea of radical management, stories might be drawn from successful implementers, such as Apple [AAPL], Amazon [AMZN] or Salesforce.com [CRM].

4.  The story of the past

The final story that you need is the least obvious—the story of how the organization is functioning today. One might think that this wouldn't be needed because everybody already knows how the organization currently operates. However much of this knowledge is tacit: it exists in the unspoken attitudes and assumptions that are like the water that fish swim in. These attitudes assumptions are so ever-present that they are no longer visible. They are so much part of perceived reality that it is impossible to imagine the world in any other way.

So unless you can describe it and remind people of set of explicit assumptions and attitudes, and in effect drag from the tacit to the explicit, there is no way to get a handle on it. It will keep undermining any change effort.

John Seely Brown has written amusingly about this on my sister website about his efforts to break bad habits on how to drive a motor bike. Until he understood how he was driving the motor bike the wrong way, there was no way that he was able to learn the right way. The old way kept re-emerging.
Similarly, I had little success in communicating the idea of radical management until I nailed  the characteristics of traditional management, and was able to point to the specific differences.


The unlearning (or unseeing) doesn’t happen instantly. Even as I evangelize about the new kind of workplace, where people are treated as people, and firm focuses on delighting clients, I often find myself unwittingly slipping into the vocabulary of traditional management.
But arduous or easy, the unlearning has to happen. Unless it happens, we will continue to live the old story.
_________________

Steve Denning’s most recent book on leadership storytelling is the second edition (2011) of The Leader’s Guide to StorytellingDescription: http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=&l=as2&o=1&a=0470548673(Jossey-Bass)
Follow Steve Denning on Twitter @stevedenning

[i] Magretta, J. “Why Business Models Matter.” Harvard Business Review, May 2002, pp. 87–92..

Tuesday, September 4, 2012

Kaizen - A Therapy for Continuous Improvement


I came across this article on Kaizen which I found interesting.  One point I take from it and that has come up through several of my posts is the link of management and leadership support.  I have discussed leadership as both part of my studies with Robert Kennedy College as well as in context to lean culture.  At the end of the day, there are many programs that can be successfully implemented in companies, but everything starts with the leaders, and also has to finish with them to complete the circle.  Both their vision, strategic planning, persistence, openness and inclusiveness as well as change management play a big part in the successful implementation of any project.  For more information on my views please read my previous posts that relate to lean culture and leadership.  If you already have, just enjoy the article below.

Best regards
Roland

http://www.isixsigma.com/methodology/kaizen/kaizen-adhd-therapy-using-continuous-improvement-tools-to-keep-employees-continuously-occupied/?type=newsletter

Kaizen – ADHD Therapy Using Continuous Improvement: Tools to Keep Employees Continuously Occupied

Two common questions for people new to the Lean Six Sigma community are: “What is Kaizen?” and “Why would you run a Kaizen event as part of a Lean Six Sigma project?” This article describes what a Kaizen event is and addresses how to run successful Kaizen events.

Kaizen Basics

Kaizen is a Japanese term that translates to “change for the better” and is sometimes paraphrased as continuous improvement. As an event, a Kaizen represents a focused effort by a team to make quick but meaningful improvements to a defined area of a business process.
Kaizen is not designed exclusively for manufacturing processes but was first embraced on the shop floor. Kaizen can be used to impact one of three measures for a manufacturer – throughput (cycle time), inventory, and product or process cost. While non-manufacturing processes may look to other meaningful metrics to improve, any measurable process improvement should ultimately translate to one of these three primary areas of improvement.

The Relationship Between Kaizen and Lean Six Sigma

Kaizen events are generally distinguished from Lean Six Sigma projects by virtue of the shorter time to implement changes and the more focused application of resources (i.e., team members) to solve problems. The cognitive problem-solving approaches and the philosophies are the same, though some may differentiate the names of the problem solving phases in Kaizen events versus Six Sigma projects. Using the same philosophy in a shorter timeframe can mean that Kaizen events tend to favor trial-and-error tweaking of solutions in the absence of the thorough data analysis that characterizes Six Sigma projects. Solution-tweaking is a consequence that is often readily accepted in order to drive change quickly.
Because of the philosophical similarities between Kaizen and Six Sigma, Kaizen events often become an important component of Six Sigma projects in order to remove operational noise and to help illustrate the systemic issues to be solved in a Six Sigma project. It is also common that Six Sigma projects are a byproduct of efforts to characterize waste in a Kaizen event. In a mature continuous improvement culture, Kaizen and Six Sigma can have a powerful, symbiotic interaction. A planned schedule of future Kaizen events can also become part of a control plan to ensure that an operating system adopts a continuous improvement approach to ongoing management of the process.

Successful Kaizen Events

The best Kaizen events, typically defined by achieving a goal in less than two weeks, feature the following elements.
Process understanding, defined metrics and license to change are prerequisites of a Kaizen event.
The role of team leader is crucial to having a successful Kaizen event. An effective leader will harness the power of multiple voices to explore solutions, refine and correct those solutions as needed, get actions completed quickly, and take responsibility for the success or failure of the event. The team leader should be mostly neutral during the event, but should be ready to contribute when doing so may add value – team leadership is an art form in this sense. The leader is empowered by the site or line leadership to make changes while keeping a focus on what metrics are most important. Change for the sake of change without improving business metrics (and ultimately financial performance) is never the desired outcome.
The team leader must be familiar with the process regardless of whether they formally work in the process. If the selected team leader is unfamiliar with the process, then the team leader must formally observe the process performed prior to launching the team – without trying to improve the process during the observations. In a transactional process the team leader needs to watch several process transactions flow from start to finish before facilitating an event.
Also before launching the Kaizen event, line or site leadership must determine the metrics that will be used to evaluate the work of the team. For example, if a Kaizen is being used to help 5S (sort, straighten, shine, standardize, sustain) an area, an operator’s movements (distance traveled by steps or arms) could be a selected metric – ensuring that the 5S actions were appropriate. As previously stated, continuous improvement-related Kaizen events should primarily focus on three types of measures – throughput, cost and inventory; the event and the selected metrics should be directly linked to at least one of these three process characteristics.
This often requires considerable planning; leaders must be sure that change management approaches are properly considered in anticipation of the desired improvements. For example, if it is clear that standard work combinations need to be reorganized in order to match demand to new manning levels and line layouts, then the site leadership needs to be prepared for document change control and training of operators – as well as supervisors and support personnel. (Note: This assumes that the organization is at an adequate level of maturity to perform a Kaizen and embraces  the importance of a formalized change management process.) Further, having to wait for approvals should be minimized so any changes prioritized by the team can be implemented within 24 hours ideally.
Speed is critical to these events in order to establish a clear cause-and-effect relationship between process changes and process performance. Consequently, the actions of the team must stay focused on improving the metrics desired by the leadership, and not be distracted by political maneuvering to gain support for the changes.
Teams that consist primarily of people who participate in the process.
The team must include three to seven full-time team members who regularly participate in the process that is the focus of the Kaizen event. While it is important to build a cross-functional team, consider using some team members (such as a finance representative) on an ad hoc basis. Powerful Kaizen events have line leadership or supervisors as part of the team composition; teams whose membership derives exclusively from either leadership or operator ranks can suffer from a myopic view of the system and limited buy-in from the process stakeholders. The challenge for any Kaizen leader is to ensure that subordinates are empowered and able to offer ideas without being inhibited by participating line leaders. The input of these team members is critical – they will be actively assisting in executing process changes, they will have to live with the changes as part of their daily routine, and they will be helping their colleagues understand and embrace the process changes moving forward. 
Often, work will need to be accomplished during the 12 to 16 hours the team is not on-site or otherwise unavailable, so the team leader should identify a prearranged point of contact who can coordinate necessary actions. Examples of off-hours work include rearranging furniture in an office, getting new IT connections to support a reconfiguration, getting new tools fabricated to accomplish a task, and acquiring a new piece of equipment that allows for easier operations.
Actions prompted by the team must align with the measures that the leadership wants a Kaizen event to affect. The team members must know that their time is dedicated to the Kaizen until the team disbands. Furthermore, site or line leadership must recognize that team members will not be available as resources to accomplish other tasks – like keeping the line running! 
Using process participants as part of the team helps with the critical change management that is often neglected. If the improvements are understood by all the team members, then acceptance is easier to sell outside of the team. If line leadership can also be part of the team, then the team’s empowerment grows because tacit approval exists for the changes even before confirming with a change management program. The team leader should recognize that unanimous, unwavering endorsement of all changes is not critical; many changes can proceed with general agreement only and an understanding of potential risks. Kaizen leaders need to recognize that there is risk in every decision, but when discipline is applied in understanding the metrics, the people and the process the risks can be better understood. Understanding the risks of making a bad decision – not eliminating such decisions entirely – is the practical path to undertake. To presume that any risk will be completely eliminated undermines the credibility of the Kaizen leader and/or wastes time trying to achieve the impossible.
Kaizen scopes defined not just by the metrics, but also by the physical boundaries of work.
Do not attempt to solve world hunger. No matter how tempting it might be to improve a high-level metric of an operation, the Kaizen leader needs to keep the focus sharp and directly tied to the team’s domain of control. This is especially important if the leader lacks experience running these intense, focused events. The focus should be on reducing a defect or error in one portion of the process, removing a specific element of waste or improving a subprocess of one production/processing area – not on reengineering a complex system. Planning multiple Kaizen events in sequence, each with a narrow focus, is preferable to a single, broadly scoped event on a complex operation. Elimination of one bottleneck will often reveal other bottlenecks that previously had been obscured.
Depending on the scope of the Kaizen, the availability of the line (process) must be coordinated and aligned with thebusiness needs. If significant physical changes are required (or expected) for the process as a result of the Kaizen, then time must be allotted each day to allow these changes to occur. The team leader must remember to use the change management process to ensure changes are aligned with the business needs.
Successful Kaizens can be scheduled for as short as one day or as long as five days. Short Kaizen events need to be narrowly focused with a small physical area to be impacted. While a Kaizen event should target two weeks or less to attain its goals, there are often cases where more difficult physical changes cannot be fully accommodated in that timeframe, so a project plan with milestones and responsible individuals will need to be established and managed.
There is no absolute rule that prescribes how long a Kaizen should keep the team members fully engaged, but it is rare to go beyond a week on a single purpose. Kaizen events are both physically and emotionally intense so more than one week can become difficult to endure. Often, team members will need to address action items outside of the formally convened team for at least one week following the original event. If the team feels the physical or transactional boundary must change during the event, the team leader must immediately coordinate with site or line leadership to formalize the scope change.

Preparing for Success

As with most endeavors, adequate preparation paves the way for success. The guidelines provided here  prepare a company for how to arrange and scope a Kaizen event. Besides solving a focused issue within a process, Kaizen events can be effective in any phase of a Six Sigma project as a means to scope an opportunity, understand waste or quickly identify solutions. Whether used on its own or within a Lean Six Sigma project, a Kaizen event has the potential to bring about lasting, impactful change.

Thursday, August 23, 2012

Lean Thinking - City Of Melbourne


I came across this page from Melbourne's government web site:

http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/ABOUTCOUNCIL/PLANSANDPUBLICATIONS/ANNUALREPORT/2010/ABOUT/COMMLEAN/Pages/LeanThinking.aspx

While I believe it is good that the city has focused some efforts on lean thinking, government traditionally do not spent much time following through.  Even here you can see that the last post goes back two years.  Lean is a continuous improvement path and journey that will never end.

The other issue I see is that they very much focused on the Senior leadership and management, but without including everyone in the business and creating a Lean Culture, the project is doomed to fail.  Both Labour and Liberal governments, both local and federal, their leaders Tony Abbott and Julia Gillard should take some time to take a closer look at how lean can help the government, opposition and most of all Australia as a whole.

I would welcome the opportunity to spend some time with our political leaders to highlight how Lean has helped thousands of businesses in Australia.  Many of our clients in the manufacturing industry are successful and continue to grow throughout these tough times.  Lean principles apply to all industries, but we must create a lean culture where the applications can blossom.  If you would like to challenge these thoughts, please drop me a line at roland.weber@chaseperformance.com or call me on 1300 880 338.  I am always happy to consider other views as part of our continuous Lean and Learning/Improvement journey.

Lean Thinking


Lean Thinking is an improvement system which focuses on improving the quality, timeliness and cost of services we deliver from the perspective of the customer. The system provides a structure, techniques and tools for carrying out improvements. Its ultimate goal is to deliver increased satisfaction for our customers and staff.  The City of Melbourne has been a pioneer in local government in Australia, fully embracing Lean Thinking as the continuous improvement model.
Lean Thinking within the City of Melbourne began in 2009, focussing on 10 organisational processes, incorporating many areas of the business including parking meters, child care, council reports and the recruitment process. One example of these improvements was the processing of construction zone permit applications. Prior to the application of Lean Thinking principles, the City of Melbourne took months to go through all the processes necessary to issue these permits. After applying Lean Thinking, the time has been reduced to around a fortnight. This is not only a major improvement for customers applying for permits, but also for drivers needing parking spaces, as the spaces are reinstated much earlier.  In our childcare centres, the Lean Thinking project identified 60 per cent of payments were overdue at any one time.  A more customer friendly online process has increased timely payments and freed staff from administration work to focus on more time on the children.
In 2009–10, the City of Melbourne Lean Thinking program has been coordinated by a dedicated team who provide guidance and support to managers. Our aim is to increase customer and staff satisfaction with improved services and processes, increase first time quality and timeliness, reduce costs and reduce the environmental impact. All process improvements must be measured against these outcomes.
In 2010–11, the City of Melbourne will continue to apply Lean Thinking across the organisation.  Our aim is to transform our organisational culture such that Lean Thinking is the way things are done every day.  Lean Thinking will be prevalent across the organisation, evidenced by supportive leaders who work with their teams to solve problems through the application of lean techniques. Because Lean Thinking focuses on processes from beginning to end we are also working with our external partners to ensure seamless service delivery for the benefit of our customers.

Wednesday, July 18, 2012

Organisational Culture


Organisational Culture in my eyes is probably one of the most important but least understood parts of an organisation.  As change is required I refer back to some of my previous posts, in that change is a journey, and not a fast one at that.

Yes, the Japanese were one of the first people to recognise the importance of organisational culture which forms the “founding philosophy” of the Toyota Production System:

“There is no royal road to success in life.  It takes the right process to achieve a great result”.

What they mean by that is that it requires total participation (“one team, working together” approach).  The engagement in any organisational change requires staff to truly understand the value of continuous improvement willingness to participate.  Rules and regulations will never motivate them.

Proper training, discipline and respect for their knowledge and skill is required.  Furthermore, innovation and change comes from small continuous improvements that have been suggested from staff members.  Improvement after improvement is what creates results and culture.  In order for staff to offer their suggestions in a productive way, they need to feel respected and second, have a proper process in place in order to provide their suggestions in a fruitful manner. 

Edgar Schein’s summary:

“The pattern of basic assumptions that a given group has invented, discovered, ordeveloped in learning to cope with its problems of external adaptation and internalintegration, and that have worked well enough to be considered valid, andtherefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think andfeel in relation to these problems”

for me highlights the above in a more complex and philosophical way.  
 








The “iceberg” scenario certainly agrees with that.  (Cultural artefacts are like the tip of the iceberg . . . we can observe them. However, there is much below the surface. True cultural awareness involves understanding what’s below the waterline.)



When we talk about sub cultures, we start to get into more complicated situations that need to be monitored and controlled.

An “Enhancing Subculture” can be great, but even then I feel that it is easy for it to get out of hand, therefore close monitoring is required.  Over enthusiasm can become failure just too quickly.

The “Complementary Subculture” for me is a necessity.  It can look at the situation objectively and give great input.  Again we need to monitor that we do not go off on tangents.

For me “Counterculture” goes hand in hand with the complementary subculture, rather than being objective though, it can challenge the culture, and often create improvements.  As with any of the above, it needs to be monitored.

I also agree that many managers see culture as a “surface level concept” and then are unpleasantly surprised when cultural change efforts fail.  The founder, CEO or owner of a business must be seen as leading cultural change.  If he/she doesn’t lead from the front, his managers, supervisors and staff are unlikely to pursue the outcomes required.

Culture can be a most powerful influence, which is why leaders must enhance their organisation’s culture through maintenance, sustenance and change.

My personal recommendations:

            The role of culture cannot be underestimated
            We must understand that culture is not easy to change
            We must have a vision and follow it
We must be patient
We must focus on each of the elements like: values, tradition, procedures, symbols, rituals and ceremonies

Essentially we want to create a workplace where employees want to be.  We need to create the right environment, understand what makes people happy or unhappy, empower our staff and much more.

Resources:

Corriero, A. (2012), “Workshop 1 - Inspiring and Structuring a Lean Culture within Your Organisation”, Chase Performance: Melbourne, Australia

Flanagan, N., Finger, J. (2003), “The Management Bible”, Plum Press: Queensland, Australia

“Primer on organisation culture” (2003), UVA-OB-0675, Darden Business Publishing, University of Virginia