The concept of management debt, like technical debt, is useful for forecasting the costs of consequences of decisions. Projections of recurring charges resulting from decisions can help discriminate among alternatives. Here are four tips for those who want to project the costs of management debt.
- Quantifying management debt is distasteful
- Even when we understand a decision's long-term costs, projections depend on market conditions, technological evolution, the legal environment, and many other factors. Quantitative projections can face criticism of their most basic assumptions.
- Still, there's an irony in these criticisms. We have little difficulty accepting three-year and five-year projections for projects we adore, or for the enterprise itself. The same assumptions used for those projections can serve for projecting the costs of management debt. True, some additional estimates might be needed, but they're usually no more difficult to construct than are the estimates we're already making.
- What makes the interest on management debt so much more difficult to project is very simple: it's distasteful.
- Opinions about management debt can be political
- Whenever we quantify the consequences of a distasteful decision, and the projections we make are debatable, politics enters the conversation. The likelihood and intensity of the politics increases with the importance of the resources under debate. Political activity in itself is not unhealthy, but long-lived, intense political debate can become toxic.
- A pattern of political activity surrounding issues of management debt can make effective internal resolution so improbable that the debate can remain unresolved long enough to threaten organizational survival. When this happens, seek credible impartial opinions outside the organization.
- Lost revenue opportunities are rarely considered
- When the What makes the interest on
management debt so difficult
to project is very simple:
it's distastefulrecurring costs of management debt prevent the organization from exploiting revenue opportunities, we must charge those lost opportunities to the cost of carrying management debt. And since revenue far exceeds the costs of generating it, the most significant costs of management debt are often lost revenue.
- Yet, we rarely include lost revenue opportunities in the cost of decisions, especially decisions not to do something. Lost revenues seem so debatable, so flimsy, and so speculative. To break this habit, focus not only on unexploited opportunities for new revenue, but also on declining market share and lost customers.
- Stagnation is surprisingly expensive
- An often-neglected source of interest on management debt is the cost of doing nothing. For instance, if we must terminate people who've stagnated because we failed to keep our technology current, the costs of those terminations, and the consequent loss of organizational knowledge, trace directly to the decision to continue using outdated technology.
- Accurate accounting for stagnation requires not only recognition of the recurring charges for the management debt, but also accrual of the cost of ultimately dealing with the stagnation.
The decision not to account for management debt does itself incur management debt, because it distorts the organization's view of its available resources. Does your organization have an accurate accounting of its resources? First in this series Top Next Issue
Are your projects always (or almost always) late and over budget? Are your project teams plagued by turnover, burnout, and high defect rates? Turn your culture around. Read 52 Tips for Leaders of Project-Oriented Organizations, filled with tips and techniques for organizational leaders. Order Now!
Your comments are welcomeWould you like to see your comments posted here? rbrencshmpTANIxJbKhMXner@ChacClvbzFHdZHrWVPxEoCanyon.comSend me your comments by email, or by Web form.
About Point Lookout
Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.
Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.
Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.
More articles on Personal, Team, and Organizational Effectiveness:
- The Hypothetical Trap
- Politicians know that answering hypothetical questions is dangerous, but it's equally dangerous for
managers and project managers to answer them in the project context. What's the problem? Why should
you be careful of the "What If?"
- An Emergency Toolkit
- You've just had some bad news at work, and you're angry or really upset. Maybe you feel like the target
of a vicious insult or the victim of a serious injustice. You have work to do, and you want to respond,
but you must first regain your composure. What can you do to calm down and start feeling better?
- Changing the Subject: II
- Sometimes, in conversation, we must change the subject, but we also do it to dominate, manipulate, or
assert power. Subject changing — and controlling its use — can be important political skills.
- The Perils of Piecemeal Analysis: Content
- A team member proposes a solution to the latest show-stopping near-disaster. After extended discussion,
the team decides whether or not to pursue the idea. It's a costly approach, because too often it leads
us to reject unnecessarily some perfectly sound proposals, and to accept others we shouldn't have.
- How to Foresee the Foreseeable: Focus on the Question
- When group decisions go awry, we sometimes feel that the failure could have been foreseen. Often, the
cause of the failure was foreseen, but because the seer was a dissenter within the group, the issue
was set aside. Improving how groups deal with dissent can enhance decision quality.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming October 17: Overt Belligerence in Meetings
- Some meetings lose their way in vain attempts to mollify a belligerent participant who simply will not be mollified. Here's one scenario that fits this pattern. Available here and by RSS on October 17.
- And on October 24: Conversation Irritants: I
- Conversations at work can be frustrating even when everyone tries to be polite, clear, and unambiguous. But some people actually try to be nasty, unclear, and ambiguous. Here's Part I of a small collection of their techniques. Available here and by RSS on October 24.
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrendynXapQyuOpAlLWlner@ChacqHEtnrVTwIVBaZtHoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.
Get the ebook!
Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:
- Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, USD 28.99)
Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info
- The Power Affect: How We Express Our Personal Power
- Many people who possess real organizational power have a characteristic demeanor. It's the way they project their presence. I call this the power affect. Some people — call them power pretenders — adopt the power affect well before they attain significant organizational power. Unfortunately for their colleagues, and for their organizations, power pretenders can attain organizational power out of proportion to their merit or abilities. Understanding the power affect is therefore important for anyone who aims to attain power, or anyone who works with power pretenders. Read more about this program.