3 ms·

I have to answer in the context I’m familiar with, finance. People start aimlessly hypothesizing if you don’t show them the nonissues. Also, management is con

I have to answer in the context I’m familiar with, finance. People start aimlessly hypothesizing if you don’t show them the nonissues. Also, management is conditioned to look at certain key things in combination because they are in fact interconnected. So for example, is the core issue is profit is lower than budgeted. I will show them sales are on plan. I will show them non labor is on plan. Then I will say now labor is the problem. Overtime is immaterial , but our hours/widget KPI seem way high. We call the plant manager and find out an automation process is down. Because it’s so costly, we fly in a support tech that night to fix it. Seems simple enough but in an enterprise this could involve a dozen people and move slowly unless I craft the story of how much this issue is costing us. And since I’m not in the plant, I didn’t even know the problem that I was pointing out to begin with. I probably don’t even know who the plant manager or his boss is. So it’s not like I can just pick up the phone and figure out the whole story (but generally would try to).

kragen 5y ago
Thank you for explaining! In that case it seems like it would be worthwhile to sort out the mistakes in the calculation in order to figure out which of the seemingly implausible figures are in fact correct and which are just calculation errors?
- conductr 5y ago
  There’s a lot of conditions that come into play. If I’m actively in the meeting and the number is obviously wrong and I have no analyst support (usually at the point). I’ll just table it and apologize and send a follow up to the attendees after the meeting and summarize whether I feel like the correct calculation impacts our decisions/discussion. These things do have a reputational cost so it’s my job to see that myself and my team and putting out error free stuff and having it proofread and such is usually the best we can do. There are many times when the math is in fact correct and the numbers are just implausible. That’s usually the meat of the meeting and something to dig deeper on. Hopefully we noticed it, double checked it, and it’s one of my talking points to address in the meeting. Either I want to point it out and explain why or point it out and ask why depending on who I’m talking to.
  - kragen 5y ago
    Very interesting! I appreciate you sharing your experience. I wonder if the other teams who present in the same meetings are doing the same kind of careful behind-the-scenes double-checking, motivated by the concern that someone might find an error in their numbers during the meeting. That conscientiousness seems like it might be beneficial to you, even though it's an unwanted cost when it's your team that's saddled with it?
    - conductr 5y ago
      Haha ya. Company culture plays a part. Some companies are engaged in neurotic analysis paralysis and it would extended to all other presenters. Often, finance gets to own the deck/presentation doc, which means were ultimately responsible for everyone’s content. And even when we’re not, other department heads often ask us “for help” on a presentation (even for meetings finance does not even attend) which typically means they want someone to build it for them and be responsible for the accuracy within. This is common in a “shared services” world where there is no analyst resources for the functional departments, they lean on finance.

kragen 5y ago

Thank you for explaining! In that case it seems like it would be worthwhile to sort out the mistakes in the calculation in order to figure out which of the seemingly implausible figures are in fact correct and which are just calculation errors?

conductr 5y ago
There’s a lot of conditions that come into play. If I’m actively in the meeting and the number is obviously wrong and I have no analyst support (usually at the point). I’ll just table it and apologize and send a follow up to the attendees after the meeting and summarize whether I feel like the correct calculation impacts our decisions/discussion. These things do have a reputational cost so it’s my job to see that myself and my team and putting out error free stuff and having it proofread and such is usually the best we can do. There are many times when the math is in fact correct and the numbers are just implausible. That’s usually the meat of the meeting and something to dig deeper on. Hopefully we noticed it, double checked it, and it’s one of my talking points to address in the meeting. Either I want to point it out and explain why or point it out and ask why depending on who I’m talking to.
- kragen 5y ago
  Very interesting! I appreciate you sharing your experience. I wonder if the other teams who present in the same meetings are doing the same kind of careful behind-the-scenes double-checking, motivated by the concern that someone might find an error in their numbers during the meeting. That conscientiousness seems like it might be beneficial to you, even though it's an unwanted cost when it's your team that's saddled with it?
  - conductr 5y ago
    Haha ya. Company culture plays a part. Some companies are engaged in neurotic analysis paralysis and it would extended to all other presenters. Often, finance gets to own the deck/presentation doc, which means were ultimately responsible for everyone’s content. And even when we’re not, other department heads often ask us “for help” on a presentation (even for meetings finance does not even attend) which typically means they want someone to build it for them and be responsible for the accuracy within. This is common in a “shared services” world where there is no analyst resources for the functional departments, they lean on finance.