In his book “The Real Truth about Success”, author Garrison Wynn discusses the “Lies We Believe” on pages 3 – 10. One of the Lies he discusses is:
“To Have Greater Influence, What You Have to Offer Must Be Bigger, Better, More Advanced, or Greatly Enhanced to Surpass the Competition.”
To illustrate his point, he uses the example of McDonalds. Almost anyone you ask will NOT say McDonalds has the best hamburgers. Almost everyone will have a hamburger chain that they prefer over McDonalds (perhaps “5 Guys and Fries”?). Yet who sells the most hamburgers worldwide? McDonalds has owned the top selling slot for years. Mediocrity prevails here because McDonalds is convenient, familiar, and pervasive. We have grown comfortable with it, so it wins our business.
He comments that “It is quite common for the second or third best product to be the top seller because people rarely seek out or choose the best. Instead they choose what makes them comfortable, whether it is the best or not”.
The author then uses the example of the USAToday, which has a sixth grade reading level. He compares it to the New York Times, which has a reading level of 12th grade. Which one sells the most copies? 2014 statistics show that the USAToday leads by a 2 to 1 margin. He makes the comment “If you don’t understand the USAToday, you just might be too dumb to need news”. He finishes with this point “The sales numbers send a clear message: You’ll win greater buy in if your concept is uncomplicated. If the goal is to get everyone on the same page, shouldn’t you at least make that page easier to read?”
So after a couple of interesting (and somewhat humorous) examples, how could we apply this to the Asset Management/ Maintenance/ and Reliability Communities? How many times have professionals in the Asset Management/ Maintenance/ and Reliability organizations tried to get buy in for improving their disciplines in the company? We talk about reliability calculations, including common terms such as MTBF and MTTR. We discuss increasing asset reliability, throughput, capacity and the like. We might even get into an engineering discussion about one technique over another using terms like Bayesian probability or Weibull analysis. After all most “C” level executives understand these terms, don’t they? We choose the New York Times approach when our “C” level audience really needs the USAToday.
(For the ultimate in abusing a presentation, see this YouTube video. )
Do we learn something about presentations from Wynn’s book? Are we at times presenting improvement projects to an audience using unfamiliar terms and concepts? Are there ways to present using terms they are more familiar with and use concepts that they will clearly understand? What if we apply some of these ideas presenting asset management, maintenance, and reliability concepts in “C” level language, even if it means a little more effort on our part? What if doing so made a 100% increase in our acceptance level in the organization? Could you become the USAToday of your organization – becoming a better Communicator/ Presenter? Or will our audience select the “Better” option over the “Best” option because of our ineffective communication/presentation?
Secondly, how could we apply the McDonalds example? Remember the point Wynn made about people “choose what makes them comfortable, whether it is the best or not”. How often have “C” level individuals made a choice to do something that was not necessarily the best simply because they understood it better than the other options? This is not a negative towards the senior executive, but rather a reflection on our clarity of explanation about asset management, maintenance, or reliability concepts. How often are we ill-prepared to succinctly explain our ideas/ projects, using terms that are “USAToday” level. Remember Wynn’s quote “If the goal is to get everyone on the same page, shouldn’t you at least make that page easier to read?” Would this help our audience choose the “Best” option over the “Better” option?
Perhaps some of the points made in Wynn’s book should be applied in our asset management, maintenance, and reliability organizations. If they were perhaps our organizations would choose the “Best” over the “Better” when making decisions.
