From Heatmapping to Action-mapping
There is always so much broken. There is always so much opportunity. So much. That’s the challenge. Navigating and sifting and planning and firefighting. There is always so much to do. Sometimes it’s hard to see the wood for the trees.
The problem isn’t that “time is money”. With enough money, you can buy time. The problem is focus and attention. In order to properly solve strategic problems or XXX strategic opportunities – to solve a root cause, to lock in long-term, sustainable gains – you need time, exploration, problem solving, solutions, a plan, effort, perseverance, discipline, resilience, …
The real problem is that money can’t buy quality time. Sadly, we have to focus. Focus ourselves. Focus our teams and focus the rest of our ecosystem. So that things actually get done. A great tool for this is a heatmap.
Every time I bring heatmaps up with executives and their teams, I get one of those pupil-dilating moments. We’ve all seen them. We’ve all used them. But we very quickly forget about them.
So, where did heatmaps come from?
Heatmaps originated in engineering. In moving parts and machinery, it’s really important to manage stress. Excess stress in moving parts and machinery breaks the moving parts and machinery. Friction causes stress causes failure. And a sure-fire way to identify friction in moving parts is to look for heat. Enter thermal imaging and we have heatmapping.
Heatmaps are a structured view of a system with a view of the heat (i.e. friction and strain) in the system overlayed over it. Red means heat mean friction means strain. Green means no heat, no friction no strain. So, in mechanical engineer, heat is a good overlay to identify stress. Red = bad.
[Insert heatmap image]
For those of you who haven’t seen heatmapping used in business, it’s deceptively simple and often involves “traffic lights”. We break something down – typically something that can’t be quantitatively measured using KPIs, and we rate it. “RAG status” is a term bandied about. Red = bad. Amber = average. And Green = good. Simple.
Heatmaps can be used in a variety of areas in business:
Project management – assessing the moving pieces of the project and where actions need to take place to stay on track
Skills matrix – a visual map of where investment needs to be made and development plans actioned to increase the breadth and depth of skills in a department or function.
Team heatmapping – assessing the health of a department or function across people layers, systems and procedures to identify where investments need to be made (people development / change; system enhancement; business process optimisation projects; etc)
Process mapping – analysing the health of a process across manual, systematic and automated steps to assess throughput (bottlenecks), quality, variability, scalability, etc for improvement intervention prioritisation
https://www.collidu.com/presentation-capability-heatmap
Standard grade heatmapping fails in two areas:
Firstly, Amber seems to get a larger than expected share of the rating. Red means things are real bad. And the only time I see a lot of reds pop up is when its someone rating someone else’s department or contribution. Green means “rocking” or “done” and things are seldom either. “Done” things make way for other things worth tracking; and life is too complicated for much to be rocking much of the time. So business heatmapping exercises generally show a lot of Amber.
The second problem is the absolute lack of “so what” in traditional RAG assessments.
Let’s consider an Airbus A380, for a second. If we had to traditionally heatmap an A380 in mid-flight – we would pick up four pretty big hot spots on either side of the airplane, on the wings. These would be the engines. And, while you may think turning hotspots on a heatmap from “red” to “green” gives you heatmap-brownie-points, I can assure you a trained engineer would hopefully frown at that idea.
So, in order to effectively use heatmapping – you need a suitably qualified engineer. The filter the suitably trained engineer brings to the party is the “should we do something about it” filter. And when heat and engines are involved – red = good!
Even if the heatmap ratings are accurate, and something is red, does that mean I should do something about it? Is it worth time, attention, focus and capacity relative to all the other fish we are frying? I’ve been involved in countless departments, functions, business units and companies where there is a lot glaring red. So what? Should we be concerned? Should we be fixing everything? The answer is “No!”. Some of those are next year’s reds. Some we won’t ever get to. Only a handful of the reds are this year’s reds!
The real heatmap is an action map. That’s the purpose. Our engineer cares about the red stuff worth worrying about. And so should we!
As an executive, I want to see is an action map. Show me the general health of the system AND show me where you are prioritising your time, focus, energy and attention. Show me where you are taking action and where we are deliberately NOT taking action.
This is why I like the added granularity of using Hervey balls in place of a RAG status.
0 = critical gap, needs to be filled and addressed urgently. Material risk to day to day business or fundamental business strategy – directly or indirectly. We are focusing A LOT of time and attention here.
¼ = Some gaps to fill to be good enough. We have a plan and just need to follow through. SOME time and attention here.
½ = Good enough for government work. Could be improved to be more efficient but not at the expense of other priorities. MINIMAL attention here.
¾ = Good enough. Not an area of distinction. Anything further would be innovation or continuous improvement.
4 = Area of distinction. Sustainably capable and scalable. We only want our areas of competitive advantage to be a full Hervey Ball.
Here is an example of an Executive Heatmap to show you how it can be an effective assessment and communication tool. I like to include very succinct commentary on the key action areas to be focused on. This way, the heatmap can’t be mis-interpreted and the wrong “reds” focused on.
As you can see, it’s a deceptively simple tool but a very powerful one. The key success factors are:
Mapping the process activities (columns) at the right level of abstraction. You need enough detail for the “activity buckets” to be meaningful at a high-impact level, but granular enough to be specific (this is an art and involved good executive thinking)
Similarly mapping the enablers activities (rows) to be useful and tacklable. These typically roles (people capacity, capability, suitability); processes; and systems but can be extended to include other enablers like strategy, structure, values, etc. I generally consult the McKinsey 7S Model[1] when building heatmaps.
Collaborate. This is a terrific visual tool. You can build one together – facilitating discussions across the dimensions and pulling together well synthesized input. If drafting one yourself, it is very easy to either workshop afterwards or circulate for comment. Viewers can easily process your initial assessment and weigh in.
Remember big picture “so what?”. Use the right rating scale and rate against “what do I need to do, if anything?”. Are we investing time, focus and attention here? If so, how much? What are the specific outcomes we need to move something from a 0 or 1 rating to a 2 or a 3 rating? The commentary boxes guide collaborators to quickly understand your synthesis and process the information with a “so what” lens. But, as always, strategic problem solving is best done as a team.
Keep it up to date. While a once off is helpful, having a working and evolving strategic heatmap as part of your executive management system will ensure it helps you focus AND get things done.
Executive heatmaps are a very powerful tool for assessing the qualitative health of a function, department, system or process (a project is a process).
Heatmapping is an art. Good heatmapping is an executive art. Practice, work together with others and pressure test the quality of your heatmaps, and you’ll master this invaluable executive tool.
[1] Strategy; Structure; Style; Shared Values; Systems; Staff and Skills.