Proposal

Executive Summary

This proposal to extend services involves leveraging the operational, proven “Front Line Leader Program” (FLLP) with clients for mutual financial benefit. Fully connected to natural law and invariant human nature, every feature of the FLLP claimed below can be examined and evaluated first-hand at live, mature implementations.

  • Nothing to change within existing organizational policies, procedures or structure
  • Fast results, early confirmation of success
  • Unprecedented size and variety of benefit package
  • Sustaining positive reciprocity
  • Generic, any hierarchical organization
  • Incontrovertible

Those clients who accept the offer and incentive rendered by to provide the FLLP enter into an agreement to abide the stop rules and to share in the windfall profits created by the program, determined by comparing actual results (of Plan B’s FLLP) to the baseline of operational performance of Plan A established before the program is delivered.

 

Order of Implementation

  1. Due diligence on benefits and feasibility
  2. Design of incentive
  3. Design of agreement to share realized proceeds of implementation
  4. Design marketing approach for clientele and others
  5. Execute marketing plan

For those who accept the offer and stop rules, we:

  1. Jointly establish the baseline of corporate performance as per the agreement [see schedule on Page 3]
  2. Run the FLLP
  3. After season 1 is delivered, about 5 months, re-measure the organizational performance against parameters established in initiation agreement
  4. Repeat the performance measurement process annually after each delivered season, up to a number of years specified in the agreement

Commentary

By virtue of implementation experience, due diligence on the performance of the as-received organization reduces the risk of adverse outcome for to zero. If due diligence finds the criteria of success in place, plan on success. If not, the plug is pulled before the FLLP sessions commence. Making an error on this assessment is impossible.

Based on experience, it is unwise to expect client management to view this opportunity with rational judgment. The upfront incentive to the potential partner should be drafted with this in mind. Once the FLLP is underway, however, everyone involved is happy and watching each other’s back. The news of success is seldom more than a smart phone call away and it begins spreading at the 10 minute break during the first episode of the first season. Once the benefits roll in, efforts will be made to invalidate the revenue sharing agreement.

Financials

Every bit of the bankable income derived through the FLLP is delivered by industrial-strength loss control. Since there is a very minimal entry fee, the various financial benefits of Plan B over Plan A appear as windfall. The system functionality is enhanced so that fewer resources are wasted on efforts and expenses that are inherently avoidable – a discernable fact measured during program implementation itself. See schedule, page 3.

Workforce productivity increase, for example, is the windfall from erasing the deliberate withholding of efficiency by the workforce, a psychological phenomenon. The losses from intentionally-attenuated efficiency, on average, amount to 25% of unburdened payroll. Since it cannot be warehoused, this loss cannot be recovered. That means for any corporation doing $100 million in business, millions of it are going down the rat hole of avoidable expenses. The time and efforts spent on issues produced by avoidable system dysfunction are unrecoverable.

The aggregate of AGCR payroll, for example, is roughly estimated to be about $386 million/year. That translates into a gross potential windfall revenue opportunity for clients of at least $50 M/year. Assuming can negotiate a 20% share of the windfall delivered to its clients, for it amounts to a gross income opportunity of $10 M/year.

Since the windfall proceeds of the FLLP are so high, rendering the cost of running the FLLP trivial by comparison, there is no point to the usual ROI analysis. Whether the ROI is 10K% or 20K% does not impact the decision-making process. Those who don’t follow up at 10K% ROI, won’t follow up at 20K% ROI.

Use the reaction to its offer and incentive to distinguish between those clients who are proactive about loss control and those who are not. Clearly, those who engage the program and cut their losses in half warrant financial consideration separate from those who refuse the offer. This warranted distinction can also be leveraged to provide an additional revenue stream.

The How and Why it works

For those satisfied that the FLLP program “works” by virtue of its successful real time implementations, no failures, there is no compelling reason to get into the particulars of application. The program windfalls can be exploited apart from the expertise that delivers the benefit package. Because it is a system dynamics affair, significant cognitive effort is involved.

The only way to understand how and why the FLLP works is by understanding the special principles of “system” operations. Everything related to the FLLP windfalls occurs concurrently because the particular client organization is a system. The benefits delivered by the FLLP accrue by changing system behavior – not by emergency response to particular consequences.

The system operated on by the FLLP, a steep hierarchical organization, is a network of entangled minds, nothing more. Since it has no mass, it has no inertia. The functionalities of the system act as entangled components of a system. By definition, you can’t change one component of a system without affecting the performance of all the other components of the system. In most cases the system functions to “heal itself” from disturbances to one of its components and you’re right back where you started. John Nash won the 1976 Nobel Prize for proving this relationship is mathematical physics.

The FLLP functions to professionalize the front line leader, a man in the middle. Since it is the foreman that controls the context of work, part of the foremanship role, he applies the principles learned in the FLLP to modify the working environment of the revenue crew. Since workforce behavior is context-dependent, the foreman is the responsible vector for getting the principles of prosperity ingrained in his workforce.

As the FLLP is implemented, the original state of the system, Plan A, evolves to the attainable state, Plan B. This is how the FLLP works and its workings can be auditioned live in situ. It works because the vector that controls the workforce environment has learned how to leverage his role to transmute the context of work from dysfunction to prosperity. As the context goes, so goes the workforce.

Those who wish to learn more about the sociotechnical basis of the FLLP program and its implementation will find its website http://m-i-t-m.com quite helpful. Prepared especially for the Man In The Middle, it contains every theme of every episode in the FLLP and a large library of published works available on Amazon that covers the painful and erratic, decades-long development of the FLLP.

The sociotechnical platform for the FLLP is, by necessity, expressed in the language of implementation-speak. Beyond dispute, incontrovertible, it avoids abstraction, conjecture, and generality of purpose, staying focused on the principles of what works in the operational reality – a living reality you can audition for yourself. It is the cauldron of life where invariant human nature merges with invariant natural law.

 

Schedule of Organizational Functionalities Impacted by the FLLP

The distinguishing differences, ∆, between Plan A and Plan B:

Mainstream

  • Productivity ∆↑ 25%
    • Availability ∆↑ 25%
  • Quality ∆↑ 45%
  • Managerial Workload ∆↓ 75%

Security

  • Turnover ∆↓ 80%
  • Safety ∆↑ 50%
  • Health ∆↑ 80%
    • Physical
    • Mental
  • Inalienable rights ∆↑ 95%

Sustain

  • Husbandry
    • Entropy extraction ∆↑ 75%
    • Damage and waste ∆↓ 50%
    • Resilience ∆↑ 75%
  • Competitive advantage ∆↑ > 100%
  • Growth Opportunities ∆↑ >100%
  • Positive reciprocity ∆↑ >100%

 

 

Hits: 64