Back-to-basics practices usually involve deliberate renewal efforts. To renew an understanding of (1) what the business does, (2) why it does what it does, (3) how the business operates, and (4) how well the business operates, people who have worked together for years must learn a more comprehensive view of their work interrelationships than is possible over the chit chat of daily coffee breaks or lunch. Although many people work for the same organization for many years, without a deliberate periodic perspective check, most people lose sight of how the business evolves and how its many components work holistically.

A balanced agenda that combines process mapping and team-based presentations and participation will give most employees the first truly "end-to-end" perspective they have ever had on the business and the processes that form the basis of (1) what the business does, (2) why it does what it does, (3) how the business operates, and (4) how well the business operates. Process mapping demonstrates the flows, the interrelationships, and the disconnects across the organization. After walking through the activities and issues associated with typical throughputs, each department head and operating manager presents their own section of business operations to their peers. Subsequent questions in the context of total participation sharpen their awareness of process interrelationships.

The team then uses their new intelligence and perspective to identify ways to dramatically improve quality and productivity and to drive significant cycle time out

of operations. While some improvements are detailed and implemented over time, people usually commit to many new improvements immediately upon leaving the meeting room. Surprisingly, major benefits accrue from the simple expedients of improving communications and doing things right first time.

Defined as both "a restoration to an original state" and "a new beginning," renewal efforts present two quite different aspects, each of vital interest to today's managers. While the competitive landscape may demand new strategy formulation and implementation (a new beginning), what if the real problem is the effectiveness and efficiency of the organization itself?

The need for strategic repositioning is often clear without having to apply any checklists or special tests, but rose-colored glasses can distort the image. For example, given the obsolescence of most of the recently popular telecommunications strategies and an increasingly hostile, competitive, and demanding market, many have not internalized the unpleasant current realities in their operating divisions; they continue to patch and paper over the old strategies and objectives with more of the same. Similarly, the finance sector is discovering that its immediate well-being is threatened as bubbles burst, the global economy tanks, deflation looms, defaults increase,

and both corporate and consumer credit enthusiasm wanes.

From the perspective of day-to-day practical operational effectiveness and efficiency of business basics, the signs of dysfunction and of subpar performance are usually obvious in ailing organizations—when you know where to look. Management simply misses or misreads the signals. Just listening to the "noise" around the business (shareholder behavior, regulator pronouncements, customer comments, vendors input, employee chat, and other stakeholder feedback) or surrogate operational statistics (complaints, returns, rework, rejects, absenteeism, breakdowns, grievances, and competitive comparisons) yields a lot of useful information. However, if a sharper approach is needed, several tools can quickly diagnose symptoms at the level of the business.

Starting with an examination of performance against measures is a logical, but often unproductive, starting point. Unfortunately, effective, integrated, operational performance measurement continues to be perhaps the weakest link in corporate management. If the measures are flawed—not rigorously deployed and integrated horizontally and vertically, or not actually linked to drivers of performance—they do not provide useful managerial information. An effective alternative is to conduct a comparative financial analysis to industry or competitive norms, with close attention paid to balance sheet, profit and loss, and cash flow statement elements,