Tag Archives: Poor Charlie’s Almanack

The Titanic: a project management disaster

The Titanic (public domain image, taken from Wikimedia, by F. Stuart).

Few days ago, I attended a conference on an example of a project management disaster: the Titanic, the British ship which sank in its maiden trip from Southampton to New York in 1912 causing the death of above 1,500 passengers, above 2 thirds of those aboard.

[The conference was part of the same cycle of which I attended another one about 2 months ago about the success of the management project for the delivery of the infrastructure, design and construction of buildings, transport and the legacy of the London 2012 Olympic Games (I wrote about it here).]

Learning from a well-known disaster, as opposed to a success, made the audience more eager to listen to Ranjit Sidhu, a consultant who has made extensive research about the Titanic and has written the book “Titanic Lessons in Project Leadership“.

She was going to focus the conference on 3 sides of project management: communication, leadership and teamwork (1), and the problems which each of those originated in the disaster.

Titanic captain E. J. Smith (public domain image, taken from Wikimedia, author: New York Times).

Sidhu started giving an introduction of some of the characters involved in the project to show the kind of power plays and conflicts that took place at the time of taking decisions. Some of those characters were: Bruce Ismay (chairman of White Star Line), Lord Pirrie (chairman of the shipbuilding company Harland and Wolff), J.P. Morgan (American banker who financed the formation of International Mercantile Marine Company, mother company of White Star Line), Alexander Carlisle (chief engineer of the project in Harland and brother-in-law of Pirrie), Thomas Andrews (successor of Carlisle), Captain Smith (sea-captain of the Titanic).

From the beginning of the project the mantra that the Olympic line of boats was going to be unsinkable was created due to some features which indeed made the boats more secure than others at the time, as well as the largest and most luxurious. From that point onwards, several psychological flaws impeded perceptions to be re-evaluated, messages to get across, decisions to be questioned, etc.

For some of the characters (Carlisle and Andrews) safety was the top objective, to the point that when the number of life boats was decided to be reduced against the engineers’ criteria Carlisle resigned as chief engineer of the project and left Harland despite of being a relative of the chairman.

For other characters in the story the emphasis was in the size or the luxury: an ample dinning room, clean views from the cabins (not disturbed by life boats, for instance), etc.

The power play, the financial pressure on the project, the deadlines of both departure and arrival in New York, the image to keep before the press, etc., all made that several decisions were taken despite of compromising technical features (life boats reduction and placement), manufacturing operations (working in increasing shifts due to the delay caused by the repair of the Olympic at the same shipyard), operational decisions (such as short time for sea trial of the ship, radio operators priorities and incentives misalignment…), etc., adding to the diminished safety of the trip.

Some of the psychological flaws that were going on when taking those decisions include: anchoring effect (the image of the Titanic as unsinkable was fixed in the mindset despite of decisions compromising safety), bandwagon effect, confirmation bias (negative signals being filter out vs. acknowledging supporting evidences), conformity to the norm, framing effect, normalcy bias (denial and underestimation of the consequences of the disaster once occurred), etc.

Last minute misfortunes added up to the disaster: missing binoculars for the scouts (due to the departure of a crew component who held them), a shorter rope to perform ice tests, radio messages from the Californian boat not being prioritized by operators to be brought to the main deck…

The end to the story is well-known.

Have we progressed as a society since them?

Today we like to think that yes. More requirements regarding safety are put into projects. Regulations are passed to ensure safety. Risk management is used as part of project management to ensure that the kind of decisions taken at the time of the Titanic today they are taken without overlooking the risks behind them.

However, I would like to bring 3 questions raised by colleagues in the Q&A session that followed the presentation:

  • Of the cited characters, who could have been more proactive to prevent the disaster? Taking into account that Carlisle, the chief engineer, went to the point of resigning without (a seemingly) major effect to the fate of the ship.
  • How can we react to a pressure situation under a powerful sponsor? We can try to find allies, framing the situation as an “us” as a group instead of opposing the sponsor.
  • If the Titanic hadn’t sunk, would it be seen as an example of success in project management instead of a disaster? You may dismiss the point too quickly by thinking “oh, yes, but it happened that it sank!“.

Here, I remembered the theory of the safety in systems seen as layers of safety added one after the other. Each of the layer may have some holes in it just as a portion of cheese (typical image used in aerospace projects). By having several layers, accidents are prevented in most of the cases. However, from time to time the holes in the layers are perfectly aligned and the accident happens (lack of sea trials, radio messages not passed, urgency to reach New York, scouts without binoculars, improper ice tests, power vs. authority struggle in that precise trip in which the chairman of the company travels alongside the captain…).

Cheese model of safety layers in a system.

Cheese model of safety layers in a system.

My takeaways from the conference are:

  • to continuously remind ourselves of the flaws we have in our mental processes (I recommend a couple of books to that respect: “Thinking Fast and Slow” by Daniel Kahneman and “Poor Charlie’s Almanack“, by Charlie Munger),
  • to sharpen our perception of risks (both at work and daily life),
  • to understand that we are a layer (with our own holes) in the safety system (both at work and daily life).

(1) She did not enter much into risk management despite of acknowledging that it had not worked (or rather overlooked).

4 Comments

Filed under Education

Why do I prefer Coke

Some weeks ago I read an article about why do we prefer Coke over Pepsi by the blogger Farnamstreet (1). It mentioned a marketing initiative by Pepsi some years ago, “The Pepsi Challenge”, in which blind test were organized to see whether consumers preferred one or the other. Pepsi consistently advantaged Coke in the tests.

The article mentions other studies in which it is explained why nevertheless Coke still outsells Pepsi. In the end it seems to be due to the powerful brand Coca Cola has created along history and its association with happiness and satisfaction. This is an extreme case of what Warren Buffett describes as moat:

Definition of ‘Economic Moat’

The competitive advantage that one company has over other companies in the same industry. This term was coined by renowned investor Warren Buffett.

Investopedia explains ‘Economic Moat’

The wider the moat, the larger and more sustainable the competitive advantage. By having a well-known brand name, pricing power and a large portion of market demand, a company with a wide moat possesses characteristics that act as barriers against other companies wanting to enter into the industry.

My preference for Coke

Luca and I did this kind of blind test about 4 years ago when we lived in Madrid. We had heard of these tests and I was sure I could distinguish one from the other.

Normally, I never buy Pepsi (except when you order a “cola” at some place where there is no Coke). For the test we purchased both Pepsi and Coke, and placed them in the fridge for a while. Then I got blinded. Luca took them out of the fridge and poured each in a different glass (same kind of glass) with ice cubes. Then she offered me one glass. I tasted it.

“Ok, I don’t even need to test the other one, this is Pepsi”, I said. Then, I thought “well let’s try the other to confirm my choice”. I tasted the other glass… then I tasted again the first one. I ended up completely lost. I couldn’t tell one from the other. I finally changed my initial decision.

I was wrong in the test. Since then, I have told some friends about the experiment. Most of these friends claim they would indeed distinguish one from the other. They would probably even state that they prefer Coke due to its flavour (of course, I have no friend who prefers Pepsi! Who does?)…

After having done the test, no doubt I continue to buy Coke, but now I am aware that it is partly due to some behavioural trick being played within my mind, the kind of trick explained in the article.

(1) Farnam Street being the street in Omaha where Berkshire Hathaway HQ are located.

NOTE: You may want to read this case by Charlie T. Munger, Berkshire Hathaway vice chairman, about the compounding effects that led to the tremendous success of this carbonated water drink. The essay was part of a lesson he gave at USC Business School in 1994 and appears in his book “Poor Charlie’s Almanack”.

3 Comments

Filed under Economy, Marketing, Miscellanea

My experience at BRK2011

Berkshire Hathaway was a small textile company in Rhode Island. As many other textile companies it was struggling due to cheap labour competition elsewhere. Warren Buffett had already invested in the company before realising that it was headed for the worst. He was about to sell his stake when he felt irritated by an underbid from the managing director, then he decided not only not to sell his shares but to invest until gaining control, sacking the CEO and completing what he later referred to as his worst investment mistake he ever made…

Today Berkshire is a very different outfit: a big conglomerate, with over 130 billion USD in revenues, with a big insurance arm, dozens of operating companies and large investments in securities. Warren Buffett, his current CEO, regarded as the best investor ever.

Berkshire Hathaway annual shareholder meeting (BRK 2011, for this year’s event) is an extraordinary event, widely covered by press and attended by over 30.000 investors and relatives.

I explained in a previous post how I became interested in investing and when and why Luca and I became shareholders of Berkshire, now I want to give a small account of my experience in my baptism in the Woodstock for Capitalists (pictures below)…

… on Thursday 28th April Luca and I picked a rental car in Chicago, from where we would drive 800km to Omaha, Nebraska, with a stop over in Des Moines. Early in the afternoon Friday 29th we arrived at our hotel in Omaha, where the receptionist informed that there was a package waiting for us: our credentials for the weekend (thanks Debra!).

The event is not restricted to just the shareholders meeting, it is composed of a series of events covering the whole weekend. Let me describe them.

Cocktail at Borsheims. On Friday evening several buses would pick shareholders up from an infamous mall to bring us to Borsheims, the group’s jewellery shop. In front of the shop there was a big tent with live music, drinks and food. The shop was open, with re-doubled staffing to attend shareholders in eventual sales (as Buffett says “what better occasion to propose to your girlfriend than at BRK shareholders meeting?”).

Shareholder meeting on Saturday morning. The meeting started at 8:30am, doors opened at 7:00am and Luca and I arrived at 6:45am when there was already a huge queue. The meeting is held at the Qwest Center, a big convention center, which has room for exhibition and a sports indoor arena where the meeting is held. The exhibition area is packed by stands selling all kinds of goods from the group subsidiaries: boots, construction tools, books, sports wear, insurance… anything at a nice discount for shareholders. What better place to go shopping than to your own shop at a discount? To open the day some very funny videos and commercials were displayed. One featuring cartoons of Buffett, Munger and Schwarzenegger as Governator was especially welcomed.

Q&A session. Most of the meeting, until about 15:30 in the afternoon is a questions and answers session. This is when everybody wants to test and listen to the insights from the “Oracle of Omaha”. They made room for approximately 60 questions. Half were selected by 3 journalists from the thousands sent in by shareholders and the other half were drawn just before the meeting from volunteering shareholders in the floor.

This Q&A session is the most widely event reported by media. If you have read anything about the meeting, it was most probably said there. Instead of me telling here again what’s that was said, let me just refer to my first and second favourite accounts from other sources.

Charlie T. Munger. He is the vice chairman of the company and doesn’t get nearly as much coverage in the media as Buffett, however Warren has for him the highest regard. Munger has written a book, “Poor Charlie’s Almanack”, which is a treasure of wit and wisdom (and heavy as a brick).

At the meeting he is sitting side by side Warren all day during the meeting, looking half asleep and eating candies. Every now and then he replies with a “I have nothing to add” whenever Warren asks him for comment, except for a few times when he gets to give his point. That point goes without cosmetics straight to the issue at hand: “Much of the present crisis was caused not so much by evil but by stupidity”, [on financial projections] “seeing them in paper or in a screen makes some people believe they’re something serious”, “It seems both parties are competing to see which can be the most stupid. What it’s worse, they’re topping each other”, “Insurance is a difficult business: there are many temptations to be stupid… like in banking”…. after hours of this is when Warren came with his “If there’s anybody we’ve forgotten to insult, pass a note up and we’ll get to you.”

Business meeting. Just as a reminder I will say that this was a shareholders meeting. I hadn’t been in any other before though I had seen some either by streaming or podcast. Luca had attended one of EADS. At BRK the shareholders meeting itself lasted… 20 minutes? Reports, directors for the next year, etc., were voted in a matter of seconds. The only issue which took longer was a proposal to get all subsidiaries to report their carbon impact anticipating eventual legislation. Several shareholders took the word for and against and it was finally turned down… this is America.

Picnic at the Nebraska Furniture Mart. Once the shareholders meeting was finished, we all headed for NFM to enjoy a very professionally organized picnic as well as to visit the furniture shop (largest one in North America). This is another BRK subsidiary founded by Mrs. Rose Blumkin, a strong woman who emigrated from Russia at the beginning of the XX century and started the business at her place,  and after a disagreement with Warren went on to open a new business well into her ‘90s, being involved in the operations until shortly before her death at 104.

Brunch at Borsheims. On Sunday morning shareholders could go back to the jewellery shop to have a brunch while shopping, playing bridge or chess, seeing the performance of a magician, etc… It sounds all fine for a Sunday morning plan, the singularity comes from that jewels were sold by Warren Buffett himself, you could play bridge with or against Bill Gates, the chess game was against US champion, etc.

Lunch at Gorat’s. On Sunday two steak houses in Omaha closed doors for shareholders of BRK. Luca and I booked a place in both; one for lunch, the other for supper. Both are Buffett’s favourite places and this is why he recommends them (not being part of the group). Food was wonderful, just too much for us to finish everything.

Dinner at Piccolo’s. This would be our last event in the weekend. We had finished lunch just 5 hours before and were not really hungry. In fact, we were not hungry at all, but we went on with the plan. While we were having our burgers, Warren and Bill came in with their entourage to have dinner at a table 2 tables away from ours. It felt awkward to say the least but this how we closed our BRK2011, our first.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

8 Comments

Filed under Investing, Travelling