Haute Lumière

Commerce · I.02 · MMXXVI · daylight

La Bourse  /  Volume I  /  Nº I.02  /  Workbook — the Gainshare employee

WORKBOOK — THE LUMINOUS GAINSHARE EMPLOYEE

Chapter I.02 · Where You Already Stand

For the person working inside a gainshare arrangement — where a defined share of verified improvement returns to the people who created it. This chapter is about value that is real and uncounted. Inside a gainshare, uncounted means unpaid, and the arithmetic for fixing that is already written.

---

WHY THIS CHAPTER IS ABOUT YOUR PAY

The chapter's central claim is that organisations run practices producing substantial value that appears in no account, is owned by nobody in writing, and is therefore never defended and never reproduced.

Now read that claim through the mechanism you are inside. A gainshare pays a share of verified improvement against a baseline. Three words are doing the work, and each one is a place where real value can fall out of the calculation:

• Verified — if it cannot be measured, it cannot be verified.
• Improvement — if there is no baseline, there is no improvement, only a state of affairs.
• Against a baseline — if nobody ever set one, the practice is invisible to the scheme no matter how much it produces.

So the chapter's six findings are not an abstraction to you. Every one of them is a live example of value your scheme is currently not paying for, and the inventory it describes is the single highest-leverage piece of work available to a person inside a gainshare who wants the mechanism to reflect what they actually do.

One more thing before the exercises, because it decides the tone of everything that follows. You are not making a claim about fairness. You are pointing at a measurement gap, with arithmetic attached. Those are received very differently, and only one of them gets fixed.

---

PART ONE — DISCOVERY

Days 1–28: find what the scheme cannot see

Exercise 1.1 — The six places, from where you stand (one week)

You can see things nobody in finance can see. Work the chapter's six places from the floor.

Write six. Then mark the one where you can see value that is not counted anywhere, because that is the one this quarter is about.

Exercise 1.2 — Read your scheme against the chapter (2 hours)

Take the scheme document and answer in writing:

1. What is the baseline, and on what date was it set?
2. What is the measure, as a formula?
3. Which of the chapter's six findings, if any, appears in that formula at all?
4. Is the improvement computed net of the cost of achieving it?
5. What happens to the baseline when a gain is realised?

Question three is this chapter's question and it is usually answered none of them. Most gainshare measures are built from what the existing accounts already produce — output, scrap, downtime, margin — which is exactly the set of things the chapter says is visible. The counterfactual terms are missing from your scheme for the same structural reason they are missing from the accounts, not because anyone decided to leave you out.

Question five is the one that decides whether the scheme is worth being in. If the baseline resets to the improved level every period, you are on a treadmill: each gain raises the bar you are measured against. Find out which yours does. If nobody can tell you, that is the finding.

Exercise 1.3 — The team conversation, appreciative (45 minutes)

Run this with your team, in these words:

"What do we do here that we have always done, that another site would find remarkable if they saw it? Not the biggest thing — the ordinary thing."

Then the second question, which is where the money is:

"Does any of that show up in the scheme?"

Take notes on conditions, not outcomes. What you are assembling is a list of repeatable causes that are currently unpriced, and that list is the raw material for everything in Part Three.

---

PART TWO — THE ARITHMETIC

Days 29–49: put a defensible number on it

Exercise 2.1 — Write the counterfactual expression for your finding (90 minutes)

  V  =  (C_alternative  −  C_actual)  +  R_captured  +  O_option

Worked, on the kind of finding a gainshare team most often holds — a rig kept in production by a rebuild programme:

  C_alternative   £400,000 replacement over an 8-year cycle  =  £50,000 / yr
  C_actual        the rebuild programme                      =  £22,000 / yr
  V (optimistic)                                             =  £28,000 / yr
                  2.27 times the cost of the programme itself

Then compute it the honest way, which is the version that gets believed:

  If the rig would have run three more years regardless, the benefit is a
  deferral, not an avoidance:

  400,000 − 400,000 / (1.09)³  =  £91,127 once
                               ≈  £11,391 / yr over the eight-year cycle
  less the £22,000 programme   =  −£10,609 / yr

On that assumption the programme does not clear at all. Print both. Every figure above is computed in lib/verify/I_02.py and you can run it.

This is not a reason to stay quiet. It is the reason to bring the assumption into the room as the thing being decided, because the assumption, not the arithmetic, produced the difference between £28,000 and −£10,609 — and the person who can see the rig is the person who knows which assumption is true.

Exercise 2.2 — The trend test, applied to your own gain (one week)

  R(t+1) > R(t)   regeneration   — a real gain, and it will hold
  R(t+1) = R(t)   maintenance    — honest, and worth counting
  R(t+1) < R(t)   liquidation    — a gain being paid for out of a stock

This is the exercise with the sharpest edge in the workbook, so take it seriously and take it first about your own team.

Some improvement that is being paid for in gainshares is depletion wearing the costume of thrift. Downtime falls because a service interval is being stretched. Scrap falls because inspection got quicker. Output rises because people are working a pattern nobody can hold for three years. Each produces a real number, a real payment, and a bill arriving later for somebody who may not be you.

Name the stock under your measure and name the metric that shows its trend:

Bringing one of these forward yourself, with arithmetic, is the fastest route to being taken seriously by the people who run the scheme. It is also the thing that keeps the scheme alive, because a gainshare that pays for liquidation gets closed within three years by whoever inherits the bill.

Exercise 2.3 — Find the natural experiment (half a day)

Before anyone builds a model, ask whether the organisation already has a control group: other sites, other shifts, other lines, a before-and-after with a known date.

If your shift runs 9 percent turnover and the comparable shifts run 22, that is not a model. In two hundred people it is twenty-six fewer leavers a year, observed, inside the same organisation; at £45,000 loaded once, £1,170,000 a year. An observed comparison survives a room that a modelled one does not.

State the confounds yourself — different mix, different tenure, different plant, different catchment. A comparison with its confounds named is credible. One without them will be dismantled by the first person who wants it dismantled.

---

PART THREE — DESIGN

Days 50–70: make the uncounted countable

Exercise 3.1 — Build the baseline nobody built (four weeks)

This is the whole play, and it is the one thing in this workbook that nobody's permission is required for.

1. The metric. Precise enough that two people compute it identically.
2. The period. Four weeks minimum; longer if the work is seasonal.
3. The method. How and when it is recorded, and by whom.
4. The verifier. Named — your supervisor, or whoever verifies the existing scheme.
5. Two signatures. Yours and theirs. Actually sign it.

Then change nothing for four weeks. Measuring before intervening feels like lost time. It is the foundation of every claim you make afterwards, and inside a gainshare it is the difference between a share of something verified and a conversation about how everyone remembers last year.

Exercise 3.2 — Name it (20 minutes, and it is not decoration)

Give the practice a plain name that a person can say out loud in a meeting without explaining. The Thursday handover. The Kowalski line. The night rebuild.

An unnamed practice cannot be referred to, and a practice that cannot be referred to cannot be defended when someone proposes to cut it or claimed when someone proposes to pay for it. Inside a scheme, the name is what lets a line item exist.

Exercise 3.3 — The proposal, one page

• The practice, named, and what it produces.
• The four-week baseline, signed, attached.
• The value, costed twice, assumptions written beside both numbers.
• The trend, with its metric — proving you are not proposing to be paid for a draw-down.
• How it would be measured and verified going forward.
• What share you propose, and why that number.

The last line is the one people leave out, and leaving it out is the mistake. A proposal that names its own number is a negotiation. One that does not is a request.

Exercise 3.4 — The transfer case (three days)

This is the exercise that pays for the quarter, and it is also the one that makes you valuable to the scheme rather than merely paid by it.

              value at one site  ×  comparable sites  ×  transfer effectiveness
   Transfer  ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
                     cost of documenting and teaching it

Worked, from the chapter: £1,170,000 × 6 × 0.30 = £2,106,000 a year against a £40,000 one-off — roughly fifty-three times in the first year. At only 10 percent effectiveness it is still £702,000 and seventeen times.

Then state the load-bearing assumptions — that the six units are genuinely comparable, and that 30 percent is an estimate — and propose the thing that settles them: test it on one unit before claiming it for six.

And ask the question the scheme document probably does not answer: who is paid when a practice transfers? If the gain lands at site B, and the method came from site A, most schemes pay site B and nobody at site A. That is not malice — it is an omission, because nobody anticipated a practice moving. Left alone, it teaches every team in the business to keep its methods to itself, which is expensive in a way no one will ever see on a report.

A transfer clause is a small piece of design with a large effect: a share of the verified gain at the receiving site returns to the originating team for a stated term. Propose it. You are not asking for generosity — you are pointing at the structure that makes documentation worth somebody's afternoon.

---

PART FOUR — DESTINY AND DELIGHT

Days 71–90: make it hold

Exercise 4.1 — Into the standing review (one conversation)

Get one line — the strongest, with its number and its trend — into whatever is reviewed every month. One line gets waved through; five get negotiated, and next quarter you add the second.

Anything reviewed monthly persists. Anything reviewed by exception disappears.

Exercise 4.2 — Guard against the three rots (build into the annual review)

Keeping the "Was true, no longer" section populated is what keeps every other line believed — including yours.

Exercise 4.3 — The dated log (10 minutes a week, ongoing)

What changed, when, what the number did. Ten minutes a week.

When the scheme is reviewed — and it will be — the person holding a dated contemporaneous record is believed, and everybody else is negotiating from memory. This is the highest return-on-effort activity in this workbook, and it costs less than a tea break.

Exercise 4.4 — Tell the owners what it is worth (six conversations)

Go to the six people whose quiet practices you have just costed and tell them the number.

They will not believe you at first. Then they will explain, in far more detail than you asked for, exactly how it works — what they watch for, what they learned the hard way, the thing they tried that did not work.

You are the first person who has ever asked. Bring a notebook, and write it down while they talk. The writing-down is the gift, and it is also the asset the transfer case is built from.

---

KNOW YOUR SCHEME — THE INVENTORY ROWS

Add these rows to the scheme checklist you already keep. Every blank is a question worth asking, calmly, in writing.

---

THE CONVERSATION, SCRIPTED

Number, then story, then philosophy — and the philosophy is optional.

"There's something we do here that isn't in the measure. I've been recording it for four weeks — here's the baseline, signed. On the conservative assumption it's worth about £X a year; on the optimistic one, £Y, and I've written both assumptions down. The trend on the underlying condition is rising, so it isn't a draw-down. I'd like to propose how it gets measured, and what share of it comes back. It's one page — can I leave it with you?"

Note what it does not contain: no grievance, no comparison to another employer, no argument about fairness in the abstract. You are arriving with a baseline, two numbers and a proposal — which is exactly what the executive in the parallel workbook is being taught to arrive with. That is not a coincidence. It is the point of the volume: the practitioner and the corporation are not operating different economics, only different vocabularies.

---

APPRECIATIVE QUESTIONS FOR YOUR TEAM

1. What do we do here that we have always done, that another site would find remarkable if they saw it?
2. Which of those things shows up in the scheme, and which does not?
3. What is in better condition today than it was three years ago, and who is responsible for that?
4. What have we talked this business out of, and what were we seeing that the proposal was not?
5. Which supplier of ours would we fight to keep, and what exactly do we get from them that the unit price does not show?
6. If every valuable thing we do were named and written down, what would a new starter's first week look like?
7. Where might we be improving the number by drawing down something we will need later — and how would we know?
8. Which of our practices could produce a trend line this quarter, and what would we have to start recording on Monday?
9. What would we try if we knew we would be paid for it in year three rather than this year?
10. If our best practice moved to another site tomorrow, what would we want in return, and is that written anywhere?
11. Who here has never been told what their quiet work is worth — and which of us is going to tell them this month?
12. What is already working about how gains are shared here, and what makes it work?