Why Transformations Fail (Part 4): Inability to maintain two systems
Lean Nation,
Welcome to part four of a
four-part series. This month's topic is a continuation of a series that
was spawned from a LinkedIn posting on failing transformational efforts. For
your reference, the link to the posting is here: (2)
Post | LinkedIn. In this posting the writer suggested that
Agile and Change Management efforts are finished within industry. Within the
post, there are several thousand comments arguing for and against the
hypothesis.
Soon after this posting, I
received an article with the hypothesis that 98% of the organizations
that embark on continuous improvement journeys completely abandon their
efforts within 18 months. I do not have any data to support or refute this
hypothesis either, but I do not think it is a coincidence that several people
are writing about this topic at the same time.
I can confirm, from my
consulting practice of nearly 20 years, that many organizations start off
strong and then reduce or even completely eliminate their efforts over time.
This is frequently in light of the fact that they realized significant benefit
from their initial improvement efforts. So why is this the case?
The most common problems
organizations make when embarking on a continuous improvement journey are
listed below:
1) Do not waste the first
six months of your improvement efforts (part 1
2) Failure to monitor the
breadth and depth of change (part 2)
3) Failure to get everyone
involved (part 3)
4) Eliminate two systems
as soon as possible (part 4)
In part 1 of this series,
I discussed how organizations frequently squander the first six to nine months
of their efforts. At this point, it is often too difficult to regain momentum
and the transformational effort fails. You can re-read that blog
here:
Breakthrough
Highlights: Why Do Transformational Efforts Fail?
In part 2 of this series,
I discussed how organizations fail to monitor the breadth and depth of change.
It is important to manage the breadth and depth of change because changing
too fast leads to failed efforts in sustaining improvement and changing too
slow leads to complacency and oftentimes an inability to change culture.
This blog can be found here:
Why
Do Transformational Efforts Fail? Part 2
In part 3 of this series I
discussed how organizations negatively impact their success by failing to get
everyone involved. In this blog what
followed was brief discussion on the need to have everyone to think, act, and
behave differently which will get the organization to tipping point of
sustainable change. This blog can be
found here:
Why
Do Transformational Efforts Fail? Part 3
In this fourth blog we
will discuss the final reason that organizations fail to sustain their effort
to transform, that being the challenge of running two systems. What is meant by
running two systems. When transformational
change begins, the pilot area undergoes
significant change. The core tenants of
this change include the following:
1) Work is completed
to takt time. Takt time is a theoretical
pace of work that is predicated on the time available to do work divided by the
customer demand. This calculation drives the number of staff, the pace of output,
the number of materials and supplies on hand, the amount of equipment needed,
and the space necessary to do the work. In addition, it is used to ensure on
time performance of the delivery of services and products. You can learn
more about takt time here: Takt
Time - Does this apply to my process?
2) The work is completed using organizational standards. In lean terms, this is known as standard work. Think of standard work as a recipe showing the sequence of steps needed to complete the work, the amount of in process inventory between steps, the manual touch time needed to complete the work, the quality requirements of the work being done correctly, and paced to meet the takt time. Standard work ensures quality, safety, productivity and timeliness of the work.
3) The work is managed visually. Both process and results are completely transparent in n improving system. Key outcomes of the work including the quality of the work, the timeliness of the work and the productivity of the work are measured daily and sometimes hourly.
a.
Management
systems change to problem solve real-time on variances between expected and observed
performance. Leadership and staff spend the majority of their time in the
workplace versus in conference room meetings or answering emails.
b.
Additionally,
the workplace is re-invented with a place for everything and everything in its
place. This eliminates unnecessary
hunting and searching for supplies, materials and equipment.
c.
Inventory
is right sized to a just in time environment freeing up space and eliminating
obsolescence and damage.
d.
Systems
are put in place to not only maintain the standards but to improve them through
ongoing experiments and engagement of staff.
e.
Promotions
are directly tied to performance of results and culture.
Compare and contrast this
with other parts of the organization. Since
you cannot transform everyone at the same time, the balance of the organization
operates under its existing rules. It is
from this premise that “running two systems” is derived, the old way and the new way. A transformed area will need to operate in both
systems. The new way to ensure transformation
of performance and culture is occurring and the old way to get basic administration
done. It is doubtful early on human
resources, or information services, or maintenance has transformed. For the pilot leadership that means these systems
operate without standard work, and transparency, etc. On occasion, if the pilot leadership pushes
other parts of the organization to improve, they are often told to “stay in
their own lane”.
Aside from support resources,
even peer departments may be operating without standard work and visual
management. The output of the pilot area
may be 50% better the peer departments and the pilot area will be held to a
different standard than the rest of the organization. This mismatch in
expectations wears down the improved area. Over time without a plan to address the
old culture, the new culture will
succumb and return to status quo. It is simply
not possible to operate in two systems in perpetuity. It is at this point that the transformation fails.
If your organization is
struggling with transformational process improvement, are you still operating
two systems? Do you have a plan for
enterprise transformation or is this just an operations thing? Not having a
plan to engage the entire organization including peer groups and support
organizations is a recipe for transformational failure. In reality, this is not hard to identify. If the support organizations have a variety
of different consulting firms supporting them, you are on track to hardwire two or
more operating systems. Organizations
that thrive and transform have a single approach to improvement. Lean organizations are committed to seeing
and eliminating waste supported by standard work and visual management.
To solve this problem,
most organizations need to change faster.
The longer the organization operates with two or more systems, the
higher the likelihood that the old culture will survive. See if your organization
is struggling with running two systems. Be honest, where is the status
quo resistance coming from? Have a plan
to transform these parts of your organization. Don't give up, create a plan to address transforming the old systems, inspire and
engage!
Lean Blessings,
Ron
Ron Bercaw, President, and Sensei
Breakthrough Horizons
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ron-bercaw-882a0a8/
Comments
Post a Comment