A New Understanding

In the related blog to this one (here) we have been exploring the reasons why improvement programmes fail, and particularly why so many Lean improvement programmes fail.

Originally our work led to the uncovering of nine categories of failure and these were outlined in an article which can be downloaded here. However, later research undertaken systematically within Manufacturing and which we have tested in Healthcare has identified that a number of these reasons for failure can be combined or changed and that at least one area was missed in our original research.

Specifically, our original research identified the following nine categories of failure:

• Plans
• Reactions
• Ownership
• Training
• Operation
• Communication
• On-Boarding
• Leadership
• Systems

However, the later research has identified that a number of amendments need to be made and this has changed the sequence of Lean failure causes from spelling the words PROTOCOLS to spelling CRITICAL as detailed below:

• Communications - this remains important and is the same as that found in PROTOCOLS
• Resources - this combines elements of the former Plans and Operation and has been brought out as a seperate topic because of its importance
• Involvement - this combines the old Reactions & Ownership as these were found to be too closely related to seperate
• Training - this remains and actually has grown in importance
• Implementation - this replaces parts of the old 'Operation' but includes failing to apply a structured methodology
• Compass - this was grouped with Leadership during the first research process and brings to light the importance of setting the scope for the improvement process
• Achievement - this was originally missed and includes the need to make a movement from discussion into action quickly
• Leadership - this remains from the old PROTOCOLS model

You can download a copy of a detailed article which explains the research materials that have been used to support this approach here. If you have any comments then I would be delighted to read them either posted here or emailed to me at markeaton(a)amnis-uk.com.

Purist v Hybrid

Organisations looking to improve their performance often latch onto a particular methodology - such as Lean, Six Sigma or Concurrent Design etc - and although they might rename it the 'Performance Improvement Programme' to disguise the origin of the programme (which happens particularly in organisations which have tried a variety of improvement activities and failed) it remains at heart a pure approach to improvement based on the experience of the organisation and any advice they take.

However, given that situations vary and that even similar departments can have widely differing cultural and operational problems, and also given that many problems in organisations need to be linked to their strategic issues, I propose that it would be better to use a flexible, hybrid approach to improvement which draws the best from a wide range of disciplines.

Whilst this places a requirement on the management team to have a broad understanding of different improvement approaches, as well as being experts in whatever their organisation does, it will result in a more flexible, more customised and ultimately more sustainable improvement programme.

What do you think?