Management Commitment is key!

Is it enough for management teams to delegate improvement responsibility to others and then wait for the benefits to roll in?

I think not!

Active support for your change agents, active interest in the progress and achievements of your front line teams and on-going interest in the allocation of improvement resources (making sure people turn up for meetings and that the communication of what is going on is effective), make the difference between success and failure.

On a scale of 1-100, where is your level of commitment to improving your organisation?

Where do we start?

I was with an NHS Trust earlier this week who were interested in making improvements in the way they deliver services (specifically around the 18 Week Target) and the discussion was revolved around the previous improvement programmes they had led and how they had gone about selecting the first place to start.

I was relating stories from manufacturing companies who have tried to start an organisation wide improvement programme simultaneously and then found almost immediately that they cannot provide the required amount of management support and individual mentoring required to generate the momentum. This had quickly exhausted their ability to make progress and although a few areas ended up making isolated improvements, the overall impact was minimal.

I also related some stories from the service sector where they started with a small pilot project in one area that was 'low priority' for the business and almost disconnected from the main 'hub' of activity. The result was a very slow start and even though they did achieve something it did not generate the organisation wide response that the organisations were looking for.

My belief from various programmes of activity is that to make a successful decision about where to start an improvement programme you need to first understand why the organisation must change (specifically creating a Compelling Need for people to participate) and then look at an area that is creating 'pain' in the organisation (else it will be hard to generate excitement when something is achieved). A third issue is concerned with also ensuring that which ever area is tackled first is also looked at in the full organisational context by looking at the impact of changes upstream or downstream of the area.This latter point is normally tackled through something like a Value Stream Mapping Event or similar activity, but can also be achieved through a Risk Management exercise.

Anyway, it seemed to answer the question for the clients - what do you think?

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?

Is 50% good enough?

One of the common sayings I like to make about Lean projects is that it is 'better to achieve 80% now than 100% never'.

What this is meant to show is that if you wait until you have a 'Future State' that addresses every scenario and every situation you will never move forward. Whilst this may seem a strange statement for those who are aware of my stance on the impact of Lean on organisational Risk, it is really a call to action to organisations who are trapped in cycles of discussion and review and are finding it difficult to move to action - although you still need to assess the risks that the implementation will bring and put in place suitable controls.

The reason for this blog is that too many organisations that I worked with have previously experienced problems and delays in moving forward as they tried to assess every eventuality, even though the action may only occur once or twice in a lifetime!

I propose that it is better to have properly structured solutions that address 80% of the problems than to wait for ever for a solution to every solution. Using simple Pareto Analysis, an 80% solution would cover all of the most common activities - leaving more time to spend dealing with the minor occurrences (that you have to deal with anyway).

My closing point on this post brings me back to the title of this blog - in that whilst 80% now is better than 100%, I suspect that a properly structured improvement that makes a 50% improvement is still worth having!

What is your view?

Is success an issue of alignment?

I was discussing why partnerships and business relationships breakdown today and found myself referring back to some thoughts I had a while ago.

Given that so many business relationships breakdown (leading the stresses in the business and possibly leading to actual business failure) I realised how important work in this area might be.

In discussion today, we were reviewing all the relationships that had gone sour that we knew of and found it came down to three key reasons:

1. Breakdown in the alignment of personal values
Friendships in business are often based on shared personal values, or at the very least a mutual respect for each other, and if this is broken then it becomes very difficult for people to work together - starting often with an inability for individuals to listen to each other, which leads to bigger problems. This is about TRUST

2. Breakdown in the alignment of business values
The second biggest reason for failure in business relationships we felt were a breakdown in the business values - the way that people wanted to run the business. If one person wants to focus on selling 'anything the customer wants' - working with someone who wants to sell a 'quality and focused product' can be difficult. Also, the way they want to run the business (say, one wanting to sell and run and the other wanting to build long-term relationships), this leads to communication problems and ultimately to a breakdown in the relationship. This is about FOCUS.

3. Difference of Opinion about the Future of the Business
Having a shared vision for the business is the next most important reason for success, and breaking it is the third reason for relationship breakdown. One partner/director who wants the business to grow 20% per week will not be able to work successfully with someone who only wants to achieve a 'lifestyle' and therefore does not see growth as important). This leads to stresses in the business and ultimately to relationship breakdown. This is about VISION.

I am not putting this forward as a scientifically vigorous researched answer, only something that is based on some difficult experiences and I would welcome your thoughts on these issues too - what is your experience?

Compelling People to Change

Whilst you can never force people to change, in fact it is a sure fire way of getting very short term results, there is a need to compel them to change.

By this I mean creating a reason for why the change needs to happen and then 'making it real' for people so that they get over the immediate problem of 'so what' (as in 'So what? Why should I change what I am doing?')

Of course, even a compelling need will still encounter the problems of WIIFM (when people think 'what's in it for me?' - will it improve my life or make it worse?) but that is all about mentoring people into an improvement programme.

If you would like to see some examples of compelling statements that organisations have put together to inspire their people to change, drop me an email to markeaton(a)amnis-uk.com.

Kindest Regards,

Mark

How can you claim to be an expert when......

....you have done whatever it is only half a dozen times?

We expect Doctors, Firemen, Policemen, Teachers and others to know what they are doing - and it is clear when one of them is a beginner, but in terms of business transformation consultancy I found myself talking to a group of so called 'experts' when I discovered that they had hardly any real experience (and certainly no verifiable training in terms of qualifications or accredited training) and were pushing very low grade product direct to clients in the NHS - and some were buying it - in fact, quite a few were buying it!

Now - firstly I have to say, well done to the 'team' for selling a product like that, but I worry about the impact this sort of 'cowboy' behaviour has on the wider market for consultancy in the longer term.

In as much as one swallow does not make a summer, one or two 'Lean Events' does not make an expert!

Any thoughts?

The impact of emotions on performance

I have been putting off a job I have been asked to do for some weeks because I do not feel very happy about working on it.

In between, I have run (and enjoyed) workshops for the NHS, a consulting programme for tro trusts, a series of activities to support a Regional Development Agency and also finalised a book. I have approached all of these tasks with my usual degree of gusto - but for some reason I cannot get excited about the job I have been putting off.

The job in question is something which is not 'core' to what I want to achieve (it is about business planning rather than transformation), I am missing a lot of the background information that I need, it will be contentious - however I do it (!) and lastly, it has the potential to let others down by not being an exact fit with their requirements.........and this is preventing me from working on it.

The fact that I have felt so bad about this (relatively) small piece of work, whilst feeling so positive about other work I have been doing around it, shows the impact that emotions can have on performance.

If I were positive about the work, if I felt it would be beneficial to all those I am doing it for (rather than just some) and if I felt I had all the information required to do the job properly, I wonder how successful it would be?

What is your experience?

Gerry Robinson & the NHS

Having spoken to a wide range of people involved in the NHS about the Gerry Robinson programme of two weeks ago, I am aware that it has generated a lot of debate.

My own opinion, based on similar work in acute care, is that the problems he identified were typical problems and the solutions that were identified were typical solutions - no surprise there!

However, where I believe Gerry went wrong was in failing to provide a structure to enable incredibly intelligent, yet busy people, to move quickly from seeing the problem to implementing the solution. This is why it took so long and generated so much stress.

The role of a Change Agent in the NHS is to provide specialist structure, guidance and support to enable teams to see the problem and then see how to quickly implement a solution, and by providing this structure the results that Gerry achieved could have been achieved with fewer tears and much faster!

I also propose that his approach would have failed completely (because it would have run out of steam) without the pressure of the TV Cameras - but I would welcome your views........

Are electronic mistakes acceptable?

Today I made a mistake - not a big one, probably not even an important one, but a mistake none the less.

As I sit here reflecting on this minor hiccup, I begin to wonder whether making minor mistakes - 'Humanisms' - is becoming more or less acceptable in business. Typical, and common, mistakes in an electronic age include sending emails to the wrong person or sending something to someone 'in the clear' when it should have been in the BCC section (sent blind). These are two of a thousand different mistakes that are now possible to make, yet difficult to withdraw, through an electronic medium.

Less obvious problems occur with the transmission of emotion electronically with people misreading innocent text as aggressive because they put their own interpretation into it. Until we can find a way of transmitting sentiment along with sentence then it will be the cause of unneccessary arguments and broken relationships.

Given that the probability tht everyone will make an electronic mistake over the year, I wonder whether it is more acceptable to forgive someone who has made a mistake of this fashion in the knowledge that you will make the same mistake in the future.

I don't know the answer, but it is one hell of a question! What do you think?

Responding to requests

I am increasingly asked by clients and potential clients for simple guides that explain about the different approaches to improvement (which I generally view as Lean, Six Sigma and Risk Management).

In responding to these requests, I have completed three e-books as follows:

• Lean for Practitioners - a guide for practitioners and those tasked with leading Lean Improvements to the secrets of Lean and how to implement it in the service sector and NHS
• Introduction to Lean, Six Sigma & Risk Management - a beginners text on each of the three approaches to improvement and how they can be integrated
• Sustaining Lean Improvement - looking at the four aspects of successful Lean and how to engage the team, transform cultures and sustain improvements, this guide is for advanced users of Lean and for those who's Lean Improvement Programmes have stalled

For further details and an order form, drop me an email via our website (www.amnis-uk.com).

I look forward to hearing from you and wish you a Happy New Year.

A balanced approach to consulting

I was reflecting during a discussion with a client this week about different approaches to consulting.

At the one extreme is complete 'facilitative' Consulting - which is all about helping the team to work together to find the way forward but not providing much in the way of structure. In some environments this is a very valuable approach to consulting, normally where the team has a known outcome and they have the skills to get there and need a neutral chairman to sort it out. However, in most improvement environments this approach is far too passive as the team often need guidance on how to move forward and the next steps to take.

At the other extreme is the 'directive' approach to consulting, what is often termed the 'Screaming Sensei' who instructs the team what to do and then makes sure it happens. In some extreme environments (such as a high risk environment when safety is at risk and the Sensei is an expert or where insurmountable obstacles are being presented to improvement) but generally the Screaming Sensei will be far too directive for sustainable improvement to occur and will normally lead to quick gains that disappear just as quick as soon as the pressure is removed.

Life needs to be in balance between these two extremes. Successful consulting, where improvements are to be sustained, need to provide the support of a facilitative approach and the expert guidance of the directive approach, but without the extremes of behaviour of either end.

What are you looking for in your consultant?

From products to services

I was chairing a meeting of the IOM's Operations Development Panel (ODP) this afternoon at Cranfield University. The ODP aims to shape thinking in Operations Management across a range of sectors and one of the topics we were exploring was 'Product Servicisation' which is where companies look to stop selling products and start selling competences.

The classic example is Rolls Royce who sell 'power by the hour' on their aero-engines, so clients have access to the value (a working engine) but avoid the liability. For many companies trying to compete on price, this approach offers the option to differentiate themselves in the market, although it requires careful planning on cashflow and having a robust model.

Cranfield are working on a two year research programme to look at the most effective way of helping companies to 'servicise' their operations and also helping service sector companies to develop products that sell and I look forward to supporting them in this research.

Making that final investment decision

Even though many organisations are seriously unhappy with their organisational performance there is always a certain level of doubt about making an investment to make it better.

For most organisations investing in a physical piece of equipment seems to be much more palatable - yet investing in expert consultancy or training support at a fraction of the cost is often subjected to more scrutiny. I know the argument that if you have a piece of equipment it has a residual value - but that is the folly of many purchases as it is often extremely difficult to realise the value that second hand equipment have on the books!

I suppose the concern comes from whether or not you are buying quality support and consulting, unlike many commodity items, is not the same irrespective of the price. I will explain this point - you would expect a TV you purchased for £50 to work as much as you would a TV for £5,000 - the picture and features might be different but fundamentally they will both work. In consulting terms the same is not true - you can pay £50 and get a 'non functioning product' - much the same as you can for a £5,000 consulting project!

This does not make it easier to buy consulting, it actually makes it harder! Coming back to the first point I made, it is very difficult to make a decision about consultancy and many, many organisations have been caught out by being sold the 'corporate package' by a well dressed partner only to have the service delivered by a poor quality graduate.

To make the right decisions I would suggest the following five points:

1. Ask who will deliver the project - and meet them to ensure you like them
2. Buy in stages (with get out clauses) so you can terminate if you are not happy
3. Understand exactly the process/methodology they will follow
4. Ask for references - they don't all need to be directly relevant but they do need to 'stack up'
5. Get 1st hand feedback from the people working with the consultants on a regular basis

Of course, you could always go and spend £500,000 on a machine - but I would always say pay £5,000 on consultancy to identify whether you need to actually buy the equipment at all!

Repetition and (no) Deviation creates Hestitation

Stealing shamelessly from BBC Radio 4's 'Just a Minute', I have modified the rules for the game to highlight a problem that came up in a workshop I was attending today at Earl's Court.

Doing the same thing over and over again makes people an expert at undertaking that task, but in the longer term - when variation is required - this repetition creates a 'furrow' into which people channel their energies - making it hard for them to create the new patterns of working that are needed.

In the worst cases, the desire to continue doing what has been done before (without deviation) delays the organisation's ability to react to the changing circumstances and prevents improvement. This hesitation can be devastating to the long term health of the organisation.

The cure is often hard bear for some people in that it requires them to accept (and perhaps even value) failure, errors and divergent thinking - something that people normally get fired for in many corporates!

But to be clear, this disruption is different to devastation - which will be the topic of a later post!

Strategy Drives Improvement?

Earlier this week I was due to run a workshop but because of a mix up I had to allow someone else to do it for me.

The topic was to explore the linkage between Strategy and Improvement and in planning for the event (which ultimately I did not undertake), I was given the time to reflect on another reason why improvement programmes go wrong - this being that the various areas improved have no impact on the organisational trajectory and therefore the net effect is like the proverbial 'arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic'.

An example I was made aware of was given me by a friend last night who had worked with one of the 'Big 5' consultancies and had been tasked with transforming the administrative processes in the business's headquarters in Switzerland. Very quickly he realised that the real problems lay with the root and branch sales activities which were spread out across Europe. However, he diligently worked through the improvement programme, charging some £500k, and the overall effect on the bottom line was nothing as the company ran out of cash and closed.

This demonstrates that if you choose to improve the wrong thing, you will improve nothing! Therefore, being clear about the Strategic Issues facing the business is almost more important that rapidly moving to action and actually doing something!

Increase in Productivity or Increase in Intrusion?

I am writing this on a train coming back from a business development weekend in Scotland - the train is moving and I am sitting here wondering whether the fact that I have cleared my emails, dealt with a client proposal for the NHS and am now writing a blog entry is an increase in productivity or just an increase in the levels of intrusion into my 'personal space'.

At present, I am feeling quite good about the experience in that I know when I finally get home at around midnight tonight that I will not have to deal with any emails and can just go to bed -but if I were here with a friend, had a good book to read or just did not feel like working, I would probably feel that the ability to access WiFi/Emails during the journey would be an intrusion, nagging away at me - asking for me to deal with issues.

In business, having a clear delineation between 'work time' and 'play time' (the latter which could include creative time) is vital - but the line between the two is disappearing. On Tuesday I have a meeting which we have had to book a room in a hotel to avoid being disturbed, but even there we will probably be interupted by mobiles and the occasional message at the hotel.

I worry that this blurring of work and play will have a serious impact on organisational performance as individuals have less and less time to themselves and less time to be creative - but for now I am just enjoying the ability to travel and work!

Success in Healthcare

Last Friday I was delighted to host a meeting of one of the Ecademy clubs I belong too (CEN). The event focused on issues relevant to Healthcare and we had a great mix of people, including some with extensive 'in house' expertise of working in the NHS.

What we discovered is that (not unsurprisingly) the opportunity for improvement is great, especially in the area of sustainable improvement (using a variety of tools such as Lean etc). It is perhaps one of the best environments for leading change - you have motivated and skilled people who share a common aim (delivering patient care).

However, the issues of 'improvement fatigue (IF)' and changing public priorities will make it a long and slow process to implement (and sustain) the benefits that individual trusts can realise.........fancy joining us to help make it happen?

Loyalty in Adversity

When things start to go wrong in relationships (whether personal or business), loyalty becomes a very important issue.

If you have built up relationships with your network, when things start to go wrong they will support you - whether you are right or wrong - but when you haven't built the relationship, or if you use up all of your 'emotional credit', the loyalty and support is not there everything becomes much harder.

In change, it is important to have a relationship with the people you are working with so that when things start to 'get sticky' (and they will), they support the change.

The Duke of Wellington had a great saying which emphasises the power of loyalty and training and went something like, "When other Generals make a mistake they are beaten, but when I make a mistake my troops pull me through."

When things go wrong, who will support your change programme?