THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 2017
Font Size
Community Blogs Driving Change One Project at a Time

Driving Change One Project at a Time

When you try to perform process improvement, whether for cost, quality or other reasons, you will often find yourself in an environment where the status quo is the status quo. You may be new, and find yourself awash in a sea of this-is-how-we-do-things. People are in their comfort zones. Management may or may not get that there will be growing pains (even for them) in the process of improving processes and culture. One approach of choice (it may not be a choice if you are simply an individual contributor such as a manufacturing or quality engineer) is to drive change one project at a time. This can be as effective in creating a climate of continuous improvement as an apprenticeship is in creating skilled workers. The message may not get out to as many people as quickly as a company-wide training program, but the impact can be deeper and more sustained if you can show success and create new change agents in multiple functions – one project at a time.

Tips for driving change one project at a time include the following.

  • The goal isn’t just to improve processes (technical goal), but to also create the spark of change, and the mindset of effective continuous improvement (behavioral goal).
  • Know the difference between an “expression of pain” and a problem definition.
  • Keep statistician W. Edwards Deming in mind: It isn’t enough to do your best; know what to do, then do your best.
  • Gather information and perspectives from knowledgeable stakeholder representatives, as can be defined by supplier and customer functions on a SIPOC (suppliers, input, process, output, customers) diagram as shown in the figure below.

SIPOC

  • Think in terms of what “good” looks like in the future for a given process or, even bigger picture than the particular process that you are looking at. Maybe the process that is causing problems is itself merely a compensation for a bigger problem that gets in the way of what “great” looks like at a higher level. This is where conversations with the customer and customer stakeholders come in handy.
  • Before you focus on improving an existing process, think of good and great, and ask, “Is this the process that I want to control, do we need a different process, or can we eliminate the need for this process?” Keep this in mind all the way through the project. Eliminating the need for specific processes is the biggest win of them all.
  • Remember that the further upstream that you can make a positive change, the more the benefits grow as they trickle down, allowing downstream users of the improved information or materials processes to reduce the time spent compensating for inefficient, untimely or erroneous inputs.
  • Define good or great in high-level terms so that how to get there is as open as possible, and allows for more stakeholder creativity, excitement and ownership.
  • Be aware of the temptation to take shortcuts; or for people wanting to do what is comfortable to get there, or close to there, in ways that create manual processes or impede other efforts to get to good and great.
  • Talk to the high-knowledge people not just in terms of how we do things now, or even why we do it that way, but in terms of what has to happen to make the vision of good happen.
  • Be open to a new vision of what good looks like, not as a consolation prize because of “how we do things,” but because there may be other ways of getting to good or great.
  • Be okay with just good (as long as the flavor of good that is implemented allows for great later without process rework or new organizational inertia that makes great a less appealing option later) if you find that you are creating behavioral change (creating new change agents and cooperative, enthused partners).
  • Meetings, and when possible conversational interviews, should involve action items that move towards clarifying or removing obstacles to good or great.
  • If the problems cannot be resolved in a few days, hold weekly stakeholder meetings.
    • Participants should represent stakeholder functions at a level to take action items, make decisions and speak for the function with a high confidence level.
    • There is no rank in a cross-functional team other than project leader. But you are the influence leader and action item tracker. Authoritarianism will not work.
    • Keep the meetings short – review action items, have new discussion about direction, create and review new action items.
    • Action items should be due at the next meeting, so they may be step actions.
    • Send minutes to participants and invitees within 8 working hours of the meeting.
    • Focus on the vision of good, the path to the end goal and knocking down roadblocks.
  • When you encounter intractable antibodies (stakeholder representatives that will not envision a better future, withhold knowledge, etc.) don’t damage your position as facilitator or project leader by going after them yourself. Ask your manager if he can think of a more effective representative from that function or if she can help you understand the issue. You may be wrong or it may be a problem better handled at a higher level. It isn’t a sign of weakness to ask for help. The last thing you need is to have a team fearful or resentful of you, withholding their true opinions and efforts, or see you go off the deep end if you are wrong.

Register Now

  • Stop this in-your-face notice
  • Reserve your username
  • Follow people you like, learn from
  • Extend your profile
  • Gain reputation for your contributions
  • No annoying captchas across site
And much more! C'mon, register now.

Leave a Comment



Comments

Zeya Ottomone

Martin, excellent prescription forward introducing change. I must also add that in order to ensure successful on-boarding of key stakeholders of the complete change mission, the overall program must also be made visible while modular “one project at a time” is pursued.

Reply
Mike Gallagher

In regards to the statement “Think in terms of what “good” looks like in the future for a given process or, even bigger picture than the particular process that you are looking at.” wouldn’t a planned course of action also reduce the problems that could of come when implementing change?

Also when you want to make a change in the way that involves process would you also investigate why the process is there?

Reply
Anita Smith

The best way to approach a change to a process is to establish a goal first. The goal will describe what “good” is. All involved should accept the goal first and then discussion can proceed on how to meet the goal.

The existing process should be evaluated first by looking at what value is added at each step in the process. Eliminating steps that add no value in a process will simplify and streamline the process first. Then any changes that need to be made will be easier to implement.

Reply
Martin K. Hutchison

After your first paragraph,I disagree, Anita. You seem to favor a VSM first approach, and that often leads to improving a process that you don’t really want. I saw this before in a company that thought PFMEA was the first step to process improvement, but in reality it created more inertia against breakthrough improvements as we created control plans and Work Instructions based on the wrong overall flow that was in place at the time. This wasted a year or more.

In companies that are dying for change (even if the existing personnel don’t realize it), their processes become cluttered with shortcuts and compensations and add-ons that no longer make sense. If the existing process is a good backbone for a future state, then yes, but still, imagine the glimmering future state and keep focused on breaking roadblocks in the way, and avoid applying lipstick to the existing pig- even if people are comfortable with the pig.

Reply
Martin K. Hutchison

Effective change is imagining the future you want and then getting there. At this point, the work tends to focus on removing roadblocks. Asking “why” we do what we do now is useful, it can uncover KQC’s for the improved state to account for. But often the “why” that you refer to is “we always did it this way”, “it was decided a long time ago”, or to compensate for various process failures.

Reply
Sainagavarunteja Potu

It is a great presentation, i have some doubts about the different projects handled at a time.

What if it is a big organization, which has its interest in different fields and has to handle different projects at time? i agree with you on the point that goal isn’t just to improve the process but how can multinational companies handles this kinds of environment’s, where you have to follow the procedure or sometime’s you have to go out of the way to achieve your targets.

In regards to this statement, “Be aware of the temptation to take shortcuts; or for people wanting to do what is comfortable to get there, or close to there, in ways that create manual processes or impede other efforts to get to good and great.”
what if something goes wrong and they have to do the project all over again within less time?

Reply
Martin K. Hutchison

Don’t do it wrong.

The point about shortcuts isn’t about being laborious in your effort. Imagine situations whereby you could do things right and have your ERP manage data (for example, use workorders to capture time and parts for rework). It may take a month to set that up with Information Systems people, get finance on board, but then you have a great mechanism with cross functional benefit, but really costs nothing but setup time. But someone says “Lets just track rework by spreadsheet then adjust the books every month”. That is a shortcut, it can be implemented quickly to impress the boss, but it does not look “good”, creates ongoing work, and records created will not be complete, accurate and timely, nor will they be usable to broad swaths of the company. That is an ugly shortcut. Companies that are growing in size/mix often have ugly shortcuts like this exposed for change agents like us to fix.

Reply
Madhusudhana rao pidikiti

As in case of agile development ,continuous improvement of tools and technology is good key for success. The article is very useful for understanding continuous improvement. Many of the industries can’t be able to withstand change in adopting techniques of industrialization. Many industries think that it is better to outsource or offshore products or techniques rather than making change in their process and systems.
Day to day there are many improvements and innovations. How can companies account in improving their own process and systems.

Reply
tonny

i agree with u in one point of view as many of the industries can’t be able to withstand changes in adopting techniques of industrialization and at the same many other industries have adopted this techniques and running them in a successful manner with a better results.technology is developing day by day so as the improvements and innovations but VSM approach is a good in any point of view it is the best technique so far as the technology develops in day to day life same as the VSM develops in the same manner.

Reply
Prudhvi Panduga

Introducing change in the existing process always includes pain, but it’s all good for the improvement of the product. Informative.

Reply
Alita

Effective ideas.

Reply


5S and Lean eBooks
GAGEpack for Quality Assurance
Six Sigma Statistical and Graphical Analysis with SigmaXL
Six Sigma Online Certification: White, Yellow, Green and Black Belt
Lean and Six Sigma Project Examples
Six Sigma Online Certification: White, Yellow, Green and Black Belt

Find the Perfect Six Sigma Job

Login Form