Complexity and 21st Century Process Improvement Success

Anyone who has worked with a Failure Mode Effects Analysis knows that the more complex that a process or product is...the higher the probability that a failure can occur...

I also think that anyone with common sense could come to the same conclusion without this utterly grueling analysis...

********************************************

If one looks deeper into the prior two sentences, there is an interesting parallel to be made with 21st century process improvement methodologies...

Did you see it?

The more complex a process...the higher the risk of failure...

********************************************

I have had an interesting journey through the process improvement world...

I have been involved in my share of deployments that required extremely complex methodologies...

Other deployments were stayed focused on the basics and were very simple and straight-forward...

My "M.O." has always been to challenge the reason for every deliverable within a methodology...and the value of each towards the expected deliverable...

I focused on the goals and the expected results...rather than doing things that were inserted for the sake of someone's fragile idiosyncrasies or need for control...at the cost of the project...

*********************************************

In the perfect world of process improvement the most efficient methodology would consist of two steps...

1 - a clear problem/goal statement
2 - The solution

If a methodology could go from #1 to #2...it would be awesome...

From Problem to Solution...What more do we need?

Heck we need to do some work!

We need to show them that we are earning our keep...


We need to show them that we are technical specialists...


We need to show them that they can't do it themselves and ensure our job security...

But wait...

That's easy!

Let's add some steps (deliverables)

STOP!  What did we conclude about complexity and intentionally adding it earlier?

As we add additional steps within a product, process or methodology...the higher the probability of failure!

Don't get me wrong...

I recognize the argument that each additional deliverable contributes to the process and helps ensure that the methodology is successful...

When is enough...ENOUGH?

But let's use common sense, logic...and our FMEA...

Each deliverable adds risk...that can only be averted with additional controls!

Did you notice?

Each deliverable actually does not increase complexity by a factor of 1X but by 2X!

Why?

Each deliverable requires control!

An additional step...or worse...a series of steps...A PROCESS!

*********************************************

As Process Improvement Specialists...we need to seek SIMPLICITY rather than complexity

Why?

Simplicity reduces risk and increases the probability of success...

The Cii's mission is about making meaning and significant positive differences...

Delivering results with a reduced RISK...is what we should strive for...

*********************************************

Let's take a brief editorial diversion...

Beyond responding to the paradigm that complexity is required to ensure success...or...

It creates a conundrum...a "Catch 21"

"Darned if you do and darned if you don't"

That each step is a required component in the recipe...

Why would someone build a complex methodology?

Complex methodologies are IMPRESSIVE

They inherently have marketing potential...

Complex methodologies are safe...because only a select few totally understand them...

From a practical standpoint...there is a value...

I believe that the steps are added to build "trust"

The Process Improvement methodologies add steps to ensure that the recommended solution can be trusted...

"Statistically connected or proven"

"Graphically or visually represented"

What else can you add to this list?

Did you get my point?

Many steps are there because we are not trusted!

We are required to add steps because of our own performance...or those of our predecessors...

*********************************************

Over time...I saw that "The Answers are out there..."

From this came my methodology which I called "solution-based" problem solving...

It is not unlike TRIZ...which I believe is "halfway there..."

The premise with TRIZ is that there are VERY FEW unique an innovative solutions and that most can be categorized into 30 to 40 groups...

TRIZ falls short with the need for creative application of the solution set to the specific need...

The "New Brass Ring" actually takes solution-based problem solving to the next level...

It takes the best of the methodologies of the past and combines the benefits of the 21st century...

It minimizes the tool set and provides results quickly and efficiently...

You can read more about this methodology in my book "The New Brass Ring"  check it out!

It may be what you are looking for...

What every 21st Century Organization needs to thrive...

I remember our session, as if it happened yesterday...

In actuality this encounter occurred more than 30 years ago...

The reason that it is so embedded in my memory was that some of the insights and suggestions that he shared with me...I put into play immediately...

Much of what he shared with me sounded like a prophecy...I shrugged it off as his regular ranting...but I squirreled the potential insights away in a corner of my memory and periodically referenced them to see if they gained any substance and credibility.

During our regular mentoring sessions he selectively shared one of his life axioms....

This time it was...

"...if you find yourself in a position that you have to make decision...you do not have enough information..."

We talked at length about the real attributes related to decision making...and the fact that most executives have deceived themselves into believing that good decisions are made based on data!

I could belabor the discussion...but I will "cliff note" it...

When a manager or an executive makes a decision....it is not made based upon the information at hand...

The only exception to this would be...If an executive were omniscient...and had all of the data he/she needed...then there wouldn't be any choices...everything would be "no-brainers!"

Perfect information leads to a situation where there are no choices...

Anything less than perfection...creates a need for choice...

Choice is not a function of data but arises from a lack of information...(this is interesting!)

Executives do not make decisions based upon what they know...but based upon how much risk is associated with what they potentially do not know...

As a result most executives will choose the lower risk alternative...

The "risk averse" strategy!

This will lead organizations to mediocrity...and they will euphenize this fatal flaw as "risk aversion..."

In the 1980s and 1990s his "predictions" began to take on substance...I started hearing the phrase..."we are a risk averse company..."

In most cases, it was a nice way of saying...our executives are incapable of making decisions...

I was shocked that he told me this 20 years earlier!

I started to believe that what he told me was more than simple philosophizing...

Another of his predictions that has just now come to fruition was that the real 21st century would not happened for a decade or so into it!

He explained that it takes a decade or so for people to finally cast off the previous decade and accept the new for what it is and has to offer...

I think he was right!  We are finally seeing a whole new world around us!

The economy is different...

Our environment is different...

Our challenges are different...

And so to should be our survival tactics!

I can not emphasize this point enough!

Organizations must change their focus in order to go from simply surviving to thriving in the marketplace and economy!

The 20th century was all about Opportunity and Effort!

Although this still holds true today...

Another element has been added to the equation...

That being "Risk."

I can not specifically define "risk."  It varies from situation to situation and organization to organization...

But it will be the differentiator in surviving and thriving...

The question that needs to be asked...

"What are our risks?"

How do we minimize the probability of those situations coming to fruition and if the do...how do we ensure that the impact is mute?

It struck me that "The New Brass Ring" and the DMADD methodology is firmly "founded" on "risk" identification and mitigation! (the book is available in the upper right hand of this page)

If "risk" is sufficiently addressed (through definition and control)...then the intended results have a better chance of happening!

The 21st Century Organization can no longer afford to treat "risk" as an adjunct element.

"Risk" must be on equal terms with ROI...in fact many instances will require that it is given priority...

That was one of his predictions so many years ago!

Let it suffice that the "do nothing" alternative is a choice that organizations make without fully comprehending the ramifications of choosing it...

If that choice was fully assessed...up front...many more organizations would be positioned for success...and would be less reactive and more proactive...

A Critical and Missing Need of Investment and Venture Capital

I am not a futurist...and will never lay claim to that profession...it is far too risky and dependent on "unknowns"...still it is fun to make predictions and watch what really comes to fruition...

It is easier and safer to "guess" from the safety of obscurity...

But my predictions have been quite accurate...much to the amazement of those who I have shared them with...

Many of the real Futurists are predicting that the 21st Century will be dominated by private equity, venture capitalists and the privatization of many currently publicly traded corporations.  I have to agree...

Public trading of stock and equity was the funding option for the 20th century.  Earned and deserved governmental regulation has eroded at the viability of this option.  These laws have all focused on reducing the risk associated with the investment in public stock...this risk created by less than forthright corporations or individuals within those organizations...the public deserves the right to make informed decisions...when the information is accurate...GREAT!  When it is misinformation based in the lack of full disclosure or outright deception...someone other than the stockholder should pay...and those who profited by this unethical tactic...punished...

Business 101 teaches that a critical input in the organizational growth equation in cash flow! 

If the viability of public offerings becomes difficult...organizations will find other options...

What has become apparent to me is the "quiet" privatization of corporations...

Step back for a moment and look at how many buy-backs are occurring...and how many corporations have gone from public to private!

Search out who is the largest corporations...they are no longer sitting on the NYSE!

This trend has been moving for sometime...and has drawn little attention!   

The number of players in this arena is growing and the participants (knowingly and unknowingly) are guised as private equity and venture capital firms.

Although it is anticipated that the shape and face of the business world will transform, what it will look like in the next few decades is yet to be described.

Rather than argue that prediction...let's simply accept this and see where it takes us...

It creates a unique set of challenges for any individual organization seeking growth...

The 20th century organization made decisions based Return on Investment (ROI).

Simply stated...Opportunity and Effort...

There was an assumption that "anything is possible"  but the question "Is it worth it?'

The 21st century organization will shift their focus to the reduction of risk.

The "risk" of what is claimed to be possible...coming to fruition...

This becomes the focus because of the very nature of the investors...

In the 20th century the risk was distributed across hundreds...or even thousands of investors...and it for all practical purposes...became a non-issue...in fact..."disclaimers" were added related to the "risk" involved with investing...simply to further offset it...

The 21st century will be run by consortium and groups.  These investors will be astutely attuned to risk...

Other 21st century investors will address "risk" through a "mutual fund portfolio" strategy.  This will be an attempt to disperse "risk" across a multiplicity of investments and offset individual "risks."  The mutual fund strategy will also look like cash and bond offerings to its investors...making it possible for the smaller players to still be involved in this arena...
In either instance...the missing element is related to real control!

This provides an opportunity for real Process Improvement (PI) practitioners.

Successful PI efforts reduce the risk of failure...

The 20th century methodologies addressed "risk" as a "side benefit."

21st century methodologies (such as that found in "The New Brass Ring") recognize the specific need to quantify "risk" and focus a portion on their efforts on it!

The old axiom..."a person can  not manage what they can not measure" is critical to 21st century investor success...

"Risk" must be quantified and controlled in order for privatized funding to be successful.

The critical and missing element of success for investment capital firm will be REAL control of "risk."

Speifically the "Missing and Critical" element is a separate entity that oversees the performance risk that every investment assumes!

Even better...is an organization that not only oversees the risk...but does something about it!



This can be easily accomplished by engaging an external PI firm to oversee initiative and operational risk/performance!

It should be a contractual obligation for funding...

Reducing "risk" is well worth the cost...

It should be in the contractual relationship between the PI provider and the Investment Firm...

This need is what my organization (The Cii see http://www.thecii.com/) is focused on providing.

The simply question to ask any PI organization (to assess if they focused on the right things) is...

How have you quantified "risk?"

If you are not comfortable with their answer...go elsewhere!

    

Why Waste time on “Lessons Learned?”

When I worked as a MBB charged with an organizational process improvement deployment, my perspective on a Belt’s activity was more global than that of the individual project perspective.  

From that strategic perspective, an unspoken goal of every process improvement project is for the belt to model great leadership behavior, that will be imitated by the organization.  In a very subtle way, the organization is taught new behaviors through the “Belts’ behavior and subsequent success.”  One of the messages that should be communicated to the organization through “Lessons Learned” is that “GREAT leaders always look back!”

If you treat a project as an independent event, you are absolutely correct in your observation that there is little or no value-added added to a project by looking backward…”your work is done…let’s get on to the next challenge!”   

I cringe when I hear that sentence!   

Projects are more than that, from my perspective.   

The “Lessons Learned” activity has many valuable contributions to provide, to a project and an organization, some evident and others, obscure.   

It is apparent that from a knowledge management perspective, Lessons Learned:

• ·        Identifies other opportunities within the scope of the project.
•       Keeps other project leaders from making the same mistakes in similar projects.
•       Provides future project leaders short-cuts and paths to more efficient and effective projects.

From the more obscure, leadership training perspective “Lessons Learned” models an often overlooked leadership trait.  

Great leaders look back and fix what was negatively affected by an effort, before “declaring victory.”  

They work to make the present better for all that have been involved or impacted by their actions and set the stage for future being better.  

Many projects are criticized for their “paths of destruction” effects.   I have heard the comment, “You may have fixed this, but look what you did along the way!”  I have also heard during the project close-out meetings, “X” was affected by our work, because the nature of their job changed too!  We need to “Y” before we call this project finished.

“Lessons Learned” are opportunities to simultaneously; put the finishing touches on a project, teach an organization subtle lessons in process improvement and leadership and set the stage for future improvements and success.  

“Lessons Learned” have significant value to add to a project when conducted appropriately and are an excellent opportunity to teach leaders that their role is more than a linear set of focused events, but global…continuously working the past, present and future.

When is an Organization Ready for Change?

In the late 20th century, (although not a formal program, but none the least, widespread), organizations lauded what I call “Nay-Sayers.”

These were people who could kill creative plans and initiatives by identifying a single weakness, pointing it out and offering no alternative.

Many change practitioners responded to that threat on organizational advancement with “killer phrase” lists and “progressive thinking” sessions.

Some of these countering efforts had success and others were not so successful. Despite these efforts, “the proverbial “Nay-Sayers” still reside and flourish in many organizations.

I have read many interesting papers on a relationship between change readiness and organizational “emotional maturity” or tier position of its leadership, on Maslow’s hierarchy.

I am going to take my experience and research and suggest the controversial position, with somewhat a flippant phrase…it doesn’t matter what the emotional maturity level is of its management or what tier one is at on Maslow's hierarchy…if a person or organization is ready for change…they are ready!  In fact...all organizations are ready for change...

Whether or not an organization embraces the need for change...is directly related to the change agents' ability to make a compelling case for the required change...failure to embrace that change is also the change agents' failure...

As self evident as that phrase may sound, the need for change is based on the recognition, by an individual or organization, that its current state is unsatisfactory and that there is value is doing something about it.

Simply stated, if there is a value in changing...they will change!

If this was not the case, all but a very few individuals or organizations would advance, those few being the ones with the highest levels of emotional maturity or at the self-actualization tier of the hierarchy.  We all know how many of those there actually are!

A change agent’s job is not to wait for the emotional maturity of a leader or the tier level of an organization to rise to a specific level, before taking action. Do not use and organization’s or a leader’s level of development as an excuse for the lack of change readiness.

The agent’s responsibility is to make a compelling case for change, in terms, that the can understand, agree with, embrace and support.

A leader or an organization can be “change ready” whatever the maturity or tier level. Success calls for an astute assessment of the Stakeholder’s needs and meeting them on their ground with a compelling case for change...in their language...

To put the answer into one sentence, you will know that your organization is ready for change, when you have made the case, and they can clearly recite the case for change

Then you will receive all of the support for the effort through their actions….it does not matter where they are…change depends on you going to them on their terms!

The question that you need to ask yourself, "Are you ready to make that change in the way you work?"

The Importance of knowing your REAL core competency...

There seems to be a revival brewing related to the importance of an organization's understanding of its core competency or competencies.  I remember when this was an important step in process improvement (nearly 10 years ago) then it fell by the wayside...I have always used this subtly in my work...from that time to today!

I laud the person or person's who re-sparked this...KUDOS!

True innovation within organizational constraints can not happen without that understanding.  The problem is that (at the risk of sounding philosophical) most organizations stop short of finding the soul...and stop at some physical manifestation.

The core competency of an organization is its soul...it is what it is really good at...on the most basic and nearly quantum level.

Let me use an example to further clarify my position...

Let's consider an Armored Car Company...we'll call it "ACC, Incorporated."

It is a booming company.  Their clients all desire that their money is moved from their places of business to the banks without any risk.  ACC had been doing this for years without any loss.  They have impenetrable equipment, people of the highest integrity, and technology second to none!  From their perspective they are in the Armored car business and to be at the top of the business, they have to be this way.

ACC leaders decide that they need to define their core competency and quickly identify "safely moving money" as what they do.

Let's take a break for a moment and look at some examples of mistakes that other companies have made in ill-defining core competencies.

A diet food manufacturer defined its competency as making flavorful diet foods.  Their true competency was portion control.  They met dietary requirements not through low calorie ingredients, but through weight control.  As a result they completely missed another potential market related to portion control for diabetics.

A company who made metro buses defined its core competency as making mass transit vehicles, rather than large framed energy efficient vehicles and missed the recreational vehicle market.

Not clearly defining the core competency closes doors to many creative opportunities and often ones that are more viable and less competitive than the market that the company is currently in.

ACC has "missed the boat" in their narrow definition of their core competency.  It would be more accurate to describe their core competency are moving materials without the risk of loss.  They do not have to move only money...although that is all they do.  They could move priceless pieces of art, jewelry, important documents, equipment...anything that their customer does not want to risk losing.  Their market is significantly larger than their prior definition has limited them to...

I could go on for a long time on this issue...but I believe that we can see the importance of this exercise in 21st Century Process Improvement.  "The New Brass Ring" touches briefly on this subject during the define stage.  My next book "The Perfect Machine" is all about capturing the essence of a company and leveraging it into the new market arena...it is one of the Secrets to going from Surviving to Thriving in this century!   

Triz vs The New Brass Ring

Triz is an amazing and powerful methodology. 

It is powerful because its development was driven by data and insight...

It is amazing because the thought behind it was an example of cutting-edge thought...perhaps a bit ahead of its time...

Those who have grasped the real power of Triz are a rare group, because you can not be effective in Triz with a superficial knowledge of it.  The real power comes from one's ability to apply the generalized Triz concepts to the issue at hand.

Many superficial practitioners totally miss the boat with Triz because they do not possess the ability to draw the abstract parallels between the categories and the issue.  Triz remains abstract by its very nature...BUT...

It is the forefather of "Solution-based" problem solving.  For the real masters of Triz...it is more than enough to handle organizational issues...

The New Brass Ring...leverages the categorizations developed in Triz to drive its solutions (key word) searches...

The differences between the Brass Ring and Triz start at this point.  In driving solutions...The Brass Ring recognizes the need for additional decomposition of the problem (normally People/Process/Technology).  So rather than 40 or so solution sets...the Brass Ring (at the intermediate decomposition level) is about 120 possibilities. 

This sounds daunting...but like Triz, many of the possibilities are not applicable and can be quickly (immediately) rejects, so the search list narrows by logical design.

An understanding of Triz is important to the effect application of the New Brass Ring.

Then it is important to be able to convert the Triz categories into applicable search terms for the Brass Ring...

As the books states...evolution seldom totally rejects genes or DNA.  It evolves it systematically.

The New Brass Ring carries some of the DNA from one of its forefathers...Triz and proudly so...

Is it different from Triz? 

Only about as much as you are different from your grandfather or father...