Don’t just change the process if people aren’t following the existing one
Process improvement is process improvement, right?
Many people who get immersed in process improvement practices have such a focus on improving the process, that we don’t know when to pull up on the reigns and consider whether it’s the right approach.
For example, I’ve noticed several situations lately at clients that I’m coaching of people working on process improvement when the process wasn’t the real problem. For example, I heard the following: “our old process really wasn’t that bad, we just weren’t following it.”
If that were the problem statement, process could be the answer if a bad process was the reason people weren’t following it. But that wasn’t the case. In some cases, people lacked awareness of the process. For others, they lacked the process being given a priority by the leadership of the organization. For still others, they lacked the skill to deliver the process. Yet despite all of these truer root causes, the team diligently set about trying to make the process better.
To be fair, any process can be made better. None of this could be considered wasted effort. But without other actions and improvements, it would never yield the improvements desired.
Before rushing ahead with a process mapping and improvement effort, consider some of the following questions. Some of these may seem basic, but yet I see people not thinking these basics through. If our process was much better than it is today, would it yield the performance gains we desire? How much better is today’s best process compared to ours? What else besides our process might be holding us back? How much better could we get just by executing our current process with more discipline?
Please understand that one of the last things I want to do is give people excuses for not doing process improvements. But since the objective of process improvement is to improve results, then we better be darn sure this is what we are going to accomplish.
Reflection question: How do you know when working on the process is what’s going to yield the desired results?
If no one was following it, it’s not actually the old process.
If no one was following it, it’s not actually the old process.
If no one was following it, it’s not actually the old process.
Jason, certainly, that’s fair. My point is still – changing how the process is supposed to work is only SOMETIMES the right answer.
Jason, certainly, that’s fair. My point is still – changing how the process is supposed to work is only SOMETIMES the right answer.
Jason, certainly, that’s fair. My point is still – changing how the process is supposed to work is only SOMETIMES the right answer.
The “standard” process creator does not have the perspectives of all the people required to follow the standard.
This is why the people not following the standard need to be involved in an activity to agree a new process (which could be the same as the standard, but could also be like their own alternatives).
Once this agreement is reached, then the time for following the new standard needs to happen.
The “standard” process creator does not have the perspectives of all the people required to follow the standard.
This is why the people not following the standard need to be involved in an activity to agree a new process (which could be the same as the standard, but could also be like their own alternatives).
Once this agreement is reached, then the time for following the new standard needs to happen.
The “standard” process creator does not have the perspectives of all the people required to follow the standard.
This is why the people not following the standard need to be involved in an activity to agree a new process (which could be the same as the standard, but could also be like their own alternatives).
Once this agreement is reached, then the time for following the new standard needs to happen.
Ah, I see!!! All we really have to do is RETRAIN them, right? 😉
Just kidding. Good post. This piece is kind of a nice complement to last year’s “Why Do We Still Use Re-Training as a Solution” post, which I STILL have bookmarked because I think so highly of it.
Bottom line – we need to examine these situations closely and think our way through them – there is no absolute. Good lesson.
Ah, I see!!! All we really have to do is RETRAIN them, right? 😉
Just kidding. Good post. This piece is kind of a nice complement to last year’s “Why Do We Still Use Re-Training as a Solution” post, which I STILL have bookmarked because I think so highly of it.
Bottom line – we need to examine these situations closely and think our way through them – there is no absolute. Good lesson.
Ah, I see!!! All we really have to do is RETRAIN them, right? 😉
Just kidding. Good post. This piece is kind of a nice complement to last year’s “Why Do We Still Use Re-Training as a Solution” post, which I STILL have bookmarked because I think so highly of it.
Bottom line – we need to examine these situations closely and think our way through them – there is no absolute. Good lesson.
Jamie:
As an OpEx professional, longtime Mfg. Eng. and Mfg. Manager, people are always the biggest variable. Unless there is a consensus on the development of the process, training and certification by everyone who performs the process and good controls in place to insure the execution of the process, there can and will most likely be variations or failures in execution of the process. Much the case for automation and reduction of labor content through DFM.
Jamie:
As an OpEx professional, longtime Mfg. Eng. and Mfg. Manager, people are always the biggest variable. Unless there is a consensus on the development of the process, training and certification by everyone who performs the process and good controls in place to insure the execution of the process, there can and will most likely be variations or failures in execution of the process. Much the case for automation and reduction of labor content through DFM.
Jamie:
As an OpEx professional, longtime Mfg. Eng. and Mfg. Manager, people are always the biggest variable. Unless there is a consensus on the development of the process, training and certification by everyone who performs the process and good controls in place to insure the execution of the process, there can and will most likely be variations or failures in execution of the process. Much the case for automation and reduction of labor content through DFM.
Jamie,
A helpful reminder, should we choose to reflect. While changing the process in a system that’s not in control first isn’t likely to be productive, you can still apply good problem solving thinking/process to identify where to act. A process not being followed in a social system is just as good of a candidate for cause analysis as a machine fault. The challenge is often our bad assumptions that limit our thinking. We know that all problems are human problems; something (or someone) makes them as they are, keeps them as they are or does not make them different. As I heard you mention in the past, for each change that’s desired, what will the leader personally do different to support it? Best, BC
Jamie,
A helpful reminder, should we choose to reflect. While changing the process in a system that’s not in control first isn’t likely to be productive, you can still apply good problem solving thinking/process to identify where to act. A process not being followed in a social system is just as good of a candidate for cause analysis as a machine fault. The challenge is often our bad assumptions that limit our thinking. We know that all problems are human problems; something (or someone) makes them as they are, keeps them as they are or does not make them different. As I heard you mention in the past, for each change that’s desired, what will the leader personally do different to support it? Best, BC
Jamie,
A helpful reminder, should we choose to reflect. While changing the process in a system that’s not in control first isn’t likely to be productive, you can still apply good problem solving thinking/process to identify where to act. A process not being followed in a social system is just as good of a candidate for cause analysis as a machine fault. The challenge is often our bad assumptions that limit our thinking. We know that all problems are human problems; something (or someone) makes them as they are, keeps them as they are or does not make them different. As I heard you mention in the past, for each change that’s desired, what will the leader personally do different to support it? Best, BC
Many put standardized and in-control processes as the starting point needed for process improvement. If you don’t have a consistent and understood process, process improvement efforts are inefficient.
I believe it makes sense to start by finding pain points and working on improving them. If the process is standardized, fine start on improvement. Most of the time though probably you need to start by documenting and instituting standardized processes (and as you do that you can make an effort to make the process sensible – with some improvements). You will have to pay attention to making sure that the ideas of standardized processes are followed in order to start building a culture for process improvement.
One common blame the person approach is to say they failed to follow the process. If you have a systems approach you can often note that “the process” was almost never followed.
Many put standardized and in-control processes as the starting point needed for process improvement. If you don’t have a consistent and understood process, process improvement efforts are inefficient.
I believe it makes sense to start by finding pain points and working on improving them. If the process is standardized, fine start on improvement. Most of the time though probably you need to start by documenting and instituting standardized processes (and as you do that you can make an effort to make the process sensible – with some improvements). You will have to pay attention to making sure that the ideas of standardized processes are followed in order to start building a culture for process improvement.
One common blame the person approach is to say they failed to follow the process. If you have a systems approach you can often note that “the process” was almost never followed.
Many put standardized and in-control processes as the starting point needed for process improvement. If you don’t have a consistent and understood process, process improvement efforts are inefficient.
I believe it makes sense to start by finding pain points and working on improving them. If the process is standardized, fine start on improvement. Most of the time though probably you need to start by documenting and instituting standardized processes (and as you do that you can make an effort to make the process sensible – with some improvements). You will have to pay attention to making sure that the ideas of standardized processes are followed in order to start building a culture for process improvement.
One common blame the person approach is to say they failed to follow the process. If you have a systems approach you can often note that “the process” was almost never followed.
Thanks all for the valuable comments.
Thanks all for the valuable comments.
Thanks all for the valuable comments.
My definition of a process is “the way we work around here“. That can differ from the “documented” process. But there is always some way that the work get’s done, and that is the starting point when processes are improved.
So I fully agree, first check how things are done, and then decide what to keep, and what to change.
And maybe, if people are not following the process that is written down, maybe you should change the way your process is documented. A good example is Agile, where software development teams define their own process in a Definition of Done. They write down what they do, and do what they have written down.
My definition of a process is “the way we work around here“. That can differ from the “documented” process. But there is always some way that the work get’s done, and that is the starting point when processes are improved.
So I fully agree, first check how things are done, and then decide what to keep, and what to change.
And maybe, if people are not following the process that is written down, maybe you should change the way your process is documented. A good example is Agile, where software development teams define their own process in a Definition of Done. They write down what they do, and do what they have written down.
My definition of a process is “the way we work around here“. That can differ from the “documented” process. But there is always some way that the work get’s done, and that is the starting point when processes are improved.
So I fully agree, first check how things are done, and then decide what to keep, and what to change.
And maybe, if people are not following the process that is written down, maybe you should change the way your process is documented. A good example is Agile, where software development teams define their own process in a Definition of Done. They write down what they do, and do what they have written down.
The thought of “the way we work around here” makes me a little nervous. To me that tends to align thought patterns of “this is the way we do it” with “always have, always will” being the unspoken subtext.
For any Red Sox fans out there we recently heard those words coming out of star 2B Dustin Pedroia mouth. He said “Valentine (the new manager) has to learn how we do things around here” when discussing the managers new way of approaching team members. The problem with his statement is the Red Sox ended last season losing 21 of 28 games which lead to the replacement of the Coach and General Manager.
The point is that sometimes “the way we do things around here” isn’t the best or even a sustainable way of getting things done and needs to addressed if we want to continuously improve.
The thought of “the way we work around here” makes me a little nervous. To me that tends to align thought patterns of “this is the way we do it” with “always have, always will” being the unspoken subtext.
For any Red Sox fans out there we recently heard those words coming out of star 2B Dustin Pedroia mouth. He said “Valentine (the new manager) has to learn how we do things around here” when discussing the managers new way of approaching team members. The problem with his statement is the Red Sox ended last season losing 21 of 28 games which lead to the replacement of the Coach and General Manager.
The point is that sometimes “the way we do things around here” isn’t the best or even a sustainable way of getting things done and needs to addressed if we want to continuously improve.
The thought of “the way we work around here” makes me a little nervous. To me that tends to align thought patterns of “this is the way we do it” with “always have, always will” being the unspoken subtext.
For any Red Sox fans out there we recently heard those words coming out of star 2B Dustin Pedroia mouth. He said “Valentine (the new manager) has to learn how we do things around here” when discussing the managers new way of approaching team members. The problem with his statement is the Red Sox ended last season losing 21 of 28 games which lead to the replacement of the Coach and General Manager.
The point is that sometimes “the way we do things around here” isn’t the best or even a sustainable way of getting things done and needs to addressed if we want to continuously improve.
Wesley, thanks for your reaction. Let me clarify things.
Calling it “the way we do things around here” doesn’t mean that things should stay like this. “This is the way we do it” is not a process, it’s denial, an excuse for not willing to change things. If the way things are done isn’t effective, if it causes software to be delivered late, with insufficient quality, then things must change. My opinion is that change always starts from how people are working right now, and not from how it is written down in a document.
Wesley, thanks for your reaction. Let me clarify things.
Calling it “the way we do things around here” doesn’t mean that things should stay like this. “This is the way we do it” is not a process, it’s denial, an excuse for not willing to change things. If the way things are done isn’t effective, if it causes software to be delivered late, with insufficient quality, then things must change. My opinion is that change always starts from how people are working right now, and not from how it is written down in a document.
Wesley, thanks for your reaction. Let me clarify things.
Calling it “the way we do things around here” doesn’t mean that things should stay like this. “This is the way we do it” is not a process, it’s denial, an excuse for not willing to change things. If the way things are done isn’t effective, if it causes software to be delivered late, with insufficient quality, then things must change. My opinion is that change always starts from how people are working right now, and not from how it is written down in a document.
[…] and updated aug 17, 2011: Added Agile Process Management. Extended on apr 23, 2012 based upon a discussion about following processes). This entry was posted in All posts (English / Nederlands), Only postings in English and tagged […]
[…] and updated aug 17, 2011: Added Agile Process Management. Extended on apr 23, 2012 based upon a discussion about following processes). This entry was posted in All posts (English / Nederlands), Only postings in English and tagged […]
[…] and updated aug 17, 2011: Added Agile Process Management. Extended on apr 23, 2012 based upon a discussion about following processes). This entry was posted in All posts (English / Nederlands), Only postings in English and tagged […]
Great post that rings so true. As an internal warehouse consultant that looks for process improvement opportunities, I often communicate back to the senior management team that the process as defined is not the major barrier to productivity and quality. The issue is a lack of process adherence which ties back to either training and/or discipline.
Then it becomes a on-site supervisory/management issue, not an issue with the floor associates.
You should see the reactions from the senior execs when I tell them this (in a very delicate manner of course).
Great post that rings so true. As an internal warehouse consultant that looks for process improvement opportunities, I often communicate back to the senior management team that the process as defined is not the major barrier to productivity and quality. The issue is a lack of process adherence which ties back to either training and/or discipline.
Then it becomes a on-site supervisory/management issue, not an issue with the floor associates.
You should see the reactions from the senior execs when I tell them this (in a very delicate manner of course).
Great post that rings so true. As an internal warehouse consultant that looks for process improvement opportunities, I often communicate back to the senior management team that the process as defined is not the major barrier to productivity and quality. The issue is a lack of process adherence which ties back to either training and/or discipline.
Then it becomes a on-site supervisory/management issue, not an issue with the floor associates.
You should see the reactions from the senior execs when I tell them this (in a very delicate manner of course).
[…] Drew LeSueur, Derek Neighbors, Clayton Lengel-Zigich and Roy van de Water discuss an article by Jamie Flinchbaugh entitled Don’t just change the process if people aren’t following the existing one. […]