Problems across boundaries require a different approach
How do you engage other departments in problems? Most organizations do this at the wrong time.
This is why efforts like value stream mapping exist. People we don’t engage across functions on an ongoing basis, we need over-the-top efforts to break in and start to solve those cross-boundary issues. But value stream mapping, and the improvements it generates, is inherently a workaround. It’s a workaround to the fact that we don’t know how to surface and engage those programs on an ongoing basis.
Here is how we typically solve problems across boundaries:
See the problem?
By the time we get to the point of engagement, we have a very tough uphill battle getting any agreement. When we solve the problem in isolation, several problems occur:
- We may have the wrong problem statement, which means our solution may not be very effective.
- Our investigation will be narrow, based only on our perspective.
- The creativity may be lacking in the solution development.
- A starting point of resistance when it comes to solution acceptance.
Instead, we need to change the behaviors in terms of how we collaborate across departments. It should look more like this:
See the difference?
Why is this harder? We give up control, or at least the illusion of control. When we collaborate, openly, that’s exactly what happens. But that collaborations leads to more effective outcomes.
It’s harder because it often requires a deeper investigation, but if the problem occurs between departments then we need to look between departments to understand.
And it is harder because when we take the latter approach, and the other department doesn’t acquiesce, then we can sit comfortably and complain that it’s their fault.
As is often the case, the right choice is the harder choice.
What happens when you see a problem between departments? What behavior do you demonstrate?
Jamie,
This is a great approach. The sooner you get the other department involved, the more they own the solution. There will be more buy in and desire to make it work than if you simply sell them on your own idea (i.e. the first model).
Chris
Jamie,
This is a great approach. The sooner you get the other department involved, the more they own the solution. There will be more buy in and desire to make it work than if you simply sell them on your own idea (i.e. the first model).
Chris
Jamie,
This is a great approach. The sooner you get the other department involved, the more they own the solution. There will be more buy in and desire to make it work than if you simply sell them on your own idea (i.e. the first model).
Chris
Jamie,
Great post (as usual). This wisdom also has applications as problems occur between individuals or amongst a team. The sooner we engage others and foster a collaborative approach to the problem identification and resolution process, the faster we enable a “better” countermeasure with deeper “buy-in” and engagement.
Jamie,
Great post (as usual). This wisdom also has applications as problems occur between individuals or amongst a team. The sooner we engage others and foster a collaborative approach to the problem identification and resolution process, the faster we enable a “better” countermeasure with deeper “buy-in” and engagement.
Jamie,
Great post (as usual). This wisdom also has applications as problems occur between individuals or amongst a team. The sooner we engage others and foster a collaborative approach to the problem identification and resolution process, the faster we enable a “better” countermeasure with deeper “buy-in” and engagement.
Jamie,
Nice post. It seems to me that this is prevalent in many organizations because it is seems like it’s going to be easier to solve the problem for someone and have them accept your “brilliant” idea than it is to involve them up front. When it’s your idea, you know what you’re going to get. When you trust a team to come up with a solution, there is no guarantee they’ll come to the same conclusion. I think that’s part of the issue.
In my experience, the results of the first model approach is a long drawn out process of back and forth trying to come to high agreement because involvement was started way too late, and I’d contend that trust has been damaged.
The revised approach you illustrated can be paralleled to what you’d traditionally see in a formal kaizen event. This type of process takes time and resources which many short sighted leaders/organizations are not willing to commit. Seemingly, dedicating resources for a week is too much of an investment, too big of an interruption in production, etc.
No doubt in my mind that the proposed approach provides more creative solutions, thorough systems to ensure improvements are sustained and a diverse group of “believers” that can help educate and audit the new current state. I had the pleasure of mentoring a co-op student while he explored this exact phenomenon during his thesis semester. He came to the conclusion on his own that the effort up front necessary in the second model far outweighed the time and effort necessary to gain high agreement, repair hurt feelings and standardize a solution as developed in the first model. Thanks, Jamie!
Jamie,
Nice post. It seems to me that this is prevalent in many organizations because it is seems like it’s going to be easier to solve the problem for someone and have them accept your “brilliant” idea than it is to involve them up front. When it’s your idea, you know what you’re going to get. When you trust a team to come up with a solution, there is no guarantee they’ll come to the same conclusion. I think that’s part of the issue.
In my experience, the results of the first model approach is a long drawn out process of back and forth trying to come to high agreement because involvement was started way too late, and I’d contend that trust has been damaged.
The revised approach you illustrated can be paralleled to what you’d traditionally see in a formal kaizen event. This type of process takes time and resources which many short sighted leaders/organizations are not willing to commit. Seemingly, dedicating resources for a week is too much of an investment, too big of an interruption in production, etc.
No doubt in my mind that the proposed approach provides more creative solutions, thorough systems to ensure improvements are sustained and a diverse group of “believers” that can help educate and audit the new current state. I had the pleasure of mentoring a co-op student while he explored this exact phenomenon during his thesis semester. He came to the conclusion on his own that the effort up front necessary in the second model far outweighed the time and effort necessary to gain high agreement, repair hurt feelings and standardize a solution as developed in the first model. Thanks, Jamie!
Jamie,
Nice post. It seems to me that this is prevalent in many organizations because it is seems like it’s going to be easier to solve the problem for someone and have them accept your “brilliant” idea than it is to involve them up front. When it’s your idea, you know what you’re going to get. When you trust a team to come up with a solution, there is no guarantee they’ll come to the same conclusion. I think that’s part of the issue.
In my experience, the results of the first model approach is a long drawn out process of back and forth trying to come to high agreement because involvement was started way too late, and I’d contend that trust has been damaged.
The revised approach you illustrated can be paralleled to what you’d traditionally see in a formal kaizen event. This type of process takes time and resources which many short sighted leaders/organizations are not willing to commit. Seemingly, dedicating resources for a week is too much of an investment, too big of an interruption in production, etc.
No doubt in my mind that the proposed approach provides more creative solutions, thorough systems to ensure improvements are sustained and a diverse group of “believers” that can help educate and audit the new current state. I had the pleasure of mentoring a co-op student while he explored this exact phenomenon during his thesis semester. He came to the conclusion on his own that the effort up front necessary in the second model far outweighed the time and effort necessary to gain high agreement, repair hurt feelings and standardize a solution as developed in the first model. Thanks, Jamie!
I love the visual you created. I frequently work with downstream processes where the quality (or lack therof) from the upstream causes all sorts of issues. They usually are in the mode of the first graphic! Great post.
I love the visual you created. I frequently work with downstream processes where the quality (or lack therof) from the upstream causes all sorts of issues. They usually are in the mode of the first graphic! Great post.
I love the visual you created. I frequently work with downstream processes where the quality (or lack therof) from the upstream causes all sorts of issues. They usually are in the mode of the first graphic! Great post.
I like the graphic and idea. There can be problems in entrenched silo organisations, however when Department 1 identifies a problem & Department 2 does not accept the problem – or worse, claims that the problem is the intended result. (I’m not saying Government, but I have seen it in a large global organisation that is trying to be ‘Lean’)
Where ther are large barriers I’ve found a two-stage approach works – developing a proposed solution to show that this is a real issue, and that you are prepared to invest time – but presenting it in an open manner, being prepared to turn it on it’s head or trash it entirely as you move into the collaborative approach.
Of course, after a few wins then the culture may start to thaw, but some organisations take a bit more to move.
It’s not quick, is potentially wasteful – but in an entrenched silo organisation can be more productive than trying to change the culture first up.
I like the graphic and idea. There can be problems in entrenched silo organisations, however when Department 1 identifies a problem & Department 2 does not accept the problem – or worse, claims that the problem is the intended result. (I’m not saying Government, but I have seen it in a large global organisation that is trying to be ‘Lean’)
Where ther are large barriers I’ve found a two-stage approach works – developing a proposed solution to show that this is a real issue, and that you are prepared to invest time – but presenting it in an open manner, being prepared to turn it on it’s head or trash it entirely as you move into the collaborative approach.
Of course, after a few wins then the culture may start to thaw, but some organisations take a bit more to move.
It’s not quick, is potentially wasteful – but in an entrenched silo organisation can be more productive than trying to change the culture first up.
I like the graphic and idea. There can be problems in entrenched silo organisations, however when Department 1 identifies a problem & Department 2 does not accept the problem – or worse, claims that the problem is the intended result. (I’m not saying Government, but I have seen it in a large global organisation that is trying to be ‘Lean’)
Where ther are large barriers I’ve found a two-stage approach works – developing a proposed solution to show that this is a real issue, and that you are prepared to invest time – but presenting it in an open manner, being prepared to turn it on it’s head or trash it entirely as you move into the collaborative approach.
Of course, after a few wins then the culture may start to thaw, but some organisations take a bit more to move.
It’s not quick, is potentially wasteful – but in an entrenched silo organisation can be more productive than trying to change the culture first up.
I agree with the others — that’s a great visual representation of the problem.
But along the same lines Ed pointed out, often I’ve found part of the trouble is that Department 2 is completely slammed trying to solve its own problems, and doesn’t have (or isn’t allowed) the time to go through the collaboration process with Department 1.
Obviously, that’s short-sighted, but it’s an easy trap to fall into.
I agree with the others — that’s a great visual representation of the problem.
But along the same lines Ed pointed out, often I’ve found part of the trouble is that Department 2 is completely slammed trying to solve its own problems, and doesn’t have (or isn’t allowed) the time to go through the collaboration process with Department 1.
Obviously, that’s short-sighted, but it’s an easy trap to fall into.
I agree with the others — that’s a great visual representation of the problem.
But along the same lines Ed pointed out, often I’ve found part of the trouble is that Department 2 is completely slammed trying to solve its own problems, and doesn’t have (or isn’t allowed) the time to go through the collaboration process with Department 1.
Obviously, that’s short-sighted, but it’s an easy trap to fall into.
If there is no clear strategy / true north outcomes understood by the organization then the two departments will have a harder time prioritizing the collaboration.
Lack of value stream thinking will make the collaboration between departments difficult as well.
If there is no clear strategy / true north outcomes understood by the organization then the two departments will have a harder time prioritizing the collaboration.
Lack of value stream thinking will make the collaboration between departments difficult as well.
If there is no clear strategy / true north outcomes understood by the organization then the two departments will have a harder time prioritizing the collaboration.
Lack of value stream thinking will make the collaboration between departments difficult as well.