·
Scope
is the amount of the process to tackle for the defined improvement. An example
of scope would be the corrective action process for defective materials. Scale
is the extent of organizational involvement.
·
Limit scope or limit scale. Usual approach is
to keep scale large in order to give the full business process orientation.
Limit scale to the people who really want to make it happen.
·
If
scope and scale is too large, time for the project expands. With increased
time, the project is likely to die. People move on to different projects /
assignments.
·
Scope
and Scale includes choices from the following list or possibly a combination:
1.
Define
a narrow scope but a broad scale. An example of this would be to work on
corrective action for materials including all units on the Elmgrove site. This
process can be quite powerful
2.
Define
a narrow scope and a narrow scale. Once this pilot is complete, expand the
resultant process to additional units. A drawback of this approach is that as
each unit is added it takes time to build understanding.
3.
Work
on a broad scope and a broad scale. Spend time as a team to agree upon the
current process, vision process, strategies and action plans to close the gap.
Obtain full agreement to the chosen course of action. Implement in a "big
bang" - all at once. This is a risky approach.
4.
Initiate
a pilot. With success of the pilot, make decision to expand to all units. The
result typically is that units involved earlier get better treatment. As later
units come on board, and as the schedule starts to slip, there is a tendency to
"slam in" the new system without building the necessary foundation.
·
The
goal is ultimately to have an overall integrated system. It is essential,
however, for the team to demonstrate results to management and build on this
momentum. Use API cycle to build momentum.
·
Give
managers a list of commitments including 1) key actions, 2) supportive
behaviors and, 3) what to do when times get tough.
·
Managers
need to constantly communicate that this will require the organization to
adjust thinking. For example, share an understanding that without this project,
we won't be able to achieve our quality / customer satisfaction goals. In order
to do this, managers must be convinced of project importance - keep after them.
Define the critical communication needs such as a letter of introduction,
discussion at a group meeting, etc. Define timing for actions.
·
Set-up
routine meetings with management / steering committee to keep the heat on them.
This should not be just a status report (e.g. "We've gotten this far, here
are next steps, we're having some problems, but don't worry, we'll solve
them…"). Report should show graphic of current state and vision with
progress made. Vision should never be lowered indicating lack of commitment.
Point out how management, by fulfilling commitments, can help progress.
·
Sponsor
should kick-off the team process.
Managers must share the need for participation. Communicate that even if
some concepts have been defined, we need ideas from everyone.
·
Flow
managers or process managers need to have as much or greater power than the
functional managers in a matrix organization.
·
Gain
commitment from team members: over 50% is usually too much to ask, 10 to 20% is
minimum, 25 to 30% seems to be reasonable
·
If
managers have been assigned, ask them to identify someone under their direction
who can commit 25 to 30% of time - should be a person who is influential in the
organization.
·
Identify
key people in the organization and back-ups for each of them.
·
A
large team of 20 to 40 people is better than a small team or 7 to 10, counter
to conventional wisdom. With over 50 people the team becomes difficult to
manage.
·
Gaining
commitment is critical. Critical mass of people gives the organization a large
stake in the outcomes of the project. With a small team, the process can be
more efficient, but when it comes time to role out the new process, they meet
with significant resistance.
·
We
need people that want to change the process.
·
Getting
many people to change their thinking can enhance power. They need to share the
belief that the envisioned state is actually better than today's state.
·
Divide
the team to work on major activities. Sub-teams can work independently and
report back to the full team at intervals and when the block of work is done.
·
Include:
Process doers or operators, Systems resources and Key decision makers
·
Disagreement
is good. Different opinions should be encouraged. Dialogue is essential.
Introduce ground rules, for instance: "no judging ideas."
·
It
is critical to communicate the need for change: the "Why."
·
Input
and involvement is critical to success. For example, it is OK for managers or
team leader to present a vision but also say "what do you guys
think?" Demonstrate we want input!
·
Define
metrics for the process and assign metric owners. For example - use group to
predict cycle time of the process, but assign individuals to gather real
process data to support the prediction. Include, for the overall process, measures
of cycle time and major defects. Try to limit defects to 10 or less of the
major problems with the process.
·
Work
on two parallel paths: current state with its problems and a compelling future
vision state. It is important to have some understanding of what is possible in
the future to understand the problems with the present.
·
Convert
current and future states into six-foot wall charts and keep them in front of
people.
·
The
current vs. future state comparison should include critical measures such as
converting from an average of 3 weeks to 2 days to process a corrective action
request.
·
Current
state should clearly point out what is broken in today's process. It should
create a "burning platform" that people want to get off! Future state
should be compelling, and create pull. Creating synergy and shared
understanding is essential.
·
Look
for problems to occur mainly at interface points. Individuals may be
comfortable and happy with existing system. Breakdowns typically take place
when units try to share data.
·
Do
the major blocks of the team's work into 2 to 4-day workshops. It may be
advantageous to limit daily duration to 4 hours so participants have time to do
other work on those days. Schedule workshops off-site. Consider a fun, relaxing
environment such as a park or hotel.
·
Set
defined goals for the workshop, e.g. by the end of this workshop we will have
completed current state process definition, future state process definition and
a strategy to close the gap.
·
Concentrate
on building group synergy. This is especially important with groups from many
different organizations. Allow time for informal conversations to take place.
·
Set
ground rules for participation. For example, have a rule that 75% participation
is required to hold a meeting. If attendance slips, address the problem with
management.
·
It
is OK to do some work in sub-teams as long as when the full group is brought
together we ask: "Here's what we found - what do you think?"
Hart Innovative Solutions,
Inc. (585) 235-1720
Home Service 3 www.HartInnovations.com GregHart@HartInnovations.com