If we could first know wh…

If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could better judge what to do, and how to do it.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN, speech, Jun. 16, 1858

Some thoughts from the ‘80’s…

Deming has said that everybody doing their best isn’t enough (Deming 1986).[i]  We must know what to do, have or develop the skills to do it, and be willing to invest in what it takes to improve, continuously.  Creating a culture of true learning, where there is an expectation of constant improvement, has a topography of reflective practices (measurement of process and practice that is widely shared, clear goals and strategies), innovative engagement that extends beyond  involvement, and results that continue to show growth and insight.

Back in the late eighties, before we were introduced to what we now call Lean principles, I had the opportunity to meet and learn from a couple of bright and accomplished industrial engineers who spoke at one of the NASA  symposiums on Quality and Productivity, and later published a book on planning and measurement[ii] that’s still relevant today.  In it, Drs. D. Scott Sink and Thomas C. Tuttle introduced a technique they called RIART – road block identification, analysis and removal technique.[iii]  They noted from their case study on this technique — conducted at NASA –key findings that are foundational principles for process improvement and measurement principles today.  These included:

1)      That most managers know they need and want better information to make decisions, solve problems and plan, but that, at the same time, many are drowning in data, and don’t have time to do anything with the data, systems and situation they have.  (Remember – this case study was done in the mid- 1980’s.  It fits almost every public sector client I can name today.)

2)      Secondly, managers choose to hire people to improve their management information systems who have not been trained to be customer-driven.  Hence, they just add more data.  Little information comes from the data to support decision-making, problem-solving and planning.

3)      Third, in the absence of quality, customer-driven information, most managers would rather act on intuition, impulse, and experience rather than work to improve the quality of their system.

4)      And finally, lacking a general theory of measurement, and few subject matter experts in measurement, rarely is progress made.  Hence, we see two decades later, government organizations with systems largely disconnected from customers, still trying to understand Lean concepts, and still lacking a useful theory for measurement.

Sink and Tuttle introduced their model of the organizational system as a measurement framework tool for ensuring strategy is implemented.  Akin to Lean’s SIPOC diagram (Supplier, Inputs, Process, Outputs, Customer) I have used this Organizational system diagram to help my government clients define and describe who their customers (and stakeholders) are at times when definition of customers has been difficult.

Input Output diagram

The model has proven to be a valuable tool for illustrating the unique structure of the public sector organizational system where every person, organization, customer, and stakeholder group identified in the downstream system also appears in the upstream system.  In the public sector, customers and stakeholders are drivers of requirements (inputs) because they vote, serve on advisory councils, complain, submit poor applications, break laws and regulations, and conversely do the opposite of all those things.

The ways in which we design business processes to respond to these requirements (Transformation processes in the diagram) and finally deliver (and measure) services and products (outputs) to those customers and stakeholders in that downstream system defines how the upstream system will act to create new requirements.

Sink and Tuttle used this tool as a framework for better understanding “what we’re supposed to be doing;” e.g., the purpose of the business, or operationally defining performance in more technical terms.  Outcomes of this work typically result in identification of the need to build improved customer focus, improved supplier/vendor/upstream system relationships, and a solid foundation or source of a measurement system.

Other models, used by Sink and Tuttle in their early work and now commonly found in Lean principles include the following Input/Output Analysis[iv] (the variation of the previously mentioned Lean SIPOC), and the systems diagram.[v]  Both are powerful tools for defining customer requirements, understanding what’s important to improve, to measure and to prioritize in process improvement.

The SIPOC Model

A Business Strategy/Systems Model

In transactional, regulatory and highly political environments, helping staff, customers, stakeholders and decision-makers see their role in the system is an important first step to understanding current performance, and to asking new questions about performance.  These and other tools are powerful models for engaging those discussions within and across organizational and authority silos.

Contact Demarche Consulting Group at info.demarcheconsulting.com for more information about how we can help!

---

[i] Deming, W.E. (1986).  Out of the Crisis. MIT Press. Cambridge, Mass.

[ii] D. Scott Sink and Thomas C. Tuttle (1989) .  Planning and Measurement in Your Organization of the Future. Industrial Engineering and Management Press.  Institute of Industrial Engineers.  Norcross, GA

[iii] D. Scott Sink and Thomas C. Tuttle, S.K. Das (1986). Measuring and Improving White Collar Productivity.  A NASA Case Study.  Productivity Management Frontiers-I.    Edited by David Sumanth.   Elsevier.  Amsterdam, Holland.

[iv] D. Scott Sink and Thomas C. Tuttle (1989) .  Planning and Measurement in Your Organization of the Future. Industrial Engineering and Management Press.  Institute of Industrial Engineers.  Norcross, GA. Page 166.

[v] IBID. Page 167.

The Power of Culture

What do you think of when you hear the word ‘culture’ as related to business? A hierarchy with powerful leaders and cowering line staff? A collaborative group of creative minds? Organizational culture is not determined by the organization’s business, industry, or even personalities. Check out this powerful quote from 37 Signals:

You don’t create a culture. Culture happens. It’s the by-product of consistent behavior. If you encourage people to share, and you give them the freedom to share, then sharing will be built into your culture. If you reward trust, then trust will be built into your culture.

By working collaboratively to determine the organization’s core values and vision, every individual involved can work toward developing the culture they want at their workplace. In another article, I came across a very helpful example of how powerful a shift in culture can be. They use the case study of how Chrysler turned around through a dramatic cultural change, including some of the snags and backtracking along the way. One of their main points is one we come across quite often through consulting:

The proponents of change must carefully model the behavior they want to see in others. If they do not send a consistent message and keep that message clear and dominant over time, cultural change may be seen as just another fad.

Culture change requires vigilance and continuous attention, as well as active stakeholder input (this includes staff!). You’d be shocked at how much input you can get just by asking for it! Without consistency, though, old habits will return, and the lack of urgency can lead to an organization who views every new idea as if it’s just another fad that will fizzle if ignored long enough.

How Formal?

At our awesome Strategic Planning event last week, we had a great discussion about the appropriate level of formality in strategic planning, documentation, and reporting, depending on the size and management of a business or organization. A one-page strategic plan, for instance, may be all you need for a very small, well-managed business.

On the other hand, “putting it in writing” really demands accountability. That’s why this blog entry from ebizq.net caught my eye. They throw out a somewhat unsubstantiated, but still jarring, statistic:

70% of organizations with a formal process for strategy execution were exceeding the performance of their peers in their industry, while in contrast only 27% of those without a formal process were.

Kind of makes you wanna write out some goals, measurements, and due dates, doesn’t it?

Free Event!

In case you haven’t heard, the month of February has been Demarche’s Strategic Planning Month. All this strategy hullabaloo on our website and blog has been to get you ready for a great workshop held by Demarche President Dr. Linda Paralez at our new office in Redmond. Details and RSVP info below:

We would love to see you there.

Name(required)

Email(required)

Website

Will you attend?(required) Yes!

Yes with guest(s)!

No but please notify me of the next event

Comment

Strategy through Stories

Strategic planning can be frustrating when taken too seriously. Especially if it seems like ‘if everything is important, then nothing is important.’ Aligning resources with projects and prioritizing goals while maintaining operations… it’s enough make you give up and think about it tomorrow.

But! Here’s a great strategy for strategy planning! This article illustrates that if you think about the various options being put forth during the planning process as happy stories about the future, it’s much easier to keep ideas flowing and develop them without getting stuck in logistics.

What a fun way to tackle the process. Here’s that article again:

http://blogs.hbr.org/martin/2010/06/strategies-as-happy-stories.html

The 5-Minute Plan

It’s Demarche’s Strategic Planning month, and we’re sharing tips and tricks and tools to help you plan in your business. But! I came across this article and love how applicable it is to big-picture planning as well as its intended personal and daily-task planning and review.

The idea is if you allow the last 5 minutes of your day to assess what you wanted to get done and compare that to what you actually got done, you can figure out the WHY, and change your behavior accordingly. Apply this methodology to your business, and you’re on the right track!

Check out the HBR article here.