Michael WoodProject Manager / Business Analyst / Business Process Improvement Guru| Independent ContractorGig Harbor, Wa, United States
Ever consider that a good process improvement method that aligned stakeholder needs to strategy to workflow might be shaped to become a model for organizational development and knowledge exchange? What are your thoughts? What are the implications? Saving Changes...
Stephen MayeSenior Vice PresidentVa, United States
Although one could reach a lot of conclusions about what you might be driving at (an evil subversive plot, I'm guessing), I think your line of thinking is consistent with what james martin + co began promoting a number of years ago as part of their BRE practice and later under the concepts: Value Stream Driven Solution, Value Stream Assessment, Value Stream Reinvention, etc.
The basic idea (grossly simplified) is that the needs (or "satifiers") of a set of defined customers and stakeholders are THE focal point in efforts intended to improve the way broad business processes execute. And as you've suggested, the logical flow of these activities have satisfiers and strategy dictating the resulting workflow. In other words, you're wasting your time on workflow (i.e., paving cow paths) if you haven't rethought the big "what" (what you're really trying to accomplish). And you can't be sure what you're really trying to accomplish if you haven't done your homework to discover the satisfiers of the process customer and other stakeholders.
Typically, value stream driven work insists upon a great deal of latitude. Otherwise, you run a high risk of improving processes that shouldn't exist.
Anyway, I'm rambling... One (or two) more quick point(s). A couple of the principles applied in good value stream work are the ideas of making workers into knowledge workers (everyone has a responsibility for knowledge exchange) and that if possible RAEW (Responsibility, Authority, Expertise, and Work) should be organized to achieve the objectives of the new and/or improved Value Stream.
Am I anywhere near to what you were referring? Here's hopin'... Saving Changes...
Michael WoodProject Manager / Business Analyst / Business Process Improvement Guru| Independent ContractorGig Harbor, Wa, United States
Stephen, it is amazing how close your thoughts on value-streams mirrors what I call Value-added delivery systems in my Book "The Helix Factor".
We are much in sync. Workflows without understanding the underlying value proposition that they are intended to satisfy is useless. I also believe that it is the rank and file that hold the specific knowledge of how work is performed. However, they need measurable objectives from management and proper facilitation in order to harvest their improvement ideas. By integrating all aspects of organizational change into a consistent and easy to manage method, I believe profound improvements can be achieved at a fraction of the cost of most reengineering or IT projects. To me, an organization exists in order to satisfy stakeholder needs. To the extent it accomplishes that, it prospers. I believe that companies need to embrace the process of discovery. Instead of management presenting solutions to the organization, it needs to present clear cut goals then turn inward to discover from its employees how those goals can be achieved. In doing so, they discover solutions that work.
I would be happy to send you a copy of my book (my compliments of course. Would love your views on how Value-added delivery systems and Value steams align and differ. Saving Changes...
Stephen MayeSenior Vice PresidentVa, United States
Much of the value stream work that I've done was while working abroad; have you ever looked at cultural implications of this type of work (i.e., value added delivery system/value streams)? Just curious...
Many of my colleagues have concluded that this type of work is likely to be more successful (more dramatic results) outside of the USA (and probably some parts of Europe) because of the access we are granted in less developed nations. As you know, it takes a mandate from very high on the foodchain to initiate changes that extend across traditional corporate boundaries and even outside of the traditional enterprise. I suppose another key difference in the US and less developed nations is the level of investment in existing systems (both information systems and others).
Anyway, about the book... I'd love to take a look at it. I can provide an address in a less public forum. BFN. Saving Changes...
Michael WoodProject Manager / Business Analyst / Business Process Improvement Guru| Independent ContractorGig Harbor, Wa, United States
Would not surprise me if it is easier to make enroads in foriegn countries. You are right, it takes top level commitment to support change in today's US companies. The trick is to assess the commitment level early on. So many times I have found that companies pay lip service to change but back down at the 11th hour. Erodes employee confidence and damages management's credibility. Half a change can cause great harm in an organization. Saving Changes...
My background in economics and environmental studies tells me that if you want to change the system ("process"), change the feedback loops. Where is the incentive to change? As an employee, do I care if the CEO is "bought in" to process improvement if my manager gives preferences for 100% attendance and clean work area? Can you actually change the process without changing the structure of rewards and penalties? This is why I suspect that the most effective enterprise process improvement model is simply to distribute stock to the employees. At that point, the employee becomes the owner and starts to steer the organization to profitability. I like the analogy of "paving cow paths" -- but not sure I agree with the conclusion. A lot of the highways we travel today started as footpaths in the time before Columbus. In the Northeastern US, you've got paths that became canals that became railroads that became interstates. Paving cow paths is not such a bad idea if it gets you from where you are to where you want to be :-)! Saving Changes...
Michael WoodProject Manager / Business Analyst / Business Process Improvement Guru| Independent ContractorGig Harbor, Wa, United States
Martin, interesting perspective. Changing the process requires alignment between what stakeholders expect and how those expectations (value) is delivered. The process is the delivery system for that value. This requires management and operations to share and work toward the same objectives. This in turn requires measurable objectives that can be implemented in operations and thus become the focus of the company. The reward system should be predicated on achieving these well defined and aligned objectives. So, if the reward is stock for achieving those objectives then that should be known by the employee. In the absence of well defined and aligned objectives, organizations do arbitrary things like rewarding attendance and clean office space. Of course, this means the value added to customers and other stakeholders is rarely achieved. In my 30 years in the biz, I have found that money and other monetary rewards by themselves rarely help the organization prosper. There must be job satisfaction, sense of belonging to something bigger than ourselves and the feeling of being an appreciated and respected contributor. Saving Changes...
Michal -- I think you misinterpreted Martin's suggestion regarding stock. Rewarding with stock is not the issue, because you still have to determine on what to base the reward, which are too often done a sub-system levels. I believe Martin's suggestion was that stock ownership be widespread, so that if the right behaviors are implemented, impacting what's important for the organization, then the value of the stock will go up.
The key to acheiving good organizational performance is to have a broad understanding of what the system's constraint is and aligning local policies, measures, and behaviors to the support of that constraint.
Saving Changes...
Michael WoodProject Manager / Business Analyst / Business Process Improvement Guru| Independent ContractorGig Harbor, Wa, United States
Frank, You are 100% correct. My point exactly. The alignment is foremost. The reward mechanisms should also align to the strategic direction of the organization. Done correctly, rewards like stock and bonuses can be great motivators. Done poorly and they can have an adverse affect on the organization. Saving Changes...
I'm afraid my suggestion was a little more Darwinian than that. I am not talking about providing stock as a reward for good behavior. I am talking about first providing stock, then watching the good behavior come about as a natural result. If I'm an "employee," then the guy at the next desk who spends hours on the phone with his girlfriend, the forms that don't provide meaningful information but require hours of misspent time, the processes that create the same inefficiencies day in and day out -- they're just "part of the job." But when I suddenly become an "owner" -- those things are costing me money. More importantly, I will put my whole mind into improving the business, because it belongs to me, and not I to it.
I'm a strong believer in humanity in the workplace, and non-material rewards. These also come about through enlightened self-interest. Saving Changes...
I worked in a company that provided and encourage it's employees to be become stockholders. Did it change the way people acted, ie the guy on the phone with his girlfriend for hours, not really. I have found that a combination of the ideas works. 1. An employee must feel like they add value and are appreciated. I involved them in the process improvement project 2. Giving them an incentive to do a job well. The company gave them stocks, I couldn't afford to be that grand so I expanded on our company's policy of Employees recognizing one another and get some sort of reward (Cash) that way. Saving Changes...
I see where one young boy has just passed 500 hours sitting in a treetop. There is a good deal of discussion as to what to do with a civilization that produces prodigies like that. Wouldn't it be a good idea to take his ladder away from him and leave him up there?
