Why did the process improvement not meet expectations?

Those of you who have followed our blogs since their origination will likely be surprised by the title of this post. I have not changed my view that we are involved in a new era where change is not only a fact of life; it is mandatory for the survival of our businesses.

We firmly believe that Toyota and its associated Toyota Production System had it right when they stated that when we discover that the organization has some problems how we resolve the issue is not the desired end result. The end result is how we go about resolving the issue. Chip and Dan Heath in their most recent book, Decisive and Joshua Berger in his book Contagious have expressed the concept that in order for us to gain the results we expect we need to go through three successive steps.

First we need to see the problem. We need to look at the total organization and identify where the process in place creates obstacles. These obstacles slow the organization down from meeting their ultimate goal – meeting the demands of the voice of the customer (internal or external).

Second, we need to feel the problem. It is fine to know that we have a problem that is creating roadblocks in the efficient operation of the organization. But it is also necessary that we understand how those obstacles affect the organization. Are you experiencing cancelled client orders? Are you seeing a rise in customer complaints due to delayed delivery times? Is the obstacle causing a decrease in employee productivity? We could go on forever with potential ways we feel the problem.

The third and final part of the equation is that once we see the problem and feel the problem we need to change the corporate culture. We are forced into creating a new normal, which will govern the way forward. It is here that we have to discuss the title of this post.

So if we see the problem and feel the affects of the problem on the organization, why did the process improvement efforts not meet the organizational expectations regarding the outcomes? The answer lies in the final option above. We may have very well seen the problem and felt its affects, but the organization has introduced turbulence into the formula. The organization looks at the solutions that have been recommended and introduced reasons why the solution does not work. 

Does this scenario sound familiar? You have proposed a way to improve a process and are met with these responses:

q  It is a manufacturing thing

q  We tried that and it did not work

q  It is too complex for most organizations

q  That is just not the way we do things around here

Each of these responses is the reason why process improvement fails. They fail because we have upper management that still relies on command and control. The way they operate believes that the ground level of the organization is to act like robots. Management lays down an edict and there is no room for variation from the edict. They fail to realize that in the global marketplace the key to stellar performance is the involvement of the entire organization resulting from cross-functional teams. Management is still embedded in using performance reviews as punishment for trying something that fails. They fail to understand that the problem solving method is a business version of the scientific method they learned in the high school science classes. We are taught that the way we solve a problem is to experiment with solutions until we find the near ideal solution. When we state that it is not the way we do things here we fail to understand that the reason it exists in the first place may not have any creditable verifiable nature in reality. It very well might have been introduced to the organization on the whim of a member of the management team.

To summarize let me return to my critical message. Every organization, from mom and pop to Fortune 1000, are based on the completion of processes. Each of these processes has obstacles within them, many because no one has ever looked for them. The only way we can resolve the obstacle is to change the corporate culture. The organization and the HR function, in particular, are at a crossroads. This choice of direction determines whether each has a future in the global workplace.  This choice determines whether they become like a dinosaur and become extinct or by changing the way we do things and view potential organizational solutions as an incentive to become strategic, innovative and aligned with all aspects of the organizational mission, values and objectives.

Actions have consequences, choose wisely

The source for many of my posts over the years has been the local churches announcing their upcoming sermons for the Sunday services and this one is no different. Originally I thought about this in a different context but the events of the past week have changed my focus.

We are involved in an ever-changing world and these changes require that we change our focus and approaches in order to successfully deal with those changes.  They require us to change our corporate culture. Newton’s 2^nd law of physics tells us that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. The difficulty comes when those changes are not carefully thought out. We can’t afford not to make the changes we also can’t afford to jump to a change with out considering the long-term impact of those decisions. None of us is immune from this formula.

Scenario 1: Organizational change

We will be the first ones to tell you that in order to create an organization, that is thinking strategically, is innovative in their actions and aligned with the business objectives, we need to change the culture of the organization.  But those changes need to be designed around the voice of the customer. We need to change our culture to be more aligned with the entities who are paying for our services.

These changes can’t be arbitrary in nature and they must have a foundation in creditable, verifiable data, which indicates why we are making the changes. We need to be able to demonstrate how this will make the organization stronger going forward. As we look at the problems confronting the organization we take clear steps to define the problem, measure it affects, analyze the results and improve the process so going forward we can control the waste that the customer will not pay for.

Part of that analysis segment is that we must look at the range of solutions and choose the one that will meet the desired output with the least amount of upheaval to the organization wherever possible.  We need to understand the consequences of our changes.

Scenario “2: The SHRM announcement

This past week we have been given the opportunity to see the title of this blog post in action. The Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) announced that following a three-year review they were going to create their own certification program in place of the one that is conducted by the Human Resource Certification Institute. They further have in essence done everything in their power to exile HRCI from the SHRM membership. Over the past week we have been exposed to in essence an adult version of the children in the sandbox.

Lets look at the action. SHRM contends that the changing nature of the workplace requires the establishment of a certification which judges you as a HR professional based on your competencies in the HR field rather than the “knowledge.” They contend that the current certification platform is not testing competencies.

The reaction has been fairly quick across the social media world. The action has been met with concerns, multiple questions about the process going forward and how the re-certification credits will be handled. This is of special concern to me as I hold the certification and our training programs carry pre-approved credits for the attendees.

Here is my take on the situation.

First, the current certification process has been accepted throughout the industry. Just turn to the open HR positions and see how many are asking for the certification as part of the job requirements. SHRM’s actions have done nothing to confirm for the corporate world how this will need to change.

Second, the HRCI certification programs have been around for many years, and are accredited by the various professional certification entities. Nothing in the statements have indicated that SHRM has taken the steps to ensure that it made the same efforts to get the new certification accepted by these same organizations.

Third, from a personal view, my intentions going forward are that I will maintain my HRCI supported designation. Further in October I will submit our training programs to HRCI for 2015 credits. As or the new certification program I am waiting for more expansive details regarding the program. The contents of those details will decide whether I seek dual certification in this field. I already have three certifications, so the case for me to take a fourth has to be really conclusive on how it will benefit not only me, but also the profession as a whole.

The next time you make a decision to take an action to improve the organization, it is critical that you explore what equal and opposite reaction. Whether we are talking about the organization or a profession, while change is mandatory, be sure that everyone understands the reasoning and the details in the facts rather than blanket pronouncements of the intended change. With proper preparation those equal and opposite reactions can be positive rather than negative , strengthening the organization in the long run.