Principle 4 - To improve the outcome, improve the system (Item 6)
In order to improve the outcome; improve the system and its associated
processes.
Corollary: All people work in a system: outcomes are improved when
people work on improving the system
The job of the managers is to ensure
that the business process is managed, controlled and improved.
The process workers know what to change, but do not have the power
to change it. The bosses have the power to change but do not have knowledge
of what to change.
At every level, managers must work with their
people to improve design of those parts of the company's systems for
which they are responsible. This is called `working on the system' but
it can only be enacted by people who `work in the system'.
A team approach is needed whereby the manager brings his or her power
and view of complexity. The processes worker brings his or her detailed
knowledge. The manager's role is to empower and enable – to be
a coach, to open doors, to provide contacts when needed, to ensure the
complexity of the system is considered, to value the detailed knowledge
of the team, to provide the power to implement mutually agreed solutions
to system problems.
 The old view of the company focused on pleasing the managers
and controlling the workforce. It is false logic and does not lead to
sustainable success. It grew out of old military models. It is still
a favorite of government. (Much of the material presented here is adapted
from concepts presented in seminars by Peter Scholtes.)
- It is very useful for finding out "who
was derelict in doing their duty" i.e. "who is accountable".
- The company's relationship to its customers
is not clear. Customers are implied.
- "Please the boss" is the rule. The
boss is the real customer. The implication is that the company exists
to look after itself and primarily its bosses.
- The assumption is that the company will succeed
if everyone does his or her job as directed.
- For the output to be improved, individuals
must work harder or smarter.
- Quality is an event resulting from individual
(or team) effort.
The new business focuses on providing value to
the customer and improving the systems, processes and methods by which
we create and deliver goods and services to the customer.
- Management is implied rather than being a
focus of attention.
- Quality is the net result of interactions
within the system.
- The steps of the system are interdependent.
- For the output to be improved, the system
must be improved.
- The manager becomes responsible for how their
part of the system serves the needs of the system's customers. In
this thinking, the boss is more supplier than customer — a huge
shift.
The issue of who knows what to change and who has the power to make
changes is complicated.
A company's systems are all those processes,
actions, tasks, interconnections and relationships that are essential
for meeting the needs of all its stakeholders. This includes its resources
(machines, information, people, buildings) and its structure (policies,
plans, methods, strategies, communication). Superimposed on this is
a management system that manages those processes, actions and tasks.
This management system must understand those processes, manage them
and improve them.
The old thinking was that the managers are best able to do that. Managers
controlled and directed everything. It was their right. They had been
appointed as the owners' representatives and it was their job to get
the lazy, shiftless and ignorant workforce to work. Managers know best.
Managers `manage', workers `do'. This was almost regarded as a natural
law.
 The new thinking recognized
the folly of that approach. There is another law – the further
the person is from the hands on work, the less they understand it. Put
in terms of the gemba – the further the person is from being part
of the gemba, the less they understand gemba work. The gemba understands
everything about their work. (If they don't, you are in big strife.
How can they do their work if they do not understand it? Yet, the old
thinking is that they understand nothing – and many companies still
believe that. We have heard scorn in the voice of managers when they
reply to the suggestion that employees know most about their work.)
The supervisor understands say 90%, the supervisors manager say 60%.
The senior executives and CEO say 5%. And that is being generous. In
these days of downsizing and young inexperienced MBAs as managers, the
knowledge of the process can drop off even more quickly.
Based on this thinking, who should design, manage and control the processes?
The gemba of course.
This has been one of the biggest problems in shifting to the new thinking.
The old controlling and directing behavior of the supervisors is just
not suitable any more. What should they do now? They should provide
support, give strategic direction and work to improve processes. They
act as suppliers to the gemba. They become part of the team that supports
the gemba. They recognize that although they may sometimes be customers
of the process, they are never ever `customers' per se.
The problem with this thinking shift is, where do the supervisors and
managers learn this new behavior. Supervisors and managers are usually
a little older and have `experience'. Often, everything the supervisor
and manager knows and saw during their job history supports the belief
that the real way forward is by control and giving directives –
i.e. supports the old thinking. Why should they change to this new nonsense?
They know it will soon pass. That is why Principle 1 (the role modeling
of the senior managers) is so important. You have to constantly act
to counter the move back to the control thinking.
Many companies have responded by getting rid of the middle layer. After
all, it is clearly the problem – not only do they want to stay
with the old control thinking but they appear to be a wasted resource.
The problem with that approach is that the middle layer of supervisors
and managers has huge knowledge of how and why things work the way they
do. They might not know the details of the process, but their knowledge
of the process is gold. As companies found out that threw them away.
So what do you do? You have to bring the managers and supervisors with
you. They are valuable contributors — you have to let them contribute
in a valuable way. Just as you have to enable your other employees,
you have to enable your supervisors and mangers. That includes all the
senior managers too. (Remember, enable means provide skills, resources,
knowledge, structure, power and authority to be able to contribute fully.)
Understanding and living according to this new thinking is yet another
skill supervisors and managers have to acquire. They need the space
and time to acquire that skill and forgiveness and support through the
mistakes they make while doing so. There is a lot to do. They will not
do it by osmosis over night. Remember the old thinking. The one where
the instant someone is appointed as supervisor or manager they immediately
acquired all the knowledge necessary to make all the decisions. Didn't
you ever wonder about that magic process?
What is the role of supervisor in the new thinking? It is that of team
leader - helping the team; facilitating (i.e. `making it easy'); coaching;
mentoring; using their experience knowledge to add a level of guidance;
encouraging the diversity of opinion within the team to contribute.
But there is another role.
Now we come to the paradox. The discussion above describes who knows
about what to change. But who has the power to make the changes?
Although the people who work in the system know most about it, invariably
they have the least ability to make changes to it that will really matter.
There are several reasons.
Processes in most companies are usually complex with many interfaces
to suppliers and customers external to your part of the company. All
of these affect the processes people work in. Workers in the process
seldom have time to do any more than just exist within this complexity.
They seldom have the time, knowledge, understanding or contacts to see
it as a whole. It is not until you see it as a whole that you can see
what affects what. The new understanding about systems is that you do
need to understand the complexity before tinkering and adding simple
solutions to what are usually complex problems.
Working in a process is like riding a bike. You can be so caught up
in the riding that you cannot see if riding is still appropriate. For
example, if the objective is transport, you might be better driving
a car, catching a plane or telecommuting. You might not be riding very
well. It is useful if someone independent – a coach – can
help. Remember, that working (or riding) harder is not a solution.
The person best placed to take that independent view is the boss. The
boss is independent of the process yet with knowledge of it, and with
the power and authority to help.
That `power and authority' is the critical bit and is at the heart
of the paradox. Although, as we have seen, the process workers have
most knowledge of their work (especially what makes it not work), they
have little or no power to change the things about it that really matter.
For example, they might need a change in supplier to get better quality
of material; to change the approval cycle to have fewer steps; to use
different software to store and retrieve more relevant customer information;
a change in the process that would increase throughput by rescheduling
bottlenecks. These are seldom within their control.
As you go up the company's hierarchy, there is more and more power
to control the complexity of the system and its processes. You might
have to go several managers up the line to get sufficient independence,
power, authority and ability to see the necessary complexity. Nevertheless,
at each level it is the boss's job to fix the process. Everyone
else is too busy riding bikes.
|
People work in a system. Improvement
occurs when people are enabled to also work on the
system.
Your managers enable and support your process
employees to change the processes in which they work (e.g.,
by ensuring those employees have the skills, knowledge, authority
and power to make changes.)
|
The process workers know what to change, but do not have the power
to change it. The bosses have the power to change but do not have knowledge
of what to change.
What does the manager do to solve this paradox? In the old thinking,
the bosses assumed that because they had the power and could see complexity,
having detailed knowledge was irrelevant. They just give orders and
made their changes.
This usually led to simplistic and ineffective solutions. In the new
thinking, a team approach is needed whereby the manager brings his or
her power and view of complexity. The processes worker brings his or
her detailed knowledge. The manager's role is to empower and enable
– to be a coach, to open doors, to provide contacts when needed,
to ensure the complexity of the system is considered, to value the detailed
knowledge of the team, to provide the power to implement mutually agreed
solutions to system problems.
The job of the management system is to ensure
that the business process is managed, controlled and improved.
At every level, managers must work with their
people to improve design of those parts of the company's systems for
which they are responsible. This is called `working on the system' but
it can only be enacted by people who `work in the system'.
That is a fantastic role. Hugely empowering of the manager. And, if
it is done right, hugely empowering of the staff as well. Unfortunately,
most managers do not know it exists. Mot bosses are stuck in the thinking
that their job is to give people orders to work harder.
- One is to ensure focus on the company's Goals
and objectives by using Key Result Areas (KRAs), measurements (KPIs)
and plans (Principle 2 `Focus on Achieving Results').
- The second is to be a role model for these
Business Excellence Principles (Principle 1 `Role Models').
- The third, complementary role is to design,
implement, monitor and improve the internal processes that produce
and deliver products and services. Analysis of the processes that
cause those outcomes and all their interfaces and influencers is another
way to focus and give alignment.
These three roles are completely integrated.
A significant warning. In these days of extremely downsizing (rightsizing),
almost all businesses have lost the managers who had the knowledge or
time to undertake their role of process improvement. Almost everyone
is running at a thousands miles an hour just to function in the job.
There is no time to examine it let alone to improve it. The message
is Do not downsize before you improve the process. If you do,
you will not be able to improve it. Another reason downsizing is often
false logic.
|