I see a lot of effort to create accountability in organizations: reporting structures, performance metrics, and project plans. These accountability structures lend the appearance of control as people routinely report progress, review and resolve issues, and adjust their plans. In my experience, though, these accountability structures often fail when they are needed the most.
I saw this happen recently. A team of 100 people had worked for 18 months to launch a new application. The project managers met every week to review progress and address issues. They used formal tools and processes to identify risks, assign actions, and measure progress. The project, though complex, looked very well organized.
Then a crisis erupted into view. Just 30 days before the go-live date, management decided to postpone the launch. During their weekly risk review, they determined that one issue might not get resolved in time. This single risk was deemed serious enough to justify postponing the launch, even though the delay would be costly.
Project managers were directed to mitigate the risk and come up with a new launch date. After a two-week scramble, the new plans were announced. The launch date had been pushed out 120 days. And there was uncertainty about the new date; several teams worried aloud that they might not be able to finish their work on time.
It took courage for managers to make this decision, and take the heat for it. I admired the way they conducted themselves. But I also wondered how it was possible, despite all the control structures, for a big problem to take root and grow so big before it got the attention it required.
To me, this story suggests a failure of accountability when it was needed most, when the problem was still small. When was that? If the project was 120 days behind schedule, then the first signs of slippage probably appeared at least 120 days before the No-Go decision was made.
At that time, the problem appeared small. There was the appearance of plenty of time. There was an unwillingness to make an unseemly fuss at that early stage. There were other problems at that time that looked a lot more serious, and required more urgent attention.
I’m left with this question:
I saw this happen recently. A team of 100 people had worked for 18 months to launch a new application. The project managers met every week to review progress and address issues. They used formal tools and processes to identify risks, assign actions, and measure progress. The project, though complex, looked very well organized.
Then a crisis erupted into view. Just 30 days before the go-live date, management decided to postpone the launch. During their weekly risk review, they determined that one issue might not get resolved in time. This single risk was deemed serious enough to justify postponing the launch, even though the delay would be costly.
Project managers were directed to mitigate the risk and come up with a new launch date. After a two-week scramble, the new plans were announced. The launch date had been pushed out 120 days. And there was uncertainty about the new date; several teams worried aloud that they might not be able to finish their work on time.
It took courage for managers to make this decision, and take the heat for it. I admired the way they conducted themselves. But I also wondered how it was possible, despite all the control structures, for a big problem to take root and grow so big before it got the attention it required.
To me, this story suggests a failure of accountability when it was needed most, when the problem was still small. When was that? If the project was 120 days behind schedule, then the first signs of slippage probably appeared at least 120 days before the No-Go decision was made.
At that time, the problem appeared small. There was the appearance of plenty of time. There was an unwillingness to make an unseemly fuss at that early stage. There were other problems at that time that looked a lot more serious, and required more urgent attention.
I’m left with this question:
What can we do to create environments where early
indications of problems get the attention they deserve,
so that little problems don’t grow up into big ones?
Jeffrey Liker in his book The Toyota Way, 2004 MacGraw Hill, may provide the answer to your question
ReplyDeleteThe book contains 14 Management Principles. Principle 5 states: Build A Culture of Stopping to Fix Problems, to get Quality Right the First time. In chapter 11, Liker recalls an interview with Fujio Cho, then president of Toyota Motor Corporation in Kentucky. Cho contrasts our American culture where we are rewarded if we keep the assembly line going (and fix problems later) with the Toyota culture. Cho: “… you do not understand. If you are not shutting down the assembly line, it means … you must be hiding your problems …”
So depending on the culture you could be “blamed” (held accountable) for “crying wolf” late or early. Is this then a damned if you do and damned if you don’t situation? Yes. Absolutely, provided you live in two cultures at the same time or, more accurately, if your boss is of a dual mind.
In your example the guys eventually did press the stop button, however late, in full accordance with their culture. In contrast, their Toyota brethren would have pressed it earlier, again in accord with their company’s culture. But the point is that both lived up to our call: Hold Me Accountable, Please. So who’s to say which one is right? Do we have the data to corroborate our guidance? As a facilitators, and thus as people with great influence on shaping corporate culture, do we have the data points to influence our clients’ teams one way or the other?
I’m clear on the fact that my preference is the Toyota way. But as facilitator I still owe to the CEO the question whether he wants my conviction instilled in his employees.