In our view, the goal of operational excellence does not apply only to operational processes like order fulfillment and production planning. To us, operational excellence means reaching toward excellence -- every day, all day -- in everything we do.
To enable us to move toward excellence in everything we do, we take the position that every single thing we do is a process, and part of a larger process. We look at any action or decision as part of a process, and force ourselves to formally describe what is being done. Then, once we have formally described it, we can measure the process, standardize it, systematically improve it, and delegate it. But if we do not first define a piece of work as a process -- as a definite way of transforming definite types of inputs into definite types of outputs -- we cannot hope to excel at it.
Here are some of the basic principles we return to time after time to remind ourselves how to see a business as a set of processes.
1. Everything a business does is part of a process. Everything!
This is the lens we choose to use for understanding precisely how a company’s actions relate to the outcomes it achieves. No activity is out of bounds. Every activity taken by every person and by every machine falls within the scope of process improvement and operational excellence. This is because every activity that requires resources, takes time, and achieves something can be described and understood in terms of the process to which it contributes.
By way of analogy, imagine a basketball game. To the untrained observer, individual plays are not distinguishable. He merely sees ten people running around and taking occasional shots. But to coaches, every move on the court is part of a play. Think of each play in the coach’s playbook as a process to be executed on the court. Even the actions of the players during time-outs are thought through in advance. There is nothing that happens during a professional basketball game that is not part of a play.
Sometimes when we look at an outcome we aren’t consciously aware that there was a process that got us there. Seemingly, it just “happened.” But nothing just “happens.” It’s always -- according to this principle -- part of a process.
So we have learned to remind ourselves constantly that everything a business does is part of a process. If we don’t remind ourselves, we sometimes forget.
2. An unwanted result always indicates a process problem.
If everything we do is part of a process, then every result we get is the result of a process. It follows, then, that if the business isn’t achieving its goals, there’s a process problem somewhere. If results aren’t satisfactory, a process isn’t producing the results you want. If process x produces result y, and you aren’t satisfied with result y, then you need to change x.
If a goal is not achieved, or a product is defective, we need to remind ourselves not to be fixated on repairing the defect. If our goal is to move constantly toward operational excellence, it is much more important to repair the process that created the defective product.
In fact, the problem that merits our closest attention is almost never in the process that appears to be the problem. The obstacles to operational excellence invariably lie in the processes that create and maintain processes. That is where we want to turn our attention in order to work, day by day, toward operational excellence.
Keeping the sports analogy, think of “bunch ball,” a descriptive term for the way seven year-olds play soccer. They all chase after the ball, bunching up around it, without any clear idea of what they’re trying to do. To focus all of an organization’s problem-solving attention on “fixing a problem” rather than on improving the processes that gave rise to the problem is a kind of “institutional bunch-ball.”
Whenever we find ourselves in a problem-solving situation, we ask ourselves, “Are we chasing the ball because it has stolen our attention, or are executing a “play” to achieve a desired outcome?” Until we know what “play” we need to improve, there is no way of improving our results.
3. Process execution is in essence a collaboration of people (and robots) using tools.
The essence of any business process is implicit or explicit agreement among a group of people about how they will work together. When a process produces unwanted results, this indicates either that something was beyond their control, or that the “we” that carries out the process does not have a complete grasp of all that’s needed to achieve the results they desire.
In fixing this problem -- let’s call this fixing activity process improvement -- we want to focus on collective learning, and addressing the aspects of the collaboration agreement that were not understood or not fitting. We want to make explicit all that is needed to achieve the desired results. To fix the process we fix the collaboration agreement.
When a problem comes to light, there’s often a tendency to focus on the faults of individuals. This merely takes attention away from the real issue, which is how we collaborate. To focus on an individual’s failure is to break up the “we” who are working toward a shared goal into an “us” who are doing things “right” versus a “them” who are in the “wrong.” As soon as a group of people see themselves as “us and them” rather than as “all of us together,” they create a climate of judgment and blame, not a climate that encourages collective learning. The process of finding fault with an individual is a process that does not effectively address the underlying problem, which is always a problem with a process. Instead it produces unwanted outcomes or side effects.
To continue with our basketball analogy, not all plays are perfectly executed each time. The process of dedicated team practice leads toward operational excellence.
4. A tool is never the source of a process problem.
When a tool fails, there’s no point in blaming the tool. The tool is not responsible for itself. Look for defects in the processes that put an inappropriate tool in place, or that failed to maintain the tool, or that allowed someone to misuse the tool.
Fixing the tool will not move the organization closer to operational excellence. It will merely restore it to operation.
5. Accountability for process excellence belongs with line business executives or process owners.
In our view, the person accountable for the operation of a process is the logical person to be held accountable for the improvement of the process. This responsibility cannot be delegated successfully to process improvement specialists or to information technology (IT) specialists.
It follows, then, that process improvement is not IT’s job. Yet in the absence of accountable and effective “process owners,” IT personnel have often taken it on themselves to drive the business to consensus on processes. They felt they needed such consensus as a prerequisite for process automation. In our experience, this is a classic example of trying to “save people from themselves.”
That doesn’t work. If the line business executives are not ready, willing, and able to take responsibility for improving their processes, that’s up to them. Trying to do another person’s job for them is no more effective than trying to live someone else’s life for them. Whenever we take on process improvement work on behalf of others without their full involvement, commitment, and accountability, we are merely enabling them to keep acting as if process excellence is not their responsibility.
6. Process accountability cannot exist unilaterally.
Ultimately, accountability is itself a set of processes. When performed effectively, these processes produce actions and decisions that lead toward operational excellence. Accountability manifests itself as a set of agreements among people, as a framework for collaboration, and as collaboration in action. A necessary condition for accountability, therefore, is a culture in which the terms of accountability are mutually understood and respected.
You will find that a person acting on his own can claim accountability, but that will be only partially effective unless there is an overall culture of accountability such that others understand his accountability in the same terms.
In an effective, multilateral culture of accountability, an organization provides forums in which people come together to work out changes that meet all their needs. Without such forums where collective learning can occur, the only options are: a) never change, or b) make unilateral changes and hope people will accept them.
These principles serve as helpful reminders. They continually guide us back to the path toward operational excellence. They remind us how to think clearly when clear thinking is most difficult -- those times when something has gone wrong, there’s a lot at stake, and everyone is focused on what hurts. That’s exactly the time when we need these reminders to shift our focus from the problem, as it painfully presents itself, to the processes that lie at its root.
No comments:
Post a Comment