Paul Gimbel's "Technical Implementation Secrets" Space

"Rumble, rumble, rumble. Mutiny, mutiny, mutiny." - Stan Freeburg, 1961

The process map is a documentation of the way that things are currently performed. Not the way that they should be performed, but the way that they are. But quite often, when interviewing process workers to find out how the process works, you'll come across some disgruntled responses. How do you handle these people that are not happy with the way things work? Simple, you ask them more.

The frustrations of the line workers and those involved in the process can come in many forms. The process analyst needs to be able to sort them out, covet the valuable ones, and throw the rest to the parking lot. The value of the complaint comes in a variety of forms. First, and most obviously, the complaint helps you very easily identify the problem areas. The process steps that receive the most complaints need to receive a heavier weighting when considering which problem to tackle. Secondly, many people will follow a complaint (if properly prodded) with a suggestion for how to rectify the problem. These solutions need to be seriously considered and analyzed to see if they have merit and even if they can be instituted quickly and inexpensively (i.e. low hanging fruit). In addition, complaints can point out systems that don't work, handoffs that are unnecessary, delays that need to be documented, and baseline metrics that need to be collected.

The trick is to separate the quality frustrations from the just plain grumpy, bitter complaints. It is important to note that in a traditional, command and control organization, the problems that crop up are all attributed to people problems. The workers are not performing fast enough, the managers aren't good enough, the idea that the problem may be with the process never occurs to them. This blame game is inherently innate in humans, unfortunately, and even in an organization that is moving towards process-centric beliefs, there may still be some blaming going on. It is very important to recognize these grumblings. But don't immediately discount them! Remember that if John's coworkers think he is an idiot, there still may be a possibility that it's John's area of the process or the handoffs in and out of it that need work. Everyone in the organization sees their part of the process, and realistically does not know what John truly does. They naturally equate his steps in the process with him, and if the process breaks down there, it will naturally be his fault. On the flip side, there always is the possibility that John is thick as a post.

The lesson is to not discount the grumblings and complaints of the masses, but to look at them with what Dan Madison calls the "frustration lens." While Madison suggests discounting the person-problem complaints, realize that these might just be process step complaints in sheep's clothing. Finally, don't forget to capture the metrics involved with these complaints. What percentage of the time do these things happen? How many errors happen per week? What is the delay that is seen in this step? These baseline measures are critical to gauging the progress and success of your process improvement project.

The Evolution of Quality Management

 

In his book “Process Mapping, Process Improvement, and Process Management,” Dan Madison talks about the five stages of evolution for the management of an organization. I can’t stress enough the importance of identifying the type of organization that you are dealing with when trying to map, analyze, or improve a process. Where your company or client lies on this continuum will determine not only the approach that you need to take, but your relative odds of success.

 

The first and lowest rung on the evolutionary scale is the control and command organization. This management team knows what’s best for the company and it’s team members and it puts in all of the controls and checks and balances to make sure that it’s carried out that way. This work method lacks the trust and most problems in this company are traced back to a person. The blame game runs rampant and people spend their time covering their backs and trying to fly under the radar.

 

There are many things that these managers need to learn, but first and foremost is that some of their workers have good ideas. Once they realize this and start to even solicit these ideas through the old suggestion box, roundtable discussions, town hall meetings or open door policies, they can move to the next organizational rung. This involvement organization takes advantage of the brainpower of the team. The key is to act upon this input or it will stop very quickly. When moving from a command and control model to an involvement model, management needs to be very supportive, actively demonstrating the new found trust. Team members will be inherently skeptical.

 

The next evolutionary step comes when management comes to the realization that all problems are not people problems. Once the blaming subsides, management begins to realize that the majority of problems lie in the processes being used. This process management style is the third rung on the ladder. This is the organization that will start utilizing process improvement tools like TQM and Six Sigma.

 

Turning the next corner, management appreciates the fact that processes are cross-functional in their nature, and therefore, the process improvements must be cross-functional as well. This company creates process teams to address issues and can undertake true process reengineering projects. Reengineering projects can dramatically improve speed, productivity and competitive advantage.

 

Reengineering and cross-functional process improvement projects lead to next organizational change. In an effort to keep processes and workers from slipping back into their old habits, owners need to be identified for each process. Process ownership provides not only accountability, but increases the cross-functional visibility by changing the metrics that companies use to measure their process and company performance.

 

The final step provides authority to those process owners to fix processes and to allocate resources. This relies on the cross-functional turf wars to disappear and the organization to act more like a team.

 

This progression is not a naturally occurring process that happens to all companies. Management and corporate culture has to accept new ideas and new concepts to move from one stage to the next. So where does your company stand?

 

I remain, as always, your faithful reporter,

 

Paul Gimbel

 

Send me feedback!! (p_gimbel@yahoo.com)

 

Disclaimer: Have you ever seen a movie where the characters were just so way out there that you looked behind you to figure out where in the heck they came from? This is kind of like that. My views came from strange, unknown places, not employers past, present or future or any other human or non-human entity. So stop looking around!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A lot of companies want to improve or even reengineer (a complete overhaul of their core processes), but they lack the internal motivation to make it a priority. How is it that you can get senior management or anyone outside of your department to pay attention?

 

Well step one is for you to understand what is important to the company as a whole, then evaluate if your efforts are in line with those strategic goals. Primarily, you need to understand your company's goals. These are determined by senior management and may or may not be known. I would hope that they are, but you never know. Some companies are after growth (at any cost, unfortunately) while others are interested in market dominance, and others are interested in maintaining a good environment for the workers (ok, these are few and far between).

 

Whether your company focuses on market share, revenues, profits, or growth percentage, the key to all of these is increasing the business coming in the door. And if you can do it at the expense of your competitors, then you're golden. So the primary driver is how to have a key differentiator that will woo clients away from your competitors. Focus on this, then reengineer or improve with this goal in mind.

 

These differentiators often will focus on increased value-add (provide something that your competitors don't), decreased lead time, decreased price, increased quality/Mean Tme Between Failure or Service, longer lifetime, or even a specific function of the product like reduced weight, increased stiffness, faster process time, etc. The key to all of this is that you need to provide some aspect of the product, or more likely, the buying experience that is so great that everyone will flock to your doorstep. All of this has the same purpose, to expand your grip on the market.

 

The other method is to increase revenue by capturing NEW markets. Can your product be modified to appeal to new groups of companies or consumers? Can it be tweaked, or can you create new products that will get you into places and clients that previously wouldn't know who you were? This is a great way to increase revenues, profit and growth, but beware. This method is harder than the previous because new markets can mean new types of clients. Your salespeople may be comfortable selling to engineers, but if you now make them sell to IT professionals, it may be akin to leading lambs to the slaughter. You may know your clients and their needs like the back of your, hey, what's that? Um, sorry. But when you get new clients, you need to gain a new understanding and figure out what drives the new market. Plus, if your company's strategy is market dominance, conquering new markets will simply dilute your focus on that market. In short, you may have to master a whole new class of products.

 

But hey, build a better mousetrap and you'll have dead mice all over the place... or something like that.

 

I remain, as always, your faithful reporter,

Paul Gimbel

 

Disclaimer: When I was a little boy, I dreamt of a column that was mine, all mine, with no influence from anyone like employers past, present, or future. Not like I had employers past or present when I was a little boy. And not like I dreamt of having a column, but hey, don't let the truth get in the way of a good story. Anyway, this is that column. So there!

Last week, we spoke about getting the right metrics. Most managers collect the wrong metrics. Most managers collect what they think they should track because their focus is in the wrong place. Rather than focusing their efforts on improving their department, their process, and their company, they focus on making their boss happy.

 

I know, you're saying, "But that's my job." No, it isn't. If you think that it is, then you need to talk to your manager. You need to discuss with them what is important to the company. Their compensation plan is not your concern. If there's a gap between what you are compensated on, and what needs to be improved about the company, then you need to renegotiate that contract. Performance-based compensation plans can be renegotiated at anytime. And they should be renegotiated everytime the focus changes due to the company, the marketplace, the climate of the groups around you, and so on.

 

Figure out what your group needs to do to increase its value to the company. Figure out how to measure that. Figure out how it impacts the bottom line of the company, then renegotiate to get a piece of those profits. If your manager feels that they can't do it, suggest that they renegotiate their own contract. Pay it forward, so to speak. If your manager just plain won't listen, then get a new job because you're working for a loser. Life is too short to work for losers.

 

Now get out there and keep improving.

 

I remain, as always, your faithful reporter,

 

Paul Gimbel

 

Send me feedback!! p_gimbel@yahoo.com

 

Disclaimer: The content, layout, colors, aromas and sights and sounds of this blog are those of the author only. Except for the smell, that's my son. No credit shall be deemed appropriate for employers past, present and future, because they just don't deserve it! So they can just go ... um, sorry.

Data...UH! What it isn't good for, absolutely nothing, say it again! So this week I've been inspired (as opposed to be expired). Not by a book, or an article, or a speech, but by a question posed by Joe Fleischer (sorry I don't have a linlk to anything for him). He asks, "How can we take data and turn it into information?" Unfortunately for Joe, the rest of the article was pretty worthless to me, but that phrase resounded.

 

Pretty much every system out there collect data, and a lot of managers collect more data. They make pretty graphs and post it on their door (ok, I've been guilty of this). But the data is meaningless unless it's turned into valuable, useful information.

 

The first point to make is that data on its own, without a baseline, is worthless. If I tell you that I weigh...whoa, not going there...ok, um, let's say that I told you that my call center had 53 calls last week. For my current organization that's a lot because the calls can take an hour or more to address. In a former life, that was a day's work because we had more agents and easier issues. Unless you know how many is normal, you can't make information, it's just data.

 

The second point is that you need to collect the correct data to make the right information. Let's stick with the call center example. Pretty much every call center tracks call time. What does call time tell you? How efficient your agents are? How effective they are? I say nay nay! An agent that has record low call times may be rushing the client off the phone, not giving them the right answers, giving incomplete answers, or giving a terrible customer experience. On the other hand, the agent with the long call time may be answering many questions in one call, reducing call volume. They may be spending time with the client answering questions that recommend more products for the client to buy, cross-selling. Then again, they might just be clueless. You just don't know.

 

The final point I want to make today, and yes, there is more on this subject, is that trends are wonderful for trying to predict future performance, it's true. But information can rarely be created from the data of a single variable. If you're trying to optimize the customer experience on your call center, you may need to know when to add a new agent. Do you watch the call volume and make the decision solely based on that? If you do, then you're making a lot of assumptions. You're assuming that the trends are going to continue to go up. Are you looking at large enough of a data set? Are you just seeing a spike due to the time of the year or a new software release? Are you not recognizing that while the current agents are managing the call volume, they're stressed out, not finding the time for education, and putting their resumes on Monster.com?

 

Data is not Information. Information is what data can be turned into with careful and well thought out analysis. Don't let Crystal Reports spit out what you call information. You need to track a baseline, understand all of the variables in the system and collect the right data...then, young manager, one can become one with your data and information will bloom all around you. (Gimme a break, it's Valentine's Day)

 

I remain, as always, your faithful reporter,

 

Paul Gimbel

 

Send me feedback!! p_gimbel@yahoo.com

 

Disclaimer: Once upon a time at an employer far far away, a young sherpa formulated his own ideas. His employers past, present and future, were all unaware as they had nothing to do with the sherpa's thoughts, comments and miscellaneous ramblings. I am pleased to tell you that this sherpa is now a world acclaimed writer. And fortunately, all that stuff (except the world-acclaimed part) applies to me too!