Archive for the ‘Trends and Fads’ Category

If Less is More, Nothing Must Be Everything

Monday, April 19th, 2010

In his book “The New Brain,” Richard Restak describes a study where scientists first taught a monkey how to move a cursor (to get food). Then, they implanted an electrode in such a way that, after some practice, allowed him to move the cursor only by thinking about it! He controlled a cursor on a computer screen by using his mind! (Sorry about all the exclamation points but…WOW…and “who thought of that?”…and “they should probably stop.”)

The strangest thing was that, once the monkey learned how to do this, he would no longer use his hand to move the cursor. Even when they disconnected the electrodes, he still sat there  trying to move it with his mind (presumably, based on brain scans). (If you want to see for yourself, start reading on page 195  of this book.)

As a performance consultant, there were some things of specific interest to me. One was that the monkey seemed to have an innate sense of efficiency. When he had a way to do something with less effort, he refused to go back to a way to achieve the same thing with more effort. (It did hurt his productivity though.)

People do that. Once you know you can do something on a computer, people resist writing things out by hand. Think about how so many of us have shifted our bill paying or shopping from a manual process to a computer process. If you do that enough, the thought of actually getting in your car and driving to the store is something we try “actively” to avoid. And, in business, there is a real push right now to shift more and more of the work from an operation that happens in the physical world to an operation requiring a set of decisions entered into a computer.

  • Part drawings are entered in a computer and just downloaded to the machine for fabrication
  • The process of invoicing and collecting is often not much more than a structured email
  • Companies prefer to throw information out over the web or through elearning rather than assembling people for meetings and training

In a way, this seems like an extension of the way documentation sort of replaces actual work. We had a project once to analyze the capabilities and design performance tests for a number of roles in a manufacturing organization.  There was a role called “Quality Assurance Rep” whose responsibility was to approve manufactured lots of product for shipment. You might think that they checked samples, walked around the production area, etc. but you would be wrong. (There is a Quality Control Rep that does that.)

The QA Rep basically verifies that the documentation is good. They do look at the test results and verify that all the tests were done and that the results showed the products to be within spec. They checked the manufacturing information and verified that key temperatures were logged and that they were within spec. They confirmed every production task was initialed by an operator and that the operator was qualified (that is, that his or her training was up-to-date…they checked that on the computer). But they really don’t know if that lot is good or not. They only know if all the boxes were checked and that everyone wrote down what they were expected to. I am not saying this is wrong but it certainly seems almost like a lot of effort just to make sure the record or evidence of performance is acceptable.

The question here is “where is work headed?” There are still plenty of people who physically do work. Doctors talk to and check out patients. Mechanics fix cars. Carpenters build buildings. But lots of the wealth today is generated by people working with information which draws more people away from actual tangible outputs. Will we get to the point where we expect to just sit at our desk, type, and click?

We like to challenge that tendency when we can. For our projects, we frequently go into the workplace and observe the performance. (On one project, we were at the clients pharmaceutical plant by 5am to observe set up and shift kick-off. When we finished work at 3pm it was mighty strange to go back to the hotel ready for dinner…) But often getting physically active, even if it is just going into a meeting room and writing on some flipcharts or sorting Post-Its(r) or index card really improves the energy level and ideas. And there is that nagging bigger question…if all we do is manipulate pixels all day and, in return, someone sends us a representation of money…is that really creating a more fulfilling work environment or only just a way to expend less energy?

What I Don’t Like About GTD

Tuesday, August 25th, 2009
Originalily posted on November 1st, 2007 by Pete | Edit

Well actually, GTD is great. (GTD is a personal productivity system by David Allen…sort of like time management for the internet age.) I bought the book on CD and have listened to it multiple times. (Partly because one hearing was not enough–it is hard to grasp this kind of information by listening–but also because the information was useful.) I have implemented a bunch of the ideas.

But the very first listen flagged a problem for me and it still nags at me. The presumption is that we really can’t control how we spend our time (or, in GTD parlance, the actions we perform). Again, the system works pretty well because capturing everything makes it all visible and then you can “intuitively” make a decision “in the moment” about what you will actually work on. But it seems like this approach still puts you at the mercy of demands and requirements that you can’t control. Which, in many ways, is real. But that is the crux of why people want time management systems in the first place. So they can get out from under outside demands that cause stress and take you away from getting your goals met.

Ultimately, the danger of deciding “in the moment” and “renegotiating commitments” when we can’t meet them is that deadlines get missed. When you don’t plan ALL the steps you need to take to get you to the finish line, you are building in guaranteed future slippage. If everyone is overbooked and only worries about the next action, the entire organization will eventually grind to a halt when they look up at the deadline and only have half the actions completed.

In the end, the only options still end up with us needing to either do things faster or to do fewer things. The key is not to continuously renegotiate commitments (like an endless chain of continuances in a court case) but to make them more carefully in the first place. Ultimately, it means the job of leadership is to provide focus and to exclude unproductive activity so that the time and energy can be applied to meeting the organization’s goals. This is difficult. It is risky. But it is vitally important work that only leadership can do.

Disclaimer: David Allen does talk about project planning and commitment management. I’m pretty sure his focus on the next action is really a strategy to get people to stop talking about things and start doing them. We’ve all been in (usually large) companies where meetings are endless discussion of big picture ideas with little specific next steps to move things forward.

Why Six Sigma is Annoying

Tuesday, August 25th, 2009
Posted on October 12th, 2007 by Pete | Edit

Ok…I am all for quality improvement and a systematic approach to in. So in a way, I am actually a fan of Six Sigma…but sometimes it just gets annoying.

1. For one thing, they get all the cool projects. Before there was Six Sigma, you could identify a way to improve things, figure out the cost/benefit to the company, and do the project. (In fact, Human Performance Technology was based on this approach and predates Six Sigma…it just didn’t get the visibility…) But now, with Six Sigma, in many companies if your business case is any good, your idea may end up being turned into a Six Sigma project. So some blackbelt gets all the glory and you go back to the same old same old.

2. Based on personal experience as well as comments from others, there are a lot of Six Sigma practitioners who really don’t know what they are doing. Clearly, many are quite competent. But just having the certification does not mean that you necessarily have the capability. Once, while doing a performance analysis meeting, a Six Sigma person observing from the back came up and said that he could see at least ten projects after observing just one day of our meeting. No kidding…we identified them!!! (Well, technically, the meeting participants, the master performers from the client organization, identified the opportunities…we just facilitated and documented their thinking.)
3. Companies may use Six Sigma as a way to avoid really paying attention to the details of the business operation. Instead, they designate people as Six Sigma experts and then figure process improvement is “handled” and they can “check it off.”
4. Fixation with process instead of results. A standard process only provides a logical template for actions. But, if you think it through, you may just as well come up with a sound process without having to add the extra structure and formality that Six Sigma may entail. Sometimes that structure helps. But sometimes it just creates needless bureaucracy.
Remember when process mapping came out and suddenly everybody had to map every process? Teams were running around mapping processes all over the place…instead of getting work done!! Six Sigma, like anything that becomes a fad or trend, is in danger of the same thing, as is lean manufacturing. Instead of improving the business, the risk is that you just add another layer of work processes and more overhead.
5. In most cases, Six Sigma teams find cost reductions. When used for innovation, there is less success. (Some would argue that targeting innovation is an inappropriate application for Six Sigma…but it happens.)
6. Of course the worst problem with Six Sigma is the same as happened with Y2K and many SAP initiatives–it drains budget and attention that could be used for other important consulting…like human performance improvement, curriculum design, training development!!

The Pace of Change

Tuesday, August 25th, 2009
Originally posted on March 30th, 2007 by Pete

If you think ideas and change are happening more quickly than they used to, you are probably right. On the Conference Board’s website is an article describing how the rate of change is impacting the business of managing organizations. 

“Ideas are circulating faster,” Clark says, “with the consequence that the lifespans of recent management fashions are considerably shorter than those for ideas which came to prominence in earlier periods; their peaks are much higher.” Research confirms this. A recent academic study found that the period of time between the introduction of a fashionable management idea or technique and the peak in its popularity has fallen from a mean average of 14.8 years in the 1950s through the 1970s, to 7.5 years in the 1980s and to 2.6 years in the 1990s.

 (For the entire article, click here http://www.conference-board.org/articles/atb_article.cfm?id=346&pg=4.)

This may mean that we are increasingly impatient for new approaches to deliver results, and when they don’t (or if they take too long) we abandon the approach.  But it may also mean that we have become so addicted to the new and novel that we are ready to jump on whatever the next bandwagon happens to be because we have to be the first in line.

For management consultants, this can result in continuous morphing of your identity. “TQM? Sure, we do that. I mean, Six Sigma? Yes, we have that.” For businesses, it can mean wasting a lot of time and effort training people, creating powerpoint decks, re-positioning initiatives, changing labels on things, and so forth. But little benefit. Running a business requires more than just applying the latest idea. You have to really understand your market, your technology, your value proposition. It isn’t often (ever?) simple.