Hammer and Company

Here’s a familiar story: Marketing develops customer insights. Marketing turns to Operations to translate the insights into action. But the discussion hits a wall because Operations so focused on getting work done they have no time to worry about customers.

A few companies have found a way to bridge the gap. Our colleague Brad Power describes one of them in his latest HBR blog post.

Years ago, we at Hammer and Company used to glibly say that organizations resist change.  That, in fact, they were designed and built to hinder and deflect evolution and to continue on as they are.

Clearly, this is no longer close to accurate, if it ever was.

The truth is that now, most organizations are awash with change.  We’re flooded with it.  Hundreds upon hundreds of improvement projects are in process in most companies today.  The problem now is not resistance, but a lack of prioritization and coordination.

To clarify what I mean, ask yourself these questions:
How many process-change projects are active in our company today?
How comfortable are we that we’re doing the right projects?
How sure are we that all these projects are appropriately coordinated?
Are our best project managers and team members on the highest-value initiatives?
What’s our success rate?

All too often the answers are:
Beats me!
Not at all!
No!
What do you mean by success???

Implementation is difficult enough without all this waste and clutter.  Best practice in the most disciplined organizations has project prioritization taking place as few times as possible and includes enterprise optimization at a single Process Management Office (PMO).  Other best practices include:

• Routine post-project reviews for learning
• Stage-gate evaluation of all active projects with a healthy dose of ‘red’ project terminations
• A balanced portfolio that addresses all key stakeholders, costs, and revenues, and also includes all processes
• Doing as few projects as possible
• Intentional matching of project managers and team members with the best ‘fit’ projects

Taken together, these techniques can have an enormous positive impact on the outcomes of all these projects.  Without them, companies are just treading water in a flood.

Steve Stanton, Hammer and Company Senior Faculty Member
Co-Instructor, Process Redesign: Techniques for Implementation,
Boston, May 14-17

When we talk of building enterprise commitment, we often speak of it as a staged campaign where logistics will win the day.  We’ll have the right people say the right things in the right way at the right venue, and we imagine that people will get behind the initiative.  But that only goes so far.

If you are trying to move an organization toward a process approach, you have to recognize that what you’re doing is fundamentally emotional.  You are asking people to change the way they work, who they ‘report’ to, and how they are measured.  It’s a lot to ask of anyone, so it’s good to recognize that your intellectual argument for process is good, it’s essential, but it’s not enough.

When people are asked to change the way they work, they will ask questions like these:

• What’s in it for me?  Is there some reward here for the wage earner, or is this just going to benefit the company?  The lesson here is that a good transformation plan includes looking at the changes that could benefit employees with the same enthusiasm as at those that increase quality or lower cost for the organization.

• Once you start this ‘process thing’ will you continue?  We’ve seen too many initiatives start and then fall away.  All we are left with is the hard work and agitation that—in the end–accomplished nothing.  If you have a history of not finishing what you start, this will be a very tough sell.  Be up-front about the past and also be clear about why this is different.  Then back up your words with action.

• Are you competent enough to lead us?  We don’t care if you’re the expert on all things process; we need to know that you can identify the experts among us, that you can learn fast, and that you can accept help when you need it.  A record of success in your previous undertakings will certainly help here.

• Are you truly ready for some failure?  Doing things in a new way means there will be mistakes and failures.  If the boss is in the right frame of mind, we can learn from these.  If the company sports a blame culture, then we hide all failures as best we can and learn nothing.  How you, as the leader, react to the first failure–no matter how big or small–lets people know if you’re serious about learning from mistakes.

• Are you truly passionate about this new direction or just revved up by a recent book or DVD?  Even if the four previous issues are covered, if you don’t really care, then we really don’t care.  If you have a combination of head and heart excitement, then you might be ready to lead a transformation.

Our upcoming course Leading and Maintaining the Transition to Process will ground you in the mechanics of process and give you insight into working with your leaders and staff who can make process transformation possible.

Ron Donovan, Senior Faculty member

Successful process work requires expertise in both hard skills and soft skills.  The biggest factor among the soft skills is leadership. Many organizations suffer from lack of leadership in process and other areas, and there are no easy answers. But, there are some things you can look at that help in your search for effective leadership.

Every leader is different and there is no list of attributes or skills that will guarantee an effective leader. But there are a few characteristics that are basic requirements for entry. So, if you are looking for leaders or are wondering if you might be that leader, here is that list.

1. Honesty about the present situation.

Real leaders are honest about the current situation.  When Jim Collins’ Good to Great came out there were many people who read it and made a plan to use the ideas in the book.  But most of them refused to honestly state where their companies were. They were convinced, against all evidence to the contrary, that they were in the “good” category.  Many of them weren’t and they needed to know there is no direct path from abysmal to great.  It’s a continuum that has to be navigated from where you are.  If a company is in bad shape, the leader has to admit it.  That way everyone knows where to put their energy.

2. Clarity of where they are going.

Leaders have a clear image (that’s why it’s called a vision) of where they are going and what they want.  You can’t ask people to follow you if you don’t know where you’re going. Leaders have to be willing and able to share that vision with potential followers.

3. Trust of the people they will ask to follow them.

People have to trust a leader if they’re going to put their future in their hands.  People look at whether a leader does what they say they’re going to do.  They don’t have to agree with how it is done–only that it gets done.  If there is some legitimate reason why a leader is not trusted, they have to deal with that first or the followers will not line up.

4. Courage

Leaders are willing to go against the grain and buck common wisdom.  The people you are looking for aren’t constant rebels, but they aren’t shy about speaking up when events go against a strongly held belief.  Leaders have to be comfortable being on the outside of majority opinion.

5. Optimism

The path to success is filled with so many barriers and setbacks that a leader has to be filled with confidence and optimism that it will all work out in the end.  If the leader doesn’t think there is a future, why would anyone follow?

6. Competent in at least one area

If a person hasn’t been successful in something visible, they are unlikely to be seen as a leader.  If they have failed in their assigned tasks, then no amount of positive backing from senior management will make them acceptable.  Too many people who are on the bench because of a recent failure are invited to lead process work simply because they have the time.

The only definition of a leader that counts is someone who has followers.  Until you have followers, you might have a great idea, you might even be right, but without followers it’s just you in your room.  And, by the way, leaders will be found in all parts of the org. chart—all the way to the bottom.  A high box on the chart says very little about leadership ability.

• This seems like a short list.  Aren’t there other characteristics leaders must have?
• Have there been any leaders who don’t fit this list?
• What can people who don’t fit this list do if they’re in powerful positions?

Ron Donovan, Senior Faculty member
Co-instructor, Leading and Maintaining the Transition to Process
Boston, MA April 22-24

I hate to admit it but, to quote a wonderful old movie, The Treasure of Sierra Madre, “We don’t need no stinkin’ Process Owners”.

As shocking as this might sound, especially from someone who will be teaching The Process Owner is Action:  Measures for Success class in March, it’s partly true.

Our organizations don’t really need Process Owners (PO’s).  We also don’t need process designs, process metrics, or process documentation.

What we do need is high levels of process performance.

At the end of the day, what should truly matter to us are the business outcomes our processes create.  Everything else is simply a means to this end.  We need process designs because well-designed processes produce better results than poorly designed ones do.  We need process metrics to ensure that our outcomes are what we need and expect.  In and of themselves, they have no value to our customers.

This same logic applies to process governance and ownership.  The reason we care about process leadership (and we do care—deeply) is because processes that are attended to by senior leaders with clout gain the resources and attention to produce high quality results.  Good PO’s provide the necessary stewardship that drives a constant examination of the Process Performance Gap, the difference between where a process’s performance is currently, and where it needs to be.  It’s a PO’s job to make sure that the Gap is always scrutinized and mitigated.  Without an effective PO, all too often a process dispersed among several functions never gets the focused attention a PO can provide.

So, while it’s true, we don’t really need process owners–in reality, they play a key role in what we really do need, high levels of process performance!

• From your perspective, how essential are Process Owners to Process Performance?
• Also, how important to a Process Owner’s success is their relative seniority and clout within the organization?

Steve Stanton, Hammer and Company Senior Faculty Member
Instructor, The Process Owner in Action: Measures for Success
Cambridge, MA, March 18-19

Over the past several months I’ve run into to a number of people who have been newly assigned to take on a leadership role in a process improvement initiative.  One is a newly recruited process owner who’s taking on an Order-to-Cash process.  Another is an IT program manager assigned to manage a multi-year project associated with a new product development process.  A third is a functional executive named as ‘sponsor’ of a cross-function project.

Their backgrounds differ.  Some are process insiders—familiar with one part of the process, but unaware of activities upstream and downstream from their own functional areas.  Some are process outsiders, familiar with the process in general, but lacking the specifics they’ll need to be effective contributors.  And a few are new to the world of process management.  They’ve lived and worked as functional specialists and are now thinking, for the first time, about the flow of work across functions.

While their roles and histories vary, I see a common thread in their current situations.  Everyone I talked to is in the dark about the specifics of their process and feels the need to learn as much as possible, as quickly as possible.  They all want to contribute, but know that will be impossible until they are more knowledgeable—at least in regard to the basics.

The bad news is that none of the organizations in which these people work have a formal onboarding program for them.  The good news?  These folks were all taking charge of their own onboarding—mostly by approaching colleagues and asking questions like these:

1. What’s the process?  Where does it begin and end, and what are the steps?
2. Who are the customers—external or internal—and what do they expect?
3. Who works in the process, and what parts of the organization are involved?
4. What are the outcome measures?  Key performance indicators?
5. How does the process link to other parts of the organization—both upstream and downstream?
6. What are the information systems supporting the process?  Are there changes underway that will impact the process—for better or for worse?
7. What are the goals of this initiative?  What’s the plan?  Milestones?
8. Who’s on the team, and what other resources will we tap into?
9. What are the risks and challenges?  How will we deal with them?
10. Who’s the executive sponsor and what does he or she expect?

A good onboarding program would address these questions, as well as provide direct experience with the process in action – front-line teams, process suppliers and customers, and overall performance measures.  At Hammer and Company, we describe some of these activities in our courses, The Process Owner in Action: Measures for Success and Leading and Maintaining the Transition to Process.

What questions have you heard from people newly assigned to process improvement?  How does your company orient new team members or process owners?

We’d like to hear from you…

Walter Popper, Hammer and Company Senior Faculty Member
Instructor, Leading Business Process Management,
Ottawa, ON Canada, February 25-26

In case you don’t regularly follow the Harvard Business Review blogs, we’re pleased to direct you to today’s featured post by our Senior Faculty members Walter Popper, Brad Power, and Steve Stanton:  Make Agility Part of Your Process

Their insights, in the tradition of thought leadership established by Dr. Michael Hammer, are drawn from their recent interactions with Hammer and Company clients and Phoenix research.  Walter, Brad, and Steve work regularly with Hammer and Company—as instructors for our Business Process courses, advisors to our Phoenix Research Consortium, and implementation coaches to our clients.

Please do check out the post today—we’d welcome your feedback on how corporate culture can play a pivotal role in creating and sustaining long-term process improvements.

In our Process Redesign: Techniques for Implementation course, we focus on launching and leading successful process-improvement projects.  The program covers the entire lifecycle of projects from mobilize to diagnosis, redesign, and implementation over four intense days.

One particular aspect of the program that stands out for our attendees as a critical, but often overlooked component of successful change, is the Post-Project Review (PPR). Given the vast number of change initiatives most organizations are initiating, it’s remarkable how few firms take a disciplined look at their successes and failures and try to learn from them.

Many organizations say they have no time for these after-action reviews; once something is completed it’s time to move on to the next project, with no pause for reflection or analysis.  Others joke that “our projects actually never end, they just evolve forever.”  Some say they’re leery of finger-pointing or witch-hunts.

But the truth of the matter is that PPR’s offer an incredibly valuable learning opportunity, especially from our failures.  Taking the time to assess productivity metrics, what went right, or what could be done better next time offers the organization the rich option of NOT repeating mistakes.  Without reflection and with a bias toward action, many organizations inadvertently get caught in a doomed loop of repeated mistakes, with no break for feedback or course correction.

Sadly, in our intense rush to improve, we often ignore real opportunities to improve our improvement efforts.

It’s another case of the urgent trumping the important.

Steve Stanton, Hammer and Company Senior Faculty Member
Instructor, Process Redesign: Techniques for Implementation,
Miami, Florida, February 4-7

It’s human nature. We naturally want to spend our time with people who see the world the way we do. At the very least, we want to spend it with those who are easy to convince. But if you’re trying to lead a Process introduction or any new idea, following nature will result in either a painfully slow rate of adoption or an incredibly fast rate of failure. What you really need to do is begin working against your nature and start working with major skeptics.

What we are looking for are the thoughtful skeptics, not cynics. How do you separate the skeptics from the cynics? Cynics are down on everything. The best cynics will even reject their own ideas. H.L. Mencken said, “A cynic is someone who, when he smells flowers, looks around for a coffin.” Sidney J. Harris said, “A cynic is not merely one who reads bitter lessons from the past, he is one who is prematurely disappointed in the future.”

Skeptics, on the other hand, are people who are reasonably concerned about new ideas and approaches. They have seen many half-baked ideas and they’ve been burned more than once. They are thoughtful—they will listen and reject as opposed to just rejecting. And the people you are looking for often act as hubs on the communication network. Other people come to them when they are trying to make sense of the world.

And why does it work? When the skeptics are against your initiative, the majority of the company is against it. People who work at your company don’t have to take the time to learn the details of your new idea. They can simply listen to the evaluation of their favorite skeptic.

So when the skeptics are supportive, the landscape changes dramatically. People who would not give your ideas a decent hearing are now at least open to hearing what you have to say. The grapevine or rumor mill spreads the extraordinary fact that a skeptic is now actually helping to implement your approach. Support grows dramatically.

I was at a hospital listening to a presentation by a woman who was excellent at her job of determining what could be improved in emergency departments. In the middle of her presentation, long before the time she was ready to take questions, a man in the audience (which included the CEO and all senior staff) raised his hand. When she recognized him he asked, “Who are you?” She said she thought she had covered that at the beginning but began to introduce herself again. “No, I know your name. I want to know who you are
to come in here and tell us how to fix things you know so little about. I’ve never seen you in my ED.”

She tried to defend herself and explain the hours she had spent in this and other Emergency Departments, but he was having none of it. “Yes, but I work a lot of hours and I’ve never seen you there.” At that he walked out. I asked the COO who he was and she dismissed him as a doctor who hated management. But I thought he had potential for two very important reasons. First, he spoke publicly about his doubts. He didn’t just talk to his
colleagues about them in the coffee room. He spoke up, ready to engage anyone with whom he might disagree. Second, he had courage, which he showed by walking out of a public presentation being put on for the CEO. He obviously didn’t care if he was moving against the direction of the entire organization.

I made an appointment to meet with him near the end of his next shift in the ER. He came out of an exam room, saw me, made the connection that I had been sitting with the leading administrators, and launched into a 20-minute assault on management, in whose ranks he explicitly included me. I listened. I actually took notes because his insights were good. When he finished and came up for breath, I told him that now I understood. “You understand what?” he asked. I said I was told he was someone who hated management but I now understood he simply hated crap management.

He smiled and invited me to his office where I listened some more and then asked him what problem he had that was giving him the most trouble. (Here I’ll shorten the story to fit blog limits.) I suggested that we look at the problem through the lens of Process using some simple tools. If it worked, great. If it didn’t, he would never have me around wasting his time again.

It did work, and he was pleased to have at least an explanation, if not yet a solution, for this problem that had bothered him and his emergency department for decades. As we went to work on the solution, imagine how much easier my job was when the most vocal skeptic took me around and personally introduced me to the key players in the ED with the statement, “Pay attention to this guy. He’s got some great ideas.”

These process ideas are great ideas. And if you can get your best skeptics to understand and support them, you’ll have a much better chance of getting the rest of the organization to support them, too.

Ron Donovan, Hammer and Company Senior Faculty Member
Instructor, Leading and Maintaining the Transition to Process
Washington, December 3-5