project's priority. The project sponsor is responsible for coordinating changes in priority with the process owners.

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "project's priority. The project sponsor is responsible for coordinating changes in priority with the process owners."

Maximilian Neil Stewart
6 years ago
Views:

Maximizing Resources 133 project's priority. The project sponsor is responsible for coordinating changes in priority with the process owners.

1 Maximizing Resources 133 project's priority. The project sponsor is responsible for coordinating changes in priority with the process owners. Ongoing Management Support Once projects have been selected, management support continues through the life of the project in a number of ways. Chapter 5 discusses the project reporting requirements expected of the project team and its leader. Management sponsors provide the management interface necessary to ensure the project remains on course relative to its objectives, or to change objectives if necessary given new information discovered by the project team. At times, it will be necessary for management to reiterate its project support to clear roadblocks, as discussed below. Management must also evaluate the project results, as well as the team performance, to provide feedback to the management systems for identifying improvement opportunities. This is further discussed later in this chapter. Internal Roadblocks Most organizations still have a hierarchical, command-and-control organizational structure, sometimes called "smoke stacks" or "silos." The functional specialists in charge of each smoke stack tend to focus on optimizing their own functional area, often to the detriment of the organization as a whole. In addition, the hierarchy gives these managers a monopoly on the authority to act on matters related to their functional specialty. The combined effect is both a desire to resist change and the authority to resist change, which often creates insurmountable roadblocks to quality improvement projects. It is important to realize that organizational rules are, by their nature, a barrier to change. The formal rules take the form of written standard operating procedures (SOPs). The very purpose of SOPs is to standardize behavior. Unfortunately, the quality profession has historically overemphasized formal documentation. Approaches such as ISO 9000 and ISO Risk indoctrinating formal rules that are merely responses to problems that no longer exist after the reason for their existence has passed. In an organization that is serious about its written rules even senior leaders find themselves helpless to act without submitting to a sometimes burdensome rule-changing process. In those cases, the true power in such an organization is the bureaucracy that controls the procedures. If the organization falls into the trap of creating written rules for too many things, it can find itself moribund in a fast-changing external environment. This is a recipe for disaster. While electronic document control systems can remove some of these issues, it's critical to manage them as a means toward control only when it meets the overall needs of the system, rather than as an inefficient solution to localized problems. Restrictive rules need not take the form of management limitations on itself, procedures that define hourly work in great detail also produce barriers, for example, union work rules. Projects almost always require that work be done differently and such procedures prohibit such change. Organizations that tend to be excessive in SOPs also tend to be heavy on work rules. The combination is often deadly to quality improvement efforts. Organization structures preserve the status quo in other ways besides formal, written restrictions in the form of procedures and rules. Another effective method of limiting change is to require permission from various departments, committees, councils, boards, experts, and so on. Even though the organization may not have a formal

2 134 Chapter Four requirement, that "permission" be obtained, the effect may be the same, for example, "You should run that past accounting" or "Ms. Reimer and Mr. Evans should be informed about this project." When permission for vehicles for change (e.g., project budgets, plan approvals) is required from a group that meets infrequently it creates problems for project planners. Plans may be rushed so they can be presented at the next meeting, lest the project be delayed for months. Plans that need modifications may be put on hold until the next meeting, months away. Or, projects may miss the deadline and be put off indefinitely. External Roadblocks Modern organizations do not exist as islands. Powerful external forces take an active interest in what happens within the organization. Government bodies have created a labyrinth of rules and regulations that the organization must negotiate to utilize its human resources without incurring penalties or sanctions. The restrictions placed on modern businesses by outside regulators are challenging to say the least. When research involves people, ethical and legal concerns sometimes require that external approvals be obtained. The approvals are contingent on such issues as informed consent, safety, cost and so on. Many industries have" dedicated" agencies to deal with. For example, the pharmaceutical industry must deal with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). These agencies must often be consulted before undertaking projects. For example, a new treatment protocol involving a new process for treatment of pregnant women prior to labor may involve using a drug in a new way (e.g., administered on an outpatient basis instead of on an inpatient basis). Many professionals face liability risks that are part of every decision. Often these fears create a "play it safe" mentality that acts as a barrier to change. The fear is even greater when the project involves new and untried practices and technology. Individual Barriers to Change Perhaps the most significant change, and therefore the most difficult, is to change ourselves. It seems to be a part of human nature to resist changing oneself. By and large, we worked hard to get where we are, and our first impulse is to resist anything that threatens our current position. Forsha (1992) provides the process for personal change shown in Fig The adjustment path results in preservation of the status quo. The action path results in change. The well-known PDCA cycle can be used once a commitment to action has been made by the individual. The goal of such change is continuous self-improvement. Within an organizational context, the individual's reference group plays a part in personal resistance to change. A reference group is the aggregation of people a person thinks of when they use the word "we." If "we" refers to the company, then the company is the individual's reference group and he or she feels connected to the company's success or failure. However, "we" might refer to the individual's profession or trade group, for example, "We doctors," "We engineers," "We union members." In this case the leaders shown on the formal organization chart will have little influence on the individual's attitude toward the success or failure of the project. When a project involves external reference groups with competing agendas, the task of building buy-in and consensus is daunting indeed.

3 136 C hap te r F 0 u r arbitrary, it adds another layer of complexity and still doesn't change the rules that are making change difficult in the first place. Strategy 4: Redirect resources to the project-leaders may also use their command authority to redirect resources to the project. A better way is to develop a fair and easily understood system to ensure that projects of strategic importance are adequately funded as a matter of policy. In our earlier discussion of project scheduling we discussed "crash scheduling" as a means of completing projects in a shorter time frame. However, the assumption was that the basis for the allocation was cost or some other objective measure of the organization's best interest. Here we are talking about political clout as the basis of the allocation. Effective Management Support Strategies Strategy 1: Transform the formal organization and the organization's culture-by far the best solution to the problems posed by organizational roadblock is to transform the organization to one where these roadblocks no longer exist. As discussed earlier, this process can't be implemented by decree. As the leader helps project teams succeed, he will learn about the need for transformation. Using his persuasive powers the leader-champion can undertake the exciting challenge of creating a culture that embraces change instead of fighting it. Strategy 2: Mentoring-In Greek mythology, Mentor was an elderly man, the trusted counselor of Odysseus, and the guardian and teacher of his son Telemachus. Today the term, "mentor" is still used to describe a wise and trusted counselor or teacher. When this person occupies an important position in the organization's hierarchy, he or she can be a powerful force for eliminating roadblocks. Modern organizations are complex and confusing. It is often difficult to determine just where one must go to solve a problem or obtain a needed resource. The mentor can help guide the project manager through this maze by clarifying lines of authority. At the same time, the mentor's senior position enables him to see the implications of complexity and to work to eliminate unnecessary rules and procedures. Strategy 3: Identify informal leaders and enlist their support-because of their experience, mentors often know that the person whose support the project really needs is not the one occupying the relevant box on the organization chart. The mentor can direct the project leader to the person whose opinion really has influence. For example, a project may need the approval of, say, the vice president of engineering. The engineering VP may be balking because his senior metallurgist hasn't endorsed the project. Strategy 4: Find legitimate ways around people, procedures, resource constraints and other roadblocks-it may be possible to get approvals or resources through means not known to the project manager. Perhaps a minor change in the project plan can bypass a cumbersome procedure entirely. For example, adding an engineer to the team might automatically place the authority to approve process experiments within the team rather than in the hands of the engineering department. Cross-Functional Collaboration This section will address the impact of organizational structures on management of Six Sigma projects. Six Sigma projects are process-oriented and most processes that have significant impact on quality cut across several different departments. Modern organizations,

4 Maximizing Resources 135 / Adjustment path Action path FIGURE 4.3 The process of personal change. From Forsha (1992). Copyright 1992 by ASQ Quality Press, Milwaukee, WI. Used by permission. Ineffective Management Support Strategies Strategy 1: Command people to act as you wish-with this approach the senior leadership simply commands people to act as the leaders wish. The implication is that those who do not comply will be subjected to disciplinary action. People in less senior levels of an organization often have an inflated view of the value of raw power. The truth is that even senior leaders have limited power to rule by decree. Human beings by their nature tend to act according to their own best judgment. Thankfully, commanding that they do otherwise usually has little effect. The result of invoking authority is that the decisionmaker must constantly try to divine what the leader wants them to do in a particular situation. This leads to stagnation and confusion as everyone waits on the leader. Another problem with commanding as a form of "leadership" is the simple communication problem. Under the best of circumstances people will often simply misinterpret the leadership's commands. Strategy 2: Change the rules by decree-when rules are changed by decree the result is again confusion. What are the rules today? What will they be tomorrow? This leads again to stagnation because people don't have the ability to plan for the future. Although rules make it difficult to change, they also provide stability and structure that may serve some useful purpose. Arbitrarily changing the rules based on force (which is what "authority" comes down to) instead of a set of guiding principles does more harm than good. Strategy 3: Authorize circumventing of the rules-here the rules are allowed to stand, but exceptions are made for the leader's "pet projects." The result is general disrespect for and disregard of the rules, and resentment of the people who are allowed to violate rules that bind everyone else. An improvement is to develop a formal method for circumventing the rules, for example, deviation request procedures. While this is less

5 7M tools Each member rank-orders their choices and writes the rank on the cards. 5. Record the group s choices and ranks. 6. Group reviews and discusses the results. Consider: How often was an item selected? What is the total of the ranks for each item? If the team can agree on the importance of the item(s) that got the highest score(s) (sum of ranks), then the team moves on to preparing an action plan to deal with the item or items selected. FORCE-FIELD ANALYSIS Force-field analysis (FFA) is a method borrowed from the mechanical engineering discipline known as free-body diagrams. Free-body diagrams are drawn to help the engineer identify all the forces surrounding and acting on a body. The objective is to ascertain the forces leading to an equilibrium state for the body. In FFA the equilibrium is the status quo. FFA helps the team understand the forces that keep things the way they are. Some of the forces are drivers that move the system towards a desired goal. Other forces are restrainers that prevent the desired movement and may even cause movement away from the goal. Once the drivers and restrainers are known, the team can design an action plan which will 1) reduce the forces restraining progress and 2) increase the forces which lead to movement in the desired direction. FFA is useful in the early stages of planning. Once restrainers are explicitly identified, a strategic plan can be prepared to develop the drivers necessary to overcome them. FFA is also useful when progress has stalled. By performing FFA, people are brought together and guided toward consensus, an activity that, by itself, often overcomes a number of obstacles. Pyzdek (1994) lists the following steps for conducting FFA. 1. Determine the goal. 2. Create a team of individuals with the authority, expertise, and interest needed to accomplish the goal. 3. Have the team use brainstorming or the NGT to identify restrainers and drivers. 4. Create a force- eld diagram or table which lists the restrainers and drivers. 5. Prepare a plan for removing restrainers and increasing drivers. An example of a force-field diagram is shown in Figure 8.18.

6 276 PROBLEM SOLVING TOOLS Figure Example of a force- eld diagram. From Pocket Guide to Quality Tools, p. 10. Copyright # 1995 by Thomas Pyzdek. It may be helpful to assign strength weights to the drivers and restrainers (e.g., weak, moderate, strong).

Q&A from the PSMJ Resources, Inc. / XL Group Webinar on September 18, 2012: Developing Satisfied Clients: 6 Steps That Can Save Your Assets

Q&A from the PSMJ Resources, Inc. / XL Group Webinar on September 18, 2012: Developing Satisfied Clients: 6 Steps That Can Save Your Assets Q: Can you give us examples of how to set up a procedure to ID