A guide to understanding systems conditions and the role of management

All too often, the refinement of current processes in search of improvements is like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. We’re making changes and things certainly appear to be different after each revision, yet the ship’s course remains about the same. After a few improvement cycles, waste work reappears, and the processes gradually migrate back to their original form. In the worst examples, changes can even make the processes less efficient.

Why is this? And what makes the difference between an improvement methodology that takes hold, and one that does not?

First, change the thinking

The most common reason we see for process improvement failure is that the new ideas are based upon the same, potentially flawed thinking and the originals. The improvement methodology has essentially offered no understanding or consideration of what W. Edwards Deming (the father of the quality movement) called “system conditions”’ in his breakthrough M.I.T. publication “Quality Productivity and Competitive Position, Out of the Crisis”.

These system conditions are the real causes of waste within any organisation. Unless they are fundamentally understood and addressed, waste will reappear as processes are changed and new services are designed. Failing to do this amounts to rearranging the deckchairs without advancing the way we think about the design and management of work.

Lean into it

Perhaps the best known methodology for process improvement is “Lean”. This was first applied in manufacturing as the mechanism that allowed Toyota to adopt its revolutionary “just in time” production process. But even this most innovative of companies understood the extreme challenges involved in its introduction:

“Introducing the Toyota Production System can be a trying experience. The system exposes waste mercilessly. People must be prepared to abandon familiar and longstanding practices. Top management must take part directly in clearing away obstacles and in implementing and maintaining the system. Middle-level managers, meanwhile, must provide worksite leadership in putting the concepts of the Toyota Production System into practice”.

– Toyota Motor Corporation, 1998

Back in the UK, Lean process improvement principles have been applied with varying degrees of success across many sectors from retail operations to healthcare, financial services and local government. Many of these organisations have stumbled over a common hurdle: benefits are difficult to sustain.

This challenge remains broadly consistent across organisations with many shared problems appearing:

• Middle managers resist the methods, the approach and the change
• Improvement is often unconnected to the way that the organisation is managed (i.e., whilst working practises change, management methods do not)
• When the improvement teams leave, the work goes back to being done how it was always done
• When changes are made, backsliding quickly occurs which cancels out the benefits

Reading through this list however, we would suggest that these items are symptoms of process improvement failure rather than causes. Because of this, understanding them will not help organisations to avoid the same issues facing other change management projects. According to Gartner (Changing Change Management, 2019) these projects fail to deliver their intended benefits around 66% of the time.

In our view the root cause is that the process improvement does not offer a solution for redesigning the “whole system”. And as Deming realised over 50 years ago, this is what governs performance, not just the processes, measures, etc.

Focusing on your organisation’s managers

Knowing where to start in modifying this thinking can be difficult but looking further up the management chain makes excellent sense. It is generally believed that managers have a 70% impact on the performance of their staff. This in turn, has a 30% impact on bottom line performance. Developing the thinking and behaviours of managers is therefore key to any improvement programme.

Supporting this strategy, Denning’s “system conditions” highlight a number of problem areas that pertain to the performance of organisational management rather than the processes and people they direct:

• People focused on hitting targets rather than delivering what matters to customers
• Inconsistent behaviours and working practises across the organisation and even within teams
• IT Systems that are not designed to aid the worker in completing a seamless process
• Lack of role clarity amongst staff who are not properly trained or skilled to meet customer needs
• Managers that are not responsive to the needs of their staff, leading to staff feeling undervalued
• Managers fear of losing control leading to a lack of empowerment at the front line
• An overall lack of clarity of purpose
• Measures in the hands of managers and senior leaders for the purposes of inspection, rather than in the hands of the people who do the work and used to improve the work

Any process improvement will be hamstrung or temporary at best unless it also changes the way people think, behave and work at all levels of the organisation. Opening the minds of your management and leadership levels by taking a “knowledge based” approach to organisational change is key. These people have such a dramatic impact on the culture of the organisation that providing them with a different way of thinking to pass down is far more efficient than forcing process change up the ranks.

Resistance is natural

Most change practitioners report “management resistance” as one of the top-3 reasons that organisations fail to embed change. Again, this is a somewhat simplistic reading of the situation and blaming managers for improvement failures is rarely fair or helpful.

When a manager remains in an organisation over time, this represents a tacit approval of their management approach. And if they are led to believe that they are managing the right way, it’s not surprising to see push-back when asked to change. For the same reason, imposing a new way of working is unlikely to motivate them. As managers are also responsible for encouraging and supporting the people that report to them, this approach can be doomed to failure from the outset.

Listening to leaders and managers to properly understand their thinking is a crucial first step. We must request and value their contribution and provide them with the knowledge to understand why and how the processes need to change. Help them to become advocates for your project rather than merely targets of it.

As Albert Schweitzer said, “example is not the main thing in influencing others, it’s the only thing”.

Where to get help

Intercloud9 is obsessed with helping membership organisations to successfully deliver change. We work only within the membership sector and our team has supported more than 50 organisations with a total of 38 million members. We also have decades of experience working with leading vendors in the industry.

This gives us unique insight into avoiding pitfalls, ensuring all stakeholders and appropriately engaged, and helping organisations to achieve the outcomes they need.

Our approach is underpinned by a solid focus on change management and designed to ensure clients achieve their objectives. We aim to bridge the gap between organisations, their technology partners and their vision by providing a one stop shop for all things change management. Learn more at www.intercloud9.co.uk.