MBA introduces System Thinking - La pensée Systémique en MBA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbjK8pgLzc0
....
Affichage des articles dont le libellé est system thinking. Afficher tous les articles
Affichage des articles dont le libellé est system thinking. Afficher tous les articles
vendredi 15 juin 2012
mardi 5 juin 2012
Not all improvement is transformation
First, let’s define what I mean by transformation :
A transformation is to create something sustainable, new and better in terms of effectiveness and efficiency ( “In contrast to efficiency, effectiveness is determined without reference to costs and, whereas efficiency means "doing the thing right," effectiveness means "doing the right thing.",
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/effectiveness.html ) for customers , stakeholders and the whole Organization.
But why improvements are not (always) transformational ? Below, a first reflection…about it.
1.Understanding statistical theory contributes to improvement of management of a system (http://lean-and-systemthinking.blogspot.com/2012/05/working-together-to-understand-measures.html). Recognizing a stable system, understanding common causes and special causes are allow us to understand variation between people , interactions and interactions between people and their System (source : Shewart, Wheeler, Deming) Without understanding the difference between common causes and special causes, the probability is high to improve the wrong things and that things soon come back as they were. (source : Shewart, Wheeler, Deming) I’ve personally lived the experience one more time by focusing on individual or Departments rather than focusing on the whole System. Focusing on improving individual performance through Standard Operating Procedures and individual KPI, on improving Takt Time of a process, on setting up leveling box to manage priorities… lead me one more time to improve the wrong things. Without understanding common causes and special causes, few improvements are transformational. So, we’ve improved the wrong things to create something new but not better.
2.Each of us as individual has his own mental model. How is it possible to transform without challenging what we think and why we think. First, we have to be opened to transform the way we think…. How can we lead a transformation without being ready to learn new things? As individual (insider), a transformation comes necessarily through new questions helping us to understand what’s our Organization is doing and why we are doing what we’re doing. Improving without challenging what we think and why we think will most often lead to the same results than before. Why? Our assumptions about work and people drive the way we design our Organization (rules, incentives, system, appraisals,…). To transform we must not imagine to challenge only one time our way of thinking but we have to be conscious that we will have to continuously challenge our thinking. External questions (Patrick, Jean, Barry, Sarah, Ibby,…) have also contributed along my journey to learn…and continue to support my learning. Although with some, the exchange time was short, their questions have allowed me to discover by serendipity new answers and questions ....Most often those experts didn’t come with advices, solutions or plans but with questions. So, it’s really important to be clear about what you want when you select advice from outside (consultants, educators,…). On what method and on which assumptions do they based their work ? To start, I highly recommend “The leaders’ handbook, P. Scholtes” for any outsider or insider . If we improve things without challenging our thinking, we will not create something new , perhaps something better but for how long ?
3.I highly recommend to read the book Thinking in Systems, A Primer, Donella H. Meadows, Edited by Diana Wright, sustainability institute. In chapter 6, D.H. Meadows gives with humility a list of places to intervene in a system (http://www.sustainabilityinstitute.org/pubs/Leverage_Points.pdf). See below a copy of the list of leverage points to intervene in a system in increasing order of effectiveness.
" •Constants, parameters, numbers (such as subsidies, taxes, standards)
• The size of buffers and other stabilizing stocks, relative to their flows
•Structure of material stocks and flows (such as transport network, population age structures)
•Length of delays, relative to the rate of system changes
•Strength of negative feedback loops, relative to the effect they are trying to correct against
•Gain around driving positive feedback loops
•Structure of information flow (who does and does not have access to what kinds of information)
•Rules of the system (such as incentives, punishment, constraints)
•Power to add, change, evolve, or self-organize system structure
• Goal of the system
•Mindset or paradigm that the system — its goals, structure, rules, delays, parameters — arises from
• Power to transcend paradigms "
She claimed we need to know about these shifts, where they are and how to use them. Forrester (Thinking in Systems, A Primer, Donella H. Meadows) said most people know where these points are instinctively, but tend to adjust them in the wrong direction. DH. Meadows says also it’s a tentative of order (see conclusion) but the higher the leverage point , the more the system will resist changing it. So, effectiveness of improvements is linked with the place you intervene…It’s also another way to reply to the answer. We're not always creating something new through interventions in and on the system and not necessarily something better and sustainable.
4. See also E.W. Deming, Out of the crisis in order to gain understanding on SPK (to be developped in a further post).
You've certainly other stories, other references or other ways to explain why only a few improvements are transformation. Please share your comments.
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/effectiveness.html ) for customers , stakeholders and the whole Organization.
But why improvements are not (always) transformational ? Below, a first reflection…about it.
1.Understanding statistical theory contributes to improvement of management of a system (http://lean-and-systemthinking.blogspot.com/2012/05/working-together-to-understand-measures.html). Recognizing a stable system, understanding common causes and special causes are allow us to understand variation between people , interactions and interactions between people and their System (source : Shewart, Wheeler, Deming) Without understanding the difference between common causes and special causes, the probability is high to improve the wrong things and that things soon come back as they were. (source : Shewart, Wheeler, Deming) I’ve personally lived the experience one more time by focusing on individual or Departments rather than focusing on the whole System. Focusing on improving individual performance through Standard Operating Procedures and individual KPI, on improving Takt Time of a process, on setting up leveling box to manage priorities… lead me one more time to improve the wrong things. Without understanding common causes and special causes, few improvements are transformational. So, we’ve improved the wrong things to create something new but not better.
2.Each of us as individual has his own mental model. How is it possible to transform without challenging what we think and why we think. First, we have to be opened to transform the way we think…. How can we lead a transformation without being ready to learn new things? As individual (insider), a transformation comes necessarily through new questions helping us to understand what’s our Organization is doing and why we are doing what we’re doing. Improving without challenging what we think and why we think will most often lead to the same results than before. Why? Our assumptions about work and people drive the way we design our Organization (rules, incentives, system, appraisals,…). To transform we must not imagine to challenge only one time our way of thinking but we have to be conscious that we will have to continuously challenge our thinking. External questions (Patrick, Jean, Barry, Sarah, Ibby,…) have also contributed along my journey to learn…and continue to support my learning. Although with some, the exchange time was short, their questions have allowed me to discover by serendipity new answers and questions ....Most often those experts didn’t come with advices, solutions or plans but with questions. So, it’s really important to be clear about what you want when you select advice from outside (consultants, educators,…). On what method and on which assumptions do they based their work ? To start, I highly recommend “The leaders’ handbook, P. Scholtes” for any outsider or insider . If we improve things without challenging our thinking, we will not create something new , perhaps something better but for how long ?
3.I highly recommend to read the book Thinking in Systems, A Primer, Donella H. Meadows, Edited by Diana Wright, sustainability institute. In chapter 6, D.H. Meadows gives with humility a list of places to intervene in a system (http://www.sustainabilityinstitute.org/pubs/Leverage_Points.pdf). See below a copy of the list of leverage points to intervene in a system in increasing order of effectiveness.
" •Constants, parameters, numbers (such as subsidies, taxes, standards)
• The size of buffers and other stabilizing stocks, relative to their flows
•Structure of material stocks and flows (such as transport network, population age structures)
•Length of delays, relative to the rate of system changes
•Strength of negative feedback loops, relative to the effect they are trying to correct against
•Gain around driving positive feedback loops
•Structure of information flow (who does and does not have access to what kinds of information)
•Rules of the system (such as incentives, punishment, constraints)
•Power to add, change, evolve, or self-organize system structure
• Goal of the system
•Mindset or paradigm that the system — its goals, structure, rules, delays, parameters — arises from
• Power to transcend paradigms "
She claimed we need to know about these shifts, where they are and how to use them. Forrester (Thinking in Systems, A Primer, Donella H. Meadows) said most people know where these points are instinctively, but tend to adjust them in the wrong direction. DH. Meadows says also it’s a tentative of order (see conclusion) but the higher the leverage point , the more the system will resist changing it. So, effectiveness of improvements is linked with the place you intervene…It’s also another way to reply to the answer. We're not always creating something new through interventions in and on the system and not necessarily something better and sustainable.
4. See also E.W. Deming, Out of the crisis in order to gain understanding on SPK (to be developped in a further post).
You've certainly other stories, other references or other ways to explain why only a few improvements are transformation. Please share your comments.
lundi 19 mars 2012
How do you achieve quality ?
Last week, in the train, I meet a friend. He’s team leader and was upset by the evolution of the process he’s working in. He explains to me than now more and more the people working in his team are less interested in quality. Since 5 years, his team is divided in two : doers and checkers. The checkers, the most experienced people, are assuring quality by inspection. Before the doers (the juniors) and checkers were doing the same job but had a clear purpose: “design quality into the services” rather than inspect it.
He’s not the only one to be upset, W Edwards Deming would also be. The third of the 14 points of W Edwards Deming for the transformation of management suggests that inspection is too late: "Cease reliance on mass inspection to achieve quality. Eliminate the need for inspection on a mass basis by building quality into the product in the first place."
Today, like my friend in the train, a lot of people are working in processes organized around mass inspection. At the end of a process, dedicated full-time collaborators inspect 100% of these products/services, we called them the checker. The ratio of checker/maker is even sometimes of 100%. Those checkers validate the good and ask the doers to rework for the bad. Because full-time checkers control the service, the Management Thinking behind is “the customer is receiving a good service”.
I also see many problems with that thinking. I would only illustrate two.
- It’s expensive. How many resources, time and money dedicates the company to control and to produce products that have to be “reworked” ?
- Don’t we waste our people potential by using mass inspection? Is it not better to use our most experienced resources to build quality in the process instead to control the quality?
Checkers have not to be responsible for the quality of the output but should be responsible to put quality in the process, to produce quality, first time right. Too much reliance on inspection also supports a "blame the maker" mentality.
I don’t mean the goal is to remove all inspection. I don’t mean the goal is to remove all checkers. I mean the purpose of inspection need to be redefined to produce the right things right. Inspection is useful as a means to learn and to drive further quality improvement efforts, rather than looking for a culprit to blame. When organizations work to improve processes and systems, risks, defects are systematically reduced.
He’s not the only one to be upset, W Edwards Deming would also be. The third of the 14 points of W Edwards Deming for the transformation of management suggests that inspection is too late: "Cease reliance on mass inspection to achieve quality. Eliminate the need for inspection on a mass basis by building quality into the product in the first place."
Today, like my friend in the train, a lot of people are working in processes organized around mass inspection. At the end of a process, dedicated full-time collaborators inspect 100% of these products/services, we called them the checker. The ratio of checker/maker is even sometimes of 100%. Those checkers validate the good and ask the doers to rework for the bad. Because full-time checkers control the service, the Management Thinking behind is “the customer is receiving a good service”.
I also see many problems with that thinking. I would only illustrate two.
- It’s expensive. How many resources, time and money dedicates the company to control and to produce products that have to be “reworked” ?
- Don’t we waste our people potential by using mass inspection? Is it not better to use our most experienced resources to build quality in the process instead to control the quality?
Checkers have not to be responsible for the quality of the output but should be responsible to put quality in the process, to produce quality, first time right. Too much reliance on inspection also supports a "blame the maker" mentality.
I don’t mean the goal is to remove all inspection. I don’t mean the goal is to remove all checkers. I mean the purpose of inspection need to be redefined to produce the right things right. Inspection is useful as a means to learn and to drive further quality improvement efforts, rather than looking for a culprit to blame. When organizations work to improve processes and systems, risks, defects are systematically reduced.
vendredi 9 mars 2012
What happens when “willing worker” have to produce results without having the possibility to improve the system ?
What happens when “willing worker” have to produce results without having the possibility to improve the system ?
Two weeks ago, I found this post in the quality digest. The author, Steve Moore, explains the red bead experiment but also shares his “twist” to the red bead experiment :
http://www.qualitydigest.com/inside/quality-insider-article/deming-s-famous-red-bead-experiment-twist.html
“Willing workers, when faced with the need to preserve their business and livelihood, have three choices: improve the system, distort the system, or distort the data. Because the willing workers are not able to improve the system, they distort the system or the data (or both). Again, this is no new revelation to the willing workers.”
We are all subjected to the rules of the system we live in.
Two weeks ago, I found this post in the quality digest. The author, Steve Moore, explains the red bead experiment but also shares his “twist” to the red bead experiment :
http://www.qualitydigest.com/inside/quality-insider-article/deming-s-famous-red-bead-experiment-twist.html
“Willing workers, when faced with the need to preserve their business and livelihood, have three choices: improve the system, distort the system, or distort the data. Because the willing workers are not able to improve the system, they distort the system or the data (or both). Again, this is no new revelation to the willing workers.”
We are all subjected to the rules of the system we live in.
mercredi 7 mars 2012
Looking for profound knowledge purpose at work : a great, heuristic and impossible job
In Drive, D. Pink explains how and why tasks can be divided in two categories. The two categories are :
"• Algorithmic – a task which follows a set of established instructions down a single pathway to one conclusion.
• Heuristic – a task that has no algorithm, you have to experiment with possibilities and devise a novel solution. “
When you are a leader, a project manager or a consultant , there’s no algorithm to successfully transform an Organization for better. Every organization is different. The approach depends namely, of the people, of the system and of the culture paradigms of the Organization.
So, you, we,... have a heuristic job.
You are learning the importance of System Theories, Theories of Knowledge, Theory of Variation and Psychology. Theory lead us to questions. . . Without the right questions, the result of your experiments teach nothing. Those teaching help you to develop new theory to improve. The use of theory promote your learning. So you reinvent your leadership/consulting approach as and as you advance, as often as necessary. Autonomously, you develop mastery to achieve your purpose (cf. Drive, Pink)
You’ve a long-term purpose. It can change but not every day. You continuously keep an open mind to distinguish the different potential ways leading to it.
Your motivation comes from within. You are intrinsically motivated. It's a great job.
In itself, this is a hard and an exciting job but simply to engage with sincerity, honesty and integrity is not a guarantee of success. The journey to understand a System of Profound Knowledge and be able to implement or help others is long, very long. Even the journey is long, perhaps a never ended journey, I’ve not found a better purpose acting as leader, consultant or collaborator for a company.
We will never find the best, the ideal system but we will find a better than yesterday...
"• Algorithmic – a task which follows a set of established instructions down a single pathway to one conclusion.
• Heuristic – a task that has no algorithm, you have to experiment with possibilities and devise a novel solution. “
When you are a leader, a project manager or a consultant , there’s no algorithm to successfully transform an Organization for better. Every organization is different. The approach depends namely, of the people, of the system and of the culture paradigms of the Organization.
So, you, we,... have a heuristic job.
You are learning the importance of System Theories, Theories of Knowledge, Theory of Variation and Psychology. Theory lead us to questions. . . Without the right questions, the result of your experiments teach nothing. Those teaching help you to develop new theory to improve. The use of theory promote your learning. So you reinvent your leadership/consulting approach as and as you advance, as often as necessary. Autonomously, you develop mastery to achieve your purpose (cf. Drive, Pink)
You’ve a long-term purpose. It can change but not every day. You continuously keep an open mind to distinguish the different potential ways leading to it.
Your motivation comes from within. You are intrinsically motivated. It's a great job.
In itself, this is a hard and an exciting job but simply to engage with sincerity, honesty and integrity is not a guarantee of success. The journey to understand a System of Profound Knowledge and be able to implement or help others is long, very long. Even the journey is long, perhaps a never ended journey, I’ve not found a better purpose acting as leader, consultant or collaborator for a company.
We will never find the best, the ideal system but we will find a better than yesterday...
jeudi 1 mars 2012
What is the best training, the best course, the best lesson you've received?
Ten years ago, Patrick taught me the pleasure of discovering new theories and test them and so to learn to improve and to learn to unlearn. Patrick taught me to be curious and to realize the infinite path to knowledge and wisdom.
Do you think the school system was built to give us the desire to be passionate, to learn, ... or just to be compliant with what the system expects of us?
Set Godin gives us his view of American educational model. His book is written in series of essays or blog posts. The author wants to provoke conversation.
http://www.sethgodin.com/sg/docs/StopStealingDreamsSCREEN.pdf
This book should help us to discuss about our schools and how the system has to change to create a better future for next generation.
What’s your dream for schools and what is school for ?
Do you think the school system was built to give us the desire to be passionate, to learn, ... or just to be compliant with what the system expects of us?
Set Godin gives us his view of American educational model. His book is written in series of essays or blog posts. The author wants to provoke conversation.
http://www.sethgodin.com/sg/docs/StopStealingDreamsSCREEN.pdf
This book should help us to discuss about our schools and how the system has to change to create a better future for next generation.
What’s your dream for schools and what is school for ?
The impact on company performance by changing our assumption about people.
Freedom Inc., the book of Isaac Getz and Brian M. Carney, gives us a perspective on enterprises that have decided to free their employees.
A lot of factories are today always managed through Taylor methods. JF Zorbist (FAVI see below) called those companies the “How companies” also called hierarchical, bureaucratic or command-control companies. The authors challenge us by asking the questions : Are those companies managed for the three percents ?
The purpose of Taylor was also to increase performance, but performance expressed as productivity. In his scientific Method, Taylor has specialized supervision, has standardized tools and work methods, has created a management planning function, has rewarded efficiency (doing the things right and fast) and has broken tasks into smaller and smaller tasks,…Scientific management works. But the basic assumption of Scientific Management was that employees were not highly educated, compliant to do exactly what they were told and so just able to perform the simplest tasks. So, this worked. But does it really work today and if "Yes" at what cost to our employees, at what costs to adapt to new demand variety, at what costs to change the way we do the service,…
Are we in the same context than in the industrial revolution ? I don’t think so. Are those scientific management principles adapted to serve our customers, to create joy in work and make our organization agile to adapt to new opportunities ? I do not think so
So are our companies managed for the 3 percents ? What will happen to 97 % of our collaborators ?
A lot of us has learned that Toyota Success is based on a fundamental assumption about people : people’s willingness to do a good job and to learn. Deming has demonstrated that 95% of organizational problems are caused by the company’s operational systems and merely 5% caused by its people. Changing system conditions and thinking behind, it is the best way to achieve sustainable improvements
So...? and if we started before to think about systems, lean,… to challenge our assumption about people ?
Isaac Getz and Brian M. Carney invite us to discover enterprises like FAVI, Harley Davidson, Oticon,... The leaders of those companies were sincerely convinced that all their collaborators are intrinsically equal …Is the relationship between employee freedom and company performance is due to” hazard” ? I do not think so.
To conclude as I. Getz : “The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing” - Socrates
The link to FAVI : http://www.favi.com/managf.php
The link to the blog of Freedom Inc. : http://www.favi.com/managf.php
The link to the book :
A lot of factories are today always managed through Taylor methods. JF Zorbist (FAVI see below) called those companies the “How companies” also called hierarchical, bureaucratic or command-control companies. The authors challenge us by asking the questions : Are those companies managed for the three percents ?
The purpose of Taylor was also to increase performance, but performance expressed as productivity. In his scientific Method, Taylor has specialized supervision, has standardized tools and work methods, has created a management planning function, has rewarded efficiency (doing the things right and fast) and has broken tasks into smaller and smaller tasks,…Scientific management works. But the basic assumption of Scientific Management was that employees were not highly educated, compliant to do exactly what they were told and so just able to perform the simplest tasks. So, this worked. But does it really work today and if "Yes" at what cost to our employees, at what costs to adapt to new demand variety, at what costs to change the way we do the service,…
Are we in the same context than in the industrial revolution ? I don’t think so. Are those scientific management principles adapted to serve our customers, to create joy in work and make our organization agile to adapt to new opportunities ? I do not think so
So are our companies managed for the 3 percents ? What will happen to 97 % of our collaborators ?
A lot of us has learned that Toyota Success is based on a fundamental assumption about people : people’s willingness to do a good job and to learn. Deming has demonstrated that 95% of organizational problems are caused by the company’s operational systems and merely 5% caused by its people. Changing system conditions and thinking behind, it is the best way to achieve sustainable improvements
So...? and if we started before to think about systems, lean,… to challenge our assumption about people ?
Isaac Getz and Brian M. Carney invite us to discover enterprises like FAVI, Harley Davidson, Oticon,... The leaders of those companies were sincerely convinced that all their collaborators are intrinsically equal …Is the relationship between employee freedom and company performance is due to” hazard” ? I do not think so.
To conclude as I. Getz : “The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing” - Socrates
The link to FAVI : http://www.favi.com/managf.php
The link to the blog of Freedom Inc. : http://www.favi.com/managf.php
The link to the book :
vendredi 24 février 2012
The leadership of profound change.
The leadership of profound change
Do you think ?
“Significant change can only occurs when it’s driven from the Top
or
Little significant change can occur if it’s driven only from the top
Do you think ?
Nothing will happen whitout Top-Management buy-in
or
Top Management buy-in is a poor substitute for genuine commitment and learning capabilities at all level of the Organisation. In fact, if management authority is used unwisely, it can make such commitment or capability less likely to develop”
Do you want to know what P Senge think about leadership of profound change ?
http://www.spcpress.com/pdf/other/Senge.pdf
So, are you talking about profound change ? Change is best carried through by the many, not by the hero-leader.
A 'great' book for any leaders, change agent, lean experts,… involved in change - and that means most of us today.
Do you think ?
“Significant change can only occurs when it’s driven from the Top
or
Little significant change can occur if it’s driven only from the top
Do you think ?
Nothing will happen whitout Top-Management buy-in
or
Top Management buy-in is a poor substitute for genuine commitment and learning capabilities at all level of the Organisation. In fact, if management authority is used unwisely, it can make such commitment or capability less likely to develop”
Do you want to know what P Senge think about leadership of profound change ?
http://www.spcpress.com/pdf/other/Senge.pdf
So, are you talking about profound change ? Change is best carried through by the many, not by the hero-leader.
A 'great' book for any leaders, change agent, lean experts,… involved in change - and that means most of us today.
Inscription à :
Articles (Atom)