Posted by admin on April 1, 2010 under Leadership, Process Improvement | 
For several months now, we have been talking about moving forward with our strategic plans, and implementing the right technology for the job. We have talked about why technology projects fail, pointing out that organizations tend to get the “cart before the horse” by selecting technology without necessarily considering how it will impact the business processes it is designed to support. There is an additional element that needs to be considered when enabling change through the implementation of technology…
Often, organizations are reengineering processes and implementing new automated systems to address business process challenges, whether automating manual processes or enhancing existing software applications. Unfortunately, organizations tend to make one very large mistake during these efforts – they make change management decisions in the context of a single silo – solely within their own departmental boundaries.
It is a rare team, indeed, which considers how to improve operations across a full business process. For example, a customer service organization might consider how they can more quickly respond to and address customer calls. They might implement call center software or other technology that allows customer service representatives to answer calls within X number of rings, and enter a sales order within X number of keystrokes.
However, has any thought been given to the “upstream” or “downstream” processes, and the impacts on those process “handoffs”? It is likely that our customer service organization is thinking only in terms of its own organizational silo, and how those “internal” processes are being performed.
Granted, those metrics and operational functions are critical to the organization. However, what about the downstream process of order fulfillment, for example? When considering the technology or business process change, are you considering how to more effectively provide the inputs needed to fulfill that customer order?
What about product development processes which (should) rely on customer feedback in order to develop products customers will purchase? How are these processes impacted by the changes made in the customer service department? Is there an opportunity to improve the information being collected in the customer service department so it can be provided to the product development team?
I think you would agree that all departments play a key role in the operational capabilities of an organization. Each must work together in a synchronized manner in order for the organization to be most effective. If one of those processes gets out of whack, the “wobbles” are felt throughout the rest of the organization.
When considering making improvements to your functional area, consider the following:
- Identify the specific information, documents or other inputs you are receiving into your departmental business processes. Can they be provided in a more useful manner or format? Are they being provided often enough? Too often? Is there anything missing from the input that causes rework, delay or additional effort in order to execute your own business processes?
- Evaluate the outputs of your business process – the product(s) you provide for the “downstream” process. Are you providing the input in the right format? Often enough? Too often? How could you make your work product better so it can better be utilized by the recipient (whether internal or external)?
By considering the inputs and outputs from your own business processes, you are improving operations not only in your corner of the world, but potentially in other areas as well. Further, you are demonstrating to others how to affect the best kind of change – change that allows the entire organization to work more effectively and efficiently.
Posted by admin on January 5, 2010 under Leadership, Process Improvement |
A new study by The Conference Board (http://www.conferenceboard.org/utilities/pressDetail.cfm?press_ID=3820) released today shows an increasingly dissatisfied workforce.
A recent survey of 5,000 households found that only 45% of respondents are happy with their jobs - the lowest level since 1987, the first year the study was published. The top reason for discontent? Job design (i.e. interesting, challenging, meaningful work).
Interestingly enough, the satisfaction of the youngest portion of the population (those under 25 years of age) is at the lowest level is satisfaction level ever. It seems that many of these employees should only be in their first job. So, what does that say about their expectations for receiving personal satisfaction in the workplace?
Another startling statistic revealed by this study is that 22% of persons polled do not expect to be in their current job in a year. Considering the current state of the economy and forecasted levels of employment into 2011, that number seems very high. Just imagine if the national employment figure were closer to 5% or 6% - how many of our employees would be looking to “jump ship”?
Executives should be paying close attention to these statistics, and considering how to respond to this situation. If you were to lose 22% of your workforce, when it is likely already overstretched, what would you do? Do you have the succession plans, policies and procedures, business processes and training programs in place so you could respond quickly to this scenario? Could business continue, let alone grow, if you lost almost ¼ of your staff? Contingency planning is something we should be reviewing and adjusting on a regular basis.
Better yet, what does it take to create an environment where employees are allowed to innovate, and have challenging and meaningful work? If you could create an environment like that, how would it impact your ability to compete and thrive in the current economy? What steps are you taking to make this a reality in your organization?
Posted by admin on July 16, 2009 under Leadership |
Economic challenges impact everything we do these days – personally and professionally. Are gasoline prices going to rise? Will I have a job next month? On and on it goes – the questions and uncertainty.
In our personal lives, however, we recognize that we need to be more cautious – maybe we eat out less often, or carpool more. What we don’t do, though, is let the fear paralyze us into inaction – we still live our lives and work toward our goals, albeit a little more slowly.
So why is it then, that companies facing the same types of challenges (read fear), react differently? I have recently spoken with a number of people in different organizations and industries that are just paralyzed with fear – of doing anything right now. They voice it out loud and I can hear it in their voices. Sometimes it makes me wonder if they are even still breathing….
A company’s operational strategy, though, is based on the defined business strategy and developed with environmental considerations factored in. While there are times that assumptions made during the development of the plan are more conservative than actually occur, there should be risk mitigation strategies in place to address the issue(s). A bad assumption shouldn’t mean the company completely ceases executing the operational strategy!
Stop letting fear distract you from the tasks at hand – profitable operations and growth for your organization. Focus on what you can do given the current constraints, and take “fear” out of your corporate vocabulary.
Posted by admin on July 9, 2009 under Leadership, Process Improvement |
Since last fall, most organizations have been in a cost cutting mode as the economy started faltering. Initially, cuts were in the areas of travel, expense accounts and the like. Early in 2009, the cost cutting became more drastic, impacting the livelihoods of our organizations’ valuable employees.
Today, organizations have trimmed their budgets to such a barebones level that there is not much anything left to cut. At some point, the cutting has to stop before it does irreparable damage to the long term viability of the organization.
Many organizations (be they corporations, non-profits, or governmental agencies) are sacrificing long-term benefits for near-term gains. While “trimming the fat” is necessary, we cannot afford to lose sight of the factors and resources necessary to innovate and grow our organizations post-economic downturn. At some point, we need to consider how our own organization should look in the future, and start taking steps to (re)build the infrastructure, processes, staffing and other resources necessary to position ourselves for the inevitable recovery.
In what ways are you starting to plan for recovery? In what ways will your organization look different in the future?
I’d love to hear what you are planning…
