You’re probably getting the results your processes are designed to deliver.

I see it every day, in all walks of life – good people giving their all but not producing the kind of outcomes they, or anyone else, wants. Are they happy in their work? Of course not, most carry on and do their best simply because they care; they achieve what they do in spite of, not because of “the system”.

Adding insult to injury are those who, when looking for changes, focus on people – often by adding more targets and measures and then castigating those who “fail” to achieve them. The system is sacrosanct, “we have always done it this way” or “that is the way it has been decided”. People, however, are not responsible for the system in which they work, if the system is not fit for purpose then they cannot succeed. Deming1 summed it up nicely;

“A bad system will beat a good person every time”

Beating people for not achieving results that the system will not allow is futile and counter-productive, if results need to change then so does the system. There is an approach based on a simple truth – “free, with every pair of hands, one brain”. The people working the system know what does and doesn’t work, and they are the ones who can help to fix it, just imagine what all of that combined brain power might achieve!

What is “The System”?

A system is a set of PROCESSES, in a good system all of the processes support each other and they are aligned to support strategy; they are simple to understand and to follow and everyone understands their role and responsibilities. In a bad system they are disjointed, developed in isolation from each other and are focussed on local, not global objectives; they are poorly defined and not widely understood. Deming again provides an excellent summary:

“If you can’t describe what you’re doing as a process, you don’t know what you’re doing”

To be effective each stage of a process needs to define what is being done, the required outcomes need to be defined, who has responsibility for what and what controls and support information applies. There are different ways to do this but, being a simple minded engineer, I prefer to map processes – I believe that pictures convey a message more clearly than words. I have also found that by engaging teams in laying out processes, an awful lot can be learned and improved without actually changing anything. The down-stream benefits however become even greater provided that:

* Each process has an “owner” who is empowered to propose and make changes,

* Processes are aligned to each other and to support strategy and

* Measures focus on the effectiveness of the process, people are empowered and responsible for improving the process.

ICG will help

Qualitin’s ICG methodology is unique, it focuses on processes that support a strategy that is clearly defined, quantified and effectively deployed. It defines those key metrics that show how well or otherwise an organisation’s processes are working and it enables managers to identify improvement priorities and to demonstrate success. It takes the focus off the individual and looks at the system; it engages individuals and delivers improved results.

The Role of Management

The roles and styles of managers are key to the success of this approach, it requires a shift from “command and control” to leadership and support. This can be a real challenge for some managers who might view such change as a reflection on their own capabilities – a challenge to their position. Personally I would rather work for something that I and my team can celebrate and feel proud about rather than keep taking the beatings for poor performance and, if that requires change from me, so be it. I believe that being willing to change what is not working will earn more kudos than consistently making excuses for failure, it just needs a bit of honesty and humility.

Anyway, you don’t need to take my word for it, I’ll let Deming have the last word:

“It is not necessary to change. Survival is not mandatory”. 

Author: