The Thing We Should Start With (Part 4)

So far, we have defined the factors leading to a lack of goal accomplishments and results, and the next question we have to address now is, “How can we improve the situation?”

The first thing that makes all the difference is the right mindset, which prioritizes improvement and adaptation. The perspective stating that progress is not a one-time project but something that should be done on a daily basis as it was mentioned that Action-Item lists and Workshops are not as efficient as we think. Moreover, they are mostly done only to tick the empty boxes in the upper-management checklists to give empty hopes that something will develop.

The current state:

Workshops + Action Item Lists + Management ≠ Continuous Improvement

The suggested mindset:

Daily Improvement = Management

In other words, management should not be separated from daily improvement initiatives. They should be one as a whole. However, the suggested mindset may seem useless because we usually think that what we control now is more important. We mostly concentrate on the outcomes, not on the process details. That means we forgot that the microscopic processes we take for granted are the activities that produce the outcomes. Hence, in order to fix the product, we need to improve the process activities that make it.

How can we make that happen?

Let me describe that visually.

Currently:

Proposed:

When you focus on the outcomes, the best you will be able to do is find a temporary solution. But when you focus on the process, you will be able to go to the root of the problem that enables you to really solve in the long-term perspective, and the outcomes will follow.

The Importance of Direction

Focusing on the process improvement starts with the company’s philosophy that will guide every member to make the right decision. So, not only do we need the routines but also directions. In other words, we should know that we need to improve and in which way we need to improve. The absence of direction may create problems as the workers cannot identify the next tasks they need to accomplish so as to reach the goal, and solutions may end up being in siloed forms that may lead to improvements in one process by creating waste in the other.

Let’s imagine a company with the goal of eliminating waste. The company’s materials department may develop a plan of presenting goods in small containers to the production line to lower the inventory level. However, if we analyze the whole situation, in that case, the logistics department will actually have more waste processes because they are the ones who will be responsible for using small containers that they find inefficient.

There starts a debate on which to take or not to take the solution. Usually, the argument is won by the most persuasive one in the room, or voting can also be used in the hope of making it fairer. But obviously, the solutions are not systematic; they come from all siloed directions and are not organized. In that case, the company may eternally try to implement new ideas and continuously be stagnant. One solution creates the other one with no value being actually made. Ultimately, even the outside consultant may be invited (for much money) to help the teams select the goals, in which case if something goes wrong, the scapegoat is clear.

(to be continued…)