I've been thinking a lot lately about resistance to change. The Rogers Adoption / Innovation curve (innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, laggards) is referenced in some form by most people involved in change management.

Now, I'm not an innovator myself. My special form of creativity doesn't manifest itself by coming up with new ideas that no one else has thought of, or completely new ways to do things. I'd tag myself as being in the early adopter or maybe early majority categories most of the time.

So it can be a stretch for me to work with the late majority or laggards. "Don't you know this will be good for you?" I ask incredulously. "Can't you see all the benefits and advantages that you will have once you've made this change?" I confess that I get very impatient sometimes.

Fortunately I have great team members that a) calm me down and prevent me from sending career-limiting emails, and b) remind me that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Or, as the movie musical "Mary Poppins" character sings, "Just a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down."

(Of course, as she's singing that, she's snapping her fingers and making the children's clothes go back into the drawers without any effort on anyone's part.)

But in the real world, it's good to ask ourselves what's in it for the stakeholders, and try to see what would make the change more palatable. The trick is, it has to been seen as a value-added return even before the gains are realized. For example, a promise that the work will be easier might not be believed, even if you know it will be true.

Have you found a good way to engage stakeholders who might need a little extra encouragement to buy into a change plan? It would be most helpful if you would share your experiences!

I had a very nice phone call today, from a colleague who had chatted with me earlier about a current project. She called to say thanks for allowing her to bounce ideas around, which helped her clarify some things about her approach to the process.

Naturally I felt good to receive this feedback, and it made me think about my many associates who are in the process improvement community with me. Sometimes it feels like skiing downhill, but sometimes it feels like I'm trying to go uphill without the ski lift. It's during the tough times that I really rely on my fellow improvers to help me see a clear direction.

My colleague said that she had felt lost in the trees and confused about the path out of the forest. I know I've felt like that sometimes too, and I told her that I'd probably be calling her soon so she could return the favor!

And, it reminded me to say a heartfelt "thanks" to the many people who have helped me to see more clearly when my own path seemed confused.

And also to say a sincere "thank you" to those of you who have read, and contributed to, this blog over the past three years. It's hard to believe that this will be my 100th post, which milestone I would not have reached without your continuing support and responses! I hope that you will keep on giving me your feedback - your conversations have been spirited, inspiring, generous, truthful, and above all educational!

With thanks for your time, your sharing of feedback with the iSixSigma blogosphere, and your efforts on behalf of your customers,

Sue K.

A quote from Alice's Adventures in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll (Charles Lutwidge Dodgson), 1865:

"The White Rabbit put on his spectacles. 'Where shall I begin, please your Majesty?' he asked. 'Begin at the beginning,' the King said gravely, 'and go on till you come to the end: then stop.'"

I am sure I'm not the only one who as asked, "Where does this process begin?" only to find a dozen or so different answers, depending on who is asked. Just how far back doyou go into the decision-making that may trigger a process, and the factors that influence the decision, and the issues that led to the factors being important, etc. etc. etc.?

And, where does the process stop? For a product, is it when the customer receives the goods? When they use the item for the first time? When they finish using the item? Or, for a service, when they receive the service, or when they utilize the benefits of the service if that's at a later time?

This may seem simple, but, in practice I've seen a lot of conversations get into a circular mode about just what step should be considered the start or trigger for the process. I'm just wondering if anyone has any words of wisdom, from their experience with process mapping and process analysis - and would you like to share?

If there’s one thing I’ve noticed about the effect the current economy is having on businesses, it’s the polarization of Six Sigma. Programs have either been seen as the reverent coming of the messiah or the two-bit television evangelist that needs to be turned off and forgotten about. For those companies that feel they are struggling for airtime, discussions about revitalization and redeployment have been preached by change agents to the senior leadership team. One of the common beliefs in these sermons focuses on the mandate to promote only those with Six Sigma belt certifications into future leadership roles. The belief is if the converted are the ones in charge, the religion of Six Sigma will continue to be institutionalized within the fold.

As a knight who chivalrously crusades to protect the reputation of Six Sigma, I have to tell you this belief is not a pragmatic approach to keep face time in the pulpit. First of all, the person in charge to drive the mandate is usually not someone in a Human Resources or Continuous Improvement role, but rather an executive leader, such as the CEO and as a result, the mandate becomes a function of the person (and not the program). I can think of several companies in the past that required future leaders to be at least Green Belt trained only to abandon the requirement when a new executive regime was put in place. What kind of message does this say about your Six Sigma program when two managers had to take different pathways to get to the same role?

Rather, companies who want to maintain a strong process improvement mindset need to take a two pronged approach. First, there should be a requirement for leaders to have Six Sigma executive awareness training. The training could be similar to a Yellow Belt package but should also involve concepts such as Lean, Practical Problem Solving, ISO, etc. Keep in mind this mandate is different than requiring leaders to be a Green or Black Belt. Senior leadership needs to have understanding, appreciation and respect for the Six Sigma program. They also need in-depth coaching on their role as champions which is generally not taught in Green/Black Belt courses.

The second part of the approach to revitalization is an assessment to ensure the employee is competent before moving into a leader role. Things to ask to determine a supportive future leader (as you would in a Six Sigma project) are:

1. Can the employee clearly describe problems, lead a scope of work to resolve them, and achieve results?
2. Can the employee work as part of a team?
3. Can the employee make sound decisions based of the effective analysis of fact based data?
4. Is the work done by the employee sustainable and embedded within the company?

Being a in a Green or Black Belt role can answer these questions, however the mandate to require this designation is not a poke yoke substitution to a solid leadership competency assessment. If these competencies are truly the way a person works everyday, you know they are legitimate future leaders who will be receptive to a data driven problem solving approach (and not someone who is getting a certificate for a one off project they begrudgingly complete). Also, companies may have other roles such as Lean Coaches, Project Managers who use the PrinceII methodology, etc.

By creating a Six Sigma mandate to move ahead, resentment occurs invoking competition and before you know it, the organization has a quality jihad on its hands.

Having a Six Sigma certification is a nice to have, however it does not guarantee you are a true believer nor does it guarantee to the organization someone with the insight of divine right has ascended to the leadership throne and will continue to preach a Six Sigma message. Revitalization can occur if the message is one of respect for complimenting initiatives. Belt mandates for leaders only lead to purgatory with future leaders tying pages of their Six Sigma manuals and certificates into ropes to climb into management heaven.

When I was leading a department, I never thought of myself as a process owner. It wasn't in my job description, and I never heard anyone used the term. It's one of those useful concepts that I wish I had known, prior to my Six Sigma and Lean education.

Here's my working definition: The process owner is that leader who is closest to the process itself, who has responsibility for achieving the expected outcome of the process, both before and after an improvement project.

So now, I try to introduce the term right away and use it frequently so that everyone knows what the role is, in respect to a project (and afterwards). I also try to spend extra time with the process owner if they are new to the role. Even then, though, it's hard sometimes to get across the continuing expectations. A statement that I hear frequently is, "I'm glad that the project is over - now I can quit being the process owner!"

Have any of you faced this challenge, or is it more clearcut in some industries than in others? Have you had to do extra education or mentoring of someone who was not sure they were a process owner - for either a project or a process? Do you have a different definition of process owner, that's been helpful for you?

It would be great to hear your thoughts.

Well, maybe I have more than one favorite tool - but there are 2 that are fun to use with a group.

One is sticky-note brainstorming. It avoids the perils of the regular "everybody call out their ideas" brainstorming, because (a) you get 100% participation; (b) you can get LOTS of ideas in just a few minutes; (c) you don’t need a scribe to try to capture everything as multiple people are speaking quickly; (d) you avoid people being worried about "what will my boss think" about an idea; (e) it’s anonymous so people are braver; (f) you can put duplicates on top of one another and categorize with ease, just by moving them around. Also (g) you can use colorful sticky-notes and make a cheerful impression rather than a boring one!

Secondly, if I’m using the group’s ideas to capture possible solutions, I really like to use an Impact/Effort Matrix. You may have heard of this under another name - it’s a 2x2 matrix with Impact along one axis (High, Low) and Effort along the other (Easy, Hard). I ask the group members to place the sticky notes in the appropriate category - if there’s doubt they can place them on the dividing line. Then I can facilitate the group to ask, "Does this idea belong here? Do we all agree that it’s High Impact (or whatever) and Easy to do?" If not, we have a good discussion and end up with consensus. It’s amazing how this helps to prioritize the efforts - we will definitely pursue the "High Impact, Easy" ideas; think about a plan for the "High Impact, Hard" ideas; see if we can catch some low hanging fruit with the "Low Impact, Easy" ideas; and forget about the "Low Impact, Hard" ideas.

These ideas can then be turned into action plans or placed in a parking lot as appropriate. Using the sticky-note brainstorming to get 100% participation, and the Impact/Effort Matrix to prioritize ideas, results in better decision-making and better buy-in to the resulting plans.

What are your favorite change management / process improvement tools?

While the iSixSigma.com site has been down, the rhetoric about "fixing healthcare" in the US has dramatically heated up. "We need to take the waste out of healthcare!" "We're paying too much for healthcare!" "Everyone should get all the healthcare they need regardless of cost!"

Without getting into the political debate, let's just touch on these points from a quality perspective.

There's a balance between cost, speed and quality that's quite a challenge in healthcare. For example, if I order $5000 worth of tests on day 1, and can tell you your diagnosis on day 2 and start treatment, what's that worth to you and your health (even if it turns out that 5 tests out of the 30 ordered didn't help with the diagnosis)? How about taking the cost-effective route: I'll order one test per day, evaluate the results, and then order the next test. It may take me 21 days to figure it out, while you are waiting all the while, but hey! it did cost less! So, in which example was there more waste???

Paying too much for healthcare... does that mean we are paying more than the value we receive, or just more than we desire to (or can afford to) pay? Most of us a) don't know how much our healthcare actually costs; b) can't judge the quality of the medical care we receive; and c) won't haggle over the cost of an IV solution when the care of a loved one is at stake. There's an emotional element of this debate that is not susceptible to logical reasoning. We see this in all the stories of people who have gotten poor care or ran out of money or their insurance wouldn't cover a certain procedure. If we try to "ration" care in the most logical way possible, we immediately run into the emotional (or moral, if you prefer) discussion about denying care to those who need it on a purely financial basis. The factual and emotional issues are entangled as we debate this topic.

Should everyone get the healthcare they need regardless of cost? It's my personal opinion that provision of basic services, including healthcare, should be a function of an organized society. But, it's not a "commodity" service like garbage collection, is it? Since we do have to look to our tax-paying citizens and employers to pay for "healthcare for all" - the question of course is, how much should each of us contribute to this worthy cause? And who decides how that money is to be used?

Having stirred the pot this morning, I will close by saying - it's a complex system!

• There are no "specifications" for inputs (patients who need care come in all conditions and with variation in their genetic, mental, physical, experiential, cultural, economic, and social backgrounds);
• Processes are highly complex with many stakeholders and overlapping responsibilities
• There is an expert-based culture of physician caregivers (now expanding slightly to other medical professionals);
• Outcomes may not meet the patients' goals through no-one's fault (you can mostly blame our biologically-based life processes, I guess) but which may in some cases be due to poor care or non-compliance on the part of the patient (for example, not taking medications in the way they were prescribed).

So I just caution you to think carefully about all the proposals that will be floated to "fix" the healthcare system, and don't jump to solutions too soon on this one.

Is healthcare in its current form in the US perfect? NO! But first I think we have to go back to quality basics and agree on who are the customers, and what is value-added to those customers. I've seen many more "solutions" floated, than thoughtful consideration of just what it is we want to get to. I encourage everyone to join this debate from the quality improvement perspective, and to lend your expertise to the discussion!

p.s. It's good to be "back on the air" again! Kudos to those at iSixSigma.com who have been working to resolve the issues that interrupted service over the past several weeks.

Organisation in chaos? Emergencies erupting? Been blind-sided by the unexpected? Project a few years late and still does not work? Need to get things under control? Make way for the Corporate Fire Fighter. (Phew!)

This trusted pair of hands hits the ground running….makes rapid assessment of situation….. takes urgent action …... reports an outstanding success …….moves onto the next big fire.

You could be thinking, “Hey that’s me!”. Agreed fire-fighting can be fun, exhilarating and very rewarding for those involved. Your organisation may place a high degree of recognition and reward on people with these skills.

But is this a measure of a healthy and successful organisation?

Would an alternative model be of a highly organised machine where everything fits strategically together; risks are identified and addressed early; projects invariably deliver on time, cost & quality; business metrics provide robust leading indicators. Achieving that level of capability is difficult, very difficult.

An organisation may not have this level maturity for any number of reasons. They may be a business start-up and just about managing to keep a lid on issues as the business grows. They may be working in a highly innovative sector where new products and competitors frequently appear to “eat your lunch”.

But what about the fire starters? The leaders who raise the alarm? Is this the right thing to do?

I am no expert on management leadership & behaviour theory. It might be just the right thing to do to keep people on their toes? Creating a crisis can be a good way to drive things forward. Or is it a reactive and costly approach?

Ultimately I think it comes down to looking at the root-cause and fixing what/who caused the crisis in the first place rather than heroic fire-fighting.

My colleagues and I have often discussed which type of change manager gets more results, especially which type gets more results in our particular organization. We have a lot of pitbulls, who adopt a fairly confrontational stance when dealing with those who need to make a change. They sink their teeth into the data, make a bulletproof metric, and then proceed to beat their adversaries over the head until the metric moves. Performance is segmented and presented by person, not process. One group goes so far as to designate one general manager “Top Dog” and one “in the doghouse” (complete with a photo of the manager in a doghouse) on their metrics reporting portal each week.

Seriously. I’m not making this up.

I’ve worked with people like this before – senior management tends to love having people like this around because they force issues, upset the status quo and make things generally uncomfortable for those who need to change. In other words, they do senior management’s dirty work for them.

Like true pitbulls, they don’t let go once they have their teeth into something. They make things happen, that’s for sure. Whether they are always the right things is another matter.

On the other hand, you have consensus builders – the peacemakers. Short of bringing the guitar to meetings for a round of Kumbaya, they strive for accord. Never mind the fact that consensus means “what everyone can live with”, usually resulting in lowest common denominator solutions, instead of what’s best for the business or the customer. Peers often feel better in meetings led by these folks. They may not make things happen quickly, or make big things happen, but they tend to build a lot of support for whatever the team decides to do.

These are clearly extremes – most of us in the quality field probably have some of each, and have to exercise one over the other depending on the culture of our organizations, the personalities involved with the changes to be made, and the speed at which the changes are needed. These days, speed is probably more important in your firm than comfort – it is in mine.

At the end of the day, we have to be about results. Absolutely. Leadership should care about the process by which we achieve those results, though it often doesn’t.

So what’s your change management style? Has it changed during the economic downturn? Please post your thoughts in the comments section.

I've done a lot of informal coaching in my career - you know, the kind where you're in conversation and someone says, "Gee, Sue, can you give me advice on..." and I get to cheerfully dispense my words of wisdom and then wish them good luck with their problem. Sometimes people seek me out and ask to talk over things with me, to help clarify an issue or opportunity. That's also fun and from feedback I've received, people usually appreciate having me as a sounding board.

But I've recently been asked to take on a more formal coaching role with project leaders. I won't be on the project teams, but I will meet with the project leaders to provide guidance. Some of my leaders are experienced and some are new to the whole thing; some are using Six Sigma and others Lean. Mostly I try to tell them things I wish I had known when I started in process improvement, and to give them good advice that they can take or leave at their discretion. If they run into problems I try to help develop an approach with them.

I'm at ease about technical coaching - tools, methods, reports, etc., but this "soft side" is more of a challenge for me.

As a "Driver" by nature I worry a lot about subconsciously trying to make them fit into the pattern that works for me, rather than letting them find their own way. Should I "give them enough rope to hang themselves" and then help them pick up the pieces? (I've been mentored this way myself and found it to be quite uncomfortable at the receiving end. On the other hand, I did learn a lot!) Or should I try to guide them on every foreseeable response and give them Plan A, B, and C for every contingency? (Over-thinking?) If they have a different personality style than I do, am I trying to make them more like me because that's what I'm comfortable with? If I think they are going off-track, do I "give it to them straight" or tactfully share some hints on how it might work better the next time, so I don't discourage them too much?

For those of you who are experienced mentors, can you share any general advice on how to balance the "push" of helping the project leaders to get their project deliverables accomplished, and the "pull" of guiding, aiding, and supporting?