The Common Pitfalls of Implementing a New System in a Company

[cokyat]

The following are the most common pitfalls of implementing a new system in a company. In a survey of strategic business units in the Philippine firms (all are recently IS09002 accredited and working towards QS9000, respondents were asked to reflect on the implementation of a recent strategic implementation. The survey results six implementation problems as follows:

• Uncontrollable external environmental factors like fiscal and competitive had an adverse effect on implementation. (20%)
• Training and instructions given to employees were not effective and inadequate. (11%)
• Activities and internal crises distracted the strategic implementation.(5%)
• Task force committees, supervisors and leaders were not effective enough.(10%)
• Implementation time took more than the allocation.(32%)
• Other major problems that surfaced during implementation that had not been anticipated.(22%)

The list goes on and on . There are other shortcomings during implementation including failing to win adequate support for change ; failing to define the goals and objectives clearly; and neglecting to involve those who are directly affected and involved in the change...

 

[Marc]

Umm, well, there really isn't an ISO 9002 anymore for all intents and purposes *and* QS-9000 will be obsolete next year.

Survey wise, the listed failure modes are typical. Where is the original data you are quoting from? I.e.: Can you cite sources for the listed implementation problems?

There are threads here in the Elsmar Cove forums which address registration failure modes. The following is an oldie, but I bet the same 'problems' exist today: ISO9000 Registration Failure Modes.

Also see the 'Stickys' in the Auditing including ISO 19011 forum.

Is there a premise in this?

 

[cokyat]

I just took the data from a friend here in the Philippines. He told me that the most common among the problems is the allocation of time. The survey data was taken several years ago from company's with automotive component products.

I believe that regarless of whatever system the company is working on, it be ISO9001, ISO14001 or QS9000, the common pitfalls are still the same.

 

[Randy]

The most common problem is poor attitude, followed by lack of committment.

 

[cokyat]

yes generally, it is the attitude...

 

[Claes Gefvenberg]

The most common problem is poor attitude, followed by lack of committment.

I agree. Now then: Why? What creates the poor attitude and lack of commitment? That could be a loooong list...

/Claes

 

[cokyat]

employee grievances against management could be one...

 

[asutherland]

I have always hated the word attitude. Talk about subjective.
In my mind there is no such thing as poor attitude, or good attitude unless it is measured against something you can quantify. And in many cases, even what you quantify is subjective. (such as a feeling).

It is always easier to blame someone else for failure rather than taking accountability.

Everyone seems to be able to jump on the band-wagon when something is preceived as going right. Where is the same enthusiasm when something goes wrong, or fails?

Hey, look at me, I just accidently tipped over a $100k machine and it smashed into unrecognizable pieces. Hey, good job, now lets buy another one and bolt it down to make it impossible for anyone else to accidently do the same, and lets check our other machines and verify that it cant happen there as well!

We tend to look at the 0.0001% that does not work and throw away the 99.9999% that does, instead of seeing if we can keep whats good in the change and change it again to make it better.

We don't fail just because we didn't meet the objective. We fail because we quit trying to meet the objective. (If my target is 100% and I go from 50% to 51%, I did not fail, I just need to try again.)

When we put time constraints on our objective, then do we fail? (If my target is 100% by the end of the month, and I go from 50% to 51% by the end of the month, did I not still improve, even though I did not meet the target date? Is this a failure, or partial success?

Oops, got to go, some one just filled my glass half full.

 

[Jim Wynne]

I have always hated the word attitude. Talk about subjective.
In my mind there is no such thing as poor attitude, or good attitude unless it is measured against something you can quantify. And in many cases, even what you quantify is subjective. (such as a feeling).

I'm going to agree with the general thrust of your response--the idea that moderate success is sometimes wrongly identified as failure, but I think that in the end you're arguing against yourself if you think that the root of the misinterpretation isn't attitude. In fact, you're defining attitude and how it can adversely affect quality system implementation.

It is always easier to blame someone else for failure rather than taking accountability.

Everyone seems to be able to jump on the band-wagon when something is preceived as going right. Where is the same enthusiasm when something goes wrong, or fails?

The "failures" you describe are generally the result of poor planning, or errors in goal-setting, which is a type of failure in itself. Blame is a part of corporate culture, and whether failures are seen as end points or learning opportunities is a function of management direction. If the easiest way for me to survive is to blame someone else, then I'll blame someone else (or get the h#ll out).

We don't fail just because we didn't meet the objective. We fail because we quit trying to meet the objective. (If my target is 100% and I go from 50% to 51%, I did not fail, I just need to try again.)

There's a good chance that whoever set the goal failed, but you're right--it just means that something worked, and the goal needs to be improved.

some one just filled my glass half full.

And that means that you have the right attitude to make improvement continue. I've said it before here, and I'll say it again: Failure isn't an option--it's a necessity in learning and improvement. Nothing ever got significantly improved without failure.

 

[cokyat]

Implementing the change

The effectiveness of implementing changes does not rely on the attitude of the implementors alone. There are several factors that can affect the implementation as mentioned earlier in my post. In my country today,the Philippines is facing a crisis.The fiscal crisis is greatly affecting the local companies...the effects of hiking gas prices, the never-ending political war between polititcal oppositions and the effects of terrorism. These are just some of the environmental factors that somehow create a mental and emotional stress on the workers not mentioning, some of the workers are also members of the people power rallies that ramp on the streets against the government.
As mentioned in a book that I read, "What is the experience of implementing change really like? During the tempestuous period of the 1980's, the chief executive officer of a major US Airline describes managing multiple changes:
".....it beat any Indiana Jones movie! It started out with a real nice beginning. Then suddenly we got one disaster to another. the boulder just missed us, and we got the snake in the cockpit of the airplane- that's what its all about! You've got to be down in the mud and the blood and the beer..."

This vivid description captures a sense of drama involved in wrestling with complex, real time issues of day-to-day in a changing environment. Because today's companies are composed of and affected by so many different INDIVIDUALS and CONSTITUENCIES- each with their own hopes, dreams, and fears- and because these companies operate in a global environment- with all the regulations, COMPETITION, and complexity that implies- implementing change may indeed, require the dexterity, alertness, versatility, ATTITUDE and agility of INDIANA JONES......