posted 21 March 2001 05:35 PM               

One of the contentions is that as the technical complexity and organizational complexity of an improvement project grow, the improvement methodologies that work on less complex projects become less and less adeaute for the challenges of improveing complex technical process across multiple organizations.

Therefore, we need to develop new improfvement tools more approriate for the ineractions across organizational units.

Any ideas on what these tools might be?

posted 21 March 2001 06:00 PM               

Basically, as a paradigm matures, it becomes less and less likely to solve new more complex problems. To solve the new, more complex problems, a new paradigm is necessary. The problem is in the paradigm shift itself. Folks are content to use the prevailing paradigm, especially if it has made them successful or helped them to climb the corporate ladder. How fast and brave would any of us be to throw out the tool which brought us our success?

Initiatives like Continuous Improvement require a paradigm shift. It is difficult for Senior Managers to make this shift for the reason noted above. Sure, many want it and ask for it, but they are not likely to give up the command control approach. CI initiatives bring a host of new tools, few to none are experienced with their use or their existance. What is also a hinderence is that to have CI, you must first understand where you are and how the process in play operates. This takes time, which few senior managers are willing to contribute or give financial support to. They are after fast and profitable results. They are, for the most part, results-oriented.

Just an opinion.

Regards,

Kevin

posted 15 April 2001 03:23 AM               

And you reach a point where all the easy stuff is addressed. The hard stuff and the expensive stuff are next in line and guess what....

Remember that paradigms evolve - sometimes rather rapidly.

I suggest rotation of multiple tools so you don't get stuck.

posted 15 April 2001 04:00 PM               

Also realize that if set up properly, upper management does not need to be involved in the day to day project management process. They need the results.

While not to say that upper management is void of involvement in the development of a robust system, when upper management micro-manages these types of programs/processes they are candidates for a high failure rate.

posted 16 April 2001 09:20 AM               

Very well put!! Seeing this written as you did reminded me of a demonstration I saw at the Deming Conference last Fall. The presentered had two 2-liter Coke bottles connected top-to-top. One bottle was about 3/4 filled. When you inverted the bottles, the water would chug from one to the other. We would time the transfer. To improve flow, we created a Vortex my swirling the bottle (optimize flow) and timed again. The water transferred at the quickest rate. The question was asked, "Could we improve upon an optimized flow?" A silent room. The presenter picked up the bottle, began the swirl and the Vortex formed. We watched as the water transferred and then he shook it. The water fell in on itself and to the amazement of the crowd, transferred quicker.

The moral: some chaos is good. It causes a reaction.