![\"processes\"](\"https:\/\/b-spoke.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/08\/processes.png?w=200\")
<\/a>get some early success, and then plateau. This can be frustrating \u2013 they signed on for the \u201ccontinuous\u201d and<\/u> the \u201cimprovement.\u201d<\/p>\nOne contributing factor is that organizations acquire the tools, but don\u2019t coordinate their use.<\/p>\n
I favor a three-phase process improvement model that is \u201cagnostic\u201d to the actual improvement philosophy (Lean, Six Sigma, StoneForge, etc): Whatever tool(s) you prefer, that\u2019s great. This model is a structure to scope, plan, and execute any<\/u> improvement.<\/p>\n
In a previous post<\/a>, I detailed four steps to complete the first phase, Understanding the Current State.<\/strong> Below is a breakdown of the second phase, Facilitating the Future State<\/strong>. (The final phase, Executing the Vision<\/strong>, will be reviewed along with some thoughts on \u201ccommunication\u201d and \u201cengagement\u201d throughout the model).<\/p>\n Those first four steps give shape to the improvement project, and build agreement around priorities moving forward:<\/p>\n The purpose of this phase is as simple as it is grand: To devise a solution that will meet both customer requirements and business goals. Create the New Normal.<\/p>\n The word \u201cFacilitate\u201d is specifically chosen, rather than \u201cDesign\u201d, and not just for alliteration. \u201cFacilitating\u201d something means not just making it happen, but to making it easier. A \u201cdesign\u201d never has to leave the page.<\/p>\n \u201cDesigning\u201d the Future State connotes an image of brainiacs (and\/or consultants) holed up in a war room, doors closed except for coffee runs and Jimmy John\u2019s deliveries. Weeks later, they emerge, brandishing the \u201csolution\u201d. These tend to end up in very expensive binders on some vice president\u2019s desk, and never implemented.<\/p>\n \u201cFacilitating\u201d the Future embraces a more collaborative approach, one that focuses on both customer and employee needs. The best projects use resources that represent both all relevant functions (including internal customers and suppliers) and multiple organizational levels.<\/p>\n Define Future Needs<\/strong><\/p>\n This sets the scope and constraints for this phase. The team needs the overriding process (and improvement) objectives as well as any limiting factors they will face.<\/p>\n This is not \u201crisk management\u201d, rather it\u2019s a reflection of the potential success factors outside The other key output is the start of a \u201cProcess Specification\u201d. Similar to a SIPOC analysis<\/a>, this also includes process objectives (making it an \u201cOSIPOC\u201d?) At this point, there are no process steps to list in the \u201cP\u201d section \u2013 that comes later.<\/p>\n Design the Future State<\/strong><\/p>\n There\u2019s no One Best Way to design a future state, but here\u2019s a method that is both successful and fun. Break the team into small groups, turn them loose with Post-It notes and butcher paper, and allow them to develop as many different solutions as they can. A true brainstorming exercise \u2013 developing first, without judgment or criticism.<\/p>\n Focus on the activities that need to be done, not the roles. You can always create and combine roles through the process. <\/strong><\/p>\n Define Roles<\/strong><\/p>\n The design focused on the process steps<\/em> and the work itself<\/em>. Now, determine what knowledge and skills are needed to accomplish each step. Look for areas and opportunities to combine and cluster the work.<\/p>\n Don\u2019t be afraid to challenge existing roles and definitions. This may well mean new titles, functions, and reporting lines.<\/p>\n Define the roles (and set expectations) by clearly articulating the behaviors needed. Good processes should be adaptable; usually \u201cadaptability\u201d means employees applying good judgment. If expectations are clarified, and the process objectives well-defined, this should follow.<\/p>\n Develop Tools<\/strong><\/p>\n New activities, new positions\u2026 Why not some shiny new resources to go along with it?<\/p>\n Tools can be anything from worksheets to software to SOPs. They don\u2019t have to be fancy \u2013 they just have to be effective and efficient. In fact, during any \u201cbeta\u201d or pilot period, it is usually a good idea to use simpler, interim tools.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/b-spoke.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/full-model1.png?w=720\")
Current State Review<\/h4>\n\n
\n<\/strong>There are always more areas to improve than there are resources to do so. Clarify the cause(s) of pain and decide what to chase first. Pursue the biggest impact items, rather than simply attacking \u201clow hanging fruit\u201d.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n
\n<\/strong>It will be iterative, but even a straw-man schedule (representing all three phases) helps get sponsors and resources on board (for both time and funding).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n
\n<\/strong>Strap on your toolbelt. The first two steps get the right people in the right place; now, they can use their preferred methodologies to gather primary information. Then:<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n
\n<\/strong>Find meaning in quantitative and qualitative data. Understand and prioritize process disconnects. Brainstorm (but don\u2019t attempt to overdevelop) some vague solutions, and gain approval to move forward on those solutions.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\nFacilitate the Future State<\/h4>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/b-spoke.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/05\/assumptions-list.png?w=221\")
Early in this phase, the group should collaborate to document key \u201cProcess Assumptions\u201d they\u2019re making. They should consider what is happening external to the project, and what can reasonably happen in the future, that may impact the process.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/b-spoke.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/05\/assumption-sample.png?w=300\")
of the team\u2019s control. Resist the urge to create contingency plans<\/em>. Just list.<\/p>\n\n
\nIt might be helpful to review \u201cworld class\u201d principles (e.g., reduce bureaucracy, minimize non-value-added activites)<\/li>\n
\nNot to refine<\/u> what they did, but to start from scratch. (They will groan, but eventually will draw something)<\/li>\n
\nThey will insist it\u2019s impossible to create something unique at this point; usually, though, third time\u2019s the charm<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/b-spoke.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/05\/show-and-tell.jpg?w=300\")
Take a break (of a few days, if possible), and let them play with all the different iterations. Bring them back together to create Frankenstein versions \u2013 grade them against the process objectives, and select the most effiective and efficient design.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/b-spoke.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/05\/part-ii-featured.png?w=300\")
expectations for those who will be doing them, the tools they need to succeed, and a way to determine how successful they are. It\u2019s important to keep each step distinct \u2013 the design will be more pure if the first worry is solely about what to do, without getting concerned about how to do it. Great designs can be rejected prematurely because existing metrics don\u2019t support them; design first, then work the rest out.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/b-spoke.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/05\/process-overview.png?w=720\")
<\/p>\n