MM: So take us through how you begin to develop a visual depiction of Sally’s engagement with the workflow vis-à-vis an online get-it-right-upfront workflow process.

TM: One of the things that we did that we felt was very important was—and this was typical with all the vendors that we talked to—they wanted to do their training based on their features of the software. Is this where you’re headed? Is this what you were thinking about wanting to get at?

MM: Yes.

TM: The classic analogy is this. Let’s say you’re working in Microsoft Excel. Somebody tells you they want you to write a formula.

Well, how are you going to write that formula? You could type it in. You could click on cells. You could do one of their automated things. There are probably about eight different ways you can write a formula in Excel. Well, with these database-publishing solutions, there are probably about eight different ways you could create a product manager’s role.

But what we did was—we had a core team. We learned the features. We said, “Okay. We’re going to populate the database. We’re going to have our information in there. We’re then going to create a training manual using our information, based on what we feel the optimal way to use that system is.

That’s what we trained on.

MM: So, before you actually configure the software—much less buy the software—you create a training module for an operator.

TM: Right.

MM: In this training module, you described the performance of that job—the job function within work cell. You described that work cell as a trainable, repeatable process…

TM: Absolutely.

MM: In the course of doing that, you documented for Sally what her job looks like—and using the training manual to really mock up the user experience.

TM: And making it real for her. Because when she’s looking at the data and the examples in the screenshots, it has information that she’s familiar with.

MM: So this also then entails you mocking up screenshots, because that’s what you would need in the training manual. Is that right?

TM: Correct.

MM: So in essence, what you did was to design at the level of business process, workflow and accountability. You defined the user experience not just as screenshots, but also as a user manual.

TM: Yes.

MM: The next thing I’d like you to talk to is the optimized workflow.

With these basic principles of accountability and no enabling bad behavior or sloppy work. Staying online. Getting it right upfront.

With that set of principles, your current-state process, as I recall from our conversation—entailed about 300 or so discrete steps. Is that right?

TM: That is correct. 300 individual steps.

MM: Then how did you start to develop the optimized future-state capability?

TM: Well, as you mentioned—the visual representation on the wall. We kind of created, after we had all of the artifacts out there, we either took pictures or put them into a document. We reduced them so that they could fit on half of that wall. Then we drew a line under that.

The top of the wall was the current. The “current,” being with a few modifications that we felt we could implement right away. Then we drew a line.

On the bottom, we started the new process. “What do we do now? What is the process that we should lead with? Look. You’re doing this on the backend, and we know that there’s pain back there. We want to move this up into the process.”

Subject Indexes in Two Hours vs 30 person-weeks

MM: So for example, there were two things that I want you to address. First, how your team builds the subject index in the back of the catalog and, second, how your ream conducted profit analysis of each page in the catalog.

Let’s talk about the index, first of all. In a 900-page catalog, creating an index can be quite the chore. It typically happens at the end of the production cycle.

So there was like a two-week period at the very end of the production cycle, where 15 to 20 people sequestered themselves into a room and basically called out names and told what page number those particular items were on. That’s now the index was built.

Again, you’re talking 10 to 15 people for 8 hours a day, for 2 weeks. That’s a lot of man-hours.

MM: Yes. That’s 30 man-weeks.

TM: It had to be done. So we recognized with database publishing how electronically that information is captured within the database, and—through a simple export—that same result can be more accurately and quickly exported within a matter of 2 hours.

But more importantly, we reduced the cycle time by two weeks.

MM: So when you looked at this visual depiction and then started to create an interim optimized workflow—at what point did you start applying activity-based costing to the workflow?

TM: Actually, the activity-based costing came after that. I’ll tell you why. It came when there was recognition of how much indeed the new process was going to be able to change the workflow.

MM: So let’s use this as an opportunity to shift into the optimized workflow.

TM: Sure.

MM: Over the course of nine months in this War Room, you developed a visual end-to-end depiction of the messy current-state operation.

TM: Yes.

MM: Out of this precipitated a number of interim changes that you could make, because they were easy, self-evident, and everyone said, “Let’s do it.”

TM: Yes.

MM: Then you developed a new workflow. An optimized workflow embracing some core principles—one of which you identified as, “Right upfront.” And enter data once and only once.

TM: Yes. Enter once, publish many times.

Getting the Right Job Done

MM: Yes. And “stay online.” So, as much as possible, keep the work online as opposed to going offline in an analogue or physical work activity. Is that right?

TM: Yes. Although I think you might cover accountability and enabling within the “right upfront,” the enabling thing was kind of a sticky point, there. It was important for people to do what we called, “Staying out of somebody else’s backyard.”

You can’t do their job for them. If they’re going to fail, they’re going to fail.

MM: So it’s kind of, “You’re accountable for your work, and you’re not your brother’s keeper.” Or—what’s the psychological term? “Enabler.” What do they call that when you enable somebody else’s addiction or bad behavior?”

TM: We call them “enablers.”

MM: Enablers. Okay. So, “Stand on your own two feet and get your job done,” is another core principle.

TM: Right. That doesn’t mean you can’t be helpful. But you can’t do somebody else’s job for them.

MM: Perfect. So that was your principle around enabling. No more enabling bad behavior or enabling shoddy work.

TM: Yes.

MM: You’re accountable for producing high-quality work now in this increasingly transparent self-evidently accountable workflow process.

TM: Right. Because people recognize that if nobody else is doing this…

MM: It ain’t gonna get done.

TM: Right. You can’t hide any more.

MM: So this has actually two dimensions to it. You just described the downside of it. That is fear of recrimination and ridicule and maybe some lost jobs.

But the upside of it is, I am now an acknowledged contributor. I’m needed. I make a difference. I contribute here in a very direct and now transparent and accountable way.

TM: Yes. We are dependent on you.

MM: Yes. And we are inter-dependent—that sense of being part of a team in and of itself provides a sustainable motivation for getting it right upfront.

TM: Yes.

MM: Now you’ve gotten to the root cause of why most change initiatives fail: distrust and the lack of transparency in overall process that reinforces distrust.

TM: Yes. And that’s why someone who has this change-management, psychological understanding and can facilitate is an important vehicle. He was able to identify those fears.

MM: Yes! Innovation leaders recognize the legitimate, fact-based, reference experiences that individuals project into the future, and assume will come about with a certain amount of cynical realism.

TM: Absolutely. ‘Cynical,’ is a very good word to use.

MM: Where “cynicism,” is simply the belief that the past will repeat itself.

TM: What’s past is prologue.

MM: Right. So effective change-management and innovation leadership must not start with the end-to-end visual depiction of the current big mess, project and executive leadership must address the deep-seated beliefs, “I don’t trust our workflow” and “I’m sure that I trust others to tell the real truth about what’s really going on around here.” The innovation-leadership process then entails building new trust in the proposed system.

TM: Building trust and—as this person used to always say—eliminating fears: It’s kind of the same thing, but… Fear-based activity is rampant during these processes.

Seeds of Failure Sown in Executing Well

MM: This gets to another underlying issue that you’ve set up beautifully, here.

After a while, most successful businesses become what I call, “execution systems.” From the annual strategic plan, most firms at the senior levels have well-defined goals, roles and responsibilities; everyone then supposedly “executes against plan.” There’s nothing wrong with that: companies must find and keep customers. However, in a larger context, executing against plan results in everyone keeping their heads down and getting their particular jobs done. Only, there’s no mental space to innovation, little or no freedom to change things for the better.

You could say that change and the special class of change—innovation—becomes sand in the gears of execution; that fundamentally most companies have constituted themselves as “change-resistant execution systems.”

TM: Not on purpose, I don’t think.

MM: That’s right. Not on purpose. But everyone got so focused and busy trying to survive, grow sales, and maintain profitability—all excecutional mindsets—that baby that got tossed out with the bathwater. We traded growth and security for our ability to change and adapt—we traded away our ability to innovate as a matter of daily habit.

We’re at the point now where the world continues to change so rapidly—because technologies and innovations change fundamentally how we find and serve customers—we now must bring into our execution system a new set of muscles: innovation leadership muscles.

Today everyone in an execution system knows—for the most part—to whom they contribute information or results in the workflow. Most everyone knows what outputs they owe to whom, and who owes me. What qualifies as good inputs and outputs.

TM: Right.

MM: But in the context of change, there’s no accountability. There isn’t any role clarity around “who owes what, delivered how, by what criteria of satisfaction or quality.”

I say the lack of accountability in the change context surfaces as the root cause of change resistance. No one knows what to produce, for whom, in a change context.

That was what was so brilliant about your end-to-end visual depiction of the catalog development and publishing process.

You made it clear exactly who does what for whom in the current state. The map also supported fact-based discussions, “In the future, interim or automated ideal, “Who should owes what to whom?”

You got everyone to agree, “Yes. That would actually work for me.” That really defines the art of futureproofing: getting everyone to accept a new set of accountabilities rooted in the holist improvement of the business as well as the improvement of individual productivity. Brilliant!

TM: Yes.

MM: So part of addressing fear-based behavior was replacing it with optimistic, forward-looking, pictures and images and experiences—as grounded by this visual depiction of the interim workflow, as well as the optimized workflow.

TM: Yes.