Conseguir tirar partida da abordagem por processos

Por que é que tantas organizações certificadas pouco ou nenhum valor retiram da abordagem por processos e do seu sistema de gestão?

Da minha experiência de auditor a sistemas de gestão, supostamente maduros, ou seja, com vários anos após a implementação, encontro três causas principais para o pouco valor acrescentado desses sistemas.

Primeiro, objectivos de treta.

As organizações não levam os seus sistemas de gestão a sério, são um sistema paralelo à gestão do negócio. Definem objectivos “infantis”, objectivos pueris que põem logo de sobreaviso quem os encontra. Se os objectivos são de merda não é de esperar grande exigência de melhoria, e num mundo em mudança não melhorar é efectivamente piorar. Acima de tudo é um sistema de gestão que funciona mais como uma carga burocrática mais ou menos pesada

Segundo, considerar que os objectivos do sistema são o somatório dos objectivos de cada processo.

Podemos optimizar um processo associado à aquisição de recursos, mas que gera ineficácia na organização. Compramos muito bem, mas os produtos chegam tarde, ou trazem defeitos que só são descobertos durante a produção ou prestação do serviço, a pior altura para isso acontecer. Recordo uma empresa em que o sector das compras todos os anos recebia bónus, à conta dos savings, enquanto semeava o caos nas operações. Ou uma outra empresa onde o departamento Comercial ganhava bónus por ganhar negócios que funcionavam como mais um prego no caixão da empresa.

É claro que os processos devem ter objectivos, devem poder ser monitorizados e medidos, mas estamos a falar de objectivos operacionais. Quando falamos de objectivos do sistema falamos em objectivos da organização como um todo. Quase sempre a optimização de um todo implica a subordinação de alguns processos a um desempenho inferior.

Este é talvez o erro mais comum.

Terceiro, pretender que o mundo é uma realidade simples ou complicada.

Terceiro, pretender que o mundo é uma realidade simples ou complicada e avançar com planos de acção genéricos que são quase sempre uma reformulação frásica das actividades já previstas nos processos.

Pode ser por causa de uma visão infantil do mundo, mundo simples ou complicado com relações de causa efeito simples e evidentes. Pode ser por causa de falta de tempo e a necessidade de picar o relógio de ponto, e há que ter um plano de acção, qualquer plano serve. Ou pode ser por causa de uma metodologia inadequada para a definição das acções como referi neste postal "O que fazer?"

Another improvement project

Yesterday, the start of an improvement project.

First step: describe the "as is" process - how do we work? how do we go from inputs to outputs?

Post-its written and posted by the stakeholders.

Step Two: What Can Go Wrong? what usually goes wrong? what do we usually complain to internal suppliers? What complaints do we usually receive from our internal customers?

Post-its written and posted by the stakeholders.

Homework follows.

PS: Paper tablecloths can have very interesting uses!!!

For ISO 9001 people... (part II)

Part I.

Let's look at the difference between the everyday level and the process level.

At the everyday level, a company receives a complaint and starts handling it. Then, as part of this process, it reaches an agreement with the customer and decides to close the complaint. Immediately before closing it, someone has to assess the interest or opportunity to take an improvement action to reduce or eliminate the likelihood of the complaint being repeated.

Implementing a true and effective improvement action is not cheap unless you already know the root cause. Implementing a true improvement action involves knowing the root cause, but the root causes are usually hidden under several layers of reality. They have to be investigated, tests need to be made and this consumes scarce resources. So, normally, the right bdecision is not to proceed with an improvement action because the return is not worth it.

At the level of the process, driven by the calendar, someone, normally a team, should look at the set of complaints received, at the big picture, and ask the question, does it make sense to develop one or more actions for improvement? A Pareto diagram may be powerful tool to evidence the big picture and show if there are any relevant priorities for improvement. For example:

In this case, the reason "Design deficiency" is responsible for around 30% of all complaints. The company decided to focus the attention on this topic and found this scenario:

Reason A is responsible for 75% of all complaints generated by "Design deficiency". So, Reason A alone is responsible for 22% of all complaints. Perhaps it is wise, and a good investment to decide to develop an improvement action to remove the root cause (s) behind Reason A.

Who should be part of a team to develop an improvement action to remove the root cause (s) behind Reason A?

It is so different, it is so powerful, it is so revealing, looking into the film, looking into the big picture instead of looking for just a frame. Both are needed, but the latter one is fundamental.

For ISO 9001 people...

Implementing a management system is like tossing and keeping a series of plates in the air circulating like a jongleur is able to do it.

A dish is, for example, about ordering, receiving, and supplying raw materials to production. Another dish is about sales, another is about production, control, and packaging, another is about...

What often happens is that once the dishes are released... they fall to the ground...

The management system cannot take on a life of its own. Someone has to always be aware that the dishes have fallen and that they have to be thrown into the air again.

This happens when an internal audit approaches, or when a surveillance audit date looms. Then, on the run, corrections are made, figurately “some walls are repaired, some wires are fastened, and a new scenario is set up” so that the next audit will look good in the photograph.

One of the most important mechanisms to keep the management system working, to keep the dishes in the air, involves measuring, analyzing, and making decisions to improve.

Let me show you why.

First, let us consider three levels of monitoring, measuring, and analyzing:

• The everyday level - everyday people have to act, to react to defects, to complaints, to delays, to orders, to events
• The process level - periodically, people will collect information about process performance and after analysis will decide if any change, any improvement is needed
• At the company level - periodically, people will collect information about company-wide performance and after analysis will decide if any change, any improvement is needed

At the everyday level things normally work, the pressure of the moment, the weight of reality make people acting. However, improvement only comes as a consequence of the other two levels. 

Yes, solving "sporadic spikes", controlling is not the same thing as improving. Remember the good old Joseph Juran:

Improvement only happens when you deliberately decide to change the status quo in a positive way. Improvement is not about eliminating sporadic spikes, improving is not about acting around a frame, improving is about connecting the frames and seeing the film, seeing the trend, seeing what is beyond the foam of the days. 

What if there is no discipline to stick with the actions that lead to the analysis at the process and company level?

What kind of improvement, what rate of improvement can we expect from not working at these two levels? I dare to state that without these two levels there is no improvement. And more, these two levels are not event-based, but calendar-based.

Let me show how ISO 9001:2015 clauses are used while we perform the two levels. 

At the company level:

At the process level:

These inputs are used in analysis and evaluation (also inputs from audit results and management review):

Let us see the outputs:

Check out how the outputs of analysis and evaluation can leverage changes in:

• competency requirements
• competency gaps
• risks and opportunities
• processes

So, if you don't do these two types of analysis and evaluation improvement is only event-based never calendar-based.

Why is that demand for training and webinars on improvement are always not a priority for ISO 9001 people with an implemented quality management system?

• Do you have the right indicators? (Different organizations in the same economic sector with different strategies may require different indicators due to different priorities)
• Do you have a dashboard? Is it well designed according to the rules?
• Do you prepare a report for analysis and evaluation? Do you fall in the three most common mistakes in presenting data?
• Do you make decisions about improvement?
• Do you use the project approach to command improvement?
• Do you use tools and techniques to find the root causes?

How can we use the process approach (part IVa)

Part I, part II, part IIIa and part IIIb.

5.Processes and strategy

5.1 Anything about strategy in ISO 9001 and ISO 9000?

ISO 9000:2015 defines strategy as:

plan to achieve a long-term or overall objective

When you remember the old article from Henry Mintzberg, The Strategy Concept I: Five Ps for Strategy, published in October 1987 by California Management Review. 

Summarizing the strategy in a plan is too little, too poor. 

What about ISO 9001:2015, where does the strategy come in? 

Clause 4.1:

The organization shall determine external and internal issues that are relevant to its purpose and its strategic direction

Interestingly, not many people realize that relevant external and internal issues and their classification are a function of strategic orientation.

Clause 5.1.1:

ensuring that the quality policy and quality objectives are established for the quality management system and are compatible with the context and strategic direction of the organization;

OK, alignment of quality policy with context and strategic direction.

Clause 5.2.1:

is appropriate to the purpose and context of the organization and supports its strategic direction;

Again, alignment of quality policy with context and strategic direction. Quality policy should derive from strategic orientation.

Clause 9.3.1:

Top management shall review the organization’s quality management system, at planned intervals, to ensure its continuing suitability, adequacy, effectiveness and alignment with the strategic direction of the organization.

OK, this is understandable, it is peaceful. 

That’s it!!!

Not very useful as a guide to work with strategy.

Let us try another door. One of the quality management principles is customer focus. ISO 9000:2015 states:

The primary focus of quality management is to meet customer requirements and to strive to exceed customer expectations.

One of the things that worries me about ISO 9001 is that it uses the language "customer" instead of "target customer".

Seth Godin in his book “We Are All Weird” writes:

"The mass market — which made average products for average people was invented by organizations that needed to keep their factories and systems running efficiently.

Stop for a second and think about the backwards nature of that sentence.

The factory came first. It led to the mass market. Not the other way around.”

“For a hundred years, industrialists have had a clearly stated goal: standardized workers building standardized parts”, [Another text by Seth Godin, from his blog]. This resulted, as a business model, while demand was bigger than supply. When demand is bigger than supply, the boss, the one calling the shots, is the one who produces. And when that is the case, whoever is more efficient wins. Everyone tries to compete for the lowest cost. 

In this world, the competitive landscape can be compared to a single mountain and all competitors try to climb that mountain, the higher they rise, the higher the yield, but the higher they climb, the fewer the number of companies that survive, because in this landscape of a single mountain, the one that wins is the one that uses the effect of scale, grow in volume to lower unit costs and be more competitive.

As soon as supply started to exceed the level of demand, the economic world began a transformation towards more variety. In terms of the competitive landscape, this translates into many, more and more mountains. And those who climb one do not compete with those who climb the other:

In an economic world full of different peaks in a rugged landscape there are many types of customers. Different customers look and value different things. 

Let us stay away from statistics and look customers in the eye, literally and metaphorically. If we look at customers who value price above all else, what satisfies them? 

Satisfied customers do not happen by chance, they are the normal and natural result of work done upstream to achieve the results they value. 

What do we have to do upstream to produce these results in a perfectly normal, systematic, and sustainable way? 

This market is highly competitive, different competitors seek to improve their efficiency, whoever is more efficient wins, whoever stretches the frontiers of operational excellence wins. 

Amateurs cannot compete with paranoid competitors.

Now, let's look at another type of customer, the one who wants tailor-made service, or a customized product. What do they value? 

What kind of priorities are behind these results?

Finally, let's look at another type of customer, the one who wants innovation, or values design above all. What do they value? 

Again, what kind of priorities are behind these results?

Now imagine an organization that wants to serve the three types of customers at the same time

What a big mess it will be! A typical stuck-in-the-middle situation.

The following figure is taken from an article called “Using Product Profiling to Illustrate Manufacturing-Marketing Misalignment” by Terry Hill, Rafael Menda, and David Dilts and published in July 1998.

One can look into an organization and evaluate its products and markets, its manufacturing structure, and its infrastructure. 

For example, about the products and markets: organizations can have wide or narrow product ranges, high or low rate of new product introductions. High or Low frequency of schedule changes. And different order winners, the most relevant topic at the eyes of certain groups, certain segments of customers.

For example, for manufacturing: organizations can have small or large production run sizes, high or low set-up frequencies, low or high set-up costs.

For example, for infrastructure: organizations may be designed to new product introductions or for process improvements to improve efficiency. Manufacturing Managers’ tasks may be dedicated to schedules or to quantity.

Let us see two examples.

The blue company is a company that bets on innovation, they have a wide range of products, they have a high rate of new product introductions, They are flexible enough to accommodate and thrive in the middle of a high frequency of schedule changes. Customers love the innovative products and the brand. Their manufacturing is aligned by being able to run small production sizes, handle a high frequency of set-ups and their cost is low. Infrastructure is aligned with product introductions and meeting schedules.

On the other side, one can think about a green company. A company that bets on low cost to compete on price, they have a narrow range of products, they have a low rate of new product introductions. A new product introduction is a headache, is more entropy. They try to minimize the frequency of schedule changes, which reduces throughput, that reduces efficiency. Customers love their low prices. Their manufacturing is aligned by being able to run large production sizes without stop, they minimize set-ups, and their cost is high. Infrastructure is aligned with efficiency and process improvements process in and throughput.

Different organizations, different strategies, different processes, different mindsets.

Now consider the example of a third company, a company that has a weak or unclear strategy, a company not aligned.

They have a wide product range, an average rate of new product introductions, an average frequency of schedule changes, and their order winners are based on price. Things don’t fit nicely together

They run small to average production run sizes and average set-up frequency and cost.

Their mind is in searching for efficiency but at the same time, they look to meet schedules to satisfy different customers looking for different products in small quantities.

This company is a mess, is stuck in the middle trying to serve everybody and fighting with conflicting priorities.

Continue.

How can we use the process approach (part III b)

Part I and part II e part IIIa.

4.2.5 Step 5 – The main processes

We will use the example of a public works company, civil construction, as a basis for modeling an organization. A public works company is an organization that lives based on construction works, each construction works is put out to tender by the owners of the projects, so in an organization of this type the main steps may be:

These main steps represent the core processes of the organization (I call them the Cristiano Ronaldo of the business), those that are triggered by a customer's need and aim to satisfy that need, thus serving the customer. What happens between those two customer states? What actions, what activities do you do when going from one extreme into the other?

In this way, the main processes necessary to complete the change in the status of customers are identified.

4.2.6 Step 6 – The supporting processes

Once the core processes are identified, the support processes that allow the customer service vector to continue to function in the long term must be identified. These are processes that are not directly related to an order, or work, in particular, but necessary to deal with various orders or other types of requests. These are processes normally associated with resources (materials, services, people, machines, financial, ...). 

The process "Supply equipment" ensures that the works have the appropriate equipment to run without equipment shortages, and also ensures preventive and curative maintenance.

The process "Supply material and service" ensures the adequate and timely supply of materials and services essential to the development of the work, it also ensures the qualification, selection, performance evaluation, classification, and re-evaluation of suppliers and subcontractors.

Some organizations linked to construction and public works, with which we have worked in the past, given the particularities of their market, have chosen processes to support financial management (which included credit insurance, collections, payments) we will not do it here to keep the model simple.

The process "Train people" converts potential employees selected from the job market, into employees of the organization. It improves the skills of employees by receiving, analyzing, and closing gaps in the profile of people who occupy the various functions.

4.2.7 Step 7 – The leading process

Finally, the last process, the process "Lead the organization", a process where top management sets direction, sets objectives, and analyzes the performance of the organization, which evaluates the degree of fulfillment of the purpose, its raison d'être, and proposes new performance challenges and proposes changes in processes in order to leverage the organization to higher levels of performance. 

4.3 - Final remarks

Why do I use here these egg fried shapes to represent processes, instead of well-ordered squares like in the figure below?

In doing so, I intend to emphasize and awaken a spirit of humility, our models are not descriptions of reality full of certainties. We look at the world, at reality and we see complexity, mystery, confusion, disorder and problems, challenges of various kinds, and what we do is to organize our exploration of that world based on theories, on simplified approximations of reality, approaches that they make it possible to analyze the world and issue attempts to explain what exists, reality, performance, results and outline plans for the future, in order to influence behavior and induce future results for this part of the reality that interests us.

The amoeba shape, to the detriment of the rectangle, reminds us that our theories are just that, theories, hypotheses, representations, and have no ontological substance of their own, they are not palpable realities, they are nothing but artifices of the human intellect, and as such, they are not definitive can always be improved. Learning takes place through conscious comparison between the organization, as we perceive it, and the organization as we interpret it with theoretical models, our models are like artificial islands that we create, and we have geographically strategically available to cross an ocean of complexity and disorganization. 

The central arrow is the heart of the organization – these are the main processes, everybody should be working to support these processes because they serve clients. That is the job and purpose of the supporting processes, they exist to serve the main processes. You know that winter sport called curling? Like in curling everybody in the organization should be mopping the floor to reduce friction, to easy, to facilitate customer service through the main processes.

The leading process is the brain of the organization, it is here that direction is set, objectives are set, performance is monitored and decisions made.

In the next part, we will relate processes and strategy.

How can we use the process approach (part III a)

 Part I and part II.

In the last part, I wrote that this part would be about processes and strategy. However, let me make a small change and first address the modeling of an organization, based on the process approach, before relating processes to strategy.

4. Modelling an organization – mapping processes

ISO 9001:2015 clause 4.4.1 states that an:

Organization shall determine the processes needed for a quality management system. 

How can that be done?

We need to develop a model of how the organization works having as its building blocks what we call processes.

4.1 What is a model?

“A model is an external and explicit representation of part of reality, as seen by people who want to use the model to understand, to change, to manage and control that part of reality”

 Michael Pidd in “Tools for thinking - Modeling in Management Science” 

Remember, we don't draw a model to answer ISO 9001:2015 requirements, and please auditors. We draw them because we want to understand, to change, to manage, and control our organization's present and future.

Models are always a simplification and an approximate representation of some aspects of reality, models reduce complexity, simplify the original or the future to be built, to reduce the noise produced by reality, and thus highlight, distinguish the critical factors, for the object of study concerned. The model does not show all the attributes of the original, it only illustrates those attributes that are relevant, or suitable for the observer/creator/user of the model to manipulate. Models do not need to be accurate to be useful, models are simplifications, and their usefulness lies precisely in that approach.

The task of the observer/creator/user of the model is to collect the visions, the perceptions, even if ill-defined and implicit of reality, and to shape them in a sufficiently well-defined way to be understood and discussed by other people. A model is a representation of reality. 

With Deming I learned:

All models are wrong, some are useful!

The reality is composed of a set of objects that constitute a system, at a conceptual level we design a model capable of illustrating the system, the reality. Armed with the model as a work unit, we can perform simulations to perceive reality and influence it, the simulation uses the model to perceive and anticipate the dynamics and behavior of the system.

4.2 Modeling an organization as a set of processes

To build a model of an organization, it is necessary to have a clear definition of its purpose, now an organization exists only because there are customers, they are its raison d'être! 

An organization, the organization object of our study, is an entity, it is a system, which transforms, that converts “potential customers with needs” into “customers served”. 

4.2.1 Step 1 - Identify the different types of customers 

Customers are not all the same, it is possible to identify and isolate different types of customers, this activity is important because different types of customers may require, different processes and may mobilize different actors, may involve different inputs and different outputs. 

4.2.2 Step 2 - List the inputs and outputs of the model

Distinguish the different states of the customers and identify all interactions (inputs and outputs) between the organization and its customers! How do we get in contact with potential customers? How do we collect information to develop new products and services? How do we receive orders or requests for proposals? How do we deliver our products and services? 

4.2.3 Step 3 – Determine the core, the heart of the model

Let us track the route, from inputs into outputs. Let us zoom in on the organization. Let us open the black box! 

For the purposes of this blogpost, we select a certain type of customers and then start to dive inside the organization  (for someone implementing a quality management system for certification, this could be a management system scope option)

I gather a set of people that know the organization, each from a different perspective and give them sticky notes and markers. Then, I post two sticky notes that represent the responsible for major input in the system and the receiver of the major output of the system.

I ask; what actions, what activities do you do when going from one extreme into the other? People use sticky notes to write things that they remember. I set a rule: one sticky note must have one verb and one noun like “Receive Request For Proposal”, like “Write Proposal”, like “Budget Proposal”, like “Present proposal”, like “Negotiate proposal”.

After that kind of brainstorming one can start to aggregate sticky notes that belong to a flow of activities. For example, I can replace these 5 sticky notes above by saying that they belong to the same process called “Win order”. Repeating the technique for other sticky notes we develop the central sequence of processes.

When designing the road from the inputs into the outputs, do not dive into to much detail! 

Let us look at a high level of abstraction and consider 3 to 6 entities (each entity represents a process, a set of activities) And let's number the processes sequentially! 

We can do a mental exercise: "If we were riding an order, what would we see from the reception to its delivery?" Do not register departments or functions, but state changes, the main tasks! ”

4.2.4 Step 4 – Name each process

 

Designate each entity (each process)! Start with a verb that illustrates the transformation that takes place inside! Avoid references to departments, to avoid confusion remember:

• processes are not departments, 
• the organization chart is not a process map, 
• the vertical and horizontal views of an organization are very different.

I like to designate a process by relating its name to the main output of that process. 

While certain processes seem to be clearly determined, based on a physical flow (production, logistics, distribution, transport) or a flow of information (design/development, closing accounts, invoicing, payment), certain activities of an administrative nature seem difficult to integrate into a “process” view. 

There may then be a strong temptation to group them by function analogy and to baptize these groupings as “human resource process” (in which recruitment, training, communication, payment of wages, contract management will be mixed) work, social dialogue, without the slightest logical link or the tangible outputs that characterize such a process appearing), “accounting and financial process”, etc. Performing more or less arbitrary functional groupings is of no interest from the point of view of process management, because it will be difficult to draw interesting conclusions as to the coordination and chaining modes. 

In the next part, we will continue with the modeling of the public works company as a basis for modeling an organization. 

How can we use the process approach (part II)

Part I.

3. The process approach – a quality management principle

The process approach is one of the seven quality management principles included in ISO 9000:2015. Let us see the statement of that principle:

Consistent and predictable results are achieved more effectively and efficiently when activities are understood and managed as interrelated processes that function as a coherent system.

It is easy to relate those “Consistent and predictable results” with the objectives referred to in the definition of a management system. 

And what does the same ISO 9000: 2015 say about what a process is? 

set of interrelated or interacting activities that use inputs to deliver an intended result

So, we may see an organization as a coherent system made of a set of interrelated or interacting elements called processes, and it is through those processes that an organization achieves its intended results, its objectives.

At a first glance, we have: 

The intended results may be: 

Now, let us zoom the organization to find out which processes are present and how they interrelate.

 For example, the processes may be:

 

When this organization wins a new project, they have to start ordering resources needed to provide the service. At the same time, winning a new project means developing a new service, new resources need will be determined, and service preparation may start. Then, at an agreed date the service provider may start.

Let us go back to the management system definition:

System to establish policies and objectives, and processes to achieve those objectives

Now, our system is our set of interrelated processes, and it through those processes that you try to meet intended results. Processes are like variables in a mathematical equation that we operate in order to meet our intended results: 

Let us go back again to ISO 9000:2015, clause 2.4.1.3, where we can read:

These processes interact to deliver results consistent with the organization’s objectives and cross functional boundaries. Some processes can be critical while others are not.

When we model how an organization works, we include in the model a set of processes. Those processes are needed, but not all processes have the same impact or influence in meeting each objective or intended result.

Just as an example, let us consider this matrix that relates processes and objectives:

 Processes are where the rubber meets the road. Whatever an objective the management wants an organization to achieve, it is only a dream if one or more processes of the organization are not mobilized and changed to that. In the matrix above, meeting objective “Better sales” requires working on the process “Win project”. Meeting objective “Less complaints” requires working on processes “Prepare service” and “Provide the service”. Meeting objective “More satisfied customers” requires working on processes “Develop a new service”, “Prepare service” and “Provide service”. 

Now, look into the process “Maintain equipment”. It must exist but does not contribute directly to any overall objective. These processes are tricky. If you are excellent in these kinds of processes, they will be expensive but will not contribute to customer satisfaction, but if you make a mistake in these processes, they can contribute to customer un-satisfaction. 

No one says: we are very satisfied with our electrical power supplier because at the end of the day there were no power failures. We say, it is the minimum someone can expect, no failures 

Next: Process and strategy

How can we use the process approach (part I)

 1. Management system definition

Let us start with the management system definition.

Do you know what is the ISO 9000:2015 management system definition?

set of interrelated or interacting elements of an organization to establish policies and objectives, and processes to achieve those objectives

Let us substitute “set of interrelated or interacting elements of an organization” with the word “system”. According to ISO 9000:2015, a system is a “set of interrelated or interacting elements”. So, a management system is:

A system to establish policies and objectives, and processes to achieve those objectives

Have you ever looked at this definition of a management system? Seriously, have you ever looked at this definition with eyes to see? I confess, for years and years I looked at it and never gave it importance, until one day I read it again and I was shocked ... I have been working with ISO 9001 since the 1980s. At that time, I was trained in another view on quality systems, very focused on procedures and quality control. 

Now, I was looking at the definition of a management system and saw something I had never seen before. A management system is a system that establishes a policy, that is, a strategic orientation, a set of priorities, translates that policy into a set of objectives aligned with the policy, the objectives are concrete challenges to be achieved, and then, start working systematically to achieve these objectives. 

2. Systemic thinking

An organization is a system. A system generates results and these results do not happen by chance, they are a perfectly normal product resulting from the system, the way people work, their culture. Thus, the current system generates the current results. If an organization wants to achieve different results in the future, it will have to transform, it will have to stop being the current organization to become the organization of the future. 

When we look into the current organization, the one generating the current results, we can discover a network of loops, a network of practices, that reinforce desired or undesired results:

Parts of these loops are intentional design, but others have evolved without a central command. To achieve the desired objectives for the future, it is necessary to act on these loop networks. 

Back to the definition of a management system. In a management system, the focus must be on the work to be carried out systematically to modify an organization, so that it can achieve objectives aligned with strategic priorities. I would almost say that everything else is noise. 

Next: Process approach definition

Beware of the invisible water in the tank

Seth Godin in a recent blog post, “The dominant culture”, wrote:

 “One of the great cartoons involves two goldfish in a tank talking to one another. One responds in surprise, “wait, there’s water?””

This remind me of a growing concern in my analysis of the business world. Too often we analyze information about certain cases, about certain solutions, about certain methodologies and approaches, without being aware of the assumptions on which they are based. Why? Because no one cared about the water in the tank. 

 

For example, for years and years I have heard comments and stories, I have read wonders about the Toyota Production System.

 

Is it spectacular? Yes!

 

However, it was only in 2017 that I read in an article something that nobody ever says, either because they are unaware or because it is the water in the tank ... - Toyota "freezes" production 8 weeks in advance.

 

How many companies can afford to do this? And how many companies cannot do it, but try in good faith to implement the Toyota Production System in their production?

 

Recently also, the Wall Street Journal published an interesting article, “The Surprising Way Companies Can Shore Up Their Financial Strength”:

“The Drucker Institute’s statistical model serves as the basis for the Management Top 250, an annual ranking produced in partnership with The Wall Street Journal.

…

In total, we examined 820 large, publicly traded companies last year through the lens of 34 indicators across five categories: customer satisfaction, employee engagement and development, innovation, social responsibility and financial strength.

To construct our ranking, corporations are compared in each of the five areas, as well as in their overall effectiveness, through standardized scores with a range of 0 to 100 and a mean of 50.

…

Our model reflects shareholder returns, along with a variety of metrics that capture how effectively a firm has deployed its capital, among other things.

.

For companies in the health-care sector, we found over the course of the seven-year period a significant statistical relationship between financial strength and one other category: employee engagement and development. To be precise, a five-point gain in the latter produced a 0.79-point increase in the former.

.

That may not look like a big deal on its face. But it would have been enough to vault a company from the 50th percentile in financial strength to the 56th in last year’s rankings—up 38 spots on the list.

…

Meanwhile, it is a whole other story for companies in the industrial sector, which includes the airlines. There, it is social responsibility that should command the most attention. A five-point rise in that category translated into a 0.49-point upturn in financial strength.

…

For example, a health-care company wanting to lift its customer-satisfaction score can expect to reap an extra 0.49 points in that category for every five-point advance in employee engagement and development. But an industrial company hoping to achieve a similar bump in customer satisfaction should shoot for a five-point improvement in another area: innovation.”

While reading the article I thought about the water in the tank. Do these recommendations, do these relationships apply equally to all companies in the same economic sector?

I don't think so.

 

Some days ago, someone made the following comment to me:

 

“KPIs for production are simple: efficiency, low losses.”

 

When I heard that the picture of Bruce Jenner came to my mind.

Beware of the invisible water in the tank.

O tabu

O tema que o Público de hoje aborda em "ADSE tem 650 mil despesas por tratar e há atraso nos reembolsos" é interessante, quer acerca do ponto de vista da abordagem por processos, quer acerca da permanência no sector do Estado de uma mentalidade forjada no século passado, algures no tempo em que Kafka escrevia os seus livros.

Alguma vez ouviram falar do termo reengenharia?

A reengenharia era uma palavra muito em voga no mundo dos negócios nos anos 90. Michael Hammer era o seu principal profeta. Recuemos um pouco mais, recuemos ao tempo em que a eletricidade estava a implantar-se no mundo industrial. Nos postais de 2017, "Reconfiguração" e "Quanto tempo?" escrevo sobre o tempo que as empresas demoraram a mudar os layouts após a chegada da electricidade. 30 a 40 anos depois, do fim do vapor como fonte de energia fabril, as fábricas continuam a ser desenhadas como se ainda tivessem de estar ligadas a um veio central.

A reengenharia nos anos 90 veio fazer o mesmo, mas aos métodos de gestão. A reengenharia propunha que se começasse por uma folha em branco: esqueçam o passado, esqueçam os compromissos actuais, esqueçam as regras que seguem porque sempre foi assim que fizeram e pensem: como é que este preocesso deve ser realizado?

Processos velhos, são processos cheios de autorizações, são processos cheios de transacções acompanhadas de controlos. Controlo da entrega, controlo da recepção, carimbo aqui, verificação acolá. Para mim, o exemplo paradigmático é o dos comboios americanos que só no tempo de Reagan deixaram de ter ajudante de maquinista, quando há dezenas de anos já não era preciso um ajudante para atirar carvão para a caldeira da locomotiva a vapor. BTW, eu ainda me lembro das empresas de transporte terem um motorista e um ajudante de motorista em cada camioneta. O motorista só conduzia.

Nos últimos 30 anos os computadores entraram em força, depois a internet, depois as ferramentas colaborativas, depois ... o que é que estará maduro para a mudança revolucionária?

Voltemos ao artigo do Público:

"A ADSE tem cerca de 650 mil documentos de despesas no regime livre que estão por tratar, sem contar com os que estão por digitalizar, e os atrasos nos reembolsos são “enormes”, um problema que “estrangula e destrói” o subsistema de saúde dos funcionários públicos [Moi ici: O problema]
...
A actual situação decorre em grande parte do facto de a ADSE ter “actualmente 194 trabalhadores quando precisa de 270”,[Moi ici: A solução! Típica para alguém que nasceu e foi formatado no século XX. Mais quantidade a entrar, mais necessidade de gente para processar]"

Nas empresas pequenas, por norma, há sempre falta de pessoas, nas empresas grandes há muito que os ensinamentos da reengenharia foram aplicados, por vezes em demasia. No Estado e nos seus serviços é que é dificil aplicá-los. Imaginem que se aplicava num certo serviço e 20 pessoas ficam redundantes. O que é que se ia fazer a essas pessoas? Como não se podem despedir, ía-se arranjar um problema. Por isso, o melhor é não fazer nada. Recordo que no tempo de Clinton nos Estados Unidos, com a aplicação da reengenharia, a administração pública americana cortou entre 10 a 15% do seu efectivo.

Como seria aplicar a reengenharia aos serviços da ADSE sem tabus?

Desenhar o funcionamento actual da ADSE como um sistema de processos inter-relacionados. Medir o desempenho de cada processo com indicadores, identificar os pontos de entupimento no fluxo, e desenvolver acções para simplificar esses processos. No fim, se calhar não precisariam de mais trabalhadores.

O que se acontecesse seria um problema... e qual é o dirigente da admnistração pública que quer levantar problemas e prejudicar a sua vidinha?

BTW, o mesmo jornal Público há dias trazia estes números sobre o exército português que ilustram o problema do Estado gordo e extractivista que temos:

"em 2018 havia apenas 11.369 praças para um total de 15.643 sargentos e oficiais."

I - The Process Approach: Do you really use it?

Uma primeira experiência.