CSI: We're All Flawed

Continual Service Improvement Programme in ITILv2 used to be four basic steps:

1. Where are we now? - what is current reality: our baseline position?
2. Where do we want to be? - what do we want to achieve? Setting specific targets
3. How do we get there? - what are the priorities for action: the project plan, etc?
4. How do we know we've arrived? - what's our success criteria, our "Definition of Done"..?

I always felt it was missing a fifth stage - "how do we stay there?" Once an advancement has been made, what prevents us from regressing back to our prior position?

With ITILv3 (now ITIL2011), it became 6 steps:

1. What is the vision? - why are we doing it?
2. Where are we now? - what is current reality: our baseline position?
3. Where do we want to be? - what do we want to achieve? Setting specific targets
4. How do we get there? - what are the priorities for action: the project plan, etc?
5. Did we get there? - what evidence shows we met those targets?
6. How do we keep the momentum going? - how do we stay there?

But all this is abstract and somewhat mechanical: it's easy to cite the steps, far harder to sell the message to people. So, here are some points of consideration:

1. Accept That Imperfections Exist

No matter how well something is doing, it can always be improved. We're not saying it's bad, just that there's "room for improvement": we're not saying it's 45%, it may be running at 85%. 

Hey, 85% sounds good... until you learn that everything else is running at 95%, so comparatively speaking... yeah, not so great after all.

But then gremlins immediately materialise with hurdles, intending to pull things off-course: "85% is fine. It's not worth the effort. There is no reason to improve." Perhaps not now... but what about next year? Next month? Next week? "Great now" may be "just sufficient" tomorrow then "falling behind" by the end of the week. Technology moves at a fast rate in modern times; you've got to run just to keep up - else the world will overtake you. Races don't wait for you; they'll continue despite you.

And here culture eats strategy for breakfast: accepting "things are fine" gives us no justification for action, no reason to improve - and therefore we don't seek improvement opportunities. But let's clarify something: we're not committing to any action, we're just speculating, thinking about things that we could pop on the "to-do" list for review at a later date. At some point we need to make advancements... but it doesn't hurt to think of them now so we'll be prepared for the future, right?

Hence the first point: accept that things are imperfect, and understand it is okay to talk about them. Be transparent and open about what is broken and how broken it is. An organisation blind to its imperfections is a culture in denial, running the risk of failure by ignoring warning signs.

2. The Pursuit Of Perfection Involves The Finding Of Flaws

If something is 95% good, it can only be improved by examining that remaining 5%, which may involve adopting a negative mindset - but the logic is undeniable: we need to hunt down those things that don't work. Strangely, this is a fairly commonplace practise: system administrators ignore information logs but trawl error logs instead; those looking to recondition cars for selling on are unconcerned with things that operate fine but look to address the things that don't work properly.

Oh, here come the gremlins with their defensive excuses, letting emotive issues derail the journey: yes, there are valid reasons why you couldn't do it... yes, we understand you were under pressure... yes, you can't do everything at once... but do we agree - for one reason or another - that flaws exist? Be hard on the facts and soft on the delivery.

discuss what is broken, not who is broken - focus on processes and products, not people.

Again, culture plays an important part here: the environment must not just accept flaws, but actively welcome them, treating them as valued improvement opportunities to be carefully considered. 

Don't dismiss criticism, not matter how big or small: this sends the clear message that feedback isn't welcome, and quality isn't important... eventually soon those best placed to identify weaknesses are so demoralised - conditioned into believing that any effort at change will be rejected - they'll become resigned to mediocrity, shaking their heads sadly at the energetic newcomers that want to do so good.

" the biggest concern for any organisation is when their most passionate people become quiet" - Tim McClure

Just because nobody's saying it, they could still be thinking it - and certainly be observing it. And when it's not just your staff but your customers thinking it, your sales begin to feel it. Badly.

3. Speak Not Of What Is Wrong, But What Can Be Made Right.

A more acceptable way of delivering bad news is to present it as good news: pointing out how it is broken is of no help; talking of how to repair it is.

Aha, gremlins return with reasons why these things can't be addressed: time, cost, resource, staff, skills.. all those insurmountable hurdles scattered liberally in our path to true enlightenment. But wait: there may be plenty of reasons why we can't make changes... but that shouldn't prevent discussions about the changes themselves.

So talk of how things could be made better, and how things should be better. Complaints without suggestions are simply resigned admittance that flaws should be tolerated: gremlins proclaim "it is what it is" or "but that's life" as excuses. How about we stop talking about how it is, and begin talking about how it could be? How about we forget about criticism, and focus on change proposals?

And let's also consider who is ultimately going to benefit from these changes: us, or our customers (remember them? The very people that pay us money to receive our services)... isn't that a good thing, if we can pull it off?

" To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield" - "Ulysses", Tennyson

4. Understand That Not All Changes Will Be Implemented.

Final approval may rest with higher-ups, and the proposed change could be rejected for reasons only known to them.

So... it's fallen at the last hurdle. Rejection. Dejection. Demotivation. Despair. Depression. No, look... this is not necessarily a bad thing.

Why the rejection? Perhaps the business case wasn't strong enough... maybe the benefits weren't clear? In which case, representing it with more coherent and lucid arguments may fare better. Perhaps the written request didn't convey the same enthusiasm and passion as those that authored it, so maybe eschewing formal forms and cold emails in favour of warm conversation could sell the idea better through discussions: the "elevator pitch" concept.

Steve Jobs once asked "If it could save a person’s life, would you find a way to shave ten seconds off the boot time?" and then showed that for five million users, an extra ten seconds every day added up to around three hundred million hours that people would save in a year alone: it may seem a minor change to you, but what about the numerous other people that could benefit from this?

And even if it is approved, there'll always be that time factor: implementation actions need planning and scheduling, so for resource reasons it may not be a high priority - we won't see the change coming this season, this financial year, this release, etc.. but that's fine: it's definitely coming; it may not be immediately or soon, but that's quicker than never.

Or perhaps, more simply, that deeper analysis upon a good idea revealed it to be a financial disaster, so it's a good thing it was rejected.

5. Recognise That Small Change May Require Large Persistence.

Rejection of a change proposal shouldn't dampen enthusiasm.

You're facing a minefield, and you know dangers exist - so the safest approach is to not to enter the field in the first place, right? But then you'll never get to the other side.

You know some dangerous areas are marked out to avoid - but that doesn't mean that all dangers are marked out, and those that are marked are as a result of from prior experience. So more marking means future trips will be safer - but at a cost of further exploration, inviting danger.

Agents of change require courage and determination - they do not enter the field because it is safe and easy to do so, they enter knowing it is dangerous but with the intended outcome of wanting to make it safer.

And you may want to remind the gremlins that just because danger areas are marked up in the minefield, there's nothing guaranteeing complete safety outside of the field itself.

Dismissing change prospects without really analysing benefits because the challenges immediately spring to mind shows no commitment to quality: if gremlins win one battle, steady yourself for the next battle. And the next. Don't give up. Don't just accept the norms, but challenge it.

As Steve Jobs once said:

" the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world are the ones who do" - Steve Jobs

The world does not wait for those that rest on their laurels; the world is shaped and defined by those that want to drive real change.

Do you want to be one of those people?