Sustainment: The paradox of the consulting project.

(Even good projects can struggle to sustain improvement gains).

In a previous article outlining seven things’ consultants could do to improve operations by 20-30% in 2018, I outlined at that time, strong mechanical elements that assist implementation consultants with identifying key gaps in operating processes and how we address those to add value to organizations bottom line. I talked about diagnostics and resolutions focused upon identifying the change elements throughout an engagement and the actions the team would take to resolve these along with the structure needed to establish daily routines. What we’ve witnessed firsthand upon returning to previous work environments to perform audits or assessments is how great initiatives lost momentum once the project teams left the premises. In many cases, components of the project elements were still in place, yet, as leadership, personnel, or the environment changed so did the need to follow the system(s) left in place. Accountability meetings fell off, staffing and man-loading models were no longer being used. In short, powerful drivers of performance and habit changed like the seasons of the year. Some of this makes sense as statistics show that permanent change is hard and cultural change is very hard. We only must look at the weight loss industry to see how many people hire weight loss coaches and then gain back the weight once the goal is achieved.

In implementation projects, we try to anticipate these pitfalls using surveys and feedback mechanisms throughout the engagement, but the forces of sustainment can elude even the best of managements efforts. Although we use a ‘bottom up and top down’ approach, most engagements rely heavily on a corporate sponsor who shepherds the process and provides guidance throughout. Yet, a strong sponsor can only take an initiative so far. Without a frontline execution framework that everyone buys into, sustainment will continue to be elusive. Clients don’t hire us to stay forever and perpetually coach them.

So, what do we believe is the next step to resolve this? We know that consulting engagements save millions of dollars annually for companies and many companies add second and third projects as repeat business for these successes. However, once these end, what’s the process for sustainment for the next 20-30 years? Do we believe that these are more than just a ‘one off’ moment. In a recent book by Kevin Kohls, “Addicted to Hopium”, the author discusses an improvement model utilizing TOC (Theory of Constraints-bottleneck identification & management) elements, married to “The Power of Habit”, and held together through “The Progress Principle”. In this article, we’ll explore this model and discuss how implementation consultants can achieve sustainment ownership by the client organization using this model throughout their engagements. This method supports the elements of a management operating system by focusing upon the key driver of the business operation; performance throughput.

The DVA Model (Dependencies, Variation, Analysis)

The DVA approach is a process analysis and resolution model based upon a model that’s currently been in use at GM for the past 30 years. The process starts out by understanding elements of the organization’s process flow, more specifically, the production system (what comes 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and so on).? This identifies the dependencies in the DVA model. Next, observations would be performed to understand capacities and cycle times in the process flow along with downtime tracking information (the Variation in the DVA model). This is similar to what’s normally performed during the first step of any implementation project. The data will be used to understand throughput modeling in the next step. In many MOS (management operating system) projects, this data would be used to develop a static man-load, line balance, or a master schedule (based upon forecasted volume). The team would then be coached to achieve the output based upon the data in the master schedule. In the DVA model, the data will now be analyzed (the A in the DVA model) using Little’s Law (L= λ x W Total Lead Time equals inventory times Cycle time) to determine overall cycle times and account for variation. As part of the analysis, cycle times will assist with the development of a simulation model - in this case a Monte Carlo or Discreet Event simulation would be run - both were used in the GM environment. This would be run over several hundred cycles until a consistent number is established showing consistent output. The expected results will be matched against the targeted results to understand what can be achieved through the process system.

At this stage, most consultants would say that this doesn’t look much different from any other types of data analysis or process improvement initiatives. And if we stopped here, that would be a fairly accurate statement. So, at this point, we pivot to the second level of the DVA process; The Power of Habit.

The Power of Habit

Many times, in our engagements, process improvement is a series of trials and errors. We analyze data, we get the client to agree to the data (since we both performed observations of the work processes), and then we coach them to change behavior and manage the team to the numbers. In most cases, this works because we implemented short term tracking tools, captured downtime events in a database, and designed action plans for improvement. However, in the DVA model, it’s taken to a whole new level.

To understand that level we first need to look at the impact of habits and how we maintain them. In the book, “The Power of Habit” by Charles Duhigg, the author demonstrates how habits work and the effect they have on our ability to drive outcomes. Habits follow a cycle called the ‘cycle curve’. The curve has three elements, a cue, a routine, and a reward. The diagram below shows a depiction of the curve.

When we’re prompted, we engage in the routine, and we believe we’ll receive the reward (whatever that may be). The power of the routine lies in our belief that the routine works, and the result will be predictable. The resulting neurotransmitter dopamine stimulates a powerful force that drives the behavior connected to the reward. In the DVA model, a cue or trigger is created that leads to an entrenched routine leading to a continuous review of the elements of the process through some type of red, yellow, green grading scale. This means that our habit is to use the ‘trigger’ (daily meeting, metrics report, Andon boards, etc.) to initiate the analysis routine. The results of the routine should point us towards what to focus upon (bottleneck/constraint) and if our improvement actions will have the desired effect. As a rule, the triggered routine becomes a regular part of our process. Since the focus will only be on the constraint or bottleneck, our improvements will need to be there. So, rather than focus on all other types of events, our resources will be used for maximum effect. This type of action will help us to see the impact of improvements in the focus area. This removes the ‘everything’ needs to be fixed approach to dealing with organizational issues.

Now, coming out of our analysis, we know that variation exists, that’s why line balancing is challenging. Its static approach does not account for the variation in process dynamics. For example, machine A produces 10 parts and machine B can take 10 parts, yet machine A does not always produce the 10 parts every time machine B needs it. Therefore, as part of the TOC process (Theory of Constraints) we build buffers where required (Capacity buffers, time buffers and part buffers. Kanban’s can provide support to this process as well). With improvements or focus upon the constraint/bottleneck and buffers to absorb variation, we can see what the predicted results should be and whether they match the targets.

A second routine is developed as part of the DVA when our predicted results do not meet our actual results. In most cases, as part of an MOS we would use tracked volume and measure it against planned output. When this did not match, we would have coached the supervisor/manager to use the daily tracking log or problem log to look for the problem. The DVA routine would use the same trigger however, actions are built into a routine that would look at the focus area or buffer as the source of the potential issue potentially narrowing down where the issues might have occurred.

In the DVA model, defining dependencies, capturing variation, and then using simulation modeling to predict results cuts the short path of developing a stable sustainable process for daily execution. In creating a regular habit initiated by triggers, using an improvement routine, and achieving an improvement ‘reward’ strengthens the elements of the process and helps it to become imbedded into the culture of the organization. As good as having an improvement process flow and marrying it to the power of habit is, impacting sustainability must come from improving team members inner work life through “The Progress Principle”.

The Progress Principle

Progress in work output has recently been identified as the single most important component in an employee’s inner work life. When CEOs are surveyed as to what matters to employees, 95% get this incorrect. Most identify recognition as most important, and even though recognition is important, there was a much more fundamental need for feelings of supported progress than recognition. ?In the book, “The Progress Principle, using small wins to ignite joy, engagement, and creativity at work” the authors, Teresa Amabile and Steven Kramer conducted studies with seven companies (big & small) 26 work teams or 261individual participants. They collected data in the form of daily work surveys over the course of nine weeks up to 37 weeks. This amounted to 12K individual records of overall feedback which was collected daily.

The feedback outlined employee engagement in the three aspects of inner work life: emotions, perceptions, and motivation. These three aspects of inner work life were used to provide insight into the four dimensions of on-the-job performance: Creativity, Productivity, Commitment, and Collegiality.

Positive inner work life required three things according to the research:

The progress principle- knowing that meaningful work (meaningful work: perceiving your work as contributing value to something or someone who matters) is valued and acknowledged in a shorter rather than longer timeframe.

The second is the catalyst factor. There are seven factors in the catalyst category: 1. Goal Setting, 2. Allowing Autonomy, 3. Providing Resources, 4. Giving enough time-but not too much, 5. Help with work, 6. Learning from problems and successes, and 7. Allowing ideas to flow.

Third is the Nourishment factor. There are four components to the nourishment factor: 1. Respect, 2. Encouragement, 3. Emotional support and 4. Affiliation. When these factors were missing, employees did not feel connected or appreciated in their work and their ability to contribute meaningfully was diminished.

In his 1959 theory, psychologist Frederick Herzberg developed the two-factor theory that employee satisfaction has two dimensions: hygiene and motivation. Although hygiene factors (salary, supervision) contributed to dissatisfaction with the work environment, motivators (recognition, achievement) led to productivity and creativity. 64 years later these concepts still impact work environments and management theory. Acknowledging employee progress is the ‘glue’ that holds the DVA process together. As teams work together on the project improvement initiatives recognizing progress will support active engagement and inner work life value.

Throughout the book, example after example underscored ways that employees could be encouraged through progress recognition and situations where this type of feedback was lacking. The “small wins” the book discusses are clearly the means to assist frontline teams with powerful rewards in the sustainment process. And, just as the dopamine from the habit loop had an impact on the reward, “small wins” work in the same way, reinforcing the same result.

The model below shows the whole process of the DVA and how it comes together using all three elements of performance enhancement (Process analysis, habit development and progress recognition).

Putting it all together

?Once a project comes out of the ‘kick-off’ phase during week one, developing the groundwork of the DVA should begin. A series of workshops need to be conducted to align management and frontline supervision with the model and the three components (DVA, power of habit, and progress principle). These workshops should not just present concepts but contain working models for participants to solve. Until participants put pencil to paper, they’re less likely to grasp the full understanding of the core components of the DVA (dependencies, variation, analysis). Additionally, the implementation schedule should contain weeks where local management are required to perform work observations and fully understand the simulation models (Monte Carlo or Discreet Event). The trigger in the improvement routine needs to be established early and the metrics driving the process should be kept to four-five key indicators. This keeps the team focused upon the main drivers of performance throughput. Development of an LSW (Leaders Standard Work) check sheet should be implemented as part of the implementation containing elements of the DVA along with additional check lists for irregular operations (when actual output does not meet expected output). These are similar to checklists used by pilots when flying aircraft (in normal flight ops pilots have a pre-flight checklist, an inflight check list, a preparation for landing checklist and shutdown at gate check list. This is to ensure nothing is missed throughout the flight and any abnormality whether it’s an issue or not is recorded in the flight register to be reviewed).

The workshop on the Progress Principle should also help the team understand the drawbacks to the influencers of inner work life. (i.e. setbacks are the negative aspect of the progress principle, inhibitors are the drawbacks of the catalyst factor, and toxins are the drawback to the nourishment factors). These behaviors become the core active management drivers of engagement and inner work life ownership of sustainment.

Conclusion

Consulting projects designed to improve an operation at the frontline of execution focus upon numerous elements of the work dynamic: including process change, leadership behaviors, management tools, and work systems. In each of these areas the project team’s activity is designed to understand and analyze the key drivers of organizational success. Efforts are focused upon workflow evaluation which includes inputs, outputs, support requirements, resources, and control elements. This leads the project team to understand the main drivers that impact throughput. Although teams can produce positive results, achieving a 20%-30% improvement, sustaining active ongoing improvement is difficult once the team departs. The DVA model is an attempt to blend process improvement using TOC (Theory of constraints-bottleneck management) elements, the power of habit and the progress principle to establish a sustainment model that becomes part of the corporate culture. According to the book, “Addicted to Hopium”, Kevin Kohls points out that an organization has about two years to get the DVA model imbedded before management churn cannot impact its value to the culture. At the end of our projects, we must hand this off to the team after 20-24 weeks (average engagement length). This requires us to trust the team to carry on after we leave. However, as consulting groups embrace the power of habit, and coach to a strong progress principle work ethic, I think this method has the ability to become a main implementation sustainment strength moving forward.

?______________________________________________________________________________________

References:

Kohls K. (2017), Addicted to Hopium, Throughput, Using DVA Models to Break the Guesswork Habit (CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform)

Duhigg C. (2014), The Power of Habit, Why We Do What We Do In Life And Business (Random House)

Amabile, T & Kramer, S. (2011), The Progress Principle, Using Small Wins To Ignite Joy, Engagement, And Creativity At Work (Harvard Business School Publishing)

André is a consulting professional with over 20 years’ experience of assisting clients with process improvement and overall business management.