Fix the process, not the problem

In 1983, a paper company was on the verge of filing Chapter 11 for a subsidiary, a mill acquired two years earlier that was losing more than $1 million a month. One year later, the paper mill was just about breaking even. Today it is a highly profitable operation. What happened? Everyone at the mill became a problem solver. Both managers and mill workers learned to take the initiative not just for identifying problems but also for developing better ways to fix problems and improve products. The key to the mill's success: a multiyear learning process in which employees developed four progressively more sophisticated problem-solving loops: Fix-as-fail-solving problems after they occur. prevention-keeping problems from occurring. Root causes-discovering what is truly causing a problem. Anticipation-solving problems before they occur and finding innovative solutions to customers' problems. Drawing on the paper mill's experience, the authors illustrate the four loops and suggest ways managers can help this organizational learning process move ahead. Paradoxically, a key to becoming a faster, smoother running operation is to start slow and avoid the temptation to jump to root-cause problem solving before you truly understand what your problems are or have freed up the resources to go after them.     

The hard side of change management

Everyone agrees that managing change is tough, but few can agree on how to do it. Most experts are obsessed with "soft" issues, such as culture and motivation, but, say the authors, focusing on these issues alone won't bring about change. Companies also need to consider the hard factors-like the time it takes to complete a change initiative, the number of people required to execute it, and so forth. When the authors studied change initiatives at 225 companies, they found a consistent correlation between the outcomes of change programs (success versus failure) and four hard factors, which they called DICE: project duration, particularly the time between project reviews; integrity of performance, or the capabilities of project teams; the level of commitment of senior executives and staff; and the additional effort required of employees directly affected by the change. The DICE framework is a simple formula for calculating how well a company is implementing, or will be able to implement, its change initiatives. The framework comprises a set of simple questions that help executives score their projects on each of the four factors; the lower the score, the more likely the project will succeed. Companies can use DICE assessments to force conversations a bout projects, to gauge whether projects are on track or in trouble, and to manage project portfolios. The authors have used these four factors to predict the outcomes and guide the execution of more than 1,000 change management programs worldwide. Not only has the correlation held, but no other factors (or combination of factors) have predicted outcomes as successfully.     

Innovating for cash

Despite companies' almost fanatical worship of innovation, most new products don't generate money. That's because executives don't realize that the approach they take to commercializing a new product is as important as the innovation itself. Different approaches can generate very different levels of profit. Companies tend to favor one of three different innovation approaches, each with its own investment profile, profitability pattern, risk profile, and skill requirements. Most organizations are instinctively integrators: They manage all the steps needed to take a product to market themselves. Organizations can also choose to be orchestrators: They focus on some parts of the commercialization process and depend on partners to manage the rest. And finally, companies can be licensers: They sell or license a new product or idea to another organization that handles the commercialization process. Different innovations require different approaches. Selecting the most suitable approach, the authors' research found, often yields two or three times the profits of the least optimal approach. Yet companies tend to rely only on the mode most familiar to them. Executives would do better to take several different factors into account before deciding which tack to take, including the industry they're trying to enter, the specific characteristics of the innovation, and the risks involved in taking the product to market. By doing so, companies can match the approach to the opportunity and reap the maximum profit. Choosing the wrong approach, like Polaroid did, for example, can lead to the failure of both the product and the company. Optimizing their approaches, as Whirlpool has done, helps ensure that companies' innovations make money.