- Traditional Change Models
- Disparate Change Groups
- Uncontained Change
- No Standard Change Approach
- Tools Focus
- Reliance on Benchmarking
- Changes Are Not Based On Data, Good Data, Or The Right Data
- Changes Made Based On Symptoms, Not Causes
- Systems Versus Processes
- Focus On People, Not On Process
- Lack of Context for Solutions
- Adding Versus Subtracting (Patching)
- Poor Implementation
- No Emphasis On Control
- Management Versus Leadership
Once a solution is identified with the test-and-tweak thinking, implementation is left to unit managers, and rollouts are often no more than a single-shot communication of the concept. Subsequently, each unit manager is left to construct the detailed design. Such uncontained implementation leads to no standardization or consistency across units or shifts or even individuals on the same shift. The target process gets a watered-down implementation at best.
In such an environment, where reliance is on the personalities involved, it is very likely that physical changes, systems changes, education, and changes in orientation packages are not fully implemented, and little emphasis is placed on inclusion of customers, suppliers, and key process stakeholders.
With an informal approach to the rollout of any change, every unit’s processes are essentially different. This is readily apparent when implementing new information technology (IT) systems. The IT group is required to automate an existing, often flawed process, which varies wildly from unit to unit, is unclear, or often doesn’t exist at all.
Also, with the disparate change groups prevalent in the industry, each group typically doesn’t command enough resources to perform a robust rollout of a change. This is exemplified by the usual approach to rolling out new roles, which often involves an informal one-on-one verbal communication, not a carefully planned rollout of skill augmentation with the appropriate education, tracking of competency, and building the appropriate learning into orientation and transfer procedures. Such an ad hoc approach to skills and role change almost always leads to a difference in understanding of the changes across all those involved and hence considerable variation in the performance of the process.