Robert Bacal wrote:
> Great post, Jay. I completely agree.
>
> On 27 Feb 00, at 0:15, Jay Warner wrote:
>
> > What constitutes best practices, it seems to me, often includes some
>
> > strong intangibles. Call it corporate culture or what you like.
> People
> > who advocate adoption of best practices, do they identify these
> > intangibles and include them in the implementation in the other
> companies?
> > Do we also get the correct bolts and engine oil for the new engine
> we are
> > going to put into our car? Do they bring along the details of how
> the
> > driver presses the gas pedal?
>
> I think you have this dead on, and it's also one reason why
> management "fads" come and go. My primary field is performance
> management, and as an author of a book on the subject, I get to
> attend conferences on the topic, all of which include presenters
> from major companies talking about their best practice successes.
>
> But the problem is they only supply what is a very superficial set of
> information about their context. The truth is we don't KNOW where
> to look for all the intangibles, and they aren't reported.
>
> So, the audience sits there, hears all kinds of success claims
> (which may or may not be accurate), then collectively nod their
> heads as if they have been handed the new scrolls.
>
> Then they go out and fail.
>
> One of the things I try to get across in my area is that a good
> manager will make almost any performance management system
> work, not matter how bad. A poor manager will not be able to get
> the best possible performance management system to work.
>
> What does that say about the best practices in performance
> management? It says they mean little. Now, if we all got a chance
> to hang out for a few months and watch the successful managers
> work (and knew what to look for), we would indeed find the
> intangibles.
>
> But most presenters of best practices don't invite everyone down to
> visit for a few months!
>
Thank you for the supportive words - I'll take all I can get!
You are getting closer to what concerns me - the semi-glib presentation
with claims for why the new practices worked, while the key factors
remain for the private conversation, or none.
Nonetheless, I believe that some practices are inherently less than
good, much less 'best.' When I do a flow, or 'micro flow' analysis of
an office, the things we think we need to do often amaze even those who
have lived with it for years. Especially those who have lived with it
for years. No amount of management, of any stripe, can overcome poor
procedures. I should add, that imposing a computer system on poor
information flow only moves the information faster; it does not make the
information better.
So what we should do, if we intend to discover what makes one set of
practices best, is to focus on the key characteristics that make them
work well. What are those key characteristics? How can we understand
the complex of inter-related key characteristics that allow superior
practices to be superior?
For myself, I would like to see a renewed focus on making the practices
'better,' instead of 'best.' We can all do better, no matter where we
are now. Yes, it is harder than 'buying' a best practice. It also has
a higher probability of success. The race really is never over. We
really can only approach perfection, i.e., make an approach to Quality.
Enough soap box for tonight. We seem to be in pretty good agreement.
Cheers,
Jay
--
Jay Warner
Principal Scientist
Warner Consulting, Inc.
4444 North Green Bay Road
Racine, WI 53404-1216
USA
Ph: (262) 634-9100
FAX: (262) 681-1133
email:
quality@a2q.com
web:
http://www.a2q.com
The A2Q Method (tm). What do you want to improve today?