Culture Change Fatigue
On a personal note, I am still trying to figure out when we started rooting for the away team. Events of the past eight months have been along the lines of going to your kid’s sports game and rooting for the other team to win. Sure, the visitors may buy a few hotdogs, but it is not even in proportion to the local investment in the field, training, team, and more. However, the away team must be doing something better than the home team… right? So, as our home team struggles, we cheer louder for the other team. Good for us. We should feel proud. And our children should just understand.
There have been changes in philosophy on all levels that have been occurring at a faster and faster pace, especially in our industry. As the philosophy of business changed from engineering-based management to cost-based management, philosophies related to maintenance remained constant through until the 1960s, changing first with the aircraft industry. In the 1970s, our military started making changes to maintenance philosophy which then slowly took hold within industry. With the continued application of information technology, politics, society, and other industry/community changes, business philosophies changed at a rapid pace followed, reluctantly, by the maintenance community.
All aspects of the business community from sales to marketing, engineering to information technology, and operations to finance, each had a variety of business philosophies applied. Reliability and maintenance has been held separately with both the business and R&M sides of industry trying to figure each other out. Most business training exposes modern managers and executives to very little of the R&M industry, other than identifying it in a loss column on the company P&L sheet. Leaders in the R&M community have a focus on the R&M community with limited exposure to the executive levels of corporations. In the present environment, business sees an opportunity to cut expense through the reduction of maintenance while viewing the response from maintenance organizations as ‘protectionist.’ The fact that the impact from reduced maintenance is not immediately noticed assists in the development of this paradigm.
In reality, the same philosophies used by business can be applied in maintenance. However, it requires an understanding of both R&M and business philosophies in order to bring both parts of the puzzle together. When one side or the other redefines those philosophies in such a way that the other side recognizes the name, but not the process, the activity loses credibility.
One of the most significant and powerful tools in the business chest is the concept of cultural change. The issues related to change has more to do with definition than application. In many cases, we overwhelm an organization with constantly attempting to change the organizations culture, hobbling progress, instead of incremental changes as the company’s paradigm adjusts to its environment. An organization must not remain stationary and must constantly be adjusting and evolving in order to remain competitive and flexible.
Often what is required to implement a form of change is awareness. This can come in many forms and styles. Will change result? Yes. The expectations are that the organization will adjust to new awareness. Often there is some level of resistance to the change, depending on the specific environment. The key is to understand the existing culture and needs of the organization, adjusting course versus radical changes in direction.
If you were the captain of a vessel and you had to get from New York to Plymouth, UK, you would start out and make course corrections for foul weather, wind, currents and other events. However, in the world of constant ‘radical change,’ it is as if the navigating consultant comes in and has them change course to Cape Town, SA, then back to St. Johns, NFLD, then to Keflavik, Iceland, claims it as progress, then sets a course to Somalia where the vessel is hijacked by pirates.
Is this a bad simile? I have had a number of stories related to me over the years where a company brings in a firm that makes recommendations that set back the corporate profit significantly and then returns it to a smaller than original position, claiming the difference between the setback and new point as a success. For example: firm suggests that ‘changes will be painful,’ so has the company go through ‘culture change’ that takes the company from a profit level of say 100 down to 40. After the change, the company moves up to 60 and the firm takes credit for improving company profit by 20.
I was literally a participant in a program where a business consultant recommended radical change, so the company took a plant manager of 22 years experience and swapped him with a customer service rep with two years experience to ‘shake things up.’ No matter the objections, the change was announced on a Friday and was in full implementation by Monday. I don’t think I have to describe the excitement that ensued for years afterwards.
When I had lunch with the business consultant (he called us and invited me out for a 30 minute lunch, then billed the company four hours) he explained that ‘a company needs to be kept on its toes by constantly shaking things up.’ I stared at him incredulously and said, ‘shouldn’t a company be focused on providing its product or service and not the objective of constant upheaval?’ I was not surprised to hear, later, that there was a recommendation to exclude me from the meetings after the lunch. I was not a ‘team player.’
Am I against the use of consultants? Of course not, but under some of the present conditions related to the uses of consultants, I prefer to think of myself as an anti-consultant. In fact, I prefer to think of myself as a man of action, seeing as I am known to occasionally fall asleep in long, boring, non-productive meetings – and I snore loudly. It is one of the reasons I left academia – snail is not my speed. No offense to academia, their part in industry and research is invaluable, just not my style.
I need to get everyone together, see where we are and set where we are going and then assist the captain of the company or division I am working for set the course and make corrections. Look at the present conditions, environment, and context and then work out how to move things in the right direction within the constraints of that context. If the constraints do not allow for the correct course or course corrections, then there would be recommendations of more significant change, but those instances are rare. I suppose I tend to work with intelligent people who know the direction they are looking for and have pointed that direction, just need the different point of view or outside experience to make the fine-adjustments.
In a machine example, we were performing training at a site where the class suggested we take a look at a problem on a DC machine that had existed for a while. The machine could only operate between 40-50% of equivalent machines sitting right next to it and there was a definitive electrical signature. Everyone brought in made major modifications to the drive and the motor had been rewound several times due to damage from the electrical problem. We took some basic ESA/MCSA data and had a screw tightened on a connection. The machine immediately returned to 100% operation. It was just a slight adjustment.
In a corporate example, during the work I was performing on ‘A Novel Approach to Industrial Assessments for Improved Energy, Waste Stream, Process, and Reliability,’ while I was an Adjunct Professor of Industrial Engineering and the Senior Research Engineer for the University of Illinois at Chicago Energy Resourced Center, I had my students perform a production model of a facility we were working with. In this case, I asked them to take a look and see what operators wanted to do (culture) versus how the facility was set up. This is the opposite of many programs for process improvement which normally require you to review and change the culture in order to make improvements around the facility. We discovered the movement of one piece of equipment that caused a constraint doubled the capacity of the workforce and production. A slight correction to the facility versus a major change to the culture, which would have returned to the same levels as soon as attention was lost. The change was sustainable and extremely cost effective.
Yet, in the R&M world we seem to think that changing the culture would be more effective than adjusting the process. But then again, I suppose keeping things in a constant state of flux keeps people from seeing the results of the recommendations and culture change.
It is my firm belief that many companies are well into a state of ‘Culture Change Fatigue.’ The enthusiasm for active participation in the front line work, itself, seems to be waning and the real R&M personnel who are trying to get the work done roll their eyes at the latest fads coming down the line, knowing that they only have to wait about 30 days before it completely changes again. R&M is supposed to be the rock that keeps the equipment running and online as effectively and efficiently as possible and most of the professionals in the industry realize that.
When I find that a change is required to a process, it usually only takes handing the key players a new prescription for their glasses – allow them to see the change. Some stick, but most adjust their course when they see things from a different perspective. To suggest major ‘culture changes’ constantly gives the implication that the R&M professionals are not right, that their organization is sick and on a course for Hong Kong versus Plymouth. Personally, I have more faith in the professionals within our industry and believe that, in most cases, a separate pair of eyes is more important to course correction than scrapping the old ship and building a new one.
What I found interesting when I put ‘Physical Asset Management for the Executive’ on the market, I got positive comments from the workforce and from management outside of the R&M industry (my greatest area for sales, hence winning the Axiom Business Book Award). I got complaints from all but a few consultants because I suggested that things were not that difficult to obtain positive action. I then made the decision to adjust the price to make it more accessible to those who really need it.
So, what are you up for? Common sense or radical changes? I bet that you will find that some fine tuning will go a lot further, and faster, than fighting against the wind.
There have been changes in philosophy on all levels that have been occurring at a faster and faster pace, especially in our industry. As the philosophy of business changed from engineering-based management to cost-based management, philosophies related to maintenance remained constant through until the 1960s, changing first with the aircraft industry. In the 1970s, our military started making changes to maintenance philosophy which then slowly took hold within industry. With the continued application of information technology, politics, society, and other industry/community changes, business philosophies changed at a rapid pace followed, reluctantly, by the maintenance community.
All aspects of the business community from sales to marketing, engineering to information technology, and operations to finance, each had a variety of business philosophies applied. Reliability and maintenance has been held separately with both the business and R&M sides of industry trying to figure each other out. Most business training exposes modern managers and executives to very little of the R&M industry, other than identifying it in a loss column on the company P&L sheet. Leaders in the R&M community have a focus on the R&M community with limited exposure to the executive levels of corporations. In the present environment, business sees an opportunity to cut expense through the reduction of maintenance while viewing the response from maintenance organizations as ‘protectionist.’ The fact that the impact from reduced maintenance is not immediately noticed assists in the development of this paradigm.
In reality, the same philosophies used by business can be applied in maintenance. However, it requires an understanding of both R&M and business philosophies in order to bring both parts of the puzzle together. When one side or the other redefines those philosophies in such a way that the other side recognizes the name, but not the process, the activity loses credibility.
One of the most significant and powerful tools in the business chest is the concept of cultural change. The issues related to change has more to do with definition than application. In many cases, we overwhelm an organization with constantly attempting to change the organizations culture, hobbling progress, instead of incremental changes as the company’s paradigm adjusts to its environment. An organization must not remain stationary and must constantly be adjusting and evolving in order to remain competitive and flexible.
Often what is required to implement a form of change is awareness. This can come in many forms and styles. Will change result? Yes. The expectations are that the organization will adjust to new awareness. Often there is some level of resistance to the change, depending on the specific environment. The key is to understand the existing culture and needs of the organization, adjusting course versus radical changes in direction.
If you were the captain of a vessel and you had to get from New York to Plymouth, UK, you would start out and make course corrections for foul weather, wind, currents and other events. However, in the world of constant ‘radical change,’ it is as if the navigating consultant comes in and has them change course to Cape Town, SA, then back to St. Johns, NFLD, then to Keflavik, Iceland, claims it as progress, then sets a course to Somalia where the vessel is hijacked by pirates.
Is this a bad simile? I have had a number of stories related to me over the years where a company brings in a firm that makes recommendations that set back the corporate profit significantly and then returns it to a smaller than original position, claiming the difference between the setback and new point as a success. For example: firm suggests that ‘changes will be painful,’ so has the company go through ‘culture change’ that takes the company from a profit level of say 100 down to 40. After the change, the company moves up to 60 and the firm takes credit for improving company profit by 20.
I was literally a participant in a program where a business consultant recommended radical change, so the company took a plant manager of 22 years experience and swapped him with a customer service rep with two years experience to ‘shake things up.’ No matter the objections, the change was announced on a Friday and was in full implementation by Monday. I don’t think I have to describe the excitement that ensued for years afterwards.
When I had lunch with the business consultant (he called us and invited me out for a 30 minute lunch, then billed the company four hours) he explained that ‘a company needs to be kept on its toes by constantly shaking things up.’ I stared at him incredulously and said, ‘shouldn’t a company be focused on providing its product or service and not the objective of constant upheaval?’ I was not surprised to hear, later, that there was a recommendation to exclude me from the meetings after the lunch. I was not a ‘team player.’
Am I against the use of consultants? Of course not, but under some of the present conditions related to the uses of consultants, I prefer to think of myself as an anti-consultant. In fact, I prefer to think of myself as a man of action, seeing as I am known to occasionally fall asleep in long, boring, non-productive meetings – and I snore loudly. It is one of the reasons I left academia – snail is not my speed. No offense to academia, their part in industry and research is invaluable, just not my style.
I need to get everyone together, see where we are and set where we are going and then assist the captain of the company or division I am working for set the course and make corrections. Look at the present conditions, environment, and context and then work out how to move things in the right direction within the constraints of that context. If the constraints do not allow for the correct course or course corrections, then there would be recommendations of more significant change, but those instances are rare. I suppose I tend to work with intelligent people who know the direction they are looking for and have pointed that direction, just need the different point of view or outside experience to make the fine-adjustments.
In a machine example, we were performing training at a site where the class suggested we take a look at a problem on a DC machine that had existed for a while. The machine could only operate between 40-50% of equivalent machines sitting right next to it and there was a definitive electrical signature. Everyone brought in made major modifications to the drive and the motor had been rewound several times due to damage from the electrical problem. We took some basic ESA/MCSA data and had a screw tightened on a connection. The machine immediately returned to 100% operation. It was just a slight adjustment.
In a corporate example, during the work I was performing on ‘A Novel Approach to Industrial Assessments for Improved Energy, Waste Stream, Process, and Reliability,’ while I was an Adjunct Professor of Industrial Engineering and the Senior Research Engineer for the University of Illinois at Chicago Energy Resourced Center, I had my students perform a production model of a facility we were working with. In this case, I asked them to take a look and see what operators wanted to do (culture) versus how the facility was set up. This is the opposite of many programs for process improvement which normally require you to review and change the culture in order to make improvements around the facility. We discovered the movement of one piece of equipment that caused a constraint doubled the capacity of the workforce and production. A slight correction to the facility versus a major change to the culture, which would have returned to the same levels as soon as attention was lost. The change was sustainable and extremely cost effective.
Yet, in the R&M world we seem to think that changing the culture would be more effective than adjusting the process. But then again, I suppose keeping things in a constant state of flux keeps people from seeing the results of the recommendations and culture change.
It is my firm belief that many companies are well into a state of ‘Culture Change Fatigue.’ The enthusiasm for active participation in the front line work, itself, seems to be waning and the real R&M personnel who are trying to get the work done roll their eyes at the latest fads coming down the line, knowing that they only have to wait about 30 days before it completely changes again. R&M is supposed to be the rock that keeps the equipment running and online as effectively and efficiently as possible and most of the professionals in the industry realize that.
When I find that a change is required to a process, it usually only takes handing the key players a new prescription for their glasses – allow them to see the change. Some stick, but most adjust their course when they see things from a different perspective. To suggest major ‘culture changes’ constantly gives the implication that the R&M professionals are not right, that their organization is sick and on a course for Hong Kong versus Plymouth. Personally, I have more faith in the professionals within our industry and believe that, in most cases, a separate pair of eyes is more important to course correction than scrapping the old ship and building a new one.
What I found interesting when I put ‘Physical Asset Management for the Executive’ on the market, I got positive comments from the workforce and from management outside of the R&M industry (my greatest area for sales, hence winning the Axiom Business Book Award). I got complaints from all but a few consultants because I suggested that things were not that difficult to obtain positive action. I then made the decision to adjust the price to make it more accessible to those who really need it.
So, what are you up for? Common sense or radical changes? I bet that you will find that some fine tuning will go a lot further, and faster, than fighting against the wind.
posted by MotorDoc at
8:09 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home