Besides th e ph ysical an d in stitu tion al stru ctu res th at determ in e perform an ce, Figu re 1 also sh ow s th e goal for process th rou gh pu t set by sen ior perform an -agers la
Trang 1Work reported here was supported by the MIT Center for Innovation in Product Development under NSF Cooperative Agreement Number EEC-9529140 For more information on the research program that generated this article, visit <http://web.mit.edu/nelsonr/www/>.
for Fixing Problems that
H ow m u ch w ou ld you r organ ization pay to develop m an u factu rin g
capability equ al to Toyota’s? How m u ch w ou ld a w orld-class, sigm a qu ality program be w orth to you r com pan y? How abou tHarley-Davidson ’s ability to tap in to th e h earts an d m in ds of its cu s-tom ers or Dell’s ability to m an age its su pply ch ain ? Most firm s are w orkin gaggressively to develop th ese an d sim ilar capabilities th rou gh process im prove-
six-m en t Th e cosix-m bin ed expen ditu re of U.S cosix-m pan ies on six-m an agesix-m en t con su tan ts an d train in g in 1997 w as over $100 billion , an d a sizeable fraction w en ttow ards efforts to develop operation al capabilities m atch in g th ose of th e bestfirm s in bu sin ess Wh eth er it’s an advan ced m an u factu rin g system or th e ability
l-to respon d qu ickly l-to ch an gin g cu sl-tom er n eeds, th e drive l-tow ard im provem en t
h as becom e a w ay of life in corporation s today Th ere is on ly on e problem Despite th ese vast expen ditu res, an d n otw ith stan din g dram atic su ccesses in afew com pan ies, few efforts to im plem en t su ch program s actu ally produ ce sign ifi-can t resu lts
Con sider, for exam ple, Total Qu ality Man agem en t (TQM) In th e 1980s,spu rred by th e su ccess of m an y Japan ese firm s, TQM w as all th e rage am on gU.S firm s Con su ltan ts an d bu sin ess sch ool facu lty preach ed its virtu es an d
m an agers m ade pilgrim ages to com pan ies w ith aw ard-w in n in g qu ality gram s By th e m id-1990s, h ow ever, TQM w as con sidered passé Academ ics h ad
pro-m oved on to oth er issu es, TQM received rare pro-m en tion in th e popu lar bu sin esspress, an d articles th at did m en tion it u su ally did so in a n egative con text TQM
Trang 2h ad all th e earm arks of a m an agem en t fad: An in itial bu rst of en th u siasm , aflu rry of activity, an d th en a steady declin e as it w as replaced by n ew er in n ova-tion s su ch as re-en gin eerin g It w ou ld be easy to con clu de th at TQM’s u n derly-
in g valu e w as m in im al
How ever, w h en on e looks at th e experien ce a little m ore carefu lly, a feren t pictu re em erges A n u m ber of carefu l stu dies h ave n ow dem on strated th atcom pan ies m akin g a seriou s com m itm en t to th e disciplin es an d m eth ods associ-ated w ith TQM ou tperform th eir com petitors.1
dif-Th ere is n ow little dou bt th at
w h en u sed properly, TQM produ ces sign ifican t valu e to both organ ization s an d
th eir cu stom ers Yet paradoxically, it rem ain s little u sed A recen t stu dy fou n d
th at few er th an 10% of th e Fortune 1000 h ad w ell-developed TQM program s;
an d, in an oth er stu dy, TQM fell from th e th ird m ost com m on ly u sed bu sin esstool in 1993 to 14th
in 1999.2
Th e situ ation is sim ilar for a w ide ran ge of oth eradm in istrative an d tech n ological in n ovation s.3
Tech n iqu es tou ted as today’s
“core com peten cies” all too often becom e tom orrow ’s failed program s On ce
an effort h as failed, th ere is an alm ost irresistible tem ptation to label it a fad or
“flavor of th e m on th ” How ever, diggin g a little deeper sh ow s th at m an y su chtech n iqu es h ave u sefu l con ten t It sh ou ld com e as little su rprise th en th at m an y
cu rren tly popu lar in n ovation s are little m ore th an old ideas w ith n ew acron ym s
Th e core disciplin es associated w ith statistical process con trol an d varian ceredu ction becom e six-sigm a; w h at w as on ce called a qu ality circle is n ow a
h igh -perform an ce w ork team
Th u s, today’s m an agers face a paradox On th e on e h an d, th e n u m ber oftools an d tech n iqu es available to im prove perform an ce is grow in g rapidly Fu r-
th er, w ith advan ces in in form ation tech n ology an d th e ever-grow in g legion s of
m an agem en t con su ltan ts, it is easier th an ever to learn abou t th ese tech n iqu es
an d to learn w h o else is u sin g th em On th e oth er h an d, th ere h as been little
im provem en t in th e ability of organ ization s to in corporate th ese in n ovation s in
th eir everyday activities Th e ability to identify an d learn about n ew im provem en t
m eth ods n o lon ger presen ts a sign ifican t barrier to m ost m an agers In stead, su
c-cessfu lly implementing th ese in n ovation s presen ts th e biggest ch allen ge Pu t m ore sim ply, you can ’t buy a tu rn key six-sigm a qu ality program It m u st be developed
from w ith in
To learn h ow firm s can overcom e th is “im provem en t paradox,” w e
h ave, over th e past decade, stu died process im provem en t an d learn in g program s,focu sin g on th e dyn am ics of im plem en tation an d organ ization al ch an ge Wecon du cted over a dozen in -depth case stu dies in in du stries in clu din g telecom -
m u n ication s, sem icon du ctors, ch em icals, oil, au tom obiles, an d recreation alprodu cts.4
We gath ered data th rou gh observation s, exten sive in terview s w ithparticipan ts, arch ival records, an d qu an titative m etrics We com plem en ted
ou r field research w ith th e developm en t of a series of m odels captu rin g th edyn am ics of im plem en tation an d im provem en t.5
Usin g system dyn am ics as th ebasis for u n derstan din g im plem en tation h as yielded a n u m ber of in sigh ts in to
th e im provem en t paradox In at least som e cases, th ese in sigh ts h ave proven
Trang 3in stru m en tal in h elpin g firm s ben efit from th e poten tial provided by available
im provem en t tools an d tech n iqu es
Most im portan tly, ou r research su ggests th at th e in ability of m ost organ zation s to reap th e fu ll ben efit of th ese in n ovation s h as little to do w ith th e spe-cific im provem en t tool th ey select In stead, th e problem h as its roots in h ow
i-th e in trodu ction of a n ew im provem en t program in teracts w ii-th i-th e ph ysical,econ om ic, social, an d psych ological stru ctu res in w h ich im plem en tation takesplace In oth er w ords, it’s n ot ju st a tool problem , an y m ore th an it’s a h u m anresou rces problem or a leadersh ip problem In stead it is a system ic problem , on e
th at is created by th e in teraction of tools, equ ipm en t, w orkers, an d m an agers
T he Structure of Improvement
We presen t th e lesson s th at h ave em erged from ou r stu dy in th e form of
a cau sal loop diagram Ou r m odel provides both a u sefu l fram ew ork for th in kin gabou t th e ch allen ges associated w ith im plem en tin g im provem en t program s an dpractical su ggestion s to in crease th e ch an ces th at you r n ext su ch effort w ill su c-ceed Wh ile th e th eory reported h ere in itially em erged from th e stu dy of tw o
im provem en t in itiatives in a m ajor au tom aker,6
th e resu ltin g m odel is qu ite gen eral an d can be applied to a ran ge of situ ation s We h ave observed th ese dyn am -ics in alm ost every organ ization w e h ave stu died
-Figu re 1 begin s w ith th e basic “ph ysics” u n derlyin g process im provem en t
Th e actu al perform an ce of an y process depen ds on tw o factors: th e am ou n t of
Time Spent Working an d th e Capability of th e process u sed to do th at w ork For
exam ple, in m an u factu rin g, n et u sable ou tpu t is given by th e produ ct of labor
h ou rs per day an d produ ctivity (u sable u n its per labor h ou r)
Th e perform an ce of an y process can be in creased by dedicatin g addition aleffort to eith er w ork or im provem en t How ever, th e tw o activities do n ot pro-
du ce equ ivalen t resu lts Tim e spen t on im provin g th e capability of a processtypically yields th e m ore en du rin g ch an ge For exam ple, boostin g th e w orkw eek20% m igh t in crease ou tpu t 20% , bu t on ly for th e du ration of th e overtim e.Gain s in process capability, h ow ever, boost th e ou tpu t gen erated by every su b-sequ en t h ou r of effort Sim ilarly, overtim e devoted to rew orkin g defective prod-
u cts can boost n et u sable ou tpu t, bu t on ly as lon g as th e overtim e is con tin u ed,
w h ile elim in atin g th e root cau ses of th ose defects perm an en tly redu ces th e n eed
for rew ork We captu re th is persisten ce by represen tin g Capability as a stock
(den oted by a rectan gle), th at is, as an asset th at accu m u lates im provem en ts
over tim e Specifically, Time Spent on Improvement in creases th e flow of Investments
in Capability th at au gm en ts process capability.
Wh ile it often yields th e m ore perm an en t gain , tim e spen t on im
prove-m en t does n ot iprove-m prove-m ediately iprove-m prove perforprove-m an ce It takes tiprove-m e to u n cover th eroot cau ses of process problem s an d th en to discover, test, an d im plem en t solu -tion s, sh ow n in th e diagram as a delay betw een im provem en t activities an d th e
Trang 4resu ltin g ch an ge in process capability Moreover, n o im provem en t in capabilitylasts forever Mach in es w ear, processes go ou t of con trol w ith ou t regu lar atten -tion , design s becom e obsolete, an d procedu res becom e ou tdated Th u s, w e also
sh ow an ou tflow from th e stock captu rin g th e in evitable declin e of an y ity th at is n ot regu larly m ain tain ed Th e lag in en h an cin g capability depen ds on
capabil-th e tech n ical an d organ ization al com plexity of capabil-th e process Stu dies sh ow capabil-th at
th e delay in im provin g relatively sim ple processes su ch as th e yield of m ach in es
in a job sh op is on th e order of a few m on th s, w h ile th e delay in im provin g
h igh ly com plex processes su ch as produ ct developm en t can be several years or
m ore.7Sim ilarly, th e lifetim e of im provem en ts in capability w ill be sh orter inorgan ization s w ith h igh rates of ch an ge in produ cts an d people
Besides th e ph ysical an d in stitu tion al stru ctu res th at determ in e
perform an ce, Figu re 1 also sh ow s th e goal for process th rou gh pu t set by sen ior perform an
-agers (labeled Desired Performance) Th e goal cou ld be th e n u m ber of produ cts
dem an ded by cu stom ers each day, th e rate at w h ich claim s n eed to be processed
by an in su ran ce com pan y, or th e n u m ber of n ew produ cts th e firm seeks tolau n ch th is qu arter People com pare th at goal to th eir actu al perform an ce to
determ in e th e Performance Gap Not su rprisin gly, in th e organ ization s w e stu died
FIGU RE 1. The “Physics” of Improvement
Note:Arrows indicate the direction of causality Signs (‘+’ or ‘–’) at arrowheads indicate the polarity of relationships:a ‘+’ means that an increase in the independent variable causes the dependent variable to increase, all else being equal (a decrease causes a decrease);similarly, a ‘–’ indicates that an increase in the independent variable causes the dependent variable to decrease (a
decrease causes an increase) For more details, see J.Sterman, Business Dynamics:Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World
(New York, NY:Irwin/McGraw-Hill, 2000).
Investment in Capability
Capability
Capability Erosion
Time Spent Working Actual
Performance
Performance Gap
Desired Performance
+ –
Trang 5it w as rare to fin d a process perform in g above expectation s In stead, m an agers,
w orkers, an d en gin eers u su ally faced h igh an d risin g dem an ds, som etim esdespite dow n sizin g an d cu ts in resou rces Th ey w ere con stan tly search in g for
w ays to im prove an d close th e perform an ce gap Sin ce m ost organ ization s arerelu ctan t to in crease plan t an d equ ipm en t or h ire m ore staff, m an agers h opin g
to close a perform an ce gap h ave on ly tw o basic option s
First, th ey can try to in crease th e am ou n t of tim e people actu ally spen d
w orkin g Figu re 2 sh ow s th is option , w h ich form s a balancing feedback, th e Work Harder loop B1 Th e process represen ted by th is loop w orks as follow s: Man agers
facin g a perform an ce gap are u n der pressu re to in crease perform an ce Th eypressu re people to spen d m ore tim e an d en ergy doin g w ork An in crease in th etim e spen t w orkin g in creases th e perform an ce of th e process an d closes th e per-form an ce gap Th is stru ctu re is called a balan cin g feedback loop becau se it con -stan tly w orks to balan ce desired an d actu al perform an ce
Pressure to do Work in clu des, m ost obviou sly, direct m easu res su ch as
tellin g people to w ork faster or pu t in overtim e, settin g m ore aggressive targetsfor th rou gh pu t, an d im posin g m ore severe pen alties for m issin g th ose targets.Pressu re also in clu des m ore su btle action s design ed to extract greater effort from
em ployees Th ese in clu de th e frequ en cy w ith w h ich perform an ce is review ed,
th e detail w ith w h ich th e review s are con du cted, an d th e sen iority of th osedoin g th e review in g At on e com pan y w e stu died, it w as n ot u n u su al for sen ior
FIGU RE 2. The Work Harder Balancing Loop
Note:The loop identifier, B1, indicates a negative (balancing) feedback See J.Sterman, op.cit.
Investment in Capability
Capability
Capability Erosion
Time Spent Working Actual
Performance
Performance Gap
Desired Performance
+
+
+
– Pressure to
Do Work
B1
Work Harder
Trang 6vice-presiden ts to review th e perform an ce of in dividu al m ach in es on th e factoryfloor Not su rprisin gly, su ch atten tion sen t a stron g m essage to all in volved: keep
th e m ach in es bu sy at all costs Sim ilarly, a project m an ager w e in terview edrecalled th at w h en a su bsystem for w h ich h e w as respon sible fell beh in d sch ed-
u le, h is boss requ ired h im to call in every hour w ith a statu s report u n til th e
pro-totype m et its specification s
A secon d option to close a perform an ce gap is to im prove th e capability of
th e process In Figu re 3 w e represen t th is option as an oth er balan cin g feedback
process, th e Work Smarter loop B2 Here, m an agers respon d to a perform an ce
sh ortfall by in creasin g th e pressu re on people to im prove capability Th ey m aylau n ch im provem en t program s, en cou rage people to experim en t w ith n ewideas, an d in vest in train in g If su ccessfu l, th ese in vestm en ts w ill, w ith tim e,yield im provem en ts in process capability, boost th rou gh pu t, an d close th e per-form an ce gap Of cou rse, everyon e kn ow s th at it is better to w ork sm arter th an
to w ork h arder: An h ou r spen t w orkin g produ ces an extra h ou r’s w orth of ou
t-pu t, w h ile an h ou r spen t on im provem en t m ay im prove th e produ ctivity ofevery su bsequ en t h ou r dedicated to produ ction Yet, despite its obviou s an ddocu m en ted ben efits, w orkin g sm arter does h ave lim itation s First, as sh ow n
in th e diagram , th ere is often a su bstan tial delay betw een in vestin g in im
prove-m en t activities an d reapin g th e ben efits Fu rth er, th e greater th e coprove-m plexity of
FIGU RE 3. The Work Smarter Balancing Loop
Investment in Capability
Capability
Capability Erosion
Time Spent
Performance
Performance Gap
Desired Performance
DELAY
Trang 7th e process, th e lon ger it takes to im prove.8
Secon d, in vestm en ts in capabilitycan be risky Im provem en t efforts don ’t alw ays fin d th e root cau se of defects,
n ew tools som etim es don ’t produ ce th e desired gain s, an d experim en ts oftenfail Wh ile in vestm en ts in capability m igh t even tu ally yield large an d en du rin g
im provem en ts in produ ctivity, th ey do little to solve th e problem s m an agers face
right now.
Th u s, it is n ot su rprisin g th at m an agers frequ en tly u se th e Work Harder
loop to both accom m odate variation s in daily w orkload an d solve pressin g lem s created by u n expected breakdow n s or defects Wh en a m an u factu rin g lin eservin g an im portan t cu stom er goes dow n , a m an ager is u n likely to react bysen din g th e w ork team to train in g in reliability im provem en t In stead, th at
prob-m an ager is goin g to get th e lin e ru n n in g an d pu sh for overtiprob-m e u n til th e sh
ip-m en t is ou t th e door Of cou rse w h en th e lin e is back ru n n in g an d th e produ ct
h as been sh ipped, th e m an ager sh ou ld retu rn atten tion to th e im provem en tactivities th at w ill preven t fu tu re breakdow n s, an d m ake u p for th e im prove-
m en t tim e th at w as lost du rin g th e cru n ch How ever, it doesn ’t u su ally h appen
In stead, w h at w e repeatedly observe, an d w h at is m ore difficu lt to u n derstan d,are organ ization s in w h ich w orkin g h arder is n ot m erely a m ean s to deal w ithisolated in ciden ts, bu t is in stead stan dard operatin g procedu re Rath er th an
u sin g th e w ork h arder loop to occasion ally offset daily variation s in w orkload,
m an agers, su pervisors, an d w orkers all com e to rely con stan tly on w orkin g
h arder to h it th eir targets an d, con sequ en tly, n ever fin d th e tim e to in vest
in im provem en t activities Wh at starts as a tem porary em ph asis on w orkin g
h arder qu ickly becom es rou tin e
The Reinvestment Loop
To u n derstan d w h y, it is h elpfu l to con sider h ow w orkin g sm arter an d
w orkin g h arder are con n ected Th e m ost im portan t in tercon n ection arisesbecau se organ ization s rarely h ave excess resou rces In creasin g th e pressu re to
do w ork leads people to spen d less tim e on n on -w ork related activities like
breaks an d to pu t in overtim e (th at is, th ey u se th e Work Harder loop) For
kn ow ledge w orkers su ch overtim e is often u n paid an d spills in to n igh ts an d
w eeken ds, stealin g tim e from fam ily an d com m u n ity activities Th ere are, h ow ever, obviou s lim its to lon g h ou rs After a w h ile th ere is sim ply n o m ore tim e
-If th e perform an ce gap con tin u es to rise, w orkers h ave n o ch oice bu t to redu ce
th e tim e th ey spen d on im provem en t as th ey strive to m eet th eir ever-in creasin gobjectives Figu re 4 adds th e con n ection betw een pressu re to do w ork an d th e
am ou n t of tim e spen t on im provem en t
Th e addition al lin k creates th e Reinvestment loop Un like th ose described
so far, th e Reinvestment loop is a positive feedback th at ten ds to rein force w h ich
-ever beh avior cu rren tly dom in ates An organ ization th at su ccessfu lly im provesits process capability w ill experien ce risin g perform an ce As th e perform an ce gap falls, w orkers h ave even m ore tim e to devote to im provem en t, creatin g avirtu ou s cycle of im proved capability an d in creasin g atten tion to im provem en t
Trang 8Con versely, if m an agers respon d to a th rou gh pu t gap by in creasin g w ork
pres-su re, em ployees in crease th e am ou n t of tim e spen t w orkin g an d cu t th e tim espen t on im provem en t Capability begin s to decay As capability erodes, th e per-form an ce gap grow s still m ore, forcin g a fu rth er sh ift tow ards w orkin g h arder
an d aw ay from im provem en t Here th e rein vestm en t loop operates as a viciou scycle, drivin g th e organ ization to ever-h igh er degrees of w ork pressu re an d m in -
im al levels of process capability Not su rprisin gly, su ch a viciou s cycle qu icklydrives ou t m ean in gfu l im provem en t activity Here, for exam ple, is th e w ay a
m an ager in an electron ics assem bly plan t explain ed th e persisten t failu re of th eorgan ization to en gage in process im provem en t:
“Su pervisors n ever h ad tim e to m ake im provem en ts or do preven tative m ain
te-n ate-n ce ote-n th eir lite-n es th ey h ad to spete-n d all th eir tim e ju st tryite-n g to keep th e lin e goin g, bu t th is m ean t it w as alw ays in a state of flu x, w h ich , in tu rn , cau sed
th em to w an t to h old lots of protective in ven tory, becau se everyth in g w as so
u n predictable A qu ality problem m igh t n ot be discovered u n til w e h ad produ ced
a pile of defective parts Th is of cou rse m ean t w e didn ’t h ave tim e to figu re ou t
w h y th e problem h appen ed in th e first place, sin ce w e w ere n ow really beh in d
ou r produ ction sch edu le It w as a kin d of sn ow ball effect th at ju st kept gettin g
w orse.”
FIGU RE 4. The Reinvestment Reinforcing Loop
Investment in Capability
Capability
Capability Erosion
Time Spent
Performance
Performance Gap
Desired Performance
+
+
+
– –
Note:The loop identifier, R1, indicates a positive (reinforcing) feedback See J.Sterman, op.cit.
Trang 9Shortcuts and the Capability Trap
Th e Reinvestment loop m ean s a tem porary em ph asis on on e option at th e
expen se of th e oth er is likely to be rein forced an d even tu ally becom e perm
a-n ea-n t Orgaa-n izatioa-n s th at ia-n vest ia-n im provem ea-n t w ill experiea-n ce ia-n creasia-n g bility an d fin d th at th ey h ave m ore tim e to allocate to w orkin g sm arter an d less
capa-n eed for h eroic efforts to solve problem s by w orkicapa-n g h arder Icapa-n th e su ccessfu l
in itiatives w e stu died, leadersh ip often w orked to stren gth en th e rein vestm en tprocess by explicitly allocatin g th e resou rces freed u p by produ ctivity gain s to
fu rth er im provem en t Un fortu n ately, h ow ever, th ese in itiatives w ere th e tion rath er th an th e ru le In m ost of th e organ ization s in ou r stu dy th e rein vest-
excep-m en t loop w orked as a viciou s cycle an d preven ted iexcep-m proveexcep-m en t prograexcep-m s froexcep-mgettin g off th e grou n d Even w h en im provem en t program s yielded in itial resu lts,cost an d sch edu le pressu res soon tem pted m an y organ ization s in to dow n sizin g
or h igh er perform an ce goals th at drain ed resou rces aw ay from im provem en t,
w eaken in g th e rein vestm en t loop an d cau sin g capability to stall or even fall.9
Un derstan din g w h y th e rein vestm en t loop typically w orked in th e dow n
-w ard, viciou s direction rath er th an th e u p-w ard, virtu ou s direction requ ires th at
w e add a fin al lin k to th e m odel (see Figu re 5) As discu ssed above, cu ttin g
in vestm en ts in m ain ten an ce an d im provem en t in favor of w orkin g h ardererodes process capability an d h u rts perform an ce How ever, capability does n otdrop righ t aw ay It takes tim e for process in tegrity to depreciate In th e m ean -tim e, th e decision to skim p on im provem en t—skippin g im provem en t team
m eetin gs, n eglectin g to take m ach in es dow n for sch edu led m ain ten an ce, orign orin g docu m en tation requ irem en ts—boosts th e tim e available to get w orkdon e righ t n ow We captu re th is in tercon n ection by addin g a n egative lin k
betw een Time Spent on Improvement an d Time Spent Working Wh en th e
perfor-m an ce gap rises an d perfor-m an agers resort to in creased w ork pressu re, overw orkedpeople cu t back im provem en t activity to free still m ore tim e for produ ction Th eperform an ce gap falls, closin g a th ird feedback th at w orks to balan ce desired an d
actu al perform an ce We label th is th e Shortcuts loop (B3) to captu re th e idea th at
in creased th rou gh pu t com es at th e cost of departin g from stan dard rou tin es an dprocesses, cu ttin g corn ers, an d redu cin g th e tim e spen t on learn in g an d
im provem en t
Sh ortcu ts are tem ptin g becau se th ere is often a su bstan tial delay betw een
cu ttin g corn ers an d th e con sequ en t declin e in capability For exam ple, su sors w h o defer preven tive m ain ten an ce often experien ce a “grace period” in
perviw h ich th ey reap th e ben efits of in creased ou tpu t (by avoidin g sch edu led doperviw n tim e) an d save on m ain ten an ce costs On ly later, as equ ipm en t ages an d w ears
do th ey begin to experien ce low er yields an d low er u ptim es (see section 4) Sim ilarly, a softw are en gin eer w h o forgoes docu m en tation in favor of com pletin g aproject on tim e in cu rs few im m ediate costs; on ly later, w h en sh e retu rn s to fix
-bu gs discovered in testin g does sh e feel th e fu ll im pact of a decision m ade w eeks
or m on th s earlier.10
Th u s, th e Shortcuts loop is effective in closin g th e th rou gh pu t
Trang 10gap on ly becau se capability does n ot ch an ge im m ediately w h en th e tim e cated to learn in g an d im provem en t declin es.
dedi-To illu strate th ese dyn am ics, Figu re 6 sh ow s tw o sim u lation s of th e m odel
in w h ich w e sh ow h ow a h ypoth etical process reacts to w orkin g h arder versu s
w orkin g sm arter Both sim u lation s begin in th e sam e equ ilibriu m state Th e firstsim u lation sh ow s th e respon se to an in creased em ph asis on w orkin g h arder As
m ore effort is dedicated to w ork, gross th rou gh pu t im m ediately rises Tim e spen t
im provin g falls im m ediately, bu t capability does n ot Perform an ce th ereforerises Th e ben efit of w orkin g h arder is, h ow ever, sh ort-lived With less tim edevoted to im provem en t, capability gradu ally erodes, even tu ally m ore th an offsettin g th e in creased tim e spen t w orkin g Workin g h arder creates a “better-before-w orse” situ ation Con versely, as seen in th e secon d sim u lation , in creasin g
th e tim e spen t on im provem en t redu ces ou tpu t in th e sh ort ru n Even tu ally,
h ow ever, capability rises m ore th an en ou gh to offset th e drop in w ork effort
an d perform an ce is perm an en tly h igh er, a “w orse-before-better” dyn am ic
Th e in teraction betw een th e balan cin g Shortcuts loop an d th e rein forcin g rein vestm en t loop creates a ph en om en on w e call th e Capability Trap an d h elps
explain w h y organ ization s often fin d th em selves stu ck in a viciou s cycle of clin in g capability Man agers an d w orkers in n eed of an im m ediate perform an ce
de-FIGU RE 5. The Shortcuts Balancing Loop
Investment in Capability
Capability
Capability Erosion
Time Spent Working Actual
Performance
Performance Gap
Desired Performance
DELAY
Trang 11boost can get it by skim pin g on im provem en t an d m ain ten an ce How ever,
capa-bility even tu ally declin es, cau sin g th e Reinvestment loop to w ork as a viciou s
cycle Man agers w h o rely on w orkin g h arder an d sh ortcu ts to m eet im m ediate
th rou gh pu t n eeds soon fin d th e process fallin g sh ort of its objectives, requ irin g a
fu rth er sh ift tow ards w orkin g h arder an d aw ay from im provem en t To see th ecapability trap in action , con sider h ow a m an u factu rin g su pervisor in an au to
FIGU RE 6. Simulations of the Working Harder and Working Smarter Strategies
SYST EM RESPO N SE T O :
Time Spent Improving
Time Spent Working
Time Spent Working Time Spent Improving
Trang 12com pan y explain ed th e in ability of h er organ ization to m ake a com m itm en t toregu lar im provem en t activities:
“In th e m in ds of th e [operation s team leaders] th ey h ad to h it th eir pack cou n ts.
Th is m ean t if you w ere h avin g a bad day an d you r yield h ad fallen you h ad
to ru n like crazy to h it you r target You cou ld say, ‘you are m akin g 20% garbage, stop th e lin e an d fix th e problem ,’ an d th ey w ou ld say, ‘I can ’t h it m y pack cou n t
w ith ou t ru n n in g like crazy.’ Th ey cou ld n ever get ah ead of th e gam e.”
By keepin g th e lin e goin g rath er th an stoppin g to fix th e problem , th ese team
leaders relied on th e Shortcuts loop to h it th eir th rou gh pu t objectives How ever,
by “ru n n in g like crazy” th ey also cau sed th e Reinvestment loop to operate as a
viciou s cycle, drivin g th e lin e to a m in im al level of capability an d forcin g th em
to ru n ever faster
Th e capability trap is n ot lim ited to m an u factu rin g—w e h ave observed
it in firm s ran gin g from fin an cial services to con stru ction For exam ple, th ecapability trap preven ted a produ ct developm en t organ ization w e stu died fromdevelopin g n ew processes th at w ou ld h ave in creased produ ctivity Like m an yfirm s, th ey sou gh t to create an en gin eerin g library or “booksh elf” of reu sabledesign s an d softw are How ever, as described by an en gin eerin g m an ager,
“An en gin eer m igh t n ot take th e tim e to docu m en t h er steps or pu t th e resu lts of
a sim u lation on th e booksh elf an d becau se of th at sh e saved en gin eerin g tim e an d did h er project m ore efficien tly Bu t in th e lon g ru n it preven ted u s from bein g able to deploy th e reu sability con cepts th at w e w ere lookin g for.”
Ju st as m ach in e operators an d su pervisors in th e first exam ple faced a basictrade-off betw een produ cin g an d im provin g, developm en t en gin eers w ere forced
to trade off gettin g th eir assign ed tasks don e again st docu m en tin g w h at th eylearn ed so th at oth ers m igh t ben efit En gin eers cou ld m ake m ore rapid progresstow ards th eir objectives by takin g sh ortcu ts an d ign orin g th e booksh elf, bu tdoin g so preven ted th em from in itiatin g th e self-rein forcin g rein vestm en t loop
th at w ou ld h ave led to im proved process capability
T he Persistence of the Capability Trap
Becau se w orkin g h arder an d takin g sh ortcu ts produ ce m ore im m ediategain s an d h elp solve today’s problem s, m an agers u n aw are of th e in h eren t
“better before w orse” trade-off are likely to ch oose th em over w orkin g sm arter
Un fortu n ately, th ese tem porary gain s com e at th e expen se of th e lon g-ru n
h ealth of th e process By pressu rin g people to w ork h arder, m an agers often u n
-w ittin gly force th eir organ ization s in to th e capability trap -w h ere ever-in creasin glevels of effort are requ ired to m ain tain perform an ce Of cou rse, th is ph en om e-
n on is n ot lim ited to large organ ization s Man y readers w ill recogn ize th is
dyn am ic in differen t aspects of th eir person al lives In situ ation s ran gin g fromlearn in g h ow to u se a n ew softw are package to com m ittin g to a n ew exercise