You're reading...
Change Management, Process Improvement

Process Re-design is not Process Improvement

I’ve written before about organisations that confuse process mapping with process improvement, and I was prompted by an article at BPTrends to add “Process Re-design is not Process Improvement“.  The BPTrends article is “Rolling out a new business process” and describes some of the change management issues associated with making improvements actually happen.

It particularly focuses on the need for a “motivational system” and says: “A good motivational system to assure a successful process rollout won’t simply happen.  It requires planning, financial budgeting, and, perhaps, training for managers and supervisors.  If the process redesign team doesn’t assure that this planning, budgeting and training is understood and put in place before the rollout begins, then it probably won’t be, and the process team may have to watch as their new process design sinks, a victim of  resistance to change and indifference.”

I generally use two types of Change Management Model when working with clients:

1. Models to help organisations implement change successfully

2. Models that help organisations understand the impact of change on individuals

The first type of model is used either to help diagnose why change isn’t going well, or (ideally) to help plan for it. My favourite is the “4-box model”:

 

 

 

 

One of my articles here describes this model in more detail.

The model is often shown as follows, to explain why change fails when one of the four elements is missing:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The origins of this model are unclear but I’ve been aware of it since the mid-1980s. Sometimes I use it with a fifth element: “Reinforcement and Recognition”. I have seen the model attributed to Henley Management School but they may simply be users of it and there is a strong parallel between the 5-box version and the ADKAR model.

The second type of model is usually based on the Kubler-Ross Change Curve, or variants, which describe the stages individuals go through when faced with change and coping with it:

This model originated in bereavement counselling, but is widely used in relation to change.

A further variant I use to describe how individuals react to change is the “Normal Curve” which attempts to categorise types of behaviour seen when change is introduced:

This, of course, is a variation and alternative way of describing the well-known marketing new-product adoption model proposed by Rogers.  It tells you that some people will be more enthusiastic about change than others (obviously!), but is also useful for discussing ways to engage with the different types of people.  For example, devoting time to “Early Adopters” is a great way to ensure you achieve some quick wins.  In contrast, spending time with terrorists and blockers can be both time-consuming and unproductive.  Somebody described spending time with this group as being like “mud-wrestling with a pig; you both get dirty, but the pig enjoys it”.

Finally, it’s worth remembering the oft-quoted “All models are flawed, but some are more useful than others” and there is increasing discussion of complexity and how it is impossible to plan and manage change in a completely rational way.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

 

Advertisements

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Connect with Ian Seath

Find us on Facebook Improvement Skills Consulting Ltd. on LinkedIn Follow IanJSeath on Twitter

Archives

Copyright Notice

© Improvement Skills Consulting Ltd. and Ian Seath, 2007-17. Unauthorised use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Improvement Skills Consulting Ltd. and Ian Seath with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
%d bloggers like this: