Designing the Project Environment for Resilience to Remaining Breakdowns
September 23rd, 2003 by HalArticle Series - Designing Breakdown-Tolerant Project Environments
- Designing Breakdown-Tolerant Project Environments
- Breakdown-Tolerance: Is it Time to Act?
- Breakdown-Tolerance: Just the Right Number of Commitments
- Designing the Project Environment for Resilience to Remaining Breakdowns
- No Commitment, No Breakdown, No Problem!
Life happens. It just does. If we wake up in the morning we are bound to be surprised at some moment during the day. I bought a Jeep Wrangler to share with my about-to-be 17 year-old son. The vehicle had 71,200 miles on it when I purchased it. I was naturally concerned about the condition of a Jeep with that many miles. So I asked many questions of the salesman. Each answer was intended to reassure me. I asked, "When I drove it at 65 MPH, there was a rumble." He said, "I noticed that too. It's a shimmy. I'll have them balance the front tires. That'll take care of it." "What condition are the brakes in?" I asked. "Don't worry. We do a 152-point check on all vehicles that go through this place," he said, matter-of-fact. "What if I find something driving it around next week?" "We offer a 90-day or 3,000 mile warranty to cover just those cases." "What about after that?" "The business manager will offer to sell you an extension on that warranty. I'd go with the 'plus' version." "One last thing," I say. "I noticed a strong smell of cigarette smoke. Is there something that can be done about it?" "I'll have them recondition the interior for you." He adds, "I think that should take care of you."
So I do the deal. I have to come back the following day to pick up my vehicle. I'm feeling good about it. With a 152-point check-up, a reconditioned interior, and a 90-day warranty I feel comfortable sharing this car with my son. So I show up the next day. They tell me the car is ready. I go through the whole process with the business manager. I put off buying the additional warranty because she whispered to me she can offer me a better deal at the end of the month.
Driving the car away I notice that new vehicle smell instead of the stale cigarette odor. I get up on the highway. I get to 65 MPH, no shimmy. I'm thinking that everything is just fine. But it's not. There are coffee stains in the cup holders. The ashtray is dirty. There are milk shake drippings on the dashboard. I start wondering what it means to recondition the interior? The following morning I drive to a state inspection station. After waiting 70 minutes the mechanic starts checking the Jeep out. I find out I have no brake lights. I let my son drive the Jeep the previous night. How could they miss brake lights on a 152-point check-up? Working brakes are part of a state inspection. I later find that the windshield washer fluid is not working. How do you miss that? Wouldn't you expect that anything that can be operated by the driver would be checked on a list of 152 items? So, I went back to the dealer. And this is what I learned.
They don't do a 152-point check up. They do a 125-point check on 'certified' used vehicles. My Jeep has too many miles to qualify for certification. Why was I told that? The sales manager couldn't explain. How did they miss the brakes? It seems the previous owner installed a switch that cut out the brake lights for towing behind an RV. I asked about the switch. The salesman assured me that the switch didn't work. "They always disable after market gadgets." Except this time they didn't. This was one breakdown after another for me. My commitment is to have road worthy vehicles for my family to drive. I had no idea of the real condition of my vehicle. What looked like a good sales process actually depended on knowledge and individual follow-through. There was no process to make it resilient. And this is at the number one Jeep dealer in New England. And when I brought this to the attention of the sales manager he didn't apologize.
With that as background, there are two key actions to take to create resilience to the breakdowns on projects.
- Expand the group of people who can assess and declare breakdowns.
- Empower those people to take compensating action.
Taking an assignment doesn't have the same effect on a person as negotiating and making commitments.
The usual practice on projects is for someone with power and authority to both declare and respond to breakdowns. That person is usually the project manager. The person in authority is usually not present to the circumstances of the breakdown. More likely, a team member reports a problem up the chain of command.
There are many shortcomings of current practice. If you buy my contention that we only declare breakdowns if we have commitments that are in jeopardy, then we won't get performers who take assignments declaring breakdowns. Taking an assignment doesn't have the same effect on a person as negotiating and making commitments. The person handing out assignments is the one who made the commitment…maybe. As Greg Howell says, the more likely scenario is "the project is a commitment-free zone." No commitments, no breakdowns.
Designing the project environment for breakdown-tolerance requires distributing accountability for the outcome of the project. The wonderful thing about sharing accountability with performers is they are closer to the action and circumstances of the project. That proximity allows them to make commitments grounded in their reality of the project. Having made commitments, they will be attuned to those circumstances that put the commitment at risk. When performers are authorized to declare breakdowns and then respond, the project gets a practice of in-the-moment control (steering) of the project rather than after-the-fact control (correcting).
I am having fun driving the Wrangler. I've had my mechanic do a thorough check. All systems are working fine.
Please offer your comments and questions. I'll put a wrap on this tomorrow or the next day.
Related Posts
- Back to Designing Breakdown-Tolerant Project Environments I last wrote about Designing Breakdown-Tolerant Project Environments in a four-part series: [1] [2] [3] [4]. It's not c...
- Breakdown-Tolerance: Is it Time to Act? I left off looking at the question, "Do we make commitments at the last responsible moment or at the most responsible mo...
- From Breakdown to Breakthrough There is a community of lean construction leaders in Northern California who get together each month at a dinner meeti...
- Breakdown-Tolerance: Just the Right Number of Commitments In the first part of this series I explored the circumstances for breakdowns and the action to take to minimize the gene...
- Designing Breakdown-Tolerant Project Environments I love the title of this posting. If only I really knew how to do it! So let's see what we can uncover and innovate to...
September 24th, 2003 at 12:19 pm
Any suggestions on how to manange the sequencing of commitments? Or is that through Linguistic Action that one determines which order the Commitments can be made so as not to make Commitments downstream that cannot be met because of the lack of commitment upstream. Or are you simply discussing what to do to ensure that the Team can react to breakdowns caused by unanticipated events?
gary
September 25th, 2003 at 8:37 pm
Hal;
My small mind is a bit confused.
When you talk about commitments do you mean instilling a sense of ownership or dedication by the team members to the project or, defining the commitment to produce a deliverable? Or maybe both?
Garrie
September 29th, 2003 at 3:06 pm
We may have many masters, but in an organization with its head screwed on right — the customer is the customer is the customer. Period.
October 2nd, 2003 at 6:52 pm
I�ve been wrestling with Frank�s observation that we all agree on who the customer is. I think in general that Frank is soundly right, the customer is not all the in-between managers and supervisors.
However, when the man who signs the worker�s check requests something to be done (the tacit commitment in this discussion) the worker may ask a question or two on behalf of the customer � to do the right thing and avoid either a breakdown or variation � but ultimately, the manager�s request will be fulfilled � or in Hal�s situation, not done because it was either never communicated, or not deemed �in the deal� or of value, but someone else.
None of these descriptions are excuses or pardons for mis-deeds. Clearly, we hope everyone is committing on behalf of the customer�s better interest. But sometimes reality, otherwise known as scope, schedule, or cost, sets in and some modifications are made either with or without the customer�s input.
Again, the customer is clearly the customer, but the experience [or practice] does not always support what is clear.
October 2nd, 2003 at 7:59 pm
Erudite — you’ve framed the problem well – The issue is how to keep everyone focused on the customer. However, keep in mind that my observation is for companies with heads screwed on correctly. Those that do not fall into that group have lots of walls within them to confuse staff about who the customer is.
An example — retail industry — most retailer tell their sales people what the rules are and tell them they must follow the rules about check chasing and credits, returns and such. And that’s about it for training. The really good ones give the sales people the power to make decisions in favor of the customer whenever possible and intelligent.
Go into Trader Joe’s and they want to help you find what you need and provide you with service. Same at Nordstrom’s. This differentiates these stores because most retail shops act as if they don’t care about the customer. The sales people serve their managers not the customer. Trader Joe’s and Nordstrom’s are the exception.
Frank