Links
- Email me
- A Pinko Hockey Player
- The Phischkneght Forum
- PhischkneghtX
- Confessions of a Budding Entrepreneur
Archives
- February 2004
- March 2004
- April 2004
- July 2004
- August 2004
- October 2004
- December 2004
- January 2005
- February 2005
- March 2005
- April 2005
- June 2005
- July 2005
- August 2005
- September 2005
- October 2005
- February 2006
- March 2006
- April 2006
- May 2006
- June 2006
- July 2006
- August 2006
- September 2006
- October 2006
- November 2006
- December 2006
- February 2007
- March 2007
- April 2007
- May 2007
- July 2007
- November 2007
- January 2008
- March 2008
- April 2008
- May 2008
- October 2008
The observations and opinions of a person who has no discernible insights or ideas.
Monday, November 05, 2007
Slipping Into Something More Comfortable
[Note: The following was written a couple of weeks ago, except for a bit at the end. Enjoy.]
This week, I have been attending a course that has, so far, forcused on why the organization that I work for needs to change. This is not exactly news to me, but what I find far more interesting is the question of how to change and what the expected impacts will be. I have made a few observations on that topic, some of which are borrowed from course material, but all of which are made outside of the intended meaning given in the course. I speak here specifically about process changes, although the ideas may apply to other types of changes as well.
1. All change comes at a price. You can't change something without experiencing some cost. There is almost always an initial drop in performance as people get accustomed to the new ways. Typically there is also substantial costs to document and publicize the new changes and to train people on how to do it. The training process will also hit on productivity as workers are not engaged in their core duties. These transition costs are usually short-term in nature (except for the ongoing costs of training new people), but they can be substantial.
2. Change can be either good or bad. No matter how broken a thing is, there are always ways to change it that would make it worse. Care should always be taken when making a change to ensure that it does not cost more than it gives back. In other words, one should never change just because things are broken, but change should only occur if there is a better way of doing things.
3. Process change produces a finite long-term "gain". No matter how fantastic a new process is, there is a limit to the savings that it can bring. The old processes have a certain amount of cost, and a certain amount of productivity, and the new processes will have some other cost and productivity level. This would likely be manifest as a per-unit cost improvement.
4. Changes must be properly implemented in order to work as advertised. For example, if you join a gym and don't ever go, then you won't get into better shape. If you decide that you'll be on time by driving 100 MPH all the time, you'll eventually have your plans shot down by The Man. (Lobbying Congress to raise the speed limit would be a better way to implement that plan...)
Any other thoughts?
This week, I have been attending a course that has, so far, forcused on why the organization that I work for needs to change. This is not exactly news to me, but what I find far more interesting is the question of how to change and what the expected impacts will be. I have made a few observations on that topic, some of which are borrowed from course material, but all of which are made outside of the intended meaning given in the course. I speak here specifically about process changes, although the ideas may apply to other types of changes as well.
1. All change comes at a price. You can't change something without experiencing some cost. There is almost always an initial drop in performance as people get accustomed to the new ways. Typically there is also substantial costs to document and publicize the new changes and to train people on how to do it. The training process will also hit on productivity as workers are not engaged in their core duties. These transition costs are usually short-term in nature (except for the ongoing costs of training new people), but they can be substantial.
2. Change can be either good or bad. No matter how broken a thing is, there are always ways to change it that would make it worse. Care should always be taken when making a change to ensure that it does not cost more than it gives back. In other words, one should never change just because things are broken, but change should only occur if there is a better way of doing things.
3. Process change produces a finite long-term "gain". No matter how fantastic a new process is, there is a limit to the savings that it can bring. The old processes have a certain amount of cost, and a certain amount of productivity, and the new processes will have some other cost and productivity level. This would likely be manifest as a per-unit cost improvement.
4. Changes must be properly implemented in order to work as advertised. For example, if you join a gym and don't ever go, then you won't get into better shape. If you decide that you'll be on time by driving 100 MPH all the time, you'll eventually have your plans shot down by The Man. (Lobbying Congress to raise the speed limit would be a better way to implement that plan...)
Any other thoughts?
- You are visitor