When organizing change processes in
organizations, the issue of participation is made very clear. A method
must be found to navigate between two extremes:
1- "Participation without insight leads to
statements without prospects". Making people decide on issues for
which they have insufficient information or skills is a guarantee for bad
decisions.
2- Decisions
that are good in terms of content, but that are not accepted by those involved,
are difficult to implement.
The focus of the methodology sought must
therefore be on reconciling content and acceptance. This means that “THE
TOTAL QUALITY OF A DECISION IS EQUAL TO THE PRODUCT OF THE INTRINSIC QUALITY OF
THE DECISION AND ACCEPTANCE. The funnel technique offers a solution.
As previously described elsewhere, a good
change process starts with the creation of the desire for change (“Sense
of urgency ”). It has also been made clear who will organize and
supervise the process. This "leading coalition" has also clearly
communicated the rules of the process (the method of funnel
technology) , and has verified whether the culture of the organization is
sufficiently receptive to the intended change. The fifth phase in the
change process is the funnel technique. This means that the solution to
the problem or challenge posed is achieved in collaboration between the process
management and the employees involved. After all, the resistance to change
that often sabotages good intentions is that management first works out the
solution (specialists), and then 'sell' this solution to those
involved. The known change process described by Kotter (1) is also
guilty of this top-down approach. In that approach one has to become
creative in inventing 'massage techniques' in order to obtain the necessary
acceptance. With funnel technique we try to take three steps from the
process at the same time:
- Creating the solution
- Communicating the solution
- Creating
acceptance
The funnel technology works in steps:
STEP 1: ALL employees involved (even
external parties in some cases, eg customers) are asked to provide
their input that is useful for the solution sought. This input can be
proposals, possible solutions, or partial solutions, interesting
techniques or examples, points of interest, risks, or even things that people are
concerned about. The leading coalition receives this input and starts
working with it. It is important that not only those directly
involved are invited, but also people who are indirectly
involved, for example from support departments. Everyone who has
an important contribution to make in realizing the solution must participate in
the process.
STEP2: Based on the input obtained, the
leading coalition works out a solution proposal. This can possibly be
'outsourced' to a working group of specialized people, or the leading coalition
is assisted by experts, or works with part of their team. It is essential
that two things are used to make this first design: the input obtained, and the
expertise from the working group. This expertise in particular must ensure
the necessary quality of the designed solution. This must be
consistent in terms of content and have already passed a test of
(technical, legal, financial, ... ) feasibility.
STEP3: This draft is submitted to the SAME
group of people who were asked to provide input. Even people who were
invited but did not give input are involved in this way, and may even decide to
cooperate from now on.
When presenting the design of the
solution, special attention is given to:
- What input have we received?
- How does the solution work?
- What logic is behind it that makes the whole
consistent (and aligns with, for example, previously made and
well-known strategic choices, the sense of urgency)
- Where can the received input be found in the
design?
- Which
input was not processed, and why?
Following this information, room is made
to allow those involved to respond. The question they get is: where and
how can this design be improved. This is explicitly NOT the question of
what people think is good and what is not! This is an important pivotal
point in the process. You do not ask for approval, but you seek
improvements based on the knowledge, experience, ... of the people
involved. Every response must therefore be more than an opinion; it
must be supported by argumentation. Because this is a fairly difficult
criterion, at least for some people, it may have to be anticipated that the
response should not be given immediately, but at a certain time. The
channel used to respond must have a low threshold; be easily to use.
STEP 4: On the basis of the
resulting comments and improved proposal is made. That improved
design meets the same criteria as the first design (knowledge, consistency, use
of input , ... )
STEP 5: This second draft is resubmitted
to the entire group of stakeholders, as described in step 3, using the same
method.
STEP 6: This process is repeated as often
as necessary. That means that at a certain point in time there is no more
useful input from the group concerned, and that apparently the most recent
version is the best possible answer to the problem posed. This version
then becomes the solution. Possibly the Sociocratic method is used even
more explicitly here, and one concludes with the exception question: "Are
there any reasons for not trying it this way?"
Why does this method provide the quality
and support that are sought? Two things are essential here, and must
therefore be strongly guarded by the leading coalition:
- The open and transparent way to monitor the two
directions in the process: top-down and bottom-up. The funnel technology
is essentially an 'intelligent combination of top-down and bottom-up!
- The
narrowing in the funnel. It is equally crucial that a distinction is made
in the course of the funnel between 'sense and nonsense'. The quality and
consistency of all ideas must therefore be strictly monitored. Otherwise
you don't have a funnel, but a tube! That presupposes that the management
has the courage to decide which idea is unsuccessful, and why. Leaders
without a vision, or who use a style of ' pleasing and licking',
naturally have a hard time with this.
The original quality of the funnel
technology, and therefore also the added value, is in the following elements:
- All stakeholders co-operate, and not just
people in a working group of representatives (such
as eg " Key users') This traditional approach is
chopping the process into two parts. The easy part, the selected group, it is
agreed, and the rest is forgotten and is subsequently tackled in the
' sales process ' that needs to follow. The second part of the
process therefor provides the basis for resistance and loss of support.
- There is a lot of room for input, and multiple
opportunities
- Those involved see how the solution comes
about, and can follow the logic
- The
focus on quality is retained
The time required to follow this
method is often cited as an objection. Leaders sometimes find that
they don't have the time. But this is a trap. The Japanese concept of
NEMAWASHI is an important help here (2) It says: Decide slowly, and implement
fast”. That means that the total throughput time of the change determines how
quickly something is realized. If we decide quickly, implementation may be
delayed by resistance, lack of clarity, additional interruptions
at crucial points, etc.
Hugo Der Kinderen
(1) JP
Kotter, Leading Change, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, 1998
(2) Liker ,
JK, The Toyota Way, Mc Graw Hill, New York, 2004
No comments:
Post a Comment