Today I spoke at the ASQ Lean and Six Sigma Conference on sustaining change. Great crowd (though I felt bad for the folks sitting on the floor) and the session has spawned a bunch of great conversations that I hope continues in the future.
As part of my presentation “Sustaining Change – Executing a Sustainability Plan” at the ASQ Lean and Six Sigma Conference tomorrow I’ll be talking about levers of change.
Change Management practitioners usually talk about seven levers:
- Infrastructure – Investing in the tools, processes, and other resources that employees need to be successful with the change initiative.
- Walk the Talk – active leadership is about ownership; it includes making the business case clear, modeling behaviors, clearing obstacles and making course corrections.
- Reward and Recognition – acknowledgement and compensation for employees who work to move the initiative forward
- Mass Exposure – getting out information about the change through broadcast messages and other communication pathways
- Personal Contacts – creating opportunities for advocates to share their experience of the change with peers who feel disengaged
- Outside advocates – bringing in resources (internal or external) to gain expertise for the change initiative
- Shift Resisters – moving people to areas less affected by the initiative.
In February I will be presenting at the 2020 ASQ Lean and Six Sigma Conference in Phoenix on Sustaining Change – Executing a Sustainability Plan.
Here’s the presentation summary:
For Lean and Six Sigma projects a central question should always be “how do we sustain this change?” Sustainability is a major part of all the major change models but is often the easiest to neglect. This session will engage the participant in building a Sustainability Plan, a key tool to ensure the change is anchored and embedded in the organization. Through three case study examples of changes at the three major change levels -transactional, organizational and transformational – the participant will gain the knowledge to create and execute an effective change plan.
During this session examples will be given for each component of a sustainability plan:
- Communication: Mechanisms for persuasive communication and ongoing socialization of the change, rites of parting (saying goodbye to the old ways of doing things), and rites of enhancement (acknowledgment of quick wins and continued adoption)
- Metrics Tracking: How to identify and execute consistent and effective ongoing measurement and results reporting to track progress and ensure sustained results • Performance Management: Process for observing and objectively measuring desired behaviors and attitudes, including performance appraisal process, promoting, demoting and transferring, and training and development
- Rewards and Recognition: Program of intrinsic and extrinsic incentives to reinforce desired behaviors and attitudes
- Sustaining Ownership: Consistent process for ensuring sustained ownership of the change through the ongoing transfer of experience and knowledge
- Continuous Improvement: Mechanisms for responding to changing requirements and implementing improvements based on feedback, observations, and metrics
The following questions will be explored, and tools for finding answers will be provided:
- How should organizational achievements reinforcing the change be commemorated
- What behaviors should be observed and measured on a regular basis?
- What results should be observed and measured on a regular basis?
- What metrics should be used for measuring behaviors and results?
- What mechanisms should be used for reporting results? • What criteria should be used to allocate rewards and promotion?
- What mechanisms should be used for training, coaching, and role modeling?
- What processes and procedures should be put in place to ensure sustained ownership of the change?
- What continuous improvement mechanisms will address low adoption rates and ensure the change becomes part of the organization’s normal functioning?
At the end of the session the user will have a template for creating a sustainability plan and will have been provided tools to successfully execute the sustainability phase of a change.
Learning Objectives 1. Assess the role of sustainability in the major change management methodologies and apply to lean and six sigma projects. 2. Facilitate the sustainability phase of change management. 3. Compose a sustainability plan.
Starting from the end, let’s review some of the requirements in the new draft PIC/S guidance.
Prior to change closure
|Changes meet their intended objectives and pre-defined effectiveness criteria. Any deviations from those criteria are adequately assessed, accepted and managed/justified. Whenever possible, quantitative data are leveraged to objectively determine change effectiveness (e.g. statistical confidence and coverage).||Clearly delineating what effective means as a date is critical to generate data.|
CQV activities can tell you if the intended objective is met. Effectiveness reviews must be made up of:
Sufficient data points, as described in the implementation plan, gathered to a described timeline, before an assessment of the change is made.
The success criteria should be achieved. If not, reasons why they have not been achieved should be assessed along with the mitigation steps to address the reasons why, including reverting to the previous operating state where appropriate. This may require the proposal of a subsequent change or amendment of the implementation plan to ensure success.
Data and knowledge gathered from implementation of the change should be shared with the development function and other locations, as appropriate, to ensure that learning can be applied in products under development or to similar products manufactured at the same or other locations
|As part of the quality risk management activities, residual risks are assessed and managed to acceptable levels, and appropriate adaptations of procedures and controls are implemented.||These are action items in the change control. |
As part of the closure activities, revise the risk assessment, clearly delineating risk assessment in two phases.
|Any unintended consequences or risks introduced as a result of changes are evaluated, documented, accepted and handled adequately, and are subject to a pre-defined monitoring timeframe.||Leverage the deviation system.|
Prior to or after change closure
|Any post-implementation actions needed (including those for deviations from pre-defined acceptance criteria and/or CAPAs) are identified and adequately completed.||If you waterfall into a CAPA system, it is important to include effectiveness reviews that are to the change, and not just to the root cause.|
|Relevant risk assessments are updated post-effectiveness assessments. New product/process knowledge resulting from those risk assessments are captured in the appropriate Quality and Operations documents (e.g. SOPs, Reports, Product Control Strategy documents, etc.)||Risk management is not a once and done for change management.|
|Changes are monitored via ongoing monitoring systems to ensure maintenance of a state of control, and lessons learned are captured and shared/communicated.||Knowledge management is critical as part of the product management lifecycle.|
Lessons learned are critical.
November was an exciting month for change management!
ICH Q12 “Technical and Regulatory Considerations for Pharmaceutical Product Lifecycle Management” was adopted by the ICH in Singapore, which means Q12 is now in Stage 5, Implementation. Implementation should be interesting as concepts like “established conditions” and “product lifecycle management” which sit at the core of Q12 are still open for interpretation as Q12 is implemented in specific regulatory markets.
And then, to end the month, PIC/S published draft 1 of PI 054-1 “Recommendation on How to Evaluate / Demonstrate the Effectiveness of a Pharmaceutical Quality System in relation to Risk-based Change Management.”
This draft guidance is now in a review period by regulatory agencies. Which means no public comments, but it will be applied on a 6-month trial basis by PIC/S participating authorities, which include the US Food and Drug Administration and other regulators across Europe, Australia, Canada, South Africa, Turkey, Iran, Argentina and more.
This document is aligned to ICH Q10, and there should be few surprised in this. Given PIC/S concern that “ongoing continual improvement has probably not been realised to a meaningful extent. The PIC/S QRM Expert Circle, being well-placed to focus on the QRM concepts of the GMPs and of ICH Q10, is seeking to train GMP inspectors on what a good risk-based change management system can look like within the PQS, and how to assess the level of effectiveness of the PQS in this area” it is a good idea to start aligning to be ahead of the curve.
“Changes typically have an impact assessment performed within the change control system. However, an impact assessment is often not as comprehensive as a risk assessment for the proposed change.”
This is a critical thing that agencies have been discussing for years. There are a few key takeaways.
- The difference between impact and risk is critical. Impact is best thought of as “What do I need to do to make the change.” Risk is “What could go wrong in making this change?” Impact focuses on assessing the impact of the proposed change on various things such as on current documentation, equipment cleaning processes, equipment qualification, process validation, training, etc. While these things are very important to assess, asking the question about what might go wrong is also important as it is an opportunity for companies to try to prevent problems that might be associated with the proposed change after its implementation.
- This 8 page document is really focusing on the absence of clear links between risk assessments, proposed control strategies and the design of validation protocols.
- The guidance is very concerned about appropriately classifying changes and using product data to drive decisions. While not specifying it in so many words, one of the first things that popped to my mind was around how we designate changes as like-for-like in the absence of supporting data. Changes that are assigned a like-for-like classification are often not risk-assessed, and are awarded limited oversight from a GMP perspective. These can sometimes result in major problems for companies, and one that I think people are way to quick to rush to.
Much of my thoughts on implementing this can be found in my presentation on change management and change control.
It is fascinating to look at appendix 1, which really lays out some critical goals of this draft guidance: better risk management, real time release, and innovative approaches to process validation. This is sort of the journey we are all on.