ASQ Lean and Six Sigma Conference – Speaker

I will be presenting at the ASQ Lean and Six Sigma Conference on March 5, 2019 on the topic “Training as Part of Lean Change Management.”

If you plan on being at the conference, let me know. I always enjoy sitting down with colleagues and chatting.

This topic unites three of my passions: change management, knowledge management and continuous improvements. 

One of the key parts of any change stemming from a project is preparing people to actually do the work effectively. Every change needs to train and building valid and reliable training at the right level for the change is critical.

Training is valid when it is tied to the requirements of the job – the objectives; and when it includes evaluations that are linked to the skills and knowledge started in the objectives. Reliability means that the training clearly differentiates between those who can perform the task and those who cannot.

In this session we will take a risk based training approach to the best outcome for training. The following criteria will be examined and a tool provided for decision making:

  • Is a change in knowledge or skills needed to execute the changed process?
  • Is the process or change complex? Are there multiple changes?
  • Criticality of Process and risk of performance error? What is the difficulty in detecting errors?
  • What is the identified audience (e.g., location,size, department, single site vs. multiple sites)?
  • Is the goal to change workers conditioned behavior?

Armed with these criteria, participants will then be exposed to specific training tools to enable quick adoption of the training:reader-doer, pre-job briefings, and structured discussions. Advantages of each method, as well as common mistakes will be evaluated.

Knowledge management as a key enabler to lean improvements will be examined. Participants will gain an understanding of how to draw from their organizations formal and informal knowledge management systems, and gain an understanding a tool to ensure results of a lean project feedback into the knowledge management system.

Participants will leave this training with the ability to execute decision making around providing successful training for their lean projects and ensuring that this deepens their organization’s knowledge and the ability to apply that knowledge in the future.

Change Management of multi-site implementations

A colleague asks in response to my post Group change controls:

… deploying a Learning + documentation system … all around the word [as a global deployment]  … do we I initiate a GLOBAL CC or does each site created a local CC.

The answer is usually, in my experience, both.

Change management is about process, organization, technology and people. Any change control needs to capture the actions necessary to successful implement the change.

so at implementation I would do two sets of changes. A global to capture all the global level changes and to implement the new (hopefully) harmonized system And then a local change control at each site to capture all the site impact.

System Element Global Local
Process Introduce the new global process

Update all global standards, procedures, etc

How will local procedures change? How will local system interactions change – clean up all the local procedures to ensure the point to the new global procedures and are harmonized as necessary.
Technology Computer system validation

Global interfaces

Global migration strategy

Local interfaces (if any) and configurations

Are local technologies being replaced? Plan for decommissioning.

Local migration (tactical)

People What do people do on the global level?

How will people interact within the system in the future?

Global training

What will be different for people at each individual site?

Localized training

Organization Will there be new organizational structures in place? Is this system being run out of a global group? How will communication be run.

System governance and change management

Site organization changes

How will different organizations and sub organizations adopt, adapt and work with the system

If you just have a global change control you are at real risk of missing a ton of local uniqueness and leaving in place a bunch of old ways of thinking and doing things.

If you just do local change controls you will be at risk of not seeing the big picture and getting the full benefits of harmonization. You also will probably have way too many change controls that regurgitate the same content, and then are at risk of divergence – a compliance nightmare.

This structure allows you better capture the diversity of perspectives at the sites. A global change control tends to be dominated by the folks at each site who own the system (all your documents and training folks in this example), while a site change will hopefully include other functions, such as engineering and operations. Trust me, they will have all sorts of impact.

This structure also allows you to have rolling implementations. The global implements when the technology is validated and the core processes are effective. each site then can implement based on their site deliverables. useful when deploying a document management system and you have a lot of migration.

Multisite changes

As part of the deployment make sure to think through matters of governance, especially change management. Once deployed it is easy to imagine many changes just needing a central change control. But be sure to have thought through the criteria that will require site change controls – such as impact other interrelated systems, site validation or different implementation dates.

I’ve done a lot of changes and a lot of deployment of systems. This structure has always worked well. I’ve never done just a global and been happy with the final results, they always leave too much unchanged elements behind that come back to haunt you. In the last year I’ve done 2 major changes to great success with this model, and seen one where the decision not to use this model has left us with lots of little messes to clean up.

As a final comment, keep the questions coming and I would love to hear other folks perspectives on these matters. I’m perpetually learning and I know there are lots of permutations to explore.

Quality is about teaching

One of the core skills for a quality professional is teaching. We teach skills, ways of thinking, methodologies. “Great Employees Want to Learn. Great Managers Know How to Teach” by Daniel Dobrygowski nicely covers some key points that every quality professional should think through as we go through out day advocating for quality in our organizations.

Define goals and communicate them clearly

Part of this is an evangelical role. Quality needs to be able to explain the quality goals, whether of the organization of a specific system or process. People in your organization want to know why they are doing things. Spend some time having clear talking points, be ready to give your pitch. Speak proudly of your quality systems. And be ready to understand how other’s goals intersect with your own.

Identify and build skills

Understand the skills necessary for quality, develop a plan to assess and build them and then execute to it. Knowledge management is crucial here.

Create opportunities for growth

Quality raises the prospects of all. Quality professionals who realize that our core job is building skills and growing the people in our organization benefit from teaching will drive continuous improvement and make folks happier using our systems. Growth is a reward loop, and people feeling they are rewarded by your system will want to use it more.

In short take each and every opportunity to use your interactions as a way to grow skills and capabilities. Quality will only grow as a result.

Knowledge management as continuous improvement

An effective change management system includes active knowledge management, leveraging existing process and product knowledge; capturing new knowledge gained during implementation of the change; and, transferring that knowledge in appropriate ways to all stakeholders.

Any quality system (any system) has as part of it’s major function transforming data into information; the acquisition and creation of knowledge; and the dissemination and using information and knowledge. A main pipe of process improvement is how to implicit knowledge and make it explicit. This is one of the reasons we spend so much time developing standardized work.

And yet I, like many quality professionals, have found myself sitting at a table or standing in front of a visual management board, and have some type of leader ask why we spend so much time training when we should be able to hire anyone with an appropriate level of experience and have them just do the job.

Systems are made up of four things – process, organization, people and technology. When folks think of change management, or root cause analysis, or similar quality processes and tools they tend to think the system is only about the activity we are engaging in. But change management (or root cause analysis or data integrity) is not that simple.

This is really two-fold. A person assessing a change is not just needing to be knowledgeable about how the change control process works, they need to be able to analyze the change to each and every process within the systems they represent, to understand how moving the levers and adjusting the buffers within this change influences each and everything they do, even it that’s to be able to make a concrete and definitive no impact statement.

So when we process improve our change management system (or similar quality processes) we are both improving how we manage change and how folks apply that thinking to all their other activities.

In less mature systems we end up having a lot of tacit knowledge in one person. You have that great SME who understands master data in the ERP and how changes impact it. In way to transfer that tacit knowledge to another person is a lot of socialization. It is experiential, active and a “living thing,” involving capturing knowledge by spending a lot of time with that person and having shared experience, which results in acquired skills and common mental models.

For example, my master-data guru needs to be involved in each and every change that might possibly involve the ERP or master-data. I might have reached the point where the procedure has large sections that give detailed instructions on when to involve the master-data guru in a change. The master-data guru spends a lot of time justifying no-impact. Otherwise I might be having change after change forget to update master data. Which leads to deviations.

At this stage of maturity I’ve recognized I need a master data guru. I’ve identified the individual(s). Depending on maturity I either involve the master-data guru on every change or I’ve advanced enough that I have a decision tool that drives changes to the master-data guru.

So now either the master-data guru is becoming a pain point or we’ve had one too many changes that led to deviations because we failed to change master data in the ERP correctly. So we enter a process improvement cycle.

What we need to do here is make the master-data guru’s tacit knowledge explicit; we need to externalize this knowledge. We start building the tools that better define what never has impact, what always has impact, and what might have impact or be really unique. When a change has no impact, the change owner is able to note that and move on (no master-data guru involvement necessary). When it has definite impact the change owner is able to identify the actions required, knowing exactly what procedures to follow and how to execute those within a change. We still have a set of changes that will trigger the master-data guru’s involvement, but those are smaller in number and more complex in scope.

The steps we took to get here also allow us to more easily develop and train master-data gurus. Maybe we have a skills matrix and it is on development plans. Our training program now has the tools to allow internalization, the process of understanding and absorbing explicit knowledge into tacit knowledge held by the individual.

At this point I have the tools for my average change owner to know when to change master data and how-to-do it (this might not involve them actually doing master data management it is really knowing when to execute, and the outputs from and inputs back into the change management system) AND I have better mechanisms for producing master data experts. That’s the beauty here, the knowledge level required to execute change management properly is usually an expert level competency. By making that knowledge explicit I am serving multiple processes and interrelated systems.

Knowledge management Circular_Process_6_Stages (for expansion)

To breakdown the process:

  1. Capture all the knowledge. Interview the SME(s), evaluate the use of the system, gather together all the procedures and training and user manuals and power point slides
  2. Assess what is valuable, what needs to be transferred
  3. Share this knowledge, make sure others can understand it
  4. Contextualize into standard tools (job aids, user guides, checklists, templates, etc.)
  5. Apply the knowledge. Train others and also update your system processes (and maybe technology) to make sure the knowledge is used.
  6. Update – make sure the knowledge is sustained and regularly updated.

Change management has lots of inputs and outputs. As does data integrity and may other quality systems. Understanding these interrelationships, ensuring knowledge is appropriate captured and utilized, is a big way we improve and thrive.

Training assessment as part of change management

One of the key parts of any change (process improvement, project, etc) is preparing people to actually do the work effectively. Every change needs to train.

Building valid and reliable training at the right level for the change is critical. Training is valid when it is tied to the requirements of the job – the objectives; and when it includes evaluations that are linked to the skills and knowledge started in the objectives. Reliability means that the training clearly differentiates between those who can perform the task and those who cannot.

A lot of changes default to read-and-understand training. This quite bluntly is the bane of valid and reliable training with about zero value and would be removed from our toolkit if I had my way.

There are a lot of training models, but I hold there is no single or best method. The most effective and efficient combination of methods should be chosen depending on the training material to be covered and the specific needs of the target group.

For my purposes I’ll draw from Edgar Dale’s Cone of Experience, which incorporates several theories related to instructional design and learning processes. Dale theorized that learner’s retain more information on what they “do” as opposed to what is “heard,” “read” or “observed.” This is often called experiential or action learning.

dalescone

Based on this understanding we can break the training types down. For example:

  • Structured discussions are Verbal and some Visual
  • Computer Based Trainings are mostly Records
  • Instructor Led Trainings are a lot about Demonstration
  • On-the-job training is all about the Experience

Once we have our agreed upon training methods and understand what makes them a good training we can then determine what criteria of a change leads to the best outcome for training. Some example criteria include:

  • Is a change in knowledge or skills needed to execute the procedure?
  • Is the process or change complex? Are there multiple changes?
  • Criticality of Process and risk of performance error? What is the difficulty in detecting errors?
  • What is the identified audience (e.g., location, size, department, single site vs. multiple sites)?
  • Is the goal to change workers‘ conditioned behavior

This sort of questioning gets us to risk based thinking. We are determining where the biggest bang from our training is.

Building training is a different set of skills. I keep threatening a training peer with doing a podcast episode (probably more than one) on the subject (do I really want to do podcasts?).

The last thing I want to leave you is build training evaluations into this. Kilpatrick’s model is a favorite – Level 4 Results evaluations which tell us how effective our training was overtime actually makes a darn good effectiveness review. I strongly recommend building that into a change management process.