Coal, Cost and Culture: Time’s up!

Time is usually regarded as a negative in any business endeavor – the quicker, the better. After all, time is money (right?). Balancing the ‘time required for sustainable change’ with a ‘schedule for change’ is almost always an exercise in conflict. When the pressure is on to finish an initiative by a certain date, cool heads and a common sense approach must rule to create a positive outcome. Millions of dollars can easily be invested in process/systems design and implementation. If the appropriate behavioral changes do not materialise within the design/implementation window, the investment and expected financial benefits are both at risk because the behaviors, not the process changes, deliver the value in the end.

More about time as an element of change

When change initiatives are suggested, one of the first questions management asks is ‘How long will this take?’ or ‘When will we see dollars flow to the bottom line?’ Time should be viewed is a critical element in success - without it, no real change occurs. Time is required to design and implement process changes; even more important, it is part of the process when people let go of old behaviors and adopt new ones. Achieving lasting behavior change requires time just like a seed requires time to sprout, grow roots and blossom. Each individual is different in this respect, so it should not be assumed that everyone will be in the same place after 1 week or 1 month has passed.

How many times has management set a drop-dead date for a change initiative, then re-directed resources away from it when a breakthrough is just within reach? The following case study illustrates how management’s focus on a ‘sacred go-line date’ forfeited the benefits from a multi-million dollar system implementation: 

The sacred ‘Go-Live’ date

An enterprise-wide computer system was installed as part of a plan to improve operational performance and organisational efficiency at a company with multiple operating locations. Investment in the new system exceeded US$ 10,000,000. At kicked off, system training for the workforce was included in the implementation timeline. At the first site on the implementation schedule, unexpected problems continued to arise during the development phase, eroding contingencies built into the schedule. Site management eventually asked the project team how they could shorten the remaining time frame and still meet the promised ‘go-live’ date. At least 3 months prior to go-live, it was obvious that training required prior to the go-live date would not be completed. Site management had two choices: 1) Stay committed to the date and postpone training until after the ‘go-live’ date or 2) Move the date forward and conduct the required training prior to go-live. Management decided to postpone training until after go-live because they wanted to save face at corporate.

Then the unexpected happened…when corporate heard that this location was going to meet their original go-live date, corporate moved this site’s training resources to other locations because they thought that this location was ‘done’. Employees at this site were left ‘high and dry’ trying to do their work with little or no training. The old system had been ‘unplugged’, so they had no option to fall back on and were forced to struggle to accomplish tasks that used to be easy.

As a result, promised savings and productivity gains (part of the ROI for the project) were minimal or non-existent. BUT … the site management team could say they ‘met the date’, protecting their credibility with corporate (even though they lost a lot of credibility with their own workforce). Site management was perceived as effective leaders even though their decision greatly reduced the return on this project and harmed the culture at their site.

Thought for the month: Shortening the time for a change initiative always comes with a cost. That cost must be honestly examined before canceling tasks that impact project success.

Author: Kay Sever CMC, CQIA, Sustainable Improvement Consultant and Coach. Kay Sever is a leader in sustainable improvement for mines and plants. She combines 29 years of mining experience with a common sense approach to improvement that raises awareness about lost opportunity and hidden barriers that prevent improvement success. http://www.miningopportunity.com/

Read the article online at: https://www.oilfieldtechnology.com/drilling-and-production/20022012/coal-cost-and-culture-time%E2%80%99s-up/