The promise of reengineering may have had its beginning in a Harvard Business review article published by Michael Hammer, “Reengineering Work:  Don’t Automate, Obliterate.”  In that article, Michael argues persuasively,

“Reengineering cannot be planned meticulously and accomplished in small and cautious steps. It’s an all-or-nothing proposition with an uncertain result. Still, most companies have no choice but to muster the courage to do it.”

In the years that followed, it was not unusual to find a consulting company with 100 consultants changing processes at a major corporation.  The criticism of these large reengineering efforts is that they did not always produce significant results beyond enriching consultants; that they were often long and protracted; and they frequently created more turmoil than answers.

Don’t you find it easy to agree with Hammer and the criticisms leveled at reengineering?

So then, what is missing?

Leadership.  Literature sometimes talks about a change agent.  Sheesh.  I want to talk about leadership that recognizes the need to make dramatic change and demonstrates the hard work, courage and conviction needed to invest treasure and personal time in making change happen.

I saw this demonstrated well.  A senior executive was looking at problems with one of the world’s largest technology channel programs.  The channel program partners literally delivered billions in sales.  And the systems that maintained membership information were broken.  Really broken.  In a meeting of senior executives, I saw two executives that should have been arguing agreeing with one another.  The first executive received services from the system.  She was mad.  The second executive was the business leader responsible for providing the system.  She agreed with every criticism made by the other executive – and added her own.  This exchange is from memory (and therefore not accurate), but it is close to some of the things they said.

Executive receiving services:  “Here is an email from one of our partners saying they wasted over 100 hours last month correcting errors in this system.”

Executive delivering services:  “That is intolerable.  I can’t believe we have not taken corrective action already.  I am getting visibility into other problems as well….”

Now in fairness the executive delivering services was relatively new to the position and could reasonably say these problems did not occur on her watch.  But what happened next was extraordinary.

This senior executive, who had massive responsibilities, took weeks of her personal time and examined the problems.  She forced her team and others to build a complete diagram of all processes and how they worked.  She examined them in detail and flagged areas that needed correction immediately.  She secured funding for an end-to-end redesign of processes and systems.

And she worked on it personally for 18 months.  18 months of really hard work.

The result?  A 75% reduction in work effort.  And a very pleased set of partners.  People on the receiving end of the work made a “thank you” video.

An ingrained intolerance for the dumb.  If leadership needs to be embodied at the top of a transformation effort, leadership needs to imbue the organization with an allergy to stupid processes.  This is actually good regardless of whether or not transformative change is underway – and perhaps transformative change is needed less often if people resist poor ideas.

My friend Ted worked on navigation software that was considered secret.  Although he worked at a private company, he and his team had to follow government dictated security protocol that went something like this:  Ted wrote complicated navigation software and then turned it in.  Once it was turned in, Ted could not look at it again.  Inevitably errors would be found in testing, but Ted was not allowed to see or correct the code.  Others were instructed to correct errors, but they could not talk to Ted about the code or the problems they had encountered.  Testing and correction took a long time.

Maybe there are good security reasons for such a process.  But it feels inefficient.

We run some very large projects.  We have a mantra for people working on these projects.  “Follow the process, or fix the process”.  I am sure we stole that idea from someone.  But we tell people to be unaccepting of poor process and not to let poor processes continue without attention and correction.  By making it the responsibility of everyone on the team to notice problems and make suggestions, a much larger set of problems are addressed early and well.

A time-bound focus on results.  Here is where I think a lot of transformation efforts go sideways.  The goals set for the team are amorphous and conceptual.  For example, “delight our customers”.  Delighting customers is an easy thing on which to agree, but it lacks the level of specificity required to really drive results.

Let me offer an alternative.  Imagine a retailer that has a growing e-commerce site.   The executive leading the transformation reports, “Our research shows customers hate waiting for packages to arrive.  We are going to work on two things:  Getting the right package to our customer, much faster – and doing it in a way that substantially reduces our expenses.”

Now that is something a team can work on.

To make the team really effective, set objectives.  “We are going to reduce the modality for time to deliver to 2 days.  And no delivery will take more than 5 days.  Concurrently, we will work to reduce overall procure, pick and ship costs by 50%.  And we will do this in less than 6 months.”

When you take on a transformation project, learn from Hammer, but also learn from the practical experience of those who achieved large, significant results by leading, being practical and setting specific goals.

A lot of people think that executives want good news.  That is not true.  Good executives want the truth.  And they want ideas on how to solve problems.

Let’s start with what executives hate.  Ever listen to an exchange that goes something like this?

Executive:  Where are we on the launch plan?

Bad Answer Person:  Well, we met with the team last week.  And we have had other meetings as well. We have generated some ideas that we continue to refine and we have started engaging with people cross organization.

Executive:  So is there a plan?

Bad Answer Person:  Next week we are getting back together with the extended v-team.  We are taking a very inclusive approach that we think is going to build awareness and consensus.

So far, nothing like an answer anywhere in sight.  Expect the executive to be frustrated.

Let’s try this again.

Executive:  Where are we on the launch plan?

Good Answer Person:  We only have an outline.  We have identified the teams to involve and named people to lead work streams, but it will be next week before we have a detailed plan on paper worthy of review.

Same set of facts, but feel the difference?  Forthright answers build trust and understanding.  And from your perspective, more executive confidence in you.

Answer, then explain.  Don’t make the executive wait to know.  “Are the parts all here?”  “Yes, except for one that is scheduled to be here Wednesday.”   – or – “No.  We are still expecting one more part to arrive on Wednesday.”  Same set of facts.  Two answers.  Either answer is OK because it answers the question, then explains.

Always give one of four true, respectful answers.

1. I don’t know.  If you don’t know, say that.  Don’t ramble.  Best case, tell them when you will know.  “Are the parts all here?”  “We won’t know until later this morning.  We complete the inventory then.  I’ll pass along status to you as soon as that completes”.
2. I won’t tell you.  Sometimes the respectful answer is a polite refusal to answer.  “What is the unit margin on your company’s new product?”  “We’re not able to share that but we’re pleased with the initial market reaction.”
3. The truth.  If you know the truth, most often you want to provide it.  “Are we going to hit the original go-live schedule?”  “No.  We are moving the go-live date to Friday because although testing is complete, the final regression test will not finish until Thursday.”
4. Speculation.  Almost never use this.  Use only when you absolutely must.  “When do the parts arrive?”  “They might be here Tuesday.”  People only hear Tuesday in that answer.  They do not hear the word, might.  Use speculation very sparingly.

Armed with this fantastic guidance you are now able to talk to executives at their level.  And perhaps, create the impression that you should be on the executive team yourself.