| |
(Re-)
Defining Productivity
Tom Wentz
(USA) suggests that:
We continue to hear "Work Smarter, not Harder". However
an organisation can not simply work 'smarter' at fitting an old
business model into a new business environment; it must transform
the old business model or design a new one.
John Heap (UK) similarly
wants to 'knock down' the well-established model of 'continuous
improvement'.
Productivity is not
achieved by 'continuous improvement' - the concept is unworkable.
Why? Well.........
- Performance and
productivity gains that arise from improvement initiatives (of
whatever form) must be consolidated - 'locked-in' to the organisation
as a new baseline. This is done explicitly as a positive act which
recognises the gains and explicitly protects them.
- Organisations (and
the people within them) can suffer from 'initiative fatigue'.
If they are constantly asked to learn new approaches, raise performance,
and to adhere to the strictures of new improvement and enhancement
methodologies and processes, they exhibit signs of stress and
exhaustion - and performance, far from improving, deteriorates.
- Any initiative
will lose its impact with time. The only way to maximise gains
and to keep a methodology fresh is to periodically withdraw it
The conventional
('business guru') wisdom suggests the organisation should be changed
to make it more ready to accept this constant challenge, to make
it 'agile' and 'lean'. While being adaptable, flexible and ready
for change is not 'a bad thing', I am sceptical of the ability of
many organisations - and their personnel - to become such paragons
of virtue. I prefer to deal with the real world - and accept organisational
limitations.
more
on definitions ...
|
|
