Is Assessing Lean Wasteful?

Tweet

"The most important things cannot be measured." - W. Edwards Deming  

  

The other day, I was asked my opinion about assessments to measure an organization's progress on a lean journey.   Although I generally don't use assessments, I really hadn't given the subject much thought before our discussion.

The idea behind a lean assessment is to identify the gap between the current state of the organization and where it will be when it is "fully lean."  Although it should make perfect sense to assess the current state to better understand the gaps and whether or not the deployment is progressing, I have never seen assessments result in any real value for an organization.

Organizational transformation is a complex undertaking, and attempting to improve the process by formally assessing progress can actually drive the process off track.  When using an assessment to gage progress, the focus can easily become the score rather than true culture change.  Also, attempting to objectively measure change by assigning a number or score to the effort is still very subjective.

Some of the problems I’ve encountered in the past when using an assessment tool to gage and drive progress toward a lean transformation include the following:

1.  Disintegration with the Business  

Assessing lean separately from the business can strengthen the belief that it is another flavor-of-the-month initiative that has nothing to do with actual business results.  Companies exist to serve customers, and if it is not absolutely clear that the objective of pursuing lean is to help do it better (more safely, with better quality, and lower costs), it doesn't matter what the assessment is showing; the effort will fail.

The real assessment occurs during the reflection of business results and target conditions during the annual planning process.  Creating an effective annual plan requires developing an understanding of the reasons for the gaps between what the organization tries to accomplish and what it actually accomplishes.  Besides the fact that this process is itself a lean effort, taking action to close the gaps can be used to further drive lean behaviors and systems.  Developing a plan that fails to address the big issues, attempts to take on too many priorities, or is ignored throughout the year shows a problem with the lean deployment – and you don’t need an assessment to show it.

Whether or not the effort is referred to as “lean” does not matter - people will see that it as a way to improve business results and be much more likely to join the effort.

  

2.  Subjectivity   

Regardless of how clear the assessment questions or elements appear to be, the process is still subjective.  Attempting to increase the clarity of assessment questions generally requires additional effort, training, and time, and you have to ask if this is really where you want your lean resources to spend time. 

Another issue with the subjectivity of assessments shows up when people are held accountable for the rating number or grade from the process.  When assessment scores are used for performance reviews or bonuses, the focus becomes the score rather than the application of lean thinking to improve performance.  And arguments around the scores is nothing but waste. 

  

3.  There is no End 

Deploying lean is like climbing a mountain that has no peak.  Since there is no end to the journey, there is no way to clearly define the target.  If a team scores a 5 out of 5 in kaizen activity, for example, does it mean that they have no room to improve?  This type of thinking is the complete opposite of what a lean transformation is trying to accomplish.

4.  Change Requires Dealing with People 

Building sustained success with lean requires continual coaching, developing, and stretching of people.  Changing the way leaders and team members think is critical to the process and unfortunately there is no set formula for change.  Besides the fact that people learn at different rates, each team member will have different levers for transformation, and what is successful with one will not necessarily work with another.  Because of this, it is not possible to standardize the change process.  Successful organizational transformation requires an understanding of W. Edwards Deming’s System of Profound Knowledge.  One of the four elements of profound knowledge is psychology.  Leading a lean transformation requires an understanding of people – how they think, how they learn, and what motivates them to continually improve.  Attempting to standardize the process by tying it to an assessment ignores this and relying on the tool to drive change.  

5.  It’s Still About Gemba

Assessment processes often turn into office exercises where an auditor meets with a supervisor or manager in an office to discuss the area being assessed.  Even if the assessment is conducted in the actual workplace, it is generally nothing more than a snapshot of how things are working at a specific point in time.  Afterwards, some type of report is written that may or may not be read by the organization’s leaders.  Even if a leader reads the assessment report, it is not possible to develop the level of understanding needed to lead the change without regularly going to where the work is done.  Assessments shifts leadership from a face-to-face coaching and development process to one of judging and grading – definitely not a lean leader behavior.

In the end, it’s important to remember that the effort is about continually improving toward perfection rather than “adopting lean.”  Using an assessment to gage progress on the journey can easily shift the focus away from this and toward the idea that lean is another trendy business initiative that will eventually go away.  Letting an assessment take the place of everyday interactions – including meetings, one-on-one discussions, and observation – misses valuable coaching opportunities that are the basic responsibilities of leadership and much more effective in changing behavior.

Lean & Project Management

Tweet

I regularly run into people from the project world who feel that lean does not apply to the work they do.  While some people are just not open to change, I find that a larger part of this belief stems from the misconception that lean is only applicable to manufacturing or operations environments.  This is unfortunate because project management is a field that can benefit greatly from lean thinking.  Like any successful application, however, benefiting from lean requires looking beyond the tools to gain a fundamental understanding of how lean leads to the benefits it does.  While the philosophy will be the same, the application will differ from traditional manufacturing because of differences in the pace of work and amount of repetition.  Attempting to copy the way lean is applied in a manufacturing operation will only serve to cement the idea that project management is different and cannot benefit from lean thinking.

Super Managers

Studies have shown that more than half of all large projects fail to deliver desired results.  Of those that are successful, I have found that they tend to be led by super managers.  In fact, the poorer the company's systems and processes are, the more talented and experienced its project team needs to be to make up for the gaps. And although hiring a highly experienced project manager does not guarantee success, it is the only chance a company with weak systems and variable processes has to succeed with its projects. Unfortunately, relying on super managers also leads to high salaries, high turnover, and increased burnout for the manager and project team members.

Through the application of lean, project success will depend less on a super manager and more on the strength of the company's processes, systems, and standards, and the ability to improve them when problems arise.

It's important to note, however, that with our without lean, the knowledge and skills of the project manager is critical to the project's success.  Lean thinking can make the job of the project manager easier, though, by enabling him or her to focus less on detailed work and more on high-level objectives and team member development.  Rather than continually relying on super managers, lean creates super teams through standardized processes, effective kaizen, and a focus on developing the abilities of team members.

Getting Started

Some of the basic steps to begin the process of applying lean thinking to large projects include:

Know the Objectives  I am continually amazed at how often project objectives aren't absolutely clear to everyone on the team.  Having a clear understanding of who the customers are and what they want can go a long way toward assuring the success of a project.  Translating the objectives into safety, quality, schedule, and cost targets will also enable people to connect individual work to project success.  Without continually highlighting all four of these dimensions, people can become so focused on the schedule that they ignore the others - and it is often the safety, quality, and cost issues that lead to schedule problems.

Measure Progress  Creating dashboards that are highly visible to the team helps everyone  know how the project is progressing and where the problems lie.  Emailing an electronic project schedule, reports with a large amount of text, or S-curves does not tend to be as effective as dashboards with leading and lagging indicators of the four dimensions listed above.  Besides the fact that people do not generally open email and read reports (especially when overloaded with work because of poor processes), a visual chart that is in front of people everyday - especially where meetings are held - enables everyone to see hotspots that can or may interfere with success.

Focused Meeting Rhythm  One of the most critical, but often ignored elements of lean is a meeting rhythm focused on quick identification and correction of problems.  A project team needs to meet regularly to identify hotspots that are - or have the potential of - interfering with progress.  The rhythm should be set at a pace where problems can be seen quickly enough to act before success is jeopardized.  Selecting the rhythm is one area where traditional thinking needs to be challenged.  Although the work associated with large projects tends to progress at a fairly slow pace, the team should look at whether breaking the reporting into smaller pieces will increase sensitivity and reduce response time to problems.

It also helps if the meetings are held in an obeya, or war room, where the dashboards are located, so the discussion can relate directly to the information on the dashboards.

Another important aspect of meetings is that they be focused only on hotspots needing the team's attention.  Too often, time is wasted in meetings communicating general information or things that have been completed on-time.  This information can be posted on dashboards and read by those who are interested.  The meeting discussion should be limited to problem-solving and discussion of critical elements.  This can be done by focusing the agenda on the gaps between the work that should have happened since the last meeting versus what actually happened.

Swarm Problems Although meeting rhythm should be focused on highlighting hotspots, nobody should wait until a meeting to identify or act on a problem.  The team needs to establish a way to pull the andon when a problem occurs so people can swarm the issue and develop countermeasures quickly that will get the project back on track.

The true benefits from lean will become evident when the mindset of the team changes and people begin to approach work differently.  And counter to what many would like to believe, appealing to common sense will not drive the change in behavior needed for success.  Change will not happen until without a significant amount of teaching, coaching, and close involvement with the team to demonstrate how lean will improve the project, and practice where team members apply the process.  As with any change initiative, consistency, determination, and a willingness to learn by everyone - including the person driving lean - are the keys to success.

No Time For Heroes

Tweet

One of the issues that can arise during a lean transformation is figuring out how to deal with the corporate heroes that exist in virtually every organization.  These are the “go to guys” whenever a major problem arises.  They are generally hard workers, know their processes well, and measure their worth by the number of highly visible problems they are involved in solving.

This can become a significant issue because a lean thinking organization values those who prevent problems and work well in teams more than those who wait until problems occur and swoop in to save the day.  The behavior often exhibited by the heroes is the opposite of what you are trying to establish in the transformation.

On the positive side, heroes tend to be hard working, smart, and highly experienced in the company’s operation – all things that are valuable to the organization’s success.  On the negative side, however, these people often have a hand in creating problems, or at least have the ability to address problems before they become critical or high profile issues.  They also tend to keep important process information close to the vest because they view it as a key to their success.

The Difficulty in Changing Hero Behavior

One of the biggest issues in dealing with the heroes is that, for years we have rewarded them for the behavior they exhibit.  Heroes tend to like a lot of attention and publicly delivered compliments for their actions.  As the organization becomes more lean-focused, though, it becomes clearer to people that addressing problems means understanding and addressing root causes so we can reduce the likelihood that they will occur in the future.  We cannot tolerate people who have the ability to prevent problems but wait until they occur before taking action.

Getting heroes to understand the consequences of their behavior will require a lot of coaching and one-on-one discussions to help them realize that they may have been rewarded and promoted in the past for the wrong reasons. And although changing behavior is a difficult and often futile undertaking, it is the responsibility of the leader to make the effort because the problem we are addressing is most likely one we created.

In many instances, it is critical to get the hero involved in the development of standard work because they understand their processes so well.  We must attempt to document and make available to everyone information that they have most likely held close in the past.  This is a process that will have to be tested and retested in order to assure that all necessary information has been extracted from the person and effectively documented.

Step 1: Recognize the Problem

Addressing the problem of hero worship will not be easy.  Correcting behaviors first requires admitting that heroes are, in fact, a problem. Chances are, you and others have come to rely on these people when high impact problems occurred. Recognizing that is is a crutch for ineffective processes, however, will help you see the situation more clearly.

Expect a lot of complaining, pushback, and even attrition as you embark on the process of bringing heroes back down to earth. Like any change process, though, succeeding will require clarity in the vision and consistency in the message.

Does Size Matter?

Tweet

Is There a "Best" Size for a Company?

I had coffee with a colleague awhile back and we got into a discussion on whether there is a "best" size for an organization.  Small companies are fast and flexible but often lack the capital needed to grow.  Although large companies tend to be slow and unable to deal with change effectively, they have the capital and geographic reach that small companies lack.  A large company also has the ability to crush or acquire a smaller competitor that is seen as a threat, if the threat is recognized early enough.

An interesting observation about this subject is, as a company grows, it tends to become slower and less able to do many of the things that made it successful in the first place.  Additional layers of management and more formalized systems can slow the decision-making process to the point where it becomes unable to respond quickly to changes in its environment.  Another common characteristic of companies as they grow is a tendency to become more risk averse in an effort to meet conservative financial targets or protect share price.

Does it Matter?

So what is the optimum size for a company?  Does it depend on industry?  There are obviously some industries like consumer electronics where, no matter how large a company is, it can't survive without the ability to quickly adapt to, or drive, changes in the market.

These are interesting questions to debate, but I wonder if they really have answers.  What if an organization can remain fast and flexible as it grows?  Think about how successful a company could be if it could continue to be as fast and flexible as it was when it was small and growing.  There are not many examples of large, fast-moving companies, but that does not mean that it is not possible (or important).

A Matter of Survival?

Like most aspects of leadership, it's an issue of focus.  When leaders of an organization determine that speed and flexibility are competitive issues, they will give it the focus they need to make them happen.

I believe that success in the years ahead will require the ability to drive and adapt to changes quickly and effectively.  The world is changing at such a rapid pace that the organizations that are unable to adapt will not be competitive.  Developing the capability will require addressing areas like speed of new product development, flexibility of processes, implementing and upgrading information systems, etc.

Increasing speed and flexibility for many organizations will require transformation.  For too long, we have become obsessed with the idea of growth as the focus of a business.  Investors tend to lose confidence in companies that experience slowing growth [refer to Fortune magazine articles on Google and 100 Fastest-Growing Companies] which can cause problems when, in an attempt to appease the financial community, a company shifts its focus toward growth through acquisitions that are not necessarily strategic or sensible.

If the focus is on developing the ability to drive change through innovation, and respond to change by increasing flexibility, the growth can occur organically through increased competitiveness.  Although organic growth in revenues does not tend to match the growth that can occur through acquisition, it can be much more profitable and less destructive to the company and its culture.

Innovation and speed do not need to be limited only to companies like Samsung, Apple, and Facebook.  Every company has the ability to improve flexibility and adapt to changes in its environment.  Size does not need to be a deterrent to change.  It is a company's characteristics and capabilities, not its size, that determines its flexibility.  All it takes is recognizing the need, being sensitive to the friction created as the company grows, and continually addressing the elements that interfere with the ability to change.

The World of Fashion Evolves

Tweet

Designs Aren't the Only Thing That's Changing in the Apparel Industry

According to a story in the July 16 Wall Street Journal (link), the apparel industry is facing a number of challenges that are affecting the entire supply chain.  After three years of excess inventories and idle labor, companies throughout the industry are taking steps to reduce the risk of similar exposure in the future.  Instead of reinventing themselves, though, it appears that the companies are dealing with the changes by attempting to push the risk to their customers and/or suppliers.

When industries face a changing environment, companies throughout the supply chain need to work together to respond to the change in a positive manner.  The immediate reaction to drive risks to customers or suppliers has effects that, although not immediately visible, have longer-term effects that are destructive to everyone involved.  It does not help a company to improve its own profitability at the expense of its suppliers or customers.

The New World of Fashion

Among the issues faced by the apparel industry include:

• Smaller orders placed by retailers to test demand before committing to larger runs;
   
• Increased material, freight, and labor costs;
   
• Delays in ramping up production capacity because of a lack of confidence in long-term demand.

If smaller runs and increased costs sound familiar, it's because these are issues that have been faced by many industries over the last 30 years.  Change happens in every industry, and those companies that are flexible and able to adapt to (or drive) the changes quickly will be the most successful in the years ahead.

The Focus Still Needs to be the Customer

One of the problems I noticed from the information in the article is that the impetus for change within the industry is profitability rather than the consumer.  As has been proven over and over again in business, changes made without regard to the end customer can have devastating effects.  While a focus on value can increase profits for the company, a focus on profitability will not lead to increased value for the customer.

Two key areas that companies in the apparel industry need to investigate in order to survive and grow in the years ahead include:

1. Lean Manufacturing  Smaller production runs require improvements in quality, setups, and changeovers.  Lean (when done correctly) gets everyone focused on eliminating the waste that forces longer leadtimes and larger lot sizes.  Lean will also address the issue of increased labor costs;
    
2. Closer Factories  Increased freight costs and leadtimes will force retailers to have production capabilities closer to the point of sale.  Although oil prices have leveled out since the initial drop at the start of the recession, it is only a matter of time before they start rising again.  As a result, the benefits of having factories in areas with low labor costs will be offset by increased freight costs.

In an industry that thrives on change at the consumer level, one would think that the fashion retailers and producers would have no problem adapting to changes themselves.  Unfortunately, this does not appear to be the case.  The environment has changed and, as has been the case in so many industries over the years, it's time for a new business model.  The sooner the apparel companies realize this and make the necessary changes to adapt, the sooner they can once again turn their designs into financial success.

Television Advertising: The Internet's Next Victim

Tweet

"[Companies] must be prepared for major change in the future, and you must start now.  If someone else's revolutionary innovation catches you unawares, you must abandon what made you successful and take an entirely different course immediately." - Peter Drucker (1973)

I'm continually amazed at the way the internet has changed - and continues to change - the world of business.  Many of the changes appear to happen fairly slowly and are not readily apparent until well after the shift has occurred and left companies that didn't see it coming in serious trouble.

Lately, I've noticed a change in advertising that is affecting ad agencies, producers of consumer products, and television networks.  The internet is providing virtually free access to existing and potential customers - a situation that with the exception of a few isolated instances, had never before existed.

Seeking Out Commercials

Companies are starting to take their ads to sites like YouTube and, if successful, can reach millions of people for free.  As an example, a recent Coca-Cola Happiness Machine ad has had almost 2.4 million hits since being uploaded.  And since people are actually seeking out this video (and others like it), it's really falls into the category of indirect advertising, because it entertains as much as it sells.

This situation has many implications for those involved in making and airing commercials.  Television networks now face a serious threat that will most likely put downward pressure on rates for air time.  Advertisers now have somewhere else to go to air their commercials and, although the ads have to be creative and produced well enough that people will want to watch them, the money saved in airtime charges can more than pay for extra production costs.

For the television networks, it can mean a serious hit on revenues in the future, which is one of the reasons that has led to the battles between the networks and television subscription providers.  The networks can not count on ad revenues into the future to cover their costs and meet earnings targets.  To make up for lost future revenues, they are asking for more money from the subscription providers that want to carry their channels.  To read a blog post on the increasing tensions between the networks and subscription providers, click here.

Length No Longer An Issue

Another result of the birth of indirect internet advertising is that it no longer limits commercials to 30 or 60 seconds (the Coca-Cola video runs 2:03).  Fashion house Donna Karan has produced a "mini-film" entitled, Four-Play with Christina Ricci that is really nothing more than a 2:09 commercial.  The ad, which has not (and was never intended to) run on television, has had several hundred-thousand hits on a variety of fashion websites since its "release."  This type of advertising is becoming very popular in the fashion industry.

A final thought that comes to mind about this situation is the fact that it's much easier for advertisers to track the number of views its commercials are getting.  Television ratings services and subscription providers can report the number of television sets that were tuned to a particular station at a particular time a commercial aired, but there is no certainty that people didn't walk off or even paid attention during the commercial.  The growing use of DVRs has also made it very easy to skip ads to get back to the show.  When someone hits a video on the internet, on the other hand, it is pretty well certain that they are watching it.

Staying Ahead Of The Curve

Although it has been reported recently that television ad rates have returned to pre-recession levels, there's no telling what lies ahead for the networks.  One thing for sure, though, is that the television advertising industry is changing.  Just like other changes that are occurring - or will occur - because of the internet, it's vital for companies to pay attention to the world around them and be extremely sensitive to the subtle shifts that without warning can turn into whole-scale changes to the business environment.  And as fast as things are changing in today's world, falling behind is not something that a business wants to do.

Fast and Flexible

Tweet

As we climb out of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, it's looking like success will come to those companies that are more flexible and can adapt to change more quickly than competitors.  Although this has always been a competitive advantage for companies, it is quickly becoming a necessity for survival in the years ahead.

The problem this poses for many organizations is related to the fact that, as a company grows it tends to become slower and more resistant to change.  With growth comes more people, more formalized policies and systems, and additional layers of management that all contribute to a slowdown in decision-making and interfere with the ability to do much of anything quickly.

Begin by Recognizing the Need

The problem for many companies is that they don't realize how slow they've become or that the lack of speed is affecting the ability to compete.  Listed below are a number of activities where moving quicker can greatly improve competitiveness.  When looking at these activities from strictly a financial perspective, it becomes clear that they actually cost the company when not addressed.  Once an investment is made in a particular process - whether related to new product development, manufacturing, etc. - the company loses money everyday that the investment does not produce income.

• New product development
• Shipping products to customers
• Building construction
• Servicing customers
• Integrating an acquisition
• Expansion into new markets
• Implementing a new ERP system

It is important to keep in mind that success in business requires more than speed.  Quality of product or service must be continually improved along with improving cycle times. There are very few markets where customers will accept substandard quality even when the product or service is delivered quickly.

How?

In order to become more flexible and adaptive, companies must study their processes, systems, and cultures continually to identify where the delays and breakdowns occur.

On the process side of the equation, reducing cycle time requires mapping the value stream and identifying where the delays, breakdowns, and quality problems occur.  This assumes, of course, that there is, in fact, a standard process.  It is not uncommon for companies to have a variety of ways to perform similar tasks.  Sometimes referred to as the "it depends" rule, improving the process first requires defining a standard approach for how the work is to be done - and making sure everyone follows the standard - before attempting to make improvements.

Working on the process issues to reduce cycle time tends to be the easy part of improvement.  The culture must also be addressed to determine how open people are to changing processes, how effective communication is within the company, and basically why people do the things they do.

Removing the barriers that interfere with a company's ability to react quickly to changing market conditions will create a more flexible and adaptive - and profitable - company.  The key is to keep speed and flexibility in the forefront of people's minds until it makes its way into the company's operating philosophy.

Success in this endeavor can put you in an elite group of companies that manage to remain fast and flexible regardless of how large they become.

93GNDJNX6XZ2

Is Change Management the Missing Link?

Tweet

I recently had lunch with a financial executive who expressed frustration with his company's lack of success with strategic initiatives.  He told me that the initiatives tended to evolve from high expectations to disappointment to - in the most drastic instances, being abandoned altogether.

Among the initiatives he mentioned that had disappointing results over the last couple of years included projects related to reducing the product development cycle time, implementing lean manufacturing, and upgrading the company's ERP system.

It was very clear that the company's lack of success was not due to a lack of desire or interest.   The management team spends a significant amount of time each year developing the strategic plan and creating initiatives to improve competitiveness.  A manager or director is always assigned the responsibility to lead projects and a fairly detailed plan is developed for each initiative.

So What's the Problem?

The inability to successfully complete high-level initiatives is a fairly common problem for companies.  Like many organizations, this company tended to approach strategic initiatives from a purely technical perspective, while ignoring the behavioral factors involved in change.

For most organizations, strategic initiatives involve a significant level of change.  Whether it is a change in behavior or method of operation, success requires respecting and validating the human complexities involved, no matter how insignificant the change appears to be on the surface.

There are barriers to change in virtually every organization that interfere with successful completion of initiatives.  These barriers can be personal (related to an individual's personal fear of change), political (resulting from the interactions and culture of the organization), or organizational (caused by policies and systems within the company).  Recognizing the existence and extent of the barriers can greatly improve the chances to succeed with the desired change.

Planning for Change

It is important to include steps to address the barriers as part of the planning process for change initiatives.  For example, if there is fear within the organization, steps must be taken to identify the causes and actions to reduce its effect on the initiative.  The types of fear often associated with change include fear of job loss, fear of appearing ignorant for asking questions about the change, fear of retaliation for questioning the approach being taken, and others.  Although it is virtually impossible to completely eliminate fear within any organization, it is important to understand where it can interfere with the change and minimize it as much as possible.

An Example

A global company with factories in several countries around the world created an initiative to implement a best practices process throughout the organization.  The initiative included a kick-off meeting attended by the company's plant managers where the process was introduced and expectations communicated.  Throughout the following year, though, very little sharing was done between plants and everyone pretty much operated as they had before the initiative was announced.

When I was called in to help with the initiative, I began with a series of interviews to identify barriers that existed within the company that could interfere with the sharing and adoption of best practices.  From the interviews, it became clear that despite the importance surrounding the initiative, the company's culture actually discouraged sharing of information and accepting suggestions from people at other plants.  The plant managers had been in their positions for many years and were regularly rewarded by acting independently.  Many were selected for the position because of their strong, independent personalities, and had always been expected by senior leaders to be experts on pretty much everything related to the factories they led.

It quickly became obvious that the plant managers did not accept input from each other because of the fear of appearing less knowledgeable than one or more of their peers.  Also, since the company's culture was highly competitive, people did not want to share information that would help improve another plant's results.

Resolving this problem required modifying the behavior of the senior leaders, coaching the plant managers, and changing the company's systems of measurements and rewards.  It required a lot of effort and consistency at the senior level but eventually the initiative began to visibly progress and result in significant productivity improvement across the company.

In the above example, the process for sharing best practices and visible commitment from the top was excellent.  All that was missing was a change management approach to the initiative.  Once the barriers to change were identified and addressed, implementing the process became much easier.

Whether a company is implementing a best practices process, pursuing lean, or integrating an acquisition, it is vital that a change management approach is used to make sure the people issues (i.e., the barriers to change) are adequately addressed.

Change as a Competitive Weapon

As we slowly emerge from the worst economic period since the Great Depression, those companies that are able to adapt quickly to changing market conditions will be the most successful.  Organizations cannot afford to waste time with initiatives that move too slowly or fail to achieve desired results.  Making the effort to identify and remove the barriers to change within the company will greatly improve the level of success with initiatives while simultaneously creating more a flexible, adaptive, and profitable company.