“What goes around, comes around.” “A man cannot escape his past. The best he can hope for is to outrun it for a while.” The Doc then added “Aaron you should keep these lessons in mind. As a change agent you will always have back biters, or worse, to deal with.” “Put your energy where it will benefit yours and the organization's needs. Anger only steals your ability to focus and make the necessary improvements.”
In order to have a rapid turnaround success the Doc discovered that his and the organization's efforts and scarce resources needed to be focused on working with the “developers.” These are the people who are able to participate in actively digging themselves out of the poor performance holes. As the efforts to improvement begin to take place there is always too much to do, by too few people to do it. And thus the telling question Aaron called about was the constant question. “How to effectively and efficiently prioritize the mountain of ‘to do items?’ The Doc's answer was that through the years a simple 2 × 2 matrix, termed an ROI matrix (Figure 3.1), provided the necessary focus. The ROI uses no upper division math and has worked in every circumstance where this priority difficulty has existed.
Figure 3.1 The ROI matrix.
ROI – What to focus on in the world of never ending things to do.
Over the years the Doc has dealt with a large number of organizations that have needed huge amounts of improvement. When their people honestly wrote down all they needed to improve, the list could fill several flip charts/white boards. Despair would then set in as the hourly and salaried improvement team leaders recognized there was too much to do and not enough time, money, or personnel to do all the work that was glaring at them in the face. Once these groups began using the concept of a simplified ROI Matrix they were easily able to prioritize the numerous difficulties, without using the typically challenging economics math.
To use this concept, the facilitator makes a 2 × 2 chart like the one in Figure 3.1 which shows cost versus effectiveness. After some lighthearted give and take, they are able to determine what high cost and high effectiveness looks like to the frontline dominated organization. The facility manager gets put on the spot and has to answer the question of how much funding they can locally provide and what kind of return they would expect for that amount of money. An example would be something like “$10,000 and the elimination of at least one medical injury.” The team now has the management's approved upper limits set for the ROI Matrix team exercise.
The upper right‐hand quadrant (Figure 3.1) is for the high‐cost, highly effective solutions. This usually involves a fair amount of capital expense, like purchasing and installing new equipment. The upper left‐hand quadrant is the high‐cost, low‐effectiveness zone, in other words, “I thought I was doing the right job by spending this money, but indeed, I was not.” The Doc called these two the “engineer zones” because generally high‐cost items are more technically challenging in nature and engineers often like to work on technically challenging projects. The lower left zone is the low‐cost, low‐effectiveness solution. He affectionately called that the “bean counter” or “accountant zone.” A common paradigm deals with money people seemingly being interested in cheap, but not necessarily effective solutions. The lower right low‐cost, highly effective quadrant is the “endless kaizen zone” (“kaizen” is a Japanese word that translates to small changes forever, or continuous improvement).
As the team focuses on the many potential solutions to its problems they put up an ROI Matrix. Each member of the team talks about a particular solution which interests them. The group then engages in an energetic discussion, as to both cost and effectiveness. Examples could include things like painting guard rails, launching an observation program, fixing a weak incident investigation system, etc. The team then cooperatively works together to place each one of the potential solutions in its appropriate location on the ROI Matrix. As this teamwork exercise progresses, it quickly becomes evident where to focus the scarce available resources. Thus the team uses a very effective visual mechanism which drives overall engagement and agreement for quickly sorting and prioritizing work to be carried out by the continuous improvement teams.
Aaron receives his challenge from the Doc: “If you have too much to work on, with too little time and financial resources to do so, why not try this kind of ROI Matrix approach?” “And who do you work with using this approach?” “Most of your time needs to be spent leading the improvement efforts with those who would engage with you to accomplish needed tasks, and you just have to put up with the incoming negative efforts of the ‘Cavemen’.” “Welcome to the real world of organizational change Aaron!”
The good news is that after about nine months of using this approach, improvements begin to take hold, performance improves, and the culture begins to make a notable shift. Quietly and methodically over time the “Cavemen” no longer have the upper hand. The 90% follower group begins pushing back when told to resist change, and they slowly become advocates of improving the organization and its efforts. The needed sea change will then be visibly and palpably upon you when we (both hourly and salaried leadership) engage our people in focusing on and fixing what they know to be wrong, while we let the flak throwers fade into the background. It is like driving a vehicle which requires concentration and attention on the road ahead (the goal) because no progress is made while concentrating only on a rearview mirror!
While all this build up work to improvement is going on, the 800 pound production/operations gorilla always takes precedence. There are numerous examples of dangerous shortcuts which are taken in the field to get production/customers back on line. Aaron thinks back over the last year's injuries and ticks off more than a dozen of these aggravating, painful examples. All are indicators of the weak safety culture that exists at every level of the organization. None of the parties in his organization are without blame, all share a piece of the blame, including Aaron's safety department.
Yet there must always be time made available for the ineffective, boring, regulatory required safety training done by boring, poor performing safety trainers. And when things go wrong because there was not time to do the job right, there always seems to be time to redo what should have been done correctly the first time. These frustrations will continue to occur, but at a lesser frequency after nine and more months of fixing stuff people have been accustomed to just living with. And of course there is more bad news; while in the embryonic state of organizational culture improvement, injuries will stop production/operations. In turn, these happenings will always put the safety department in the role of the safety cop bad guy.
The ROI matrix is a useful tool. However, it takes serious leadership to engage in this kind of journey that lights a fire for improvement. The Doc closed this time together with a challenging thought/concept; “Management is lighting a fire under someone. Leadership is lighting a fire in someone.” “The ROI matrix approach is an important first step for an organization to develop the leadership that can replace a culture of ineffective management.”
Aaron hangs up the phone and goes for a walkabout at a few of the company's field locations while he cogitates about all the input teachings he has just received. That evening he strikes a small smile as he quietly tells himself; “It's time to suck it up buttercup!” And thus, the next day Aaron decides to act, and then he begins building his case to implement a change in his company's culture. Therefore, he begins sketching out a mental plan to develop interactive, original training which satisfies the legal requirements and also engages the hourly employees. In the background he quietly tells himself: “Great idea, but how am I going to do this with no significant safety budget, no significant hourly or salaried leadership
