The ISP project was conducted in two phases,
which were quite different. Each phase followed a common pattern,
which is shown (with supporting change management and project
management activities) in Figure 3.
Phase 1 material provided a broad brush overview
of our subject matter. Our target audience for this phase—the
group whose mindsets we wanted to change—was top management
themselves. Phase 1 required about four months to prepare for
presentations (which themselves took another six weeks, since we did
one section per week after top management's weekly staff meeting).
When we began the phase, we had not considered the need for
subsequent phases.
We covered the full scope of MIS and business
issues, at a relatively high level. The sections were:
1. Overview (History of IT)
2. IT as Competitive Advantage
3. Economics
4. Organization / People
5. The IT Platform
6. Aligning Business and Technology
In the final section of Phase 1, we summarized
the most important issues that had emerged into a set of nine
"defining" issues:
These
nine issues were only partially formed at this point. They served
more to bound areas needing further discussion. By the end of
Phase 1, senior management had a significant emotional and time
commitment to this effort, and was thus virtually obligated to let
us continue into Phase 2. So in the final section of Phase 1, we
"asked for the order" to do a second, detailed phase to
provide specific direction. Since the Company was experimenting with
teams, we suggested forming a team around each "defining
issue." We proposed to use only internal MIS resource (plus
some users), and to attempt to not let these activities disrupt
other project commitments. We reminded management that our
competition was ahead of us in this area. Last, we commented that we
could either "plan by design" or "react by
default." Management readily agreed to let us continue into
Phase 2. Most importantly, top management was now a part-owner of
the project—because they had been involved.
Political Sanity Check
Before
initiating the project, we "floated" the idea of an
MIS-initiated strategic planning project to senior management. We
wrapped the project in the flag of "proactive leadership,"
a theme consistent with company culture at that time. The response
was highly favorable. Had we plunged ahead without checking in, we
could have wasted considerable effort and resource.
Another important piece
of feedback from this check-in was planning style. Mintzberg refers
to "right-handed" versus "left-handed" planning
styles. Like references to the brain, "left-handed"
planners tend to be intuitive, free-ranging thinkers who respond
well to visual images and creative association techniques.
Right-handed planners, on the other hand, prefer high structure,
rational decision-making and lengthy, detailed implementation plans.
Our political sanity check indicated that our key decision m aker
tended to be a left-handed planner. We adjusted our project plans
accordingly.
To be Continued
STAY
CONNECTED
To
stay current on lean manufacturing
process and best practices,
you can subscribe to our free
weekly bulletin, "Manufacturing Basics and Best Practices
(MBBP)." Simply fill in the below form and click on the
"Subscribe Now Button."
We'll
also send you our free
Special White Paper Report,
"8-Basics of Lean Manufacturing for Personal and Company
Success."
Your
personal information will never
be disclosed to any third party.
privacy policy
Here's
what one of our subscribers said about MBBP Bulletins:
"Great
articles. Thanks for the insights. I often share portions of your
articles with my staff and they too enjoy them and fine aspects
where they can integrate points into their individual areas of
responsibilities. Thanks again."
Kerry B. Stephenson. President. KALCO Lighting, LLC
Manufacturing
Knowledge you’ll not find at offsite
seminars nor in the books at Amazon.com
Lean Manufacturing - Balanced Scorecard
ISO 9000:2000 - Strategic Planning - Supply Chain
Management - MRP Vs Lean Exercises - Kaizen Blitz
Lean Six Sigma - Value Stream Mapping