I recently lead and facilitate a 2-day Kaizen business process mapping event that focused on a software solution that is being implemented within our PLM (Product Life Cycle Management) system at our Cargo Handling System business unit. This activity is part of our ongoing efforts to develop a rigorous International Trade Compliance (ITC) program that detects, identifies, reports, corrects and prevents ITAR violations.
The statistical distribution of AC2s and AC3s of this team falls below the typical standard deviation of one (20-point gap), with the entire team falling within a 16-point gap. The AC2’s of the group is comprised of the process owners, with roles within the Engineering function, who are also responsible for ensuring compliance …show more content…
To overcome this paradigm during the event, I utilized a very structured approach to the problem solving efforts by providing a standard set of tools, agenda, instructions, training, and oversight. This Paradox of Structure allowed the team to rapidly progress through Tuckman & Jensen’s forming, storming, norming, and performing stages of team development allowing for a fast identification of a solution. However, with this systematized approach the ideal problem solution might not be identified immediately, resulting in numerous events having to be conducted or the problem having to be continually dealt with as part of the daily work; resulting in the problem solving becoming inelastic and inefficient with minimal cognitive structure. Some of the team principals I utilized, included: accepting uncertainty, rejecting preconceived solution, follow through on action items, use of open and honest communication, involving the “whole system” in discussions, and discuss and validate individual differences. These principles allowed the team to accelerate through the five stages of team evolution: forming, storming, norming, performing, and transforming. I typically start the event with an agenda and house keeping items including some ground rules that create a safe inclusive environment. I have the team introduce themselves, and talk a little about their experience and something interesting about themselves. This accelerates the team through the forming stage very quickly typically within 30 minutes. Having a set agenda and a systematic, structured approach for the event with a defined list of objectives that is communicated to the team prior to the start moves the team quickly through the storming and norming with open and honest discussions and the process mapping exercise. The
The statistical distribution of AC2s and AC3s of this team falls below the typical standard deviation of one (20-point gap), with the entire team falling within a 16-point gap. The AC2’s of the group is comprised of the process owners, with roles within the Engineering function, who are also responsible for ensuring compliance …show more content…
To overcome this paradigm during the event, I utilized a very structured approach to the problem solving efforts by providing a standard set of tools, agenda, instructions, training, and oversight. This Paradox of Structure allowed the team to rapidly progress through Tuckman & Jensen’s forming, storming, norming, and performing stages of team development allowing for a fast identification of a solution. However, with this systematized approach the ideal problem solution might not be identified immediately, resulting in numerous events having to be conducted or the problem having to be continually dealt with as part of the daily work; resulting in the problem solving becoming inelastic and inefficient with minimal cognitive structure. Some of the team principals I utilized, included: accepting uncertainty, rejecting preconceived solution, follow through on action items, use of open and honest communication, involving the “whole system” in discussions, and discuss and validate individual differences. These principles allowed the team to accelerate through the five stages of team evolution: forming, storming, norming, performing, and transforming. I typically start the event with an agenda and house keeping items including some ground rules that create a safe inclusive environment. I have the team introduce themselves, and talk a little about their experience and something interesting about themselves. This accelerates the team through the forming stage very quickly typically within 30 minutes. Having a set agenda and a systematic, structured approach for the event with a defined list of objectives that is communicated to the team prior to the start moves the team quickly through the storming and norming with open and honest discussions and the process mapping exercise. The