Theory of Constraints Handbook - James Cox Iii [287]
FIGURE 15-3 Vicious cycle related to high failure rate of change initiatives.
When a specific behavior is both a consequence and a cause, it means the system is likely to be stuck in a vicious cycle (Senge, 1990, 80–83) such as shown in Fig. 15-3. The higher the failure rate, the higher the resistance and the lower the expectations of stakeholders. Moreover, the higher the resistance, and the lower the expectations, the more likely those necessary changes will be blocked or the necessary changes will not receive the full support and resources needed to make them a success, which again increases the probability for failure. Over time, a vicious cycle such as this stabilizes and soon those trapped within the cycle conclude that a response of “it will never work” is a safer response than embracing new changes or that simply, considering the complexity and uncertainties within their system, this (high failure rate) is probably the best they can do.
This fear related to the high failure rate of changes can also explain why changes that focus on local cost, waste, or process variation reduction (low-leverage changes) are more likely to be supported because they are perceived to be lower risk and more certain. High-leverage changes that focus on “changing the rules” are less likely to be supported because they are considered to be high risk and less certain.
Summary of Why Change?
In summary, the literature review on the failure rate of change initiatives found that regardless of the type of change (with the exception reported in the study on TOC projects), whether it was implemented within the private or public sectors, and/or how many inspiring successes have been reported related to that type of change, change/improvement initiatives are far more likely to fail than to succeed. Studies that have been repeated, such as the Chaos Report on IT Project Failure rates, also show that despite the significant insights gained and widely reported as to the consequences and causes of these failures during previous studies, the failure rate has not changed measurably, making it a much safer option for stakeholders to resist change or pay “lip service” during the launch but walk away saying “it will never work.”
TABLE 15-2 Summary of “Why Change?”
Table 15-2 provides a summary of “Why Change?” in the format used in a TOC analysis, which includes a clear problem statement (the gap) and the undesirable effects (UDEs)—the effects that stakeholders would complain about that makes it difficult to close the gap (solve the problem).
However, what should be changed to eliminate or reduce these UDEs in the way managers identify, plan, execute, and audit CI and other change initiatives?
What to Change?
Introduction
The fact that executives and managers keep trying new strategic or process improvement and other change initiatives despite their abysmal rate of failure is, as per Samuel Jackson’s famous quote, “Like second marriages, a triumph of hope over experience.” On the other hand, it may indicate just how much pressure top managers face to improve the performance of their organizations. The large failure rate of improvement methods triggers the classic innovator’s dilemma (Christensen, 1997)—most innovations fail, but companies that don’t innovate might die.
No wonder there have been calls such as “Innovate or Evaporate” (Tucker, 2002). But why are many necessary changes not implemented or implemented in time (errors