Featured Product
This Week in Quality Digest Live
Six Sigma Features
Mark Rosenthal
The intersection between Toyota kata and VSM
Scott A. Hindle
Part 7 of our series on statistical process control in the digital era
Adam Grant
Wharton’s Adam Grant discusses unlocking hidden potential
Scott A. Hindle
Part 6 of our series on SPC in a digital era
Douglas C. Fair
Part 5 of our series on statistical process control in the digital era

More Features

Six Sigma News
Helps managers integrate statistical insights into daily operations
How to use Minitab statistical functions to improve business processes
Sept. 28–29, 2022, at the MassMutual Center in Springfield, MA
Elsmar Cove is a leading forum for quality and standards compliance
Is the future of quality management actually business management?
Too often process enhancements occur in silos where there is little positive impact on the big picture
Collect measurements, visual defect information, simple Go/No-Go situations from any online device
Good quality is adding an average of 11 percent to organizations’ revenue growth

More News

MIT Management Executive Education

Six Sigma

Process Improvement: Useful Doesn’t Always Imply Used

Exceptional organizations balance their work and improvement processes to achieve productivity

Published: Wednesday, July 9, 2014 - 08:13

Lean production, high -performance work systems, virtual communications, and collaboration applications are all examples of the latest tools, technology, and processes executives are encouraged to implement to improve productivity and efficiency. But why are there more useful tools and processes out there than there are organizations that use them?

Most organizations fail to see the desired performance results despite investing significant time and resources. When it comes to new tools and processes in complex organizations, useful does not always mean used. There are obstacles that prevent organizations from embedding a new system in such a way that it improves the way core work is done.

Capability investments must be balanced against performance

Nelson Repenning, a professor of business dynamics and organizational behavior at MIT Sloan, talked about how organizations should best seek out and leverage new tools and processes in his webinar, “Useful Does Not Always Mean Used,” and in his MIT Sloan Executive Education programs.

As Repenning explains, in any organization where capability matters, you face a basic tradeoff between time spent doing actual work, and time and resources devoted to implementing new tools and technology. Most organizations fail to successfully implement new tools and processes because they place a heavier investment into work activities than improvement activities.

“Work activities usually have more clear and tangible outcomes than implementation and improvement techniques,” says Repenning. “Most people are ambiguity- and risk-averse, and our brains are hardwired to choose work activities because they offer the most immediate and tangible result with less risk.”

When organizations choose work activities over improvement activities, the result is a spike in performance, followed by a huge crash. Even worse, it is a “sneak attack” degradation because performance declines, but not right away. The severity of performance degradation increases with the size of the organization. Skimping on improvement activities will result in a worse outcome than choosing the path that balances improvement activities with work tasks.

On the opposite side of the coin, when organizations invest more time in improvement activities than in work activities, performance declines initially, and then it begins to increase. The rate of performance decline is directly proportional to how many new tools and processes organizations try and change at once. The more improvement activities added, the steeper the initial decline. Nonetheless, says Repenning, once the initial decline in performance is over, all organizations see an improvement in performance that gets better with time.

“When you do something new, performance gets worse before it gets better,” says Repenning. “If you don’t understand the dynamics, the negative feedback shocks executives, and many give up too early in the improvement process in reaction to this decline.”

Exceptional organizations balance their capability and productivity to successfully achieve performance results. There is no “one size fits all” solution or standard best practice that works for everyone. Bottom line: For long-term success, it’s wise for each organization to customize the balance between its work and improvement processes to find the sweet spot where productivity, progression, and business goals meet.

First published June 13, 2014, on the innovation@work blog.


About The Author

MIT Management Executive Education’s picture

MIT Management Executive Education

MIT Management Executive Education’s nondegree executive programs are led by senior MIT Sloan faculty and provide business professionals from around the world with a targeted and flexible means to advance their career development goals and position their organizations for future growth. MIT’s cutting-edge leadership training includes more than 40 short courses, executive certificates, online courses, custom programs for organizations, and its flagship program, the five-week Advanced Management Program.