"Planning is bringing the future into the present so that you can do something about it now."
- Alan Lakein
Introduction
Take a random sample of lean or continuous improvement practitioners and check how many of them regularly use problem-solving tools like root-cause analysis based on fishbone diagram and also check how many use highly proactive tools and techniques such as FMEA (Failure Modes and Effects Analysis) or DFSS (Design for Six Sigma). It won't be a surprise if you find significantly higher number of practitioners using the fishbone diagram than those the latter.
We all have learnt, repetitively read, and perhaps also frequently used, the phrase "Prevention is better than cure." What often remains unsaid however, is
- that prevention is abstract while cure is real and concrete,
- that prevention is difficult to ascertain because it is ahead in time whereas cure is certain and easy to confirm because it is a thing of past
- and finally, that prevention leaves some residual anxiety (though with hope), and cure leaves a sense of relief (though with a memory of pain)!
Simple - what is prevented does not happen and hence cannot be measured for its impact! Curers are sung heroes - preventers unsung!
Some 40 years ago, I had read an article on management during my early college days. The paper had a title "Of clocks and clouds in administration" by one Mr. Sapre, then the director of education for Maharashtra, one of the very industrialised states in India. He had written a profound statement that I never forgot though I was not even exposed to the so-called discipline of "management" by then. Unfortunately, the paper is not available on the Internet and not traceable any longer. He had said (perhaps not the exact words),
"In management, it has always been easier to diagnose and analyse the problems that occurred in the past than to prescribe the future course of action to avoid them."
The statement is an invaluable guideline on the one hand but, on the other, the statement is somewhat deceptive with a little irony within. The reason is simple. One can never compare the number of problems faced with the number of problems prevented! Therefore, it cannot be validated per se. Yet it is often mirrored in typical management situations in the day-to-day experience of many.
The actual manifestation
Three key aspects that indirectly validate this are:
1) Risk management is often treated as less important
Risk management is often treated as less important, because despite the risk management process, a few stones are always left unturned. This, in principle, should never be a reason not to undertake risk management, yet it is often thought by leaders that it is best to encounter problems and deal with them by acting urgently. The miscalculation however lies in that often such urgency is not even warranted. That risk management cannot be completely effective need not be the reason not to even initiate it. Yet it is not uncommon to see that the "issue registers" are more active documents than "risk registers".
2) Obsession for speed
Most projects are kickstarted with the approach of doing them "fast". In spite of the knowledge that unrealistic pressures increase the probability of errors and omissions, this is invariably a mindset stemming from the thought that the more the pressure, the faster is the result.
This completely goes against the logic of Nemawashi i.e., the Toyota principle of taking decisions slowly by building consensus and implementing them rapidly.
Yet, often, a sense of heroism or boldness is subconsciously applied as an innate value by many organisations. Wrong-but-fast leads to extra cost and time but is considered noteworthy - it is considered as a true attribute of leadership, and the unused alternative simply goes unnoticed.
3) False optimism in planning
As Steve McConnell says in his book Rapid Development: Taming Wild Software Schedules,
"Wishful thinking isn't just optimism. It's closing your eyes and hoping something works when you have no reasonable basis for thinking it will."
It is common to schedule some ambitious dates with no rational basis. Resources are often not available, yet "we will manage it" or "don't worry - we will be alright" are the typical thoughts that drive project planning process.
A pertinent para from a report on government projects in the UK is quite a revelation, perhaps for private sector too. ( https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/10320-001-Over-optimism-in-government-projects.pdf )
"Over-optimism, whether unconscious or deliberate, must be tackled. Decisionmakers should be intolerant of optimism bias in the planning and delivery of projects. This is about more than changing processes, although there is considerable scope for improvement. At the heart of the issue are also organisational behaviours and incentives and the strength of personal accountability. Government needs to have a better understanding of how these contribute to over-optimism."
Caution through dissent at the planning stage is equated to lack of initiative. Not encouraging such caution is, more often than not, a leadership and culture issue.
Remedy: being truly proactive
So, what does being truly proactive involve?
1) Belief in Nemawashi:
That is - belief in the process of building consensus, taking decisions slowly by weighing all the possible options and foreseeing risks meticulously with the intention of planning slowly but thoroughly - only to implement rapidly. This belief needs to be developed at the leadership level and needs to be demonstrated through behaviours.
2) Realistic planning:
Realistic planning requires estimation of the "most likely" scenarios and not the most optimistic scenarios. Any tendency to "feel - and hence believe" that unrealistic stretches lead to better speed has no rational basis. Therefore, it must be avoided. This is not just a project management skillset, but it is a leadership behaviour. It is important to bear in mind that "most likely" means the scenario with the "highest probability of occurrence." Usually, the required data for the risks in terms of severity and probability is available. If the due diligence to investigate such past information is carried out, "most likely estimates" do not remain as elusive and obscure as often many managers tend to think they are at the outset of any project.
3) Adequate risk management:
Risk identification is only one - the first - step in risk management. Risk monitoring and control are equally important throughout any initiative or project.
Often, these steps are diluted through merely an action of delegation. Since it is delegated, more often than not, to some functional manager, the competency associated with risk management is not assessed. A classic mistake of setting up a person to fail by giving a responsibility and authority but no process. Instead, when a person in charge of controlling the risks is required to follow a standardised and systematised risk management discipline, the probability of a risk precipitating into a problem drastically decreases.
As is aptly mentioned by John C. Maxwell,
"If you're proactive, you focus on preparing. If you're reactive, you end up focusing on repairing.”
- Nilesh Pandit
December 1, 2022