back
|29 May 2013|System User

The Kanban change team

4

At the Lean Kanban North America conference in Chicago I did a session on “Good practices to start a culture of continuous improvement”. I’d like to take this topic to my blog and today I’m going to start with a simple but very powerful practice which Sigi Kaltenecker and I are using quite often when we’re involved in a Kanban change initiative: build a Kanban change team (KCT). John Kotter would probably say guiding coalition to it. The Kanban change team is the opposite of the highlander principle “there can only be one”. Our experience is that if you want to make an impact then change rather follows the logic of “there can never only be one”. The KCT is a team-sized group who is responsible for the change process and who is actually managing all the required steps in order to be successful with the change initiative.

Now you might argue, “Kanban is evolutionary change and we only have to come up with a board and a culture of continuous improvement starts to emerge automatically. There’s no need for a team who’s managing any change.” Well, this might be true if you’re working in a highly motivated (start-up like) culture but my experience is that the vast majority of companies are working in different contexts. Although Kanban proclaims to “start where you are now”, its introduction follows a serious intervention of what you’re doing now: if you only consider the first two practices 1) make work visible and 2) limit work in progress you will probably agree that this is a considerable change of how most companies work today. Starting with Kanban means doing a change initiative! You do good if you take this serious.

How to set up a Kanban change team?

The idea is to make use of different views, knowledge, experience and backgrounds in your change process. So, whenever possible and meaningful, we like to build a hierarchy-bridging and cross-functional team who is driving the change like illustrated in the following figure:

Kanban change team

The figure shows a sketch of an org chart. The blue circles indicate exemplary members of the Kanban change team which could for instance be guys from business, some developers, a team leader, project leader, the department leader and maybe the division manager. Here are some obvious reasons why a change team makes sense:

  • Eliminate single point of failure. What if – for whatsoever reason – your single change hero is no longer there? Are you shredding your change initiative then?
  • It’s not really a well kept secret that groups make better decisions than individuals. If a hierarchy-bridging and cross functional group comes up with a decision it’s very likely that its quality is much higher because it reflects a bigger audience in your company.
  • Doing a change initiative is work and groups can simply divide up the workload

In upcoming articles I will write about the work of the change team. Be warned: managing a change and doing a managed change are two different things…

Kurt Hausler
31 May 2013 10:14

“The Kanban change team is the opposite of the highlander principle “there can only be one”.”

Really? It sounds more like the opposite to the “encourage leadership at all levels” principle, and a slight variation of the highlander principle “there can only be a few”.

I agree that a culture of continuous improvement might not emerge automatically, but if those inclined to be on a change team take on that role, it gives permission for the others never to take it up.

Those inclined to be on a change team, i.e. process geeks and existing management, are exactly the ones that need to hold themselves back and let the others take on some leadership.

Seems like a fairly blatant realization of the classic Taylorist split between those few entitled manage the system, and those subject to it.

Klaus Leopold
31 May 2013 10:54

I can not see how a “hierarchy-bridging” group violates “encourage leadership at all levels”. It strengthen this Kanban principle!
I can not see how a “cross functional” group can only consist of “process geeks and existing management”. It exactly wants to prevent this narrow view!

I wrote “…whenever possible and meaningful, we like to build a hierarchy-bridging and cross-functional team who is driving the change…” If you’re e.g. starting with Kanban in a team with 5 people and you’re not planning to win your stakeholders over to do a queue replenishment meeting with you it’s probably not meaningful to build a Kanban change team.

However, if you’re planning to start Kanban on a good portion of your value stream where e.g. 80 people are involved from different parts of your company, and you want to do a queue replenishment meeting with your stakeholders from the upstream, we find it truly meaningful to build a hierarchy-bridging and cross functional team who is driving the change by bringing all 80 people on board and don’t create a fait accompli that everybody has to do Kanban starting by tomorrow.

Michael Dubakov
31 May 2013 14:26

Klaus, we have similar approach in our company. We have groups of people (cross-functional) that we call Boards. These boards operate on various levels: Development, Product, Marketing, Head. The board consists of no more than 7 people and is responsible for education and problem solving in its area.

In fact some people just don’t care about processes and it is impossible to force them to do so. They like hard-core technical things, but pay little attention to process (unless it burdens them with some bad practices on their opinion). So board is a good compromise.

Definitely, there might be some rotation rules, there should be a board leader, etc. It is not simple.

Klaus Leopold
31 May 2013 14:48

Michael, it also reflects my experience that a lot of people don’t care about processes. Even more, my experience is that a lot of people just want to be let alone with any change, improvement, etc. So when I’m saying that the change team is responsible to drive the change, then a big portion of “driving it” is to win people for the change. Why would you accept any change if it there’s a chance that things are getting worse for you? In the next articles I’ll write a little bit more about what it means to drive a change…

This conversation lacks your voice:
Your E-Mail Address will not be published.