Successful change programs begin with results.

Abstract

Most corporate improvement programs have a negligible impact on operational and financial performance because management focuses on the activities, not the results. By initiating activities-centered programs, such as seven-step problem solving, statistical process control, and total quality management training, managers falsely assume that one day results will materialize. But because there is no explicit connection between action and outcome, improvements seldom do materialize. The authors argue for an alternative approach: results-driven improvement programs that focus on achieving specific, measurable operational improvements within a few months. While both activity-centered and results-driven programs aim to strengthen fundamental corporate competitiveness, the approaches differ dramatically. Activity-centered programs rely on broad-based policies and are more concerned with time-consuming preparations than with measurable gains. Results-driven programs, on the other hand, rely on an incremental approach to change, building on what works and discarding what doesn't. As a result, successes come quickly, and managers build their skills and gain the support of their employees for future changes. Because results-driven improvements require minimal investment, there is no excuse for postponing action. Indeed, there is always an abundance of underexploited capability and dissipated resources within the organization that management can tap into to get the program off the ground. The authors give a few pointers for how to get started: translate the long-term vision into doable but ambitious short-term goals; periodically review strategy, learning from both successes and failures; and institutionalize the changes that work and get rid of the rest.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 352 citations exist upstream.