The concept of sustainable manufacturing is new to many companies across the industrial landscape. Organizations in the manufacturing, process, mining, and other heavy industries typically are quite hierarchical in nature. For the most part, that’s a sensible approach. However, hierarchical organizations don’t handle innovation, including sustainable manufacturing practices, as well as they could (or should).
Most innovative initiatives run into the proverbial “vice president of no” within the typical hierarchical organization. This is because such organizations are very effective at standardizing activities that inherently reduce variability, error, and cost. That approach may be great for most aspects of running a plant or factory, but it’s crippling for innovative activities such as sustainable manufacturing. Don’t worry, though. There’s no reason to “throw the baby out with the bathwater” by tossing the hierarchical structure. What’s needed is an “adaptive cycle.” Read on.
THE PROCESS, IN BRIEF
An adaptive cycle is an aspect of what many refer to as “agile management.” Enlightened leaders recognize that the “flow” of the innovation process runs counter to the standardizing objectives of the hierarchical organization, and the hierarchy creates too much “friction” for the innovation process to work. As such, these leaders create an “adaptive innovation team” that operates outside of the norms of the hierarchy.
If your organization has adopted that an adaptive approach to an innovation project, you’ll know who the team members are. They ask plenty of questions and review lots of data, but what they’re doing and why they’re doing it is usually a mystery to other folks in the plant. When innovators come to us with ideas that they think will work, the team slowly socializes people in the hierarchy to solicit feedback with which to refine the ideas and gain a coalition of support.
Once an idea is properly baked and a reasonable collation of support has been built—usually in middle management—the team would, say, take a proposal to reduce CO2 up the food chain to gain wider support for implementation, standardization, and transition of the “new business as usual” to the hierarchical organization. During this stage, some “friction” to the innovative ideas is typically experienced. Friction, or resistance, can be very helpful ensure that the proposed change is fully vetted, and feedback results in a better change initiative. The goal is to encounter enough friction to improve the proposed ideas, but not so much that the innovation process is shut down.
When discussing this process, I’m often asked: “why not just sell the idea to the CEO and get a mandate for the idea’s implementation?” That’s a good question. The problem with the mandate-based implementation of an innovation is a two-parter. First, the CEO and other C-level leaders may not really know the nuts and bolts of the organization’s operation. Second, middle-level and front-line managers can always figure out a way to make any innovative initiative fail, if they fail to understand it or feel like it’s being forced down their throats. Sustainable manufacturing is very much at risk from these sources of friction, in that they can stop the flow to adoption. That’s because many people will see the initiative as external to the core business of making widgets, power, materials, etc., or if they feel that the innovation will undermine their relevance in the organization. Mandates must be employed very judiciously by innovation teams that are working in an adaptive process to drive sustainable manufacturing.
BUILDING YOUR TEAM
So what does an adaptive innovation team look like? Whenever I think about organizational creativity and innovation, I always reflect on a podcast that Phil McKinney (philmckinney.com) delivered years ago on the topic of high-performance innovation teams. I’ll share the essence of it here.
McKinney says that the innovation leader and team must define a “bold outrageous goal (BOG).” An example of a sustainable-manufacturing-related BOG might be, “We aim for a 25% reduction in CO2 emissions by year 2030.” Once the BOG is clearly defined, McKinney suggest that you identify an enemy.
Defining an enemy creates a coalescence point—the glue that brings the team. Most people and organizations respond with more veracity to threats than they do to opportunities. That’s where identifying an enemy can help. As an example, an enemy could be something such as, “Consumers require that we demonstrate our environmental performance or they’ll buy from another source. . .” or “If we don’t improve our environmental performance on our own, we’ll be slapped with regulations to which we’ll be required to comply. . .”
The adaptive innovation team requires what McKinney calls “freedom from the corporate hairball.” This is the hierarchical organization’s tendency to impose so much friction that innovation flow comes to a screeching halt. Moreover, the team requires the right mix of members. Based on McKinney’s thinking, a site’s adaptive innovation team should include the following.
♦ A strong visionary, which McKinney characterizes as the soul of the innovation and the passion behind the flow of the adaptive innovation group.
♦ One “Radar O’Reilly.” Many readers (of a certain vintage) will recall Radar O’Reilly from the popular television show He was the guy who could manage to work the system and get whatever the MASH company needed. ice cream in the summer, medical supplies, you name it, Radar could get it all done.
♦ One “parent” to provide adult supervision and make sure that things don’t go too far off track. We want innovation, but it must be, in the end, reasonable and executable.
♦ A handful of “execution demons.” These are individuals who are so passionate and work so hard that the adult supervisor occasionally has to remind them to eat and sleep to avoid burnout.
♦ Several translators. I think these people are critical to success. They are trusted in the organization and often linked closely to the “old way.” Their job is to start selectively socializing a hierarchical organization to the innovation, solicit input, and begin building a critical mass of support within the hierarch. Translators grease the organizational skids, which is essential in managing organizational friction.
BOTTM LINE
The environmental-sustainability groups in many industrial operations are currently marketing-oriented: They talk up the great things the organization is doing in the area of environmental sustainability. I envision a future where sustainability will permeate all key aspects of plant and factory operations. It will go deeper than just complying with this regulation or that law. And it will be more about corporate identity and the organization’s value proposition to the market. That paradigm shift is sure to upset countless apple carts in hierarchical organizations. For those of us in the RAM community, this means it’s important now, rather than later, to do our part in proactively managing the flow and friction of sustainable-manufacturing innovation and deployment through adaptive innovation teams and processes. To that end, I’ll address various RAM roles related to sustainable manufacturing in future issues of The RAM Review.TRR
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Drew Troyer has 30 years of experience in the RAM arena. Currently a Principal with T.A. Cook Consultants, he was a Co-founder and former CEO of Noria Corporation. A trusted advisor to a global blue chip client base, this industry veteran has authored or co-authored more than 250 books, chapters, course books, articles, and technical papers and is popular keynote and technical speaker at conferences around the world. Drew is a Certified Reliability Engineer (CRE), Certified Maintenance & Reliability Professional (CMRP), holds B.S. and M.B.A. degrees, and is Master’s degree candidate in Environmental Sustainability at Harvard University. Contact him directly at 512-800-6031 or dtroyer@theramreview.com.
Tags: reliability, availability, maintenance, RAM, environmental sustainability, sustainable manufacturing, energy efficiency, safety, climate change
