0302. When Processes Exist but Work Still Doesn't Flow

WEBVTT
00:01:01.229 --> 00:01:04.590
And we're back with another episode of Lean by Design.
00:01:04.829 --> 00:01:07.150
Lawrence, thanks for joining us today.
00:01:07.469 --> 00:01:11.549
I am uh excited to have this conversation today with you.
00:01:11.710 --> 00:01:21.069
I think we are gonna be talking about something that many of us, many of our listeners, have probably dealt with before.
00:01:21.230 --> 00:01:30.030
Have you have you ever worked or been involved at an organization where um everyone sort of has their own way to do things?
00:01:30.349 --> 00:01:36.349
Where there may be some SOPs that don't necessarily have follow-through.
00:01:36.509 --> 00:01:42.430
Maybe they're expired, maybe they've never been introduced to the new people that come into the organization.
00:01:42.909 --> 00:01:58.270
But what we end up finding ourselves are a number of people that know that work is getting done, but no one actually agrees on how it's supposed to flow, who is supposed to be involved, when things are supposed to be delivered.
00:01:59.310 --> 00:02:03.310
And that just creates friction upon friction upon friction.
00:02:03.870 --> 00:02:09.389
It removes the ability to have any level of consistency in those deliverables.
00:02:09.870 --> 00:02:22.750
And as we know, through you name it, working day-to-day through athletics, consistency is what's gonna drive growth, consistency is what is what's gonna drive improvement in how you operate.
00:02:22.909 --> 00:02:42.669
So, Lawrence, I mean, this is a topic I think that a lot of us are gonna really connect with, especially when we join a new organization and we find out that there are no type of procedures written out, explained, no procedures in how to perform the duties.
00:02:42.909 --> 00:02:44.030
Have you been through that before?
00:02:44.270 --> 00:02:46.349
I'm pretty sure everybody deals with this.
00:02:46.669 --> 00:02:59.710
You know, the I I think the other side of it is we we sometimes have procedures that um detail a little too much, and then it becomes something that's so hard to follow that people just create their own way of doing something.
00:03:00.270 --> 00:03:05.310
You know, just because it's written there doesn't actually reflect the reality of how people work.
00:03:05.469 --> 00:03:07.710
And and this applies to many different things.
00:03:08.349 --> 00:03:18.509
Sometimes either the the SOP or whatever work instruction you're following isn't um reflective of how things have been operating to date.
00:03:18.590 --> 00:03:20.509
Sometimes there's a lag between updates, right?
00:03:20.590 --> 00:03:25.389
You it's not just I edit a Word document and magically it appears to be this new way of working.
00:03:25.469 --> 00:03:54.109
And I think and and this is like just a complaint about the how training is is handled in general in our industry, is we have this thing called the read and understand, which is like not really something that makes a whole lot of sense because you're it's I think a lot of people work way better when you actually show them how it works, and these these updates and things that we do to our processes should reflect how the majority of people are navigating that system, right?
00:03:54.509 --> 00:04:03.229
So, you know, to your point, I think the problem isn't that people don't follow the process, it's just the process doesn't describe how work actually happens.
00:04:03.469 --> 00:04:08.349
And sometimes that's a factor of who was actually writing the process or when it was written.
00:04:08.590 --> 00:04:14.349
You know, version control is important and putting when these things were updated is also critically important.
00:04:14.669 --> 00:04:21.790
And I I can empathize with the groups that feel that things are moving so fast, things are moving at lightning speed.
00:04:21.949 --> 00:04:36.189
So what ends up happening is that you end up losing ownership of these processes that, you know, now this person's changing their duties, now they're on another initiative, they're on a project or two, and these things become nice to have.
00:04:36.350 --> 00:04:47.230
I do want to make one point of clarification because I think this is something that comes a lot when I'm working with my clients, is SOPs versus another type of document.
00:04:47.389 --> 00:04:53.709
Um, and and what we're explaining here, what we're discussing here is SOPs are those standards.
00:04:53.870 --> 00:05:01.069
These are standards, operating procedures, standard operating procedures, and how you are performing your work and what is required of it.
00:05:01.310 --> 00:05:06.509
That is a little bit different from a work instruction that allows a little bit of flexibility.
00:05:06.590 --> 00:05:30.750
And what I tell people is that if you find yourself having a process that you know is a little bit fluid while you guys are trying to find out what your internal standards need to be, then it's okay to create something and develop a work instruction where there might be some modifications depending on what space your project is in, perhaps an indication, perhaps a phase of development.
00:05:30.909 --> 00:05:36.829
You're not going to have those more mature documentations or processes early in a project.
00:05:36.990 --> 00:05:40.909
Those are usually after a couple of years of working as a team.
00:05:41.149 --> 00:05:43.709
So I just wanted to point out that difference.
00:05:43.870 --> 00:05:50.509
And this is one of those feelings that um, one of those things that might be hard to see.
00:05:50.670 --> 00:05:52.670
So let's talk about what's happening.
00:05:52.909 --> 00:05:55.790
You're at your organization, you're working.
00:05:56.029 --> 00:05:57.149
People seem busy.
00:05:57.310 --> 00:05:58.349
Work is happening.
00:05:58.509 --> 00:06:02.349
You see people going back and forth, going in and out of meetings.
00:06:02.509 --> 00:06:05.069
You know, there's conversations that are happening.
00:06:05.310 --> 00:06:07.870
This is our understanding of work.
00:06:08.349 --> 00:06:14.189
But how we actually get there and how you button up the end of what these workflows are.
00:06:14.349 --> 00:06:16.670
That's that's the the the question here.
00:06:16.829 --> 00:06:19.949
You pointed out SOP is not reflecting reality.
00:06:20.349 --> 00:06:23.469
Sometimes teams describe a process differently.
00:06:23.709 --> 00:06:26.029
Workarounds start to become normalized.
00:06:26.110 --> 00:06:40.430
And this is a thing where I found this a lot in the project management space because there's a lot of ownership and accountability when you become a project manager and everything is pointing to you.
00:06:40.509 --> 00:06:50.990
And when you find that the systems that should be reporting you on the status of your project are broken, you start to create your own workarounds.
00:06:51.149 --> 00:07:09.069
And as your portfolio begins to grow from three to five to 10 to 15 projects and programs, that flexibility needs to start to have a structure to it so that other projects that come on board now have a level of scaffolding.
00:07:09.149 --> 00:07:11.310
They have a scaffold that they can actually follow.
00:07:11.469 --> 00:07:18.269
There might be some nuances, but what we end up seeing is, you know, this project is working better than that project.
00:07:18.349 --> 00:07:20.670
And it's always pointed to the people.
00:07:21.469 --> 00:07:29.149
And I have to say that is part of it, you know, the team chemistry, how well, you know, they communicate.
00:07:29.469 --> 00:07:34.909
But a major part of it is how these teams are creating their internal workflows.
00:07:35.069 --> 00:07:50.909
And in some cases, they are just being designed by whoever is on that project team, developing these workarounds that are preventing the consistency that is demanded when you're scaling or working in in large operations.
00:07:51.069 --> 00:08:06.029
And then, you know, these sort of band-aid improvements don't always work out because now we're creating band-aid improvements to a workflow that has workarounds that we've built into it.
00:08:06.990 --> 00:08:09.709
So patchwork, patchwork, patchwork.
00:08:09.949 --> 00:08:17.709
So everybody seems busy, we're all working together, but I would say it's probably really not as efficient as we can make it.
00:08:18.269 --> 00:08:23.870
Yeah, I mean, do you you think like so this this idea about the you know people developing workarounds?
00:08:23.949 --> 00:08:31.790
And you know, why do you think people find it easier to build a workaround than to point out that, hey, this doesn't make any sense.
00:08:31.949 --> 00:08:35.230
Maybe we should update something so that everybody is doing the same thing.
00:08:35.470 --> 00:08:47.550
I think, you know, to what your your earlier point about process ownership, there's uh it's sometimes when you come into a new company, you're you're not clear who actually owns the specific process.
00:08:47.710 --> 00:09:03.950
And so you come into these situations, and I'll use an example of like, you know, let's say you do become a uh you're a PM on a project, and you're being asked to develop a timeline for a specific type of change or initiative, right?
00:09:04.110 --> 00:09:11.070
And so as you're developing a timeline, obviously different types of changes require different timeline structures, right?
00:09:11.149 --> 00:09:13.310
So there's different things that would have to happen.
00:09:13.550 --> 00:09:25.870
And so oftentimes, you know, it's it's um maybe not something that's written in like an SOP, but more something like a work instruction that kind of tells you, okay, as you're developing this sort of timeline, these are the constraints that you should think about.
00:09:26.110 --> 00:09:28.750
These are the people or a guidance of some kind, right?
00:09:29.070 --> 00:09:36.270
But in probably 80% or even more of a lot of these situations, it's like, all right, just go and draft a timeline and bring it back.
00:09:36.350 --> 00:09:42.110
And then everybody goes, this looks completely different than the same exact type of project I've worked on before, right?
00:09:42.350 --> 00:09:50.030
And there's this um difference between, like you said, you when you're trying to manage multiple projects at the same time and then they all timelines look all different.
00:09:50.190 --> 00:09:55.870
You can't you can't gather data on each thing because they're you're not comparing apples to apples anymore.
00:09:56.270 --> 00:10:01.550
They're all different shapes and sizes, and it makes resource management incredibly difficult.
00:10:01.710 --> 00:10:05.310
It makes anybody coming in and out of projects incredibly difficult.
00:10:06.990 --> 00:10:09.150
It's just uh these these workarounds.
00:10:09.310 --> 00:10:24.190
I think people are incredibly creative when it comes to these workarounds, but I'm I'm just it's surprising that more people don't um really step back and maybe question the system itself and improve it that way.
00:10:24.350 --> 00:10:30.350
They just go, you know, this is my lane, and I got this thing to do, and I'm just gonna focus on my own project.
00:10:30.670 --> 00:10:32.590
Yeah, that's that's that's there.
00:10:32.750 --> 00:10:51.870
I mean, I think that there's a couple of pieces that we have to think about too, is that depending on who the person is, they may have some internal cynicism to if I go bring this up to somebody, they're just gonna look at me and say, Yeah, why don't you just focus on executing this?
00:10:52.270 --> 00:11:01.870
Even if this update in process, this update in, you know, instructions is to benefit the pace or the consistency of doing something right.
00:11:02.030 --> 00:11:06.910
They're often, you know, people are often met with like a, you know, this is not a priority.
00:11:07.150 --> 00:11:14.270
Well, the process itself is a priority to accomplish an end goal of some kind.
00:11:14.590 --> 00:11:22.430
So how do we get past ignoring when the instructions we're giving to people are completely incorrect or outdated?
00:11:22.670 --> 00:11:23.710
So what happens?
00:11:23.950 --> 00:11:24.990
No one has the owner.
00:11:25.150 --> 00:11:26.110
Okay, who's the owner?
00:11:26.270 --> 00:11:30.910
Well, let me go, let me go reach out to this function, let me go reach out to finance.
00:11:31.150 --> 00:11:32.990
Well, they're busy, they're not gonna address this.
00:11:33.070 --> 00:11:33.310
Why?
00:11:33.470 --> 00:11:35.550
Because this is not their concern right now.
00:11:35.790 --> 00:11:37.790
This happens to be your concern right now.
00:11:38.030 --> 00:11:47.870
So this is sort of that cynicism with this, like, I'm gonna have to like go in circles to find somebody to do this, or they're gonna just make me lead the charge.
00:11:48.030 --> 00:11:48.910
I'm too busy.
00:11:49.070 --> 00:11:50.430
What's the fastest thing?
00:11:50.590 --> 00:11:56.030
I'm just gonna make my project work the way I want it to work so that I can work efficiently.
00:11:56.270 --> 00:11:57.150
I, I, I.
00:11:57.470 --> 00:11:58.670
This is what ends up happening.
00:11:58.830 --> 00:12:13.470
This is why, this is one of the reasons why you find such a difference in capabilities in project teams and program teams, where you have sort of these siloed initiatives that are only happening within an internal team.
00:12:13.629 --> 00:12:32.590
Instead of addressing these types of challenges head on as a group, you're having them challenged like by a project leader that is just trying to, you know, develop the presentation, trying to create context for what the data looks like for the leadership presentation.
00:12:32.750 --> 00:12:50.910
It doesn't surprise me, but when you think about how often that happens at an organization, you are just compounding these individual heroics, one on top of the other, on top of the other, probably leaning on the same people.
00:12:51.150 --> 00:12:56.110
And then you find this unequal distribution, unequal success rate.
00:12:56.270 --> 00:13:01.550
You find a few more, perhaps, project leads that are more successful than others.
00:13:01.790 --> 00:13:02.990
Oh, well, they have these views.
00:13:03.150 --> 00:13:04.430
Well, how do you do that view?
00:13:04.590 --> 00:13:11.310
Well, I open up an Excel spreadsheet, I click this, I go here, I move this into this system, then I process it this way.
00:13:11.470 --> 00:13:19.470
They start to create these big, arduous workflows that are not really utilizing systems that they have available.
00:13:19.629 --> 00:13:26.110
It's more of how do I understand what I know, you know, in terms of the systems that I have access to?
00:13:26.270 --> 00:13:30.110
I'm gonna create a band-aid for this because I don't want to deal with it anymore.
00:13:30.270 --> 00:13:31.710
And that's what ends up happening.
00:13:31.870 --> 00:13:43.470
And so when we look at what is the risk here, well, I think pretty directly, you're gonna find a misalignment behind the documented processes and the actual workflows.
00:13:43.629 --> 00:13:45.310
So, how are you gonna train somebody?
00:13:45.470 --> 00:13:57.230
How are you gonna train somebody to read these documents and then they go to their team and they say, uh, yeah, I saw this and I read this, and the teammate that's been there for two years will say, Yeah, that's all.
00:13:57.310 --> 00:13:58.030
We don't really do that.
00:13:58.190 --> 00:13:59.070
This is what we do.
00:13:59.230 --> 00:14:10.990
That is now becoming tribal knowledge, something that needs to diminish as organizations grow in complexity, whether it's scale, size, approach, whatever the case is.
00:14:11.150 --> 00:14:20.190
You want to make sure that the people that you are bringing on board have the same level of role-based training.
00:14:20.430 --> 00:14:24.910
Otherwise, you're gonna have 10 people in the same role and they're all doing things completely different.
00:14:24.990 --> 00:14:27.150
And this happens all the time.
00:14:27.390 --> 00:14:33.310
When you get to leadership, they have all have a presentation, so everything's okay.
00:14:33.470 --> 00:14:40.190
But to your point, well, this project is looking two quarters in the back, four in the future.
00:14:40.510 --> 00:15:38.180
This project is looking at six years in the future.
00:15:38.420 --> 00:15:41.700
This one pulls in three years in the past.
00:15:42.580 --> 00:16:02.020
And what we have to recognize is that when we are showing people data, charts, elements of our work, and we are changing their resolution from project to project, it makes it incredibly difficult to understand where your risks are.
00:16:02.420 --> 00:16:05.140
Are we at risk to meet certain things?
00:16:05.380 --> 00:16:09.620
Well, I looked at one timeline and it was across three years.
00:16:09.780 --> 00:16:11.620
I looked at the next one, it was eight years.
00:16:11.780 --> 00:16:14.900
I looked at the one after that and it was five years.
00:16:15.460 --> 00:16:20.260
So now my brain keeps trying to analyze like, okay, what's the difference here?
00:16:20.420 --> 00:16:36.100
What's the difference here, as opposed to having similarities, having those standards, so that you can look at the data for the data and not be distracted by appearances by the resolution.
00:16:36.900 --> 00:16:58.740
Yeah, I mean that that's that's a good point in having some sort of retro, not even retroactively like looking at the um, you know, how things have progressed over time, but you know, for for somebody that is coming new to a project or an organization to, you know, I think having some mechanism to ask them, like, does this make sense to you?
00:16:58.980 --> 00:17:06.819
And if it doesn't make sense to a new person walking in, it probably doesn't make sense to some people that are already there at the organization for an extended amount of time, right?
00:17:06.980 --> 00:17:16.340
And so how do you think about as these teams or or companies go about finding out which workflows are misaligned and to focus on, right?
00:17:16.420 --> 00:17:24.420
Because it can be, you know, there's there's different levels of workflows having a certain impact to the overall output of groups.
00:17:24.500 --> 00:17:31.460
And sometimes it's you know, maybe you have a group that's really good at a certain point in the workflow, but then the handoffs are really broken.
00:17:31.539 --> 00:17:42.660
And so it's not really, it's like the group does an excellent job in delivering the information that's needed, but then then the information just sits there for a decided amount of time because some other team didn't know that it existed, right?
00:17:42.900 --> 00:17:46.580
And so there's there's like these workflow boundaries that you'd also have to consider.
00:17:46.740 --> 00:17:55.140
But it it is uh it's not necessarily easy to pinpoint, especially if some of those processes are not or they haven't been formalized, right?
00:17:55.299 --> 00:17:58.740
It's just oh yeah, so and so gives me this thing and then I give it to this thing.
00:17:58.899 --> 00:18:03.460
But what is the start and end of that particular process or workflow, right?
00:18:03.539 --> 00:18:06.980
So you kind of have to like segment these things and then prioritize them.
00:18:07.139 --> 00:18:19.619
So, you know, from um an operational workflow alignment point of view, what are some of those considerations that you would perhaps look at in evaluating a situation like this?
00:18:20.019 --> 00:18:24.179
So usually there's some um there's some warning signals.
00:18:24.339 --> 00:18:32.419
And a lot of times, believe it or not, leadership will call out a lot of these things when they look at portfolio level views.
00:18:32.659 --> 00:18:37.139
Hey, why am I noticing this in these projects, but I don't see that over here?
00:18:37.379 --> 00:18:39.460
Why are these milestones listed like this?
00:18:39.619 --> 00:18:42.339
But on these projects, the milestones are listed like that.
00:18:42.579 --> 00:18:47.059
And so these are sort of the things that jump out to us most.
00:18:47.299 --> 00:19:06.819
Now, in order for you to identify where in the workflows are these particular problems happening, because if you think about any kind of portfolio, you know, it within biopharma, you're gonna have very early stage ones that have, you know, very lofty goals and in their timelines.
00:19:06.979 --> 00:19:18.579
You're gonna have some more, some that are more mature that say, hey, we have 18 months before we're submitting, you know, uh an IND or an NDA or something like that.
00:19:18.739 --> 00:19:33.619
And so understanding approximately where in the process, where in that drug development process that these issues are arising is going to be sort of that first look, that first sort of gut instinct of let's go look over here.
00:19:33.779 --> 00:19:36.659
And then you have to start understanding how are you forming your teams?
00:19:36.819 --> 00:19:41.779
What kind of transparency do you have in the the shared workflows?
00:19:42.019 --> 00:19:44.499
Because these are cross-functional teams.
00:19:44.659 --> 00:19:47.299
None of these teams are working in isolation.
00:19:47.379 --> 00:20:06.259
They require everybody to be a part of the team for the assets that you're developing, the RD that you're doing to test it, um, you know, any of these safety signals you have to check, you know, even early on, aims testing, and then you're managing that project with a budget with vendors.
00:20:06.499 --> 00:20:07.859
There's partnerships.
00:20:08.099 --> 00:20:13.139
These are very complex projects that require a lot of coordination.
00:20:13.299 --> 00:20:15.459
And it starts internally.
00:20:15.779 --> 00:20:23.219
If you show this outward facing into partners, they're gonna start to scratch their heads and say, Did we partner with the right people?
00:20:23.459 --> 00:20:32.259
So we tend to forget that how your operations are internally very much affects how your relationships are with your partners, and vice versa.
00:20:32.419 --> 00:20:40.019
You know, you want to make sure that you can trust that when we have these things scheduled out that people are gonna actually, you know, take them on and do them.
00:20:40.179 --> 00:21:06.339
You know, I think that there's process ownership when we have sort of attrition, we have people changing roles, we have people changing internally and new people coming in, really making sure that there is a process owner and there is a solid description that is understood by all of what it means to own a process, of maintaining that process, of being an ambassador to that process.
00:21:06.899 --> 00:21:14.899
If somebody comes to you and says, hey, I don't know how to do X, it is not your job to sit there and tell them this is how you do it.
00:21:15.219 --> 00:21:19.939
You can go grab the link, grab the document, and say, This is your document.
00:21:20.099 --> 00:21:21.299
This will tell you what to do.
00:21:21.459 --> 00:21:23.139
Come back to me if you have questions.
00:21:23.299 --> 00:21:28.179
This is something that's really, we don't want to take that extra step to show somebody how to fish.
00:21:28.339 --> 00:21:31.619
We just tell them really quickly because, oh, it's a quick thing.
00:21:31.779 --> 00:21:32.579
I don't mind.
00:21:32.739 --> 00:21:41.939
It's not that you don't mind, it's that you are not doing any favors to that person that's actually trying to find what is the workflow that we're supposed to be doing.
00:21:42.179 --> 00:21:45.219
I had these challenges even working in the lab.
00:21:45.379 --> 00:21:51.939
There are so many ways to do basic science and depends if it came from this book or if it came from that book.
00:21:52.099 --> 00:21:53.539
And there's some subtleties.
00:21:53.779 --> 00:22:05.299
So I, you know, even doing something as simple as a transfection where you have a small piece of DNA, you're trying to get it into a transfectable cell, like a DT, for example.
00:22:05.379 --> 00:22:15.779
This is just a cell that is commonly used to sort of create, you know, versions of other disease-state cells.
00:22:15.939 --> 00:22:19.619
So we're going to use this one, we're going to inject it with this piece of DNA.
00:22:19.779 --> 00:22:25.779
It's going to spit out this ligand on its membrane, and then we can do some experiments.
00:22:26.019 --> 00:22:28.339
There's a couple of different ways that you can do that.
00:22:28.499 --> 00:22:39.859
You can do electroporation, you can use uh some transfection models that is more of like an incubation that over time it uses a viral vector to go in, deposit the DNA, and then come back out.
00:22:40.019 --> 00:22:42.499
And then now you have your model system.
00:22:42.659 --> 00:22:45.459
Now you have a model system that you can work with safely.
00:22:45.699 --> 00:22:48.259
Well, there's multiple ways to do that.
00:22:48.499 --> 00:22:55.939
And when I came into one organization when uh we were when I was still working in the lab, they said, Yeah, just do a transaction.
00:22:56.099 --> 00:22:57.539
So, okay, how you guys do it here?
00:22:57.939 --> 00:22:59.299
Just do one.
00:23:00.179 --> 00:23:05.779
So that was to me sort of like a okay, well, now I have to decide which way that I'm gonna do this.
00:23:05.939 --> 00:23:13.699
And my results may confirm or negate whatever they had just because I did something differently than how they did before.
00:23:13.859 --> 00:23:25.859
And this is what, you know, these are creating structural inefficiencies completely by the effort of the person that's trying to just get work done, right?
00:23:26.099 --> 00:23:28.179
They're trying to get work to happen.
00:23:28.259 --> 00:23:33.699
And this is again what we talk about where we're mistaking being busy with being productive.
00:23:33.939 --> 00:23:39.779
Being productive is not creating 17 workarounds to get your job done every day.
00:23:40.179 --> 00:23:50.499
Being productive is finding the best optimal route to perform the duties that you need to produce the work that is your role, that your role provides.
00:23:50.659 --> 00:23:52.899
And I think sometimes we forget about that.
00:23:53.059 --> 00:23:54.659
And it's super critical.
00:23:55.379 --> 00:24:00.179
Because we often mistake and and and it's let me ask you this.
00:24:01.059 --> 00:24:04.659
When was the last time you heard I'm so busy I can't do X?
00:24:04.899 --> 00:24:05.619
Was that recent?
00:24:06.099 --> 00:24:07.459
Last time you heard that from somebody?
00:24:08.179 --> 00:24:09.219
I didn't have a chance to.
00:24:09.859 --> 00:24:10.899
I wasn't able to.
00:24:11.459 --> 00:24:13.619
I never had a chance to reflect on this.
00:24:13.859 --> 00:24:19.059
I did not have a chance to look at the document you sent that was requested.
00:24:19.379 --> 00:24:22.419
I didn't have a chance to look at the action items.
00:24:22.659 --> 00:24:24.659
I didn't have a chance to look at the decisions.
00:24:25.939 --> 00:24:26.979
I didn't even know you did it.
00:24:27.539 --> 00:24:28.739
I didn't even know you did it.
00:24:28.979 --> 00:24:29.219
Right.
00:24:29.379 --> 00:24:37.299
I mean, these are things that we're you're doing a lot of things, but it does not mean that you're aligned to the people in the organization.
00:24:37.699 --> 00:24:56.979
And to really create an operational workflow is to create a rhythm for your business that is just breathing with a consistent rhythm of activities, recording, reporting, and continuing on in the process.
00:24:57.139 --> 00:25:01.699
But it's so critical and important to ground all of these things in reality.
00:25:02.419 --> 00:25:06.979
If you make a change, it's not just making a change and creating an SOP.
00:25:07.139 --> 00:25:11.539
It's making a change in saying, how, what do we need to hold as standards?
00:25:11.699 --> 00:25:18.579
For example, something as simple as like your timeline should be three quarters in the back, five quarters going forward.
00:25:18.819 --> 00:25:20.899
So we know a little bit of the bit of the history.
00:25:21.059 --> 00:25:22.419
That is a standard.
00:25:22.819 --> 00:25:29.379
A work instruction is where you're going to say, okay, I want you to go in here, verify the numbers.
00:25:29.539 --> 00:25:35.859
You're going to export this and drop it into here and update the colors for leadership.
00:25:36.019 --> 00:25:52.339
You know, because a lot of times we don't recognize how damaging it is when we present things that are not consistent, especially to leaders that unfortunately probably did not do the recommended homework of reviewing the slide deck before the presentation.
00:25:52.579 --> 00:25:59.139
And the first thing that their eyes are going to force their brain to think about is why does this look so different than the last one?
00:25:59.379 --> 00:26:00.819
What am I looking at now?
00:26:00.979 --> 00:26:03.219
They have to reorient themselves.
00:26:03.379 --> 00:26:13.219
And what you want to be able to do is develop the consistency of what we're looking at, of how you're doing your work, so that you can compare apples to apples.
00:26:13.299 --> 00:26:16.499
You can identify where the risks are happening.
00:26:16.659 --> 00:26:32.419
When people want you to identify risks and understand what the major problems are, if you're looking at, you know, elements, like let's just say slides, for example, that are all different, the first risk I would point out is that everything is different.
00:26:32.579 --> 00:26:38.899
There is no alignment, there is no consistency in how we are representing any of these programs.
00:26:39.139 --> 00:26:48.739
And that slows down progress time and time again, and is not a sign of alignment by any stretch.
00:26:49.219 --> 00:27:01.379
Yeah, and I I was gonna come from the other angle of if, you know, again to your example of the slides, and you know, as as we're we all go to these meetings, and sometimes it's called a steering committee, but other times it's called something else.
00:27:01.459 --> 00:27:07.859
But essentially there's a bunch of people in leadership, and you have these very condensed slides with very specific metrics.
00:27:08.019 --> 00:27:18.499
And well, first of all, hopefully everybody agrees that those are the numbers that we actually care about because now it trickles down to like, how do you think about how do we get that number in the first place, right?
00:27:18.659 --> 00:27:26.179
And then you think about all the effort that goes into people updating things and and moving it all the way up the chain till it gets to that final slide deck.
00:27:26.339 --> 00:27:53.219
And the the workflow and the process that you talk about, it's it's really the entire thing from the moment that somebody is maybe say performing something out in the field or on the floor in the lab, wherever it is, every you know, activity kind of feeds into something that is being rolled up further and further up to ultimately it is that number that they care about because those numbers help them give context to the decision that they're about to make next that influences everybody underneath, right?
00:27:53.459 --> 00:28:09.539
And so I I think um, you know, these these these workarounds, the risk in doing that is you don't have consistency in how people are gathering the necessary um information to go back up top.
00:28:10.259 --> 00:28:18.659
And so different projects report out different things, or maybe certain person does like six of the required activities and another person does two.
00:28:19.139 --> 00:28:24.579
It's just, you know, there's there's so much inconsistency with how the information is is being collected.
00:28:25.059 --> 00:28:44.739
And um it's I I think it's very important to yes, question why it is that we're collecting the um particular metric or whatever it is, but it's also to really important to ask the other people like, is it how much of a pain it is for you to get this information in the first place, right?
00:28:44.979 --> 00:28:57.699
It might be something that you have to log into like 10 different systems and you're updating one thing after the other, and then you go, okay, well, what can we do to make that less painful for you so that you spend less time updating slides and more time doing work?
00:28:57.939 --> 00:29:11.379
Just those simple things like that that just you know make sure that not only you're aligned with the intent of that particular workflow, because each hopefully these workflows are developed in a way that it's for a specific decision being made, right?
00:29:11.619 --> 00:29:16.339
It's not just like you're for the sake of I'm gonna pick up this rock and move it over here.
00:29:16.659 --> 00:29:18.739
There's gotta be some point to that, right?
00:29:18.979 --> 00:29:24.419
It's usually non-exploratory, not not in not in the system when you're working in academia, right?
00:29:24.499 --> 00:29:53.459
There might be like an end goal to understand something, but typically once you're already in an organization that has a couple of assets, you're trying to directly build something, create something that can be licensed, that can be sold, that can be internally developed through the clinic into their first product, which is a very different approach than in academia that you're looking to discover sort of the relationships in these living systems that are not quite elucidated.
00:29:53.619 --> 00:30:04.019
You know, and I think you're you're you're pointing out things that muddy the perspective of we're in trouble.
00:30:04.579 --> 00:30:16.099
They don't actually show where the issues are, and so trying to recognize what the signals are so that you can recognize that there's a problem.
00:30:16.339 --> 00:30:17.459
Well, why is there a problem?
00:30:17.619 --> 00:30:19.299
We're getting we're getting worked at.
00:30:20.179 --> 00:30:30.179
But I'm reminded of conversations that I've had where, you know, cynically you say, Oh, so what do you do for work?
00:30:30.499 --> 00:30:33.139
I get paid a lot of money to do something stupid.
00:30:33.299 --> 00:30:39.059
I got to pay a lot of money to make slides, I get paid a lot of money to, you know, write reports.
00:30:39.219 --> 00:30:40.899
Let's think about that for a minute.
00:30:41.059 --> 00:30:51.779
Actually, the salaries that we have that are a factor of the education, of the technical knowledge, of our skill sets.
00:30:52.099 --> 00:31:00.739
And yet, when we end up in these organizations, our first target is how much can I do?
00:31:00.899 --> 00:31:03.939
And not what impact can my work have.
00:31:04.819 --> 00:31:11.939
So we find ourselves taking on these challenges of workarounds and building workarounds and not communicating them.
00:31:12.179 --> 00:31:15.619
These are lessons learned, they don't have to come from a project.
00:31:15.859 --> 00:31:17.139
What's my lesson?
00:31:17.459 --> 00:31:19.139
The SOP is wrong.
00:31:19.779 --> 00:31:21.059
What did I learn?
00:31:21.619 --> 00:31:24.659
Steps five through 10 don't actually exist anymore.
00:31:24.899 --> 00:31:26.259
So here's what we're doing.
00:31:26.419 --> 00:31:28.259
Here's how we've mitigated this.
00:31:28.419 --> 00:31:42.339
And I'm telling you guys now so that you guys have an approach that is structured to what we're trying to deliver as a group to leadership, respective to the project or respective to our research that we're doing.
00:31:42.579 --> 00:31:47.939
And that's important to pause and take a look at and say, okay, well, why is that happening?
00:31:48.099 --> 00:31:52.819
Why is it that you're getting paid so much to do slide presentations?
00:31:53.059 --> 00:31:58.419
It probably has something to do because you're spending so much time on these workarounds.
00:31:58.579 --> 00:32:05.779
You don't have a consistent structure to follow to deliver that consistency at the end of the day.
00:32:06.739 --> 00:32:21.379
Operational workflow alignment is as much about creating connections to your neighboring functions and departments as it is how you are delivering your work product.
00:32:22.099 --> 00:32:36.179
Um and this depends whether you're in manufacturing in the facilities, if you're a scientist, if you're in HR, if you're a project manager, if you're a leader, middle manager, you have some type of work product.
00:32:36.419 --> 00:32:41.299
The success of some of these projects is probably what everybody is looking at.
00:32:41.619 --> 00:32:50.899
But you have specific deliverables, whether or not they're explicitly written in order to make those things a reality.
00:32:51.139 --> 00:32:59.539
Yeah, as you're saying that it made me think about some, you know, the overlap between your process lifecycle and a product lifecycle, right?
00:32:59.699 --> 00:33:08.179
So I think everybody knows every now and then you'll get a little thing that pops up in your computer that says, oh, I gotta update this thing and then restart because I have to fix the bugs or right.
00:33:08.419 --> 00:33:17.619
And so like that same concept of, you know, somebody in the background is maybe collecting information about how the computer is performing or whatever the program is.
00:33:17.779 --> 00:33:21.139
And then they're recognizing, wow, a lot of people are getting stuck in this one step.
00:33:21.299 --> 00:33:25.859
And then they're issuing out a patch to fix the issue so that you don't have to go through that again.
00:33:26.019 --> 00:33:36.019
I think as um these these workflows and processes, we don't, I don't think it comes natural for us to go, yeah, this thing is uh really difficult and cumbersome for me to work through.
00:33:36.179 --> 00:33:38.819
Let me just put in a ticket so that everybody else knows.
00:33:39.059 --> 00:33:42.899
The automatic thing is, oh yeah, let me just work around this thing by building something else.
00:33:43.299 --> 00:33:45.139
And we should be, we should want to do that.
00:33:45.299 --> 00:33:47.059
Why, why don't we do that?
00:33:47.299 --> 00:33:48.579
Why don't we?
00:33:48.899 --> 00:33:59.379
It's it's the most bizarre thing to me where we look at an issue and instead of saying, how do I create a fix and communicate that, or how do I get the right people on board?
00:33:59.619 --> 00:34:05.059
You know, we just turn to, well, I gotta get my work done, and so I'm just gonna make this happen.
00:34:05.139 --> 00:34:12.820
Now, granted, every once in a while you have to create a workflow because there's this new request that came in, our system's not built for that.
00:34:12.980 --> 00:34:16.820
But I mean, are you working for yourself or do you have other people on your team?
00:34:17.059 --> 00:34:21.699
If you don't care, you probably shouldn't be a part of that organization or that that team.
00:34:21.940 --> 00:34:23.699
Yeah, and and look, I I I get it.
00:34:23.940 --> 00:34:26.099
You made a point about the like lessons learned.
00:34:26.179 --> 00:34:39.059
Um, and I think in in working with other companies and projects, the usually the thing with lessons learned is that if I have a formal request to change a certain process and I submit it, who is supposed to do that, right?
00:34:39.219 --> 00:34:39.539
Where is that?
00:34:39.860 --> 00:34:40.179
Where does it go?
00:34:41.539 --> 00:34:50.820
We put in a change a request to change something and then it just piles up into this giant, it's like a little like a like a box that you put like you know, suggestions in.
00:34:51.139 --> 00:34:52.179
Like a ballot box, yeah.
00:34:52.420 --> 00:34:52.980
Suggestion box.
00:34:53.300 --> 00:34:56.420
Well, then the question is, okay, well, who opens that suggestion box?
00:34:56.500 --> 00:34:59.539
And then how do we prioritize all the things that are suggested here?
00:34:59.619 --> 00:35:00.900
Yeah, who takes ownership of it?
00:35:00.980 --> 00:35:05.780
And I think that's where you know we're we're coming back to this whole idea of process ownership, right?
00:35:06.340 --> 00:35:21.860
Part of your job as a process owner is not just being the steward of the process from start to finish, but it's also to iterate on it and to take in these improvements and actually prioritize what things need to get fixed and um improved.
00:35:21.940 --> 00:35:23.620
Or maybe there are things that you shouldn't, right?
00:35:23.780 --> 00:35:29.780
It's not ever I'm not saying everything needs to get fixed because we only have a finite amount of time, money, and resources.
00:35:29.940 --> 00:35:35.940
So you really have to focus on the things that are giving people the most pain and value, yes, value.
00:35:36.020 --> 00:35:36.180
Yes.
00:35:36.260 --> 00:35:36.660
So do it.
00:35:36.900 --> 00:35:38.420
I mean, that's risky.
00:35:38.500 --> 00:35:41.620
It's like there's certain things that you would consider criteria.
00:35:42.420 --> 00:35:48.900
That's a huge point there where you're going to get a lot of noise out of this.
00:35:49.140 --> 00:35:50.820
Hey, I don't like that this does this.
00:35:50.980 --> 00:35:56.260
I don't like when you see something that says, I don't like X, that's a personal preference.
00:35:56.740 --> 00:36:08.980
When you hear that something is preventing the further part of the workflow, or if we did X, it avoids these last couple of steps.
00:36:09.220 --> 00:36:15.140
These are suggestions that should definitely be taken into consideration when you're looking at that workflow.
00:36:15.220 --> 00:36:26.180
And as you said, like as a process owner, no, there's we will take ownership of activities without taking the responsibilities of owning a process.
00:36:26.820 --> 00:36:27.300
Right?
00:36:27.540 --> 00:36:38.180
We will take, okay, I want you know, this person to make sure that we have a schedule for when we need to get budgets ready and blah, blah, blah.
00:36:38.420 --> 00:36:45.460
However, this group is not a finance group, which you would think money goes into finance.
00:36:45.540 --> 00:36:47.140
So you're gonna just sit there and wait.
00:36:47.220 --> 00:36:53.700
And you're gonna wait until finance decides to intervene, whatever they, whenever they're doing it.
00:36:53.860 --> 00:36:58.820
And they're gonna come back and say, okay, you guys have two weeks, you guys have one week to get all of your budgets, et cetera.
00:36:59.060 --> 00:37:08.580
Like there needs to be some awareness of these other activities that are happening that will directly impact your work and the work that you're doing that impacts others.
00:37:08.740 --> 00:37:27.460
And if there are processes that are internal to your function, your stability, a factor of that stability is how well you can manage your process, how your people are managing, how they're owning those processes so that they can communicate them the right way.
00:37:27.860 --> 00:37:40.660
And then to your point, it's important for us to understand when we create a work instruction, a walkthrough, a video, that's version one.
00:37:41.460 --> 00:37:42.660
That is version one.
00:37:43.780 --> 00:38:03.620
Because you are more than likely creating a process or updating a process based on some discussions that happened, some pain points that happened that are probably not yours, where leadership is quick to say, we don't like this because of this and that and the other.
00:38:04.420 --> 00:38:09.700
People that are on the ground level will find that work around so that they can just produce whatever they need to produce.
00:38:09.860 --> 00:38:12.260
That's a conflict, that's friction.
00:38:12.900 --> 00:38:22.340
That will continue to disrupt the goal of consistency in your operations, which becomes a risk.
00:38:22.900 --> 00:38:23.140
Yeah.
00:38:24.340 --> 00:38:28.980
And in in you're describing again the the flow of information, right?
00:38:29.140 --> 00:38:42.580
I think a really another kind of very simple example is that I think these process owners imagine they're they're the people that really own the roadways for how these companies like navigate certain things as far as getting stuff done.
00:38:43.460 --> 00:38:46.580
The people that built the roads um don't drive it every day.
00:38:46.660 --> 00:38:52.580
And if if there's a couple of potholes and people are just driving around them and nobody finds out about them, they're just gonna get bigger.
00:38:52.660 --> 00:38:54.260
They don't improve themselves, right?
00:38:54.900 --> 00:39:04.420
It's like you just have you have to tell somebody that these things are happening, and then the person who you know owns their process, you gotta go about filling those potholes or making it drivable so that people can navigate this thing.
00:39:04.580 --> 00:39:12.900
You can't just ignore it and go, yeah, I built this thing, and then you take all the credit for this thing, you know, being built, and then you don't take any of the blame for this thing not working, right?
00:39:12.980 --> 00:39:22.020
It's it's like a weird thing that people will uh stick their heads out for for that, but then when things go wrong, they like, oh yeah, that's not me.
00:39:22.100 --> 00:39:25.700
That's just so you're just driving incorrectly, and I don't know what you're talking about.
00:39:26.020 --> 00:39:27.300
It's like too much effort.
00:39:27.380 --> 00:39:29.780
I mean, we I lived in Boston.
00:39:30.020 --> 00:39:34.500
There's rats out there, there's mice out there, they end up in your house sometimes.
00:39:34.740 --> 00:39:42.180
Imagine living in a rental and you see one of these guys in your kitchen, and you just go, Hey, you decide to move out.
00:39:42.340 --> 00:39:47.220
You never tell the landlord, you never tell your roommates, you know, like that's what we're doing.
00:39:47.300 --> 00:39:52.020
We're finding issues, and and and not everything is this monumental issue.
00:39:52.260 --> 00:40:01.300
I will say that there's a number of things that have come my way of just like, oh my gosh, like this disappeared from whatever space.
00:40:01.540 --> 00:40:11.700
And all it was was like somebody moved a column header, something like that, which means they were unclear about the guidelines of working in that space.
00:40:11.860 --> 00:40:12.900
So, what does that mean?
00:40:13.140 --> 00:40:15.780
That means that person needs a little bit of a refresher.
00:40:15.940 --> 00:40:23.780
And we've we failed to continue the follow-up, and that's where these things, these sort of issues just continue to be exasperated.
00:40:23.940 --> 00:40:26.900
So if I'm gonna say anything, it's how do you fix it?
00:40:27.060 --> 00:40:29.140
Number one, say something to somebody.
00:40:29.300 --> 00:40:34.100
Don't let these things that are broken in your internal systems just disappear.
00:40:34.260 --> 00:40:46.900
Say something, bring it into light, and connect the pain that is being caused by this process being broken, by this workflow, this cross-functional workflow not really working out.
00:40:47.060 --> 00:40:49.220
Address things with the right stakeholders.
00:40:49.460 --> 00:41:03.220
The five to ten minutes that you spend in doing that, you know, over the course of like, you know, a week or two or something, a quick conversation here, a quick conversation there, you're gonna find people that are gonna want to help support the new fix.
00:41:03.380 --> 00:41:07.860
And it may not be one that needs, you know, 50, 60 people involved.
00:41:07.940 --> 00:41:11.300
It might just be one that needs like two or three to say, hey, I noticed this.
00:41:11.460 --> 00:41:12.340
Is that a problem?
00:41:12.500 --> 00:41:14.020
Yeah, I noticed that too.
00:41:14.180 --> 00:41:15.300
How often do you hear that?
00:41:15.380 --> 00:41:16.660
Yeah, I noticed that too.
00:41:16.820 --> 00:41:19.060
Why didn't anybody say anything about it?
00:41:19.540 --> 00:41:20.100
Why?
00:41:20.260 --> 00:41:23.780
Right, and then we wanna we want to complain about things.
00:41:24.020 --> 00:41:29.140
You have to speak up, you have to point out things, even internally.
00:41:29.460 --> 00:41:30.820
Hey, this is broken, guys.
00:41:30.900 --> 00:41:32.260
What do we got to do to fix that?
00:41:32.340 --> 00:41:34.100
Don't take it on to yourself.
00:41:34.740 --> 00:41:35.780
What do we?
00:41:36.340 --> 00:41:37.860
We are a team.
00:41:38.020 --> 00:41:39.700
Somebody might have bandwidth.
00:41:39.860 --> 00:41:44.740
Maybe somebody's new and knows that system and they haven't started a project yet.
00:41:45.060 --> 00:41:46.580
Hey, this is great.
00:41:46.820 --> 00:41:51.300
Can you take two weeks to work on this and fix this up before you start your other work?
00:41:52.180 --> 00:41:53.060
Maybe yeah.
00:41:53.700 --> 00:41:59.700
You know, we have to provide the opportunity to be successful in things like this.
00:41:59.940 --> 00:42:09.460
And when we're not, you know, when when we're just walking around and saying that, yeah, we have SOPs, but they're not really updated, and we're just glossing over that.
00:42:10.260 --> 00:42:12.420
Your onboarding becomes slow.
00:42:13.060 --> 00:42:24.820
Your ability to uh carry knowledge starts to dissipate because now you're starting to create this tribal knowledge of like who knows what, who knows the real process.
00:42:24.980 --> 00:42:29.700
Your source of truth is probably riddled with holes that you can't see.
00:42:30.980 --> 00:42:35.700
You know, it should not be weeks for somebody to say, you know what?
00:42:35.860 --> 00:42:39.460
I didn't get any kind of notifications like I thought I would.
00:42:39.620 --> 00:42:42.100
And there's like 35 entries.
00:42:42.740 --> 00:42:48.420
It should have been like the second day of like, yeah, I looked in there and I saw the workflow worked, but I didn't get notified.
00:42:48.820 --> 00:42:51.700
Okay, there's a there's a mistake there, let's fix that now.
00:42:52.260 --> 00:42:57.780
You know, making sure that we really outline what these processes are supposed to do, these workflows are supposed to look like.
00:42:58.020 --> 00:43:18.820
We need to give that time to let it go into the field, let that workflow happen, and be prepared to take in a number of changes and separate those ones that are personal preference versus potholes in your road to success.
00:43:19.940 --> 00:43:37.540
Yeah, I was gonna say the, you know, as you know, but we I I think it's pretty clear that if companies or teams are in a situation that they recognize that there are workflow misalignments within their operations, um, there are a number of things that you can do.
00:43:37.700 --> 00:43:51.780
And you know, the the even the issues that you have with the workflow misalignment, they can take different shapes and forms depending on how they're connected with you know how many teams does this impact, how frequently are you using this workflow.
00:43:53.140 --> 00:44:00.660
And so I want to kind of lead this conversation into the assessment that you've developed for operational workflow alignment.
00:44:00.740 --> 00:44:18.260
So let's kind of talk about what are those risk factors that you would look at in evaluating something along the lines of we've identified the workflow itself, but we're not really sure about how to go about evaluating what we need to focus on within the workflow.
00:44:18.340 --> 00:44:19.940
Because there's different pieces to the workflow.
00:44:20.100 --> 00:44:29.220
It might have to do with onboarding, it might have to do with handoffs to another team, it might be people just don't even know that the workflow is visible, right?
00:44:29.300 --> 00:44:32.180
There's certain metrics that you use to evaluate it.
00:44:32.420 --> 00:44:40.580
Um and I I think to your earlier point, you can't see some of these workflow problems by just reading a document.
00:44:40.820 --> 00:44:44.100
You have to see them by observing how people work in them.
00:44:44.260 --> 00:44:46.020
And so that's really important too.
00:44:46.100 --> 00:44:50.500
You know, how often are people submitting suggestions on how to improve it?
00:44:50.980 --> 00:44:53.300
There's all these like nuances to evaluating it.
00:44:53.460 --> 00:44:59.540
So, how you know what what what would you say is the typical way for companies to go about addressing this?
00:44:59.620 --> 00:45:06.580
And then let's talk about the assessment that you've developed for that and how it's different.
00:45:07.060 --> 00:45:30.820
So, what I wonder what what I my experience in sort of solving these challenges and solving these problems has been usually some level of heroics, and that is shocking, some factor of, you know, I've I've been blessed with working with direct senior executives, but usually there's some frustration that comes out.
00:45:30.980 --> 00:45:33.620
And in my past, I've had Oscar.
00:45:33.780 --> 00:45:34.980
This is a disaster.
00:45:35.140 --> 00:45:39.380
Every time we go to talk about this, you know, bullet point one, two, three, four, five.
00:45:39.540 --> 00:45:44.820
We try to get one, two, three, and we're unable to because four, five, six.
00:45:45.140 --> 00:45:48.500
Can you work with that team and figure out how to approach it?
00:45:48.580 --> 00:45:51.780
So, of course, I go in there and I'm just like, you know, what are we doing?
00:45:51.940 --> 00:45:52.980
What's the big deal?
00:45:53.220 --> 00:45:54.740
And usually it goes, well.
00:45:55.460 --> 00:45:56.500
They want X.
00:45:56.820 --> 00:46:06.180
One of the things that I try to really empower people with is letting them know that when you become the process owner, you own the process.
00:46:06.500 --> 00:46:09.300
You are able to say, that is not possible.
00:46:09.460 --> 00:46:11.060
However, we can do X.
00:46:11.220 --> 00:46:18.100
I can't give you metrics like this, but I can deliver this because not every system is going to be the same.
00:46:18.260 --> 00:46:22.020
Not every process is going to give you all the metrics that you desire.
00:46:22.260 --> 00:46:27.860
So I think what we need to also understand is that leadership likes to point these things out.
00:46:28.020 --> 00:46:35.780
And it's because they have a certain expectation of my baseline of understanding in order for me to make this next decision.
00:46:35.940 --> 00:46:41.700
And if we can't provide that to them, they will come back and say, I don't really understand what's happening.
00:46:41.940 --> 00:46:46.820
That's a failure for us to understand what is really required from leadership.
00:46:46.980 --> 00:47:03.220
And in the in the way of when those things are, you know, granted to leadership and they change their approach, that might happen, but you also have room to sort of push back and say, these are the things that we aligned on.
00:47:03.380 --> 00:47:06.660
Are you saying that you want these metrics now instead?
00:47:06.900 --> 00:47:13.540
We'll have to go back and adjust how we do these things so that we can provide you the right metrics that you're looking for.
00:47:13.700 --> 00:47:16.980
And that is the kind of conversation, not they changed their mind again.
00:47:17.060 --> 00:47:19.300
Now we have to redo the whole thing.
00:47:19.700 --> 00:47:24.340
Have the conversation, you know, first before you start making any kind of changes.
00:47:24.420 --> 00:47:26.580
So that's usually what ends up happening.
00:47:26.740 --> 00:47:34.900
It's this one-off, let's create the the uh uh the the fix, let's do the patchwork.
00:47:35.060 --> 00:47:41.060
Um, and these usually what they're seeing is what they're struggling with is visibility.
00:47:41.220 --> 00:47:56.020
So one of these risk factors in the operational workflow alignment assessment is this notion of milestone visibility, where really leadership is not able to see real-time views without having a formal meeting.
00:47:56.180 --> 00:48:02.740
Perhaps your milestones or the things that you're delivering are only identified by you guys.
00:48:02.900 --> 00:48:12.740
And this was another thing that we talked about, where you're creating creating what you think they want to see, as opposed to going to them and asking.
00:48:12.900 --> 00:48:18.660
And if they are not able to give you a strong answer, start to ask questions, create the dialogue.
00:48:18.980 --> 00:48:24.820
So, what I'm hearing is, and this is a great therapy conversation.
00:48:25.060 --> 00:48:26.660
What I'm hearing is X.
00:48:26.820 --> 00:48:36.900
So this is what we can do, as opposed to taking word word for word, verbatim, what a leader wants, and then saying, okay, we're gonna just deliver that to them.
00:48:37.220 --> 00:48:40.980
Because they don't understand your process, they don't understand your workflow.
00:48:41.060 --> 00:48:54.980
They they are going based off of their recognition of the type of work they're doing, but they don't really have the full transparency of the nitty-gritty details, you know, and then how effective are you at predicting those things?
00:48:55.060 --> 00:49:04.980
So if you're consistently showing milestones, I had one issue where we were consistently showing milestones where we were hitting like 95% of our enrollment goals.
00:49:05.140 --> 00:49:09.540
But the problem was you're not adding 95% month over month.
00:49:09.700 --> 00:49:14.500
It's actually with uh percentages and statistics, you have to multiply them.
00:49:14.740 --> 00:49:22.580
So after six months, we were not 95% to our goal, we were much less than that.
00:49:22.740 --> 00:49:25.300
And it was sort of uh oopsie.
00:49:26.180 --> 00:49:38.340
We were creating this view of how we were doing monthly, but when you compounded month over month, we were getting further and further and further away from our ending point of the clinical trial.
00:49:38.500 --> 00:49:44.260
And I'm sure as you know, another month on a clinical trial can be hundreds of thousands of dollars.
00:49:44.500 --> 00:49:47.300
Easy, easy, especially in a global trial.
00:49:47.540 --> 00:49:49.300
You can probably hit into the millions.
00:49:49.620 --> 00:49:59.060
So our assessment looks at five major spaces, your workflow handoff, five major friction points that these are these risk factors.
00:49:59.300 --> 00:50:01.780
The workflow handoffs, is there clear ownership?
00:50:01.940 --> 00:50:06.100
Do we know at the end of this process, at this part of the process?
00:50:06.340 --> 00:50:07.780
You said it yourself.
00:50:08.020 --> 00:50:12.900
Things start in the very beginning and they slowly roll up, right?
00:50:13.220 --> 00:50:19.620
So as we go from one function to the next, to the next, to the next, is it clear who does what?
00:50:19.780 --> 00:50:27.700
Is it clear when done is done for this group and it becomes the new start for the next group?
00:50:28.580 --> 00:50:30.180
Duplication and reworks.
00:50:30.500 --> 00:50:49.780
Are you having to rework uh any of the data that you're doing or recreating or re-entering deliverables because they were inaccessible or they were in the wrong format, or um, you know, the the the timeline, the resolution is different across your programs.
00:50:50.020 --> 00:51:01.300
You know, what is are you understanding what those root causes are of those duplication points can be related to the system, can be related to the ownership, to clarity.
00:51:01.540 --> 00:51:03.460
Um, and you lose time.
00:51:03.620 --> 00:51:28.900
You lose time just redoing things and just fine-tuning and you find yourself, and this is I think where you get those when you get those scientists and and other folks that are just saying, yeah, I create PowerPoint slides because it's this constant like finessing of a message when the message should be pretty clear if we're developing our workflows to provide responses to these types of questions.
00:51:29.060 --> 00:51:34.420
And then we talked about it before, clarity, and the one that we didn't really talk about was tool fragmentation.
00:51:34.580 --> 00:51:40.900
So, you know, are our outputs connected, or even are they able to be connected?
00:51:41.060 --> 00:52:02.180
Are we, you know, what tools are we using internally that provides the various components to create this full project level view, this full view of our operations here in this section of the facilities or in this part of RD in this research project?
00:52:03.060 --> 00:52:05.300
Are they providing support together?
00:52:05.460 --> 00:52:06.660
Are they matching up?
00:52:06.820 --> 00:52:14.020
If I get data from this system and data from this system, can I put them together on top of the project timeline?
00:52:14.180 --> 00:52:25.860
If the answer is no, your tools are fragmented, your data is fragmented, and these start to create silos and forces that reconciliation work, forces the rework.
00:52:25.940 --> 00:52:26.260
Why?
00:52:26.420 --> 00:52:27.700
Because you can't find anything.
00:52:28.020 --> 00:52:28.980
You can't find anything.
00:52:29.140 --> 00:52:31.460
I have no idea how somebody listed a folder.
00:52:31.620 --> 00:52:34.420
I don't know how they listed a and then what you'll hear.
00:52:34.580 --> 00:52:36.260
I always sent that to you guys.
00:52:36.500 --> 00:52:37.380
I'm sorry.
00:52:37.620 --> 00:52:39.140
I'm sorry, I have to say this.
00:52:39.620 --> 00:52:51.140
Sending a message on Slack and saying, here it is for something that is critically important to your operations, and then three months later saying, Oh, yeah, I sent it.
00:52:51.540 --> 00:52:53.140
No one knows where that is.
00:52:53.460 --> 00:53:02.260
This needs to be curated into a repository of sorts and something again that is the documentation of your system.
00:53:02.420 --> 00:53:13.940
And as it grows, it demands for you to groom the system, to reconcile, to archive things that are not relevant anymore.
00:53:14.100 --> 00:53:17.540
Why do I care about the things that happened in Q1 of 2024?
00:53:17.620 --> 00:53:19.380
I don't even want to see them.
00:53:19.780 --> 00:53:21.780
Put them into a folder, put them away.
00:53:21.860 --> 00:53:24.900
If somebody asks for it, we can find it in the archives.
00:53:25.060 --> 00:53:30.420
But in terms of what is visible, visible to me right now, that is it's 2026.
00:53:30.580 --> 00:53:31.860
I don't need to see that stuff.
00:53:32.020 --> 00:53:33.060
Why do I even see it?
00:53:33.220 --> 00:53:34.420
There's a lot of work there.
00:53:34.900 --> 00:53:49.940
I find that, you know, even just looking at the different risk factors, it I think this assessment and even the the one that we talked about last week about 1.1, it's very qualitative focused and not so much quantitative, right?
00:53:50.020 --> 00:53:54.020
So we're not asking you're not asking for like, what are the numbers behind this or that?
00:53:54.100 --> 00:54:01.700
It's it's really about how people are experiencing these workflows as they work through them day to day and how they experience these these pain points.
00:54:01.860 --> 00:54:11.380
And I think that's something that that people should take away is it's um Yeah, just because it says it's green doesn't actually mean that it's green for everybody working in it.
00:54:11.460 --> 00:54:13.860
Then I think it's it's don't turn it to red.
00:54:14.420 --> 00:54:15.380
Don't turn it to red.
00:54:15.460 --> 00:54:22.260
I've seen discussion after discussion of if you're about to turn it red, you need to have a whole team.
00:54:22.500 --> 00:54:29.060
Like, holy cow, we agreed on the guidelines of what is green, what is yellow, what is red.
00:54:29.220 --> 00:54:30.500
It's qualitative.
00:54:30.980 --> 00:54:35.460
The perception of the color red is like smallpox.
00:54:35.620 --> 00:54:47.940
I mean, people want to avoid it so much, even if you say the intent for the red is to gain the attention of leadership, that we require support.
00:54:48.100 --> 00:54:51.220
And that safety also has to be there from leadership.
00:54:51.380 --> 00:54:58.420
That this is a cry for help, not we're gonna lose everything, we play, oh no, it's the end of the world.
00:54:58.580 --> 00:54:59.860
That's not what we're doing here.
00:55:00.020 --> 00:55:03.620
Let's get out of those egos, let's get out of those that fear.
00:55:03.940 --> 00:55:32.100
Let's create a system that if you actually want to be, as many people say, as many organizations say, the best company of X of this, of this place, you know, in the Greater Boston area, in New England, in California, in the world, in Europe, you have to be able to accept when there are challenges, when there are issues, when there are changes that need to happen and carry those through and carry people with you.
00:55:32.340 --> 00:55:45.460
In order for those workflows to continue to thrive, it needs to fundamentally become part of the culture to manage those processes, to look at how you're combining your tools, to create the visibility.
00:55:45.700 --> 00:55:47.940
And then comes the behavior part.
00:55:48.180 --> 00:56:00.740
And that's that's a challenge where it does need to come a combination from the top down and also throughout the middle layer of making sure to say, hey, we are now being held accountable.
00:56:00.980 --> 00:56:07.780
If these things are exceeding our capacity, that is what we need to discuss.
00:56:08.340 --> 00:56:19.220
But it's just so easy for people to, as soon as they get busy, to drop things like this, to drop how you're designing your workflows in your organization.
00:56:19.460 --> 00:56:26.820
And I think they can be hard to describe, they can be hard to pinpoint and to understand.
00:56:27.380 --> 00:56:31.060
So our assessment 2.1 does just that.
00:56:31.220 --> 00:56:37.700
It asks a lot of sort of specific but also uh qualitative.
00:56:37.860 --> 00:56:40.500
So it's not, you know, I wouldn't call them general questions.
00:56:40.580 --> 00:56:43.940
They are very specific to how your operations work.
00:56:44.180 --> 00:56:46.820
The teams we ask about, the teams that you're working with.
00:56:46.980 --> 00:56:54.980
We ask about your outputs from different systems as it relates to your challenges, to your operations.
00:56:55.700 --> 00:57:07.700
These are the fundamental pieces that we find to be critical to having solid operations that are resilient to change and allow you to grow and to scale.
00:57:07.940 --> 00:57:08.820
Stop those band-aids.
00:57:09.060 --> 00:57:09.940
Everywhere, man.
00:57:10.100 --> 00:57:11.300
Everywhere.
00:57:12.100 --> 00:57:15.700
So I think that's all we have for today on this topic.
00:57:15.860 --> 00:57:18.260
I love it, I'm so glad we got to talk about it.
00:57:18.340 --> 00:57:24.340
I think these are issues that are top of mind, and your priorities are gonna change.
00:57:24.660 --> 00:57:36.820
Your leadership structure is probably going to change, which means the the way that you do things day to day today is not gonna be the same way that you're doing things in two or three years.
00:57:36.980 --> 00:57:38.500
Change is inevitable.
00:57:38.980 --> 00:57:44.420
So part of maintaining this is also maintaining the notion that change is gonna happen.
00:57:44.580 --> 00:57:56.340
And once these things are developed and created and curated, you still need to have some system to monitor when the changes need to happen in those workflows.
00:57:56.660 --> 00:57:57.940
2.1 does that.
00:57:58.100 --> 00:58:02.660
2.1 will find where you are hurting the most.
00:58:02.900 --> 00:58:06.900
And working with us will help you understand what's the path forward to fix it.
00:58:07.060 --> 00:58:13.380
So if you have any questions, if you want to take a look, we have our assessments online now, sigma labconsulting.com.
00:58:13.540 --> 00:58:38.500
Take a look for yourself, see the different assessments that we have available, and we'll be happy to work through a lot of the challenges that you're facing today, and maybe some that you see coming down the pipeline and really design solutions so that you can grow and your teams can grow, and you're not just being busy, you're being productive and you're finding efficiency and lowering that operational risk.
00:58:38.660 --> 00:58:40.500
Lawrence, thanks for your time, buddy.
00:58:41.220 --> 00:58:42.660
Yeah, see you on the next one.