The correct batch for the effective work of the team: goal, rules of the game, control, relevant information

The purpose of this material is the maximum simplification and structuring of all the knowledge I have gained in the field of optimization for easy and convenient use in practice. Everything has been written for me, you, the manager, the staff and for all in general. We look at the picture, and below we see explanations.

How it all begins and why you need a goal?

1. Purpose. This is where we start. Going without a goal is a road to nowhere. Achieving the goal, as a rule, should solve some important or important problems. The goal must be known and understood by employees who are at least somehow involved in it. To build and achieve the goal, it must be reliably known what is now (the current situation) and what we are striving for. Moreover, the goal should focus on the ideal result (even if fantastic) to eliminate the boundaries and scope of movement to the goal (eliminate the framework of thinking and the resources used) and at the same time focus on a specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, limited in time (SMART goal) result. That is, we first build the ideal goal (see the statement of the problem of TRIZ), and only then we get a SMART goal from it.

')

Elaboration of goals effectively carried out in a team. One person has limited perception, knowledge, skills for the sole determination of the goal and its criteria. As an option, representatives of 4 types of managers according to I. Adizes can be used in the target discussion team. The wrong goal eliminates all other actions no matter how successful they are. Even an incorrect goal setting can kill the whole positive result from its realization or even bring harm instead of benefit. In practice, the goal is to determine the solution to the most important problem at the current moment and, accordingly, its correct formulation.

Can we relate to the formulation of goals formally or abstractly?

To emphasize the importance of this moment I will give one example of my teacher in economic cybernetics. Conventionally, the question is whether it is necessary to install anti-aircraft artillery on a ship to combat enemy aircraft or not. The goal was set as an anti-aircraft artillery unit in order to shoot down an aircraft. The probability of such an event was calculated by 5%. From this point of view, the installation of anti-aircraft artillery in doubt. Then they thought again and set a goal differently. Is it necessary to install anti-aircraft artillery in order to repel the enemy air attack? The probability of such an event 95% in the case of the installation of anti-aircraft artillery gives a completely different answer. This example clearly demonstrates that the original source of the first goal (why should we shoot down an airplane?) Gives us a completely different picture.

What if we want much more from the realization of the goal?

A more difficult level is to single out the basis of the goal - the problem. For this, you can use Goldratt's Theory of Constraints. Reaching the goal should close the problem or at least part of it. If you understand the causes of problems and their relationships, you can find the key. Under the key, I understand here the point of application of minimum effort to achieve maximum results. It is not rare that the key is a simple action that has little to do with the problem. For example, at the factory where I worked, a multiple decline in marriage occurred after a small change in the painter’s instructions. As a bonus in such cases, we usually get an improvement in other indicators not related at first glance with the main problem.



While working at the plant, I used the corporate standards of lean manufacturing in project management. So, I really like the initial form of the “Charter of the project” which has sections in which the goal, problem, conditions, participants, responsibility, terms are described. In general, it describes what, where, when and why on one page. This form can be developed for any activity and used as a springboard for further actions or a motivated refusal or setting specific limits for the project. That is, the boss can set specific values ​​on the basis of this charter and it will be clear to subordinates that the project needs to be finalized in order to make it viable.

To count or not to count, and what is the question?

When I was trained in lean manufacturing, the teachers paid our attention to the fact that the goal should always be expressed in numbers, in what can be counted before and after. Ideally, this is in money, but it is also possible in terms of KPI,%, in hours or kg, in reducing the probability of loss, etc. This is your choice. For example, with regard to money, in foreign practice for a long time already when building a large and significant object, even the fact that people, for example, will not be able to rest in the place where construction will take place is taken into account in money. That is, in money, if you wish, conditionally, of course, almost everything can be transferred. We consider in figures not only a positive effect, but also losses and costs. In practice, not always, it turns out, to count the effect. It can be seen or felt, but it is very resource consuming, and this option can be approved if the project is small with a small number of participants - up to 5 people.

Creation and destruction, what is the connection between them?

2. Those who know all the rules of the game, win over those who do not know all these rules. This works from the board game to the laws of nature. If we want development, we need to set clear rules. There are formal rules, but there are existing ones and I will keep them in mind. I really like McDonald’s standards. Clear, understandable, unambiguous, open to all employees, acting and at the same time as concise as possible. Only the essence, without the "water". There is a cyclical or repetitive problem - we are changing standards (rules). The employee does not need to act at random, and only abide by the standard. The employee fulfills the standard, but we get not what we want, the staff or the person responsible for the result makes an application for a rule change. Gathered, discussed, made a decision - the rule has changed (standard, instruction).



In practice, our instructions are mainly written to cover one known place and do not care that it is not being fulfilled or cannot be executed, that is, instead of standards, we create a bureaucracy, which already leads to the destruction or change of the motion vector, and not to creation Standards, in my opinion, should be one of the ways that chiefs interact with subordinates. I did not do the task for a long time - I looked at the instructions - I did it, but not so much that Kolya asked Petr, but he told me in his own words, but not quite that ...

Someone in the forest, some for firewood. Are we going there?

3. Lack of control leads to damping of oscillations or not to the result that is required. The more important the process, the more often we control the process and the result. Not once observed how the meeting made a decision to carry out some work (actions), but if there is no control over the process and the implementation, the work may not even begin, or the quality of the work will be such that we have to redo it, therefore we do not make a decision at all or We control what they took. There are exceptions depending on the degree of trust and culture developed, but very rarely.

Do not tell me what time it is or do you have a fresh edition of The Times?

4. The better the collection of information is organized, the easier it is for everyone to report a problem, the more effectively they can be managed. If we react to the problem after the fact has fallen off, then this system does not exist or it does not work. We want to know about the problem before the fact fell off building a convenient and simple (for the employee) system. It is ideal to work out a reflex with an employee — a problem — I register, and for this, the rules must be clearly adjusted.



What is the most important condition that must be met for everything to work?



My opinion is that this is a feedback. Take an example, the employee described the problem once, a month later, again, did not see the reaction, did not get an answer, how do you think the third time he will write about it? And about another problem? All living things are so arranged that, in the absence of feedback, atrophy, dying out takes place. If you are a leader, please note that without feedback the employee atrophies, his desire, enthusiasm, motivation dies, hang a tattoo on his arm or a poster on the wall, hang so as not to forget, but remember.