Many Means Necessary for Peak Performance Ends

Enterprise Improvement Has Many Names

Some suggest a 4-level World, Workplace, Work and Worker segmentation scheme – one that I think is extremely valuable in framing discussions about concepts models, methods, tools and techniques.

I am hoping that you would agree that most of the discussions about concepts, models, methods, tools and techniques related to Enterprise Improvement, Enterprise Resource Management, Business Process Management, Total Quality Management, Continuous Improvement, Human Performance Improvement via Human Performance Technology (the application of science), Lean, Six Sigma, Theory of Constraints, Industrial Engineering, Human Psychology and Sociology, etc., etc., all need some such framework, a framework that frames “what works, where and/or with whom” – that tolerates variation.


Your Specialty-My Specialty

… have varied impacts on those 4 levels. Sometimes none.

Or using any other framing device of your choosing.

Such as my EPPI framework. Where each level of the Enterprise has Stakeholders.

Stakeholder Hierachy Example 1

But somewhere in there, in your view, there needs to be Processes. Strings of activities that take inputs and create outputs. Worthy Outputs.

Processes of various types for sure, such as Value Chain Primary, Value Chain Secondary, Value Chain Support and Administrative, etc.

Or something like that.

Then you can look at the requirements and the current state to search for gaps to close. Not all. But those 20% that will make 80% of the impact. And that 20% might not include my speciality. Or yours.

Here is my version of the Ishikawa Diagram…to help me look at both requirements, and gaps, and then the provisioning systems, internally and/or externally that provide the enablers of Processes.

EPPI Fishbone v2012 - 1- The Process

Look at all of those variables.

Does your tool-kit address all of those?

We/ they/ you and I/ need to work within some sort of shared systems view, that seek to harmonize the systems and processes organized by some functional scheme, and our own bag of tools.

Here in this Post are several my models for that harmonization.

Of course it probably needs to be adapted by you for each use. As it does for me.

It’s just a starting place, a mental model for my interviews and observations. As I try to understand the current state, the possible future state, the gaps and their values (costs of non-conformance or the R in ROI). Then one can calculate the possible Investments costs for the improvements, the Returns – for only those 20% of all of the possible improvements to leverage 80% value, leverage the I, for the R.

More R for the I.

Mo’ R fo’ I.


Enterprise Improvement Has Many Names

No man is an island. And no improvement methodology-set is either.

Or else every issue: problem/ opportunity looks like the same “old nail” that is a perfect fit with your one “hammer solution.” Life, ain’t like that.

And then since that cannot possible work in every situation, use of your one hammer, one needs to learn how to work in multi-solutions set efforts, where your hammer works well with saws, saw blades and nails. And wood.

For some purpose.

By design.

In a collaboration.

And to do that you’ve got to have – IMO – models such as these to adopt, or adapt as needed, to create a shared language, with nuanced understanding of the meanings for our terms.


And, as always, it depends.

# # #


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.