The implementation process presented in this chapter is the fruit of over 200 enterprise-level implementations since 1999. Before this process was developed, roughly only one-third of the adopters realized significant improvements in project speed and Throughput; another one-third experienced marginal improvements (projects in control and on time); while one-third of the implementations failed to take off. Since introducing this process, the success rates have been near-perfect. Significant improvements are realized every time this process has been followed. However, the following points of failure can occur, and prevent an adopter from following the prescribed steps and enjoying consequent benefits: Undertaking an implementation without a business imperative.

Top management not accepting or setting sufficiently ambitious improvement goals, or delegating the implementation to a staff function like a PMO. Critical Chain inherently involves changing the rules of managing Execution and performing at a higher level, not about planning and tracking projects differently.

Not changing the policies and measurements that conflict with the Three Rules; local (task-level) schedules and measurements are the biggest culprit.

Inability of the implementation team to apply the Three Rules to the environment under consideration. The most difficult parts are applying the pipelining rule, building good project plans (see Step 4), and designing and establishing task management.

Activating Buffer Management reports but not following through with coaching and mentoring of front-line managers in actively managing the buffers.

If the business case for Critical Chain is strong, and if any of the other failures mentioned occur, the reason is either lack of implementation skills or inadequate leadership.

Summary

Critical Chain works because it solves the real problem caused by uncertainties that are inherent to projects. It recognizes that while uncertainties can be somewhat lessened through better planning, they cannot be significantly reduced or eliminated. Therefore, Critical Chain curbs the immediate and most devastating effect of project uncertainties-unsynchronized priorities. The Three Rules provide an assured basis for coordinating projects' tasks and resources to achieve optimal performance.

Second, getting results from Critical Chain pragmatically focus on translating these explicit Rules into practical procedures before trying to change behaviors and culture. Experience has consistently shown that practical procedures and robust buy-in of managers to the Rules are enough to get results quickly. Management buy-in is solidified by quickly achieving specific improvement targets based on real business needs. When Critical Chain Rules are also then embedded into management policies, management processes, and management information systems, organizations get as close to long-lasting and self-perpetuating results, culture, and behaviors as is possible in "human systems."

Finally, there is no alternative to strong leadership-either for getting initial results or for ongoing improvements. Only top managers can change the old rules and preserve the new Rules for managing Execution. Only top managers can set appropriately ambitious goals for the organization. Any other assumption is folly and leads to failure.

References

Goldratt, E. M. 1997. Critical Chain. Great Barrington, MA: North River Press.

Goldratt, E. M. 2008. The Goldratt Webcast Program on Project Management: Sessions 15. (Video series: 5 sessions) United Kingdom: Goldratt Marketing Group.

Goldratt, E. M. and Goldratt, A. (R). 2003. TOC Insights: Insights into project management and engineering. Bedford, UK: Goldratt Marketing Group.

Realization. 2010. Case Studies. Accessed March 30, 2010 at: http://www.realization.com/case_studies.html Realization. 2010. Critical Chain Results. Accessed March 30, 2010 at: http://www.realization.com/customers.html Realization. 2010. Lessons Learned. Accessed March 30, 2010 at: http://www.realization.com/projectflow/lessons_learned.html Sullivan, T. T., Reid, R. A. and Cartier, B. 2007. TOCICO Dictionary. http://www.tocico.org/? page=dictionary

About the Author.

Realization Technologies, Inc. is a leading provider of Project Execution Management solutions based on Critical Chain. It serves clients in a wide range of industries around the world, including organizations like ABB, Alcatel-Lucent, Amdocs, Boeing, CNAT (Centrales Nucleares Almaraz-Trillo), Delta Air Lines, Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Hamilton Beach Brands, Iberdola, Larsen & Toubro, Medtronic, Procter & Gamble, TATA Steel, Vale, Votorantim, the U.S. Air Force, the U.S. Army, and the U.S. Navy.

CHAPTER 5.

Making Change Stick1

Rob Newbold *

One day, the Master caught his favorite apprentice stealing. He said angrily, "I will not train a thief. Go, and return when you have changed."

The apprentice, feeling very ashamed, spent the day walking around the village, thinking about his life and his behavior. He returned that evening, saying, "Master, I have spent the day reflecting on who I am and what I would like to be. I believe I will act differently in the future. With all my heart I wish to return and continue to be your apprentice."

The Master replied, "Realizing that you need to change is not change. Go, and return when you have changed."

The apprentice, much dismayed, set out again. This time he traveled to a nearby city, working from time to time to support himself. After two weeks he returned, saying, "Master, I have spent two weeks working and learning and have never once been tempted to steal. I know I will act differently in the future. With all my heart I wish to return and continue to be your apprentice."

The Master replied, "Trying new things is not change. Go, and return when you have changed."

So the apprentice set out for a third time, traveling the country far and wide, learning skills and seeing wonders of which he had never dreamed. After a year he found himself near his original village and stopped in to visit his old Master. He said, "Master, I have traveled the world and seen many wonderful things. I am happy to see you, but being your apprentice is no longer my heart's desire."

The Master smiled and said, "You are welcome to stay as long as you wish."

Introduction.

Real change, the kind required to significantly improve organizational performance, is not about realizing we need to change. It is not about trying a few things. It is about changing our habits, the habits we use without thinking as we respond to daily situations. When we implement Critical Chain scheduling, we want people to do certain things without having to think about them. For example: Copyright 2010 by Rob Newbold.

Perform work as a relay race2 ("get it, work it, move it"), not a train schedule.

Assess actions through their impact on the global project or portfolio picture, not through their impact on task due dates or individual productivity.

Treat commitments as ranges of time, not points in time.

Use of these concepts represents a real shift of paradigms for most organizations. Until new habits are part of the organization's DNA and the old habits are gone, people have to weigh alternatives and consider multiple approaches. They have to think. Meanwhile, the old approach continues to be an easy option, so backsliding is common. Until the DNA has changed and new habits formed, the change process is not complete.

In this chapter, I explain the approach to organizational change developed and refined at ProChain Solutions over the last 12 years as we helped organizations of all sizes implement Critical Chain Project Management. First, I will analyze the nature of the problem and the root causes behind change not sticking. Then I will discuss a solution, the Cycle of Results (CORE), and how this solution can be used to address the root causes. Finally, I will describe how CORE can be applied to the implementation of Critical Chain scheduling.

The Uptake Problem

A major reason that organizations are unwilling to take on major change initiatives is what I call the "Uptake Problem." Implementations have trouble getting off the ground; when they do, they don't produce to the level people believe is possible; and even when significant benefits are produced, backsliding can, over time, put an implementation in jeopardy. Many times the Uptake Problem is explained simply by saying, "Change is difficult" or "We're not good at change."3 The Uptake Problem is readily acknowledged across many types of implementations, but is very difficult to quantify. Experts and companies seldom have an incentive to reveal negative data, so we see only one side of the picture. When we find and accept negative data, the extent of the Uptake Problem-difficulties getting going, the extent to which improvements continue, etc.-is difficult or impossible to analyze. Even the definition of success will tend to vary by time and organization. There are tidbits that reference the problem, but never a full meal.

Yearly surveys from the Lean Enterprise Institute indicate that backsliding is a perennial problem. (Lean Enterprise Institute, 2008, 1) "Although individual lean concepts and tools are easy to understand, to be truly successful in the application of these concepts and tools, the majority of the organization must change the way it looks at work. . . And so far, the vast majority of the organizations that start on the lean transformation journey are not successful at making this transition." (Koenigsaecker, 2009, 79) "Statistics from 150+ implementations . . . 15% of the implementations failed to take hold[,] despite initial successes[;] 15% of the implementations failed to even take off." (Gupta, 2005, 3) "In practice (in our experience) most [Critical Chain] implementations have failed after the person driving the process has moved on." (Retief, 2009, 1) Hobbs and Aubry found that 42 percent of Program Management Offices (PMOs) have had their relevance or even existence seriously questioned in recent years, leading them to believe that, "... about half of organizations are critical enough of PMOs to decide not to implement one or to seriously consider shutting theirs down if they already have one." (2006, 13).

Frequent anecdotal evidence suggests that the Uptake Problem is significant with any major change initiative, including Theory of Constraints (TOC), Enterprise Resource Planning, Enterprise Project Management, Lean, and Six Sigma.

ProChain's experience, gained over the course of 12 years observing our clients and the clients of others implement Critical Chain, confirms that the Uptake Problem is real and pervasive. We have found that: The Uptake Problem is more severe with larger projects, larger organizations, and organizations that perform projects involving significant uncertainty (e.g., research and development).

The immediate value of Critical Chain to project managers is such that individual project managers, once trained, will often attempt to continue to use it whether or not the organization embraces it.

People (and organizations) who take the perspective that Critical Chain is a toolset, rather than a significant change process, are unlikely to maintain successes over the long-term.

There is a direct correlation between implementation success and willingness to adopt the CORE concepts described in this chapter. For example, every company that has started a ProChain rollout within the last five years has continued increasing their use of and value obtained from Critical Chain over time.4 Before we can fix the Uptake Problem, we need to understand it. The following analysis follows the Current Reality Tree (CRT) shown in Fig. 5-1 through Fig. 5-3. A CRT is a tool to pinpoint common causes responsible for many effects.5 Read the boxes in the tree in numeric sequence. Boxes with no arrows leading into them are "root causes"; they should be examined for validity. Other boxes should be read following the arrows, using if-then logic. When multiple arrows go through an ellipse, read "and." For example, starting at the bottom of Fig. 5-1: "if (1) sometimes people lack urgency to change to a promising new technology and (2) there is some level of interest in the new technology, then (3) there are half-hearted attempts to employ the new technology." Boxes that have already appeared in an earlier figure are shown in a light shade of gray.

In order to make this discussion as concrete as possible, imagine you are employed by a large company, Widgets, Inc. (WI), as a project manager for new product development. WI designs and manufactures (of course) widgets-big ones, little ones, all kinds. I have included some narrative to describe the CRT logic as it applies to WI. I have added the associated box numbers from the CRT into the narrative in parentheses.

No Urgency to Change

Suppose, to start, that WI, as a whole, isn't experiencing significant pain with its projects, meaning there is little urgency to change even to a promising technology (1). New products are coming out of the hopper, the system doesn't look broken, so there is no urgency to fix it. Despite that, you as a project manager are interested in implementing Critical Chain scheduling because you recognize that it will have value for you (2). How are you likely to fare?

FIGURE 5-1 No urgency to change.

You may gather support from some like-minded individuals, but Critical Chain schedules will only meet with half-hearted interest (3); people have too many things to do that are more important. Needed resources and time will be scarce (4). Consequently, while you may use Critical Chain for your projects and people may or may not express interest, the momentum never builds (5). Of course, if basic components of your solution are deficient (6), your chances of building long-term momentum will be even worse.

Since Critical Chain (like other TOC applications) requires the synchronization of many people to be fully effective over the long-term, and since the momentum is not building, your implementation cannot take off. Not enough people are synchronized; the old DNA is not being replaced. Eventually, as enthusiasm wears off or people move on to other positions or companies, the old ways reassert themselves (7).6 There is also a loop that makes things worse. People have often seen initiatives fail; these failures tend to make people skeptical of new initiatives (8). Why bother rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic? These bad experiences, and stories of bad experiences, often cause people to take a wait-and-see attitude toward change (9). This attitude by itself reduces the momentum toward change (5).

There is one other problem that frequently exists and is made worse by a lack of urgency (1): key people-typically mid- and high-level managers-will not take ownership over the solution (10). Without their ownership, resources and time remain scarce (4). Note the twoway link between boxes 9 and 10. When key people do not take ownership, others will assume that it is all right to sit on the fence. The more people there are sitting on the fence, the more key people are likely to avoid taking ownership.

Throughout all this, people working inside WI will have real trouble understanding what happened. They may say things like: Our culture wasn't ready.

Our focus changed.

We never got the management support we needed.

We just couldn't execute.

Their thinking is governed by the general skepticism of new initiatives (8).

The Silver Bullet

Moving on to Fig. 5-2, suppose that, due to an aggressive new competitor, senior management at WI starts to believe there is an urgent need to reduce cycle times without increasing costs (11). Senior leaders therefore put their weight behind a Critical Chain initiative to reduce cycle times (12). They also make sure to have in place all the basic components of a good solution (13).

FIGURE 5-2 The silver bullet.

TABLE 5-1 Generic Critical Chain Implementation Steps Table 5-1 shows generic, high-level components of an implementation plan WI might use.

Each of these components is important and worthy of its own discussion. We have seen implementations in which a lack of any one of them has proven fatal. However, assuming WI does all these things, they are likely to achieve rapid and significant successes with their implementation (14). They have relieved the pain and urgency (15). In short, WI's Critical Chain solution has proven to be a real silver bullet.

Negative Branches

A negative branch (Scheinkopf, 2000, 117) is something bad that happens because of trying to do something good. It is the road to hell, paved with good intentions. For example, there are likely to be negative branches associated with giving money to a drug addict. We have seen a few negative branches arise repeatedly in implementations, even when the implementations produced real benefits; they are shown in Fig. 5-3.

Let's assume that Fig. 5-2 is completely valid, and by virtue of WI's quick successes with Critical Chain their cycle time pain has gone way down. The consultants leave and chalk up a success and everyone is happy.