by Ted Eytan, on 10 Jan 2007 05:18 am
The Journey
Hoshin 105
Yesterday I had the privilege of watching members of my team present a plan for 2007 work, using a visual system, to senior leadership. The elements of the plan were taped around the walls of an office, requiring people to physically walk the room to see what was prioritized and how. There was also a discussion of the process and the way we would interact with business units, who really depend on the functioning of the systems we manage to serve patients.
I was, overall, very impressed with the interaction. It allowed the team I am on to demonstrate that they are aware of organizational priorities in a visible and tangible way. There was also healthy tension/discussion around the elements of the plan and the way they would be communicated to business units. What if a requested project wasn’t prioritized this time? How do we indicate relative importance of each in an objective way?
One key feature of the plan is that it extends 90 days, in a cycle. Formerly, we would plan for a year, and hope that the priorities of the business would be the same at month 11 as they are at month 2. From the experiences we’ve learned about in organizations that have done LEAN, we’ve changed the time horizon to 90 days. This allows senior leaders the opportunity to pursue a shift in strategy, and for us to be able to support it without excessively rearranging commitments. I was pleased that one of our leaders picked up on this and saw it as an opportunity, at the same time they provided guidance on representing the plan to their team(s).
The issue of a commitment is challenging for everyone. I don’t know that I/we have it right (and maybe some of the people in that room don’t think that I do). The best I know to think is, “My commitment is to do the right work for our members, as we know it today. I will make that same commitment tomorrow, based on what’s important to them then, even if it means changing the direction we set today.” I assume that those who we collaborate with will make sure we are all aware of organizational priorities and will shift with us, in the interest of the member. I feel (and hope) that this is a realistic expectation!
on 16 Jan 2007 at 5:18 pm 1.Lee Fried said …
Ted, I think moving from one year to 90 days is a great idea. We have been doing the same thing in the Model Line with the belief that if you can’t develop a reliable 90 day plan you sure won’t be able to develop a reliable one year plan. As we have added more dicipline to our planning process we have slowly expanded out the planning horizon. Do you think you will be able to do the same thing?
on 18 Jan 2007 at 7:07 am 2.Ted Eytan said …
Hi, Lee. It remains to be seen. 90 days seems to be very useful in the high(er) technology space, where the tools we use are changing constantly and the application of tools we have built is also changing. I think this is about right for now.