No More “Work Arounds” – Enforce Change

We have all been in the position where an unexpected issue arises. It can be a product capability shortfall, or a process application mismatch, or just about anything in between.  Our first impulse is to find a “work around”. Something quick and dirty that will get the job done and allow us to move on. We have all done it.


 


The problem with this approach is that it requires two “fixes”: the initial “work around” and then the revisit of the issue to put in the correct long term change. The “work around” allows us to stay with the existing process or capability, when by the very nature of the need, we are seeing that we need to change. In today’s short resource, profitability and resource challenged environment, the “work around” has become too expensive.


 


The normal issue with a “work around” is that since it is working, we never seem to get around to implementing the correct long term solution. Change doesn’t (need) to occur and the “quick and dirty (re: inefficient) becomes the accepted process. It becomes the standard by default and gets (re)coded into the process going forward. The quick and dirty has solved a short term need, but has not generated the needed change to achieve long term efficiency and profitability.


 


In today’s economy when you encounter an issue, more often then not the correct course of action is to implement the long term fix – make the change. It may take a little longer than the quick and dirty fix to the existing system, but the end result is a cleaner, longer term solution. The business also ends up stronger, more efficient and more profitable.

4 thoughts on “No More “Work Arounds” – Enforce Change”

  1. Steve, this entry is myopic at best, to think that the choice is either/or.

    It is because companies are limited in resources, talent, IT potential, money, process expertise and often TIME, that the “work around” is necessary.

    The management of change is a huge undertaking and investment commitment in culture, process, design, and supporting infrastructure. Plus, you fail to factor in the single biggest demand for the quick and dirty – TIME.

    Time demands are created by customer expectations, regulatory compliance, or managerial demands.

    I would argue that the correct answer is 1) MEET THE IMMEDIATE DEMAND, 2) Have a structured methodology where process exceptions are captured, documented 3) Invest in a change management team, usually a pool of industrial engineers or auditors that can come back regularly, evaluate any exceptional activity, and either correct the outcome of the quick and dirty, update the policy, and/or retrain the personnel.

    I have worked with you in the past, where one of your initiatives was put on hold/stalled because the process / product / rules did not support what YOU absolutely had to have done at that point in time and space. Steve, you were the ESCALATION KING, demanding at extremely high levels that singular events be supported outside of process.

    It was only because I and other support resources could manage an intelligent exception process that we did not undermine your customer or time based demands.

    Often the cause of the “quick and dirty” ultimate repair was of a cost (time, people, money) that YOU as the executive would NOT fund the corrective action given our restrictive budgets and other HIGHER pressing needs.

    Sorry my friend, but while I agree with underlying intent of today’s blog, I just cannot accept the pragmatic application of it based upon real world scenarios we both have faced.

    I would love to hear how your enlightenment addresses the real world:
    Time Demands
    Cost Contraints
    Conflicting Budget Priorities
    Fequency of occurance
    Corporate or external policies/laws
    Emergent / New conditions

  2. I sum times get worked up about work arounds, particularly when the some times worth less don’t or can’t care to man age ! But overall, as…Calvin Coolaid said…work smart and hard and as you are focused, directed and with purpose, you shouldn’t find yourself working around.

  3. Thanks for that painful truth, as I find Marketing also caught “in between” those Product and the Process work-arounds too. “Old” Marketing used to mean a focus on Awareness, Branding, and Tactical Support via events and salesware. Surviving today means Marketing better evolve into what I’m calling Performance Marketing. The Impetus? It’s nothing unexpected – Our customer “Buyers” have changed; thus, many traditional ways and efforts to maximize revenues have changed. The obvious example: Today, before they ever see a sales rep, prospects are already (a) figuring out that they have a problem; (b) identifying the options out there to solve the pain; (c) seeing who has solutions; (d) evaluating; and (e) getting ready to make a decision. Our sales rep used to do most of that for him; now our rep wastes time if he attempts the wrong message at he wrong time. The New Marketing Manager makes every sales rep more effective at that task. Sadly, Steve, most businesses I talk to end up staying with the work-arounds you mentioned; despite this different customer out here today – so their marketing teams are not helping carry our sales teams into this decade. I’m surprised since work-arounds are even more expensive.

  4. In Product Development the same conflict exists between workarounds and a more proper, long-term solution. For many of us, caught up in the rush to move forward, and the need to continue to support current customers (external and internal), the quick workaround has great appeal. I think Steve raises a significant concern: a quick workaround often must be replaced at some point, as it doesn’t adequately correct the root problem, it merely uses band aids and duct tape to hold the old systems and processes together.

    One of the traps in this trade-off is only considering two alternatives: quick fix or proper long-term solution. In my experience, there is a continuum of alternatives between the two extremes. Many times, the proper, or best, long-term solution is quite costly in time, resources, or budget. Perhaps we should be more open to moderate, or partial, solutions to the problem, more limited in cost but fundamentally moving the system or process forward to more naturally work with the new situation. In fact, if a little time is spent up front architecting or designing the long-term solution, a subset of this solution may become an obvious first step. Then, as time passes, the partial solution can be judged for its sufficiency. In my experience, when this approach has been taken, a decent 50% or 80% solution can be reached pretty quickly, and the remaining pieces to complete are often different than were expected initially, given experience with the new system or process.

Leave a Reply