…is another person’s safety (or success, or security, or salvation, or _______). You get the point.
This topic has an important section in the book. What appears as Organizational SCRAP to one person or group may actually have a purpose for another. This means that as it is currently defined, this SCRAP isn’t SCRAP.
People will need to be armed to identify Org SCRAP AND to ensure that it is really Org SCRAP- and not actually needed for some other purpose that is valid. There is an approach which I will share, but I’d love to hear thoughts.
How to identify/determine when Org SCRAP is actually not?
What should be done in that case?
The play on words based on “One man’s trash is another man’s treasure” above- what word best completes the sentence (replacing the bolded word)? One of the ones above? Something else?
I think the general problem is that leaders are territorial and very sensitive to the impression others have of them and their organizations. When SCRAP is pointed out - however valid that assessment might be - it does say “here’s something you’ve been doing that adds little/no value, and I’m here to point it out.” That “attack surface” is always going to be there, so there’s no point in pretending otherwise.
Ok, so now what do I do?
The only approach I’ve had success with is to model the current/future scenarios, and let the data frame the conversation. Present the analysis and the proposal as an option, nothing more. If the net benefits don’t add up, i.e., it’s not the SCRAP to this person that we think it should be, then that’s their call (and we learned something).
I like “One person’s SCRAP (Person A) is another person’s success (Person B).” But…
This points out a dependency that needs to be either removed or optimized.
The challenge here is that Person A’s success is actualized by Person B’s success. But how has Person A been measured for success? Likely by measures that are of no value to Person B, likely by measures of Local Optimization which Person A champions.
So how do you get Person A to be a champion of Person B’s success? I suggest you don’t make it about Person B’s success. Enter OKRs. Measure both Person A and Person B by the same Results.
Neat. SCRAP has some clear on-ramps to a number of great practices. OKRs (done well) are one such practice, as is hoshin kanri (done really well/as intended by its creators).
In SCRAPWork, we do a cycle similar to (and it can use) one of the many improvement cycles out there (improvement kata, PDCA, biz concept design, lean startup, whatever) and when we believe we have identified SCRAP, there is some light analysis to determine if this SCRAP for me is not SCRAP for someone else.
So…..every time we run into that situation….we have….Goldratt fans help me out???
Disagreement about what is/isn’t SCRAP - basically, whenever this situation arises - it is a conflict. So there is a toolkit of go-to practices for the New Manager, one of which is conflict breaking. e.g., a simplified/more accessible version of evaporating cloud.
Structures, culture, rules, assumptions and processes are not SCRAP until they no longer serve the purpose of the org, or until they get in the way of the purpose of the org.
So- SCRAP sometimes is a sign that there is a conflict. In the particular situation when something looks like SCRAP to one group/person (“it’s a pure waste of time!”) but does not look like SCRAP to another group/person (“that helps us get our job done without hurting anyone” - there is almost always a conflict to examine. Hope this helps.
Richard - great points. Dealing with the optics of SCRAP is something that is on my mind a lot, and could use some work. I think you are on the right track with data and being objective.
I am toying with some of the following ideas:
making the identification of SCRAP so normal that it isn’t good or bad- it is necessary. Lean has done this pretty well- continuously identifying waste or improvement opportunities is just the way. So the emphasis is on the SCRAP work and there’s no time or space for blame or similar shenanigans
Section on blame culture and how it’s a horrible form of SCRAP
Yes, I like that framing. The work is shining a light on the right stuff, but what others choose to do with the information … is a separate concern.
I fear that the advent of AI and the inevitable shrinking of the white-collar workforce - real or imagined, at this point - is not going to help, as more and more managers/leaders fear for the loss of their six-figure salaries.
It goes back to the idea of “making it easier for people to do the right thing” and how SCRAP can play a role.
I’ve also heard it described as “you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink”. And if you try and force or shame the horse into drinking the water, you’re likely walking home
As someone who has a significant aversion to being ordered around/told what to do, I am a firm believer that force and shame are among the worst forms of motivation - akin to cracking the whip. Begrudging compliance if you’re lucky; subversion, sabotage, mutiny, quiet sharpening of knives, and slow corrosion of trust more likely.
I agree that AI is going to rapidly cause a lot of cutthroat behavior. There is going to be a lot of fear in the world of management. This is one reason that I feel like this is the ideal time to get this work out- as it may serve as a sort of path to becoming a more effective manager/leader. If I as a manager spend a whole lot of time learning and practicing how to spot the hidden things that are most in the way of success, overcoming them, and influencing the same for systemic/bigger problems, I’d be changing my value prop to the org.
Scaling up Excellence has some interesting things to say about real lasting change and making things stick. Any favorites from that or anything else?
@GeorgeSchlitz I love your thought of “Making the identification of SCRAP so normal that it [the discovery of SCRAP] isn’t good or bad- it is necessary.”
If Inspect and Adapt or OODA becomes a part of the DNA of an organization the discovery of SCRAP will be expected. There will be SCRAP. The discover of SCRAP is good and necessary, the most important. We should not over-react (judge the SCRAP) when it’s discovered, just adapt / reorient.
@TLooy I agree with your statement that if Inspect/Adapt, OODA become a part of the DNA of an org then the discovery of SCRAP will be expected. I would say the same of DMAIC, PDCA, kaizen,and others.
And- 2 major points that themselves may become threads:
Those great paradigms for continuous improvement have not become a part of the DNA of most orgs, unfortunately
Also unfortunately, most of the orgs in which those paradigms have become ingrained in the DNA have some diluted facade remaining, missing the original intent. GEV is a great example. Lean, DMAIC, kaizen are everywhere in the structures, culture, rules, assumptions and processes of their orgs, but in some watered down way, in language alone.
My vision for SCRAP is for it to be:
(1) a simple, sticky distinction that has high virality if done well, but is a trojan horse for the things above. How? By arming lots of people to point out when a structure, process, aspect of culture, rule or assumption isn’t serving the purpose/is getting in the way - SCRAP. Just that. Even if the DNA of their org doesn’t have I/A OODA et al in it, a SCRAP pile will build, and sooner or later someone will want to do something about that.
(2) a framework for change and improvement that leverages existing change models like I/A OODA, etc etc.
(3) a playbook for managers and/or others in doing (1) and (2)
Good discussion here. This made me think, would it be beneficial for SCRAP to have some postulates? Like in Math, postulates are the ground rules. It’s the assumptions of what we all agree to be true outside of the system of SCRAP. One postulate might be. “1. An item to be classified as SCRAP must have more negative impacts for the system than benefits.” Don’t need a lot of them, but I think Euclidean geometry has 5 main postulates. That basically set the assumptions for geometry for over 2,000 years.
My only concern is that if you asked me over the span of my 30+ year career in software I would have re-written the postulates at least 5 times. Classic example of reorientation in my personal OODA Loop.
And I’ve got some much more to learn. But maybe that’s a good first postulate!
Well that’s the trick and fun. Coming up with profound statements of assumptions that will stand the test of time Euclid did it over 2,000 years ago, lol.
I probably already have a bunch of things that might be postulates. Since I am not as familiar with math as y’all are, help me determine if these qualify:
Only structure, culture, process, assumptions, and rules that do not serve and/or prevent us from serving our purpose are SCRAP.
SCRAP in one context may not be SCRAP in another.
SCRAP may have not been SCRAP in a different time
There are more- help me understand if these are what you are talking about?
At at SCRAP level I like what you have started with. We can go up a level of abstraction though, but I’m not sure it would be valuable for your purpose of the book. Maybe in volume 2 you can go into it. I’m willing to discuss further.
One other thing - in the first postulate above I suggest removing “…rules that do not serve a purpose…”. I don’t like ‘a purpose’ because it can be purely local optimization but I like ‘our purpose’ in the second half of the sentence.
Great point and recommendation- it shouldn’t just be any purpose to your point. We will still have to unwind the conflict situation: where our high level purpose is served by something in 1 way but not another. A regulatory process is a common example.
