[Bing-Bong]
The email from Leslie was unexpected.
“Hi Bob, can I change the planned topic of our session today to talk about resistance. We got off to a great start with our improvement project but now I am hitting brick walls and we are losing momentum. I am getting scared we will stall. Leslie”
Bob replied immediately – it was only a few minutes until their regular teleconference call.
“Hi Leslie, no problem. Just firing up the Webex session now. Bob”
[Whoop-Whoop]
The sound bite announced Leslie joining in the teleconference.
<Leslie> Hi Bob. Sorry about the last minute change of plan. Can I describe the scenario?
<Bob> Hi Leslie. Please do.
<Leslie> Well we are at stage five of the 6M Design® sequence and we are monitoring the effect of the first set of design changes that we have made. We started by eliminating design flaws that were generating errors and impairing quality. The information coming in confirms what we predicted at stage 3. The problem is that a bunch of “fence-sitters” that said nothing at the start are now saying that the data is a load of rubbish and implying we are cooking the books to make it look better than it is! I am pulling my hair out trying to convince them that it is working.
<Bob> OK. What is your measure for improvement?
<Leslie> The percentage yield from the new quality-by-design process. It is improving. The BaseLine© chart says so.
<Bob> And how is that improvement being reported?
<Leslie> As the average yield per week. I know we should not aggregate for a month because we need to see the impact of the change as it happens and I know there is a seven-day cycle in the system so we set the report interval at one week.
<Bob> Yes. Those are all valid reasons. What is the essence of the argument against your data?
<Leslie> There is no specific argument – it is just being discounted as “rubbish”.
<Bob> So you are feeling resistance?
<Leslie> You betcha!
<Bob> OK. Let us take a different tack on this. How often do you measure the yield?
<Leslie> Daily.
<Bob> And what is the reason you are using the percentage yield as your metric?
<Leslie> So we can compare one day with the next more easily and plot it on a time-series chart. The denominator is different every day so we cannot use just the count of errors.
<Bob> OK. And how do you calculate the weekly average?
<Leslie> From the daily percentage yields. It is not a difficult calculation!
There was a definite hint of irritation and sarcasm in Leslie’s voice.
<Bob> And how confident are you in your answer?
<Leslie> Completely confident. The team are fantastic. They see the value of this and are collecting the data assiduously. They can feel the improvement. They do not need the data to prove it. The feedback is to convince the fence-sitters and skeptics and they are discounting it.
<Bob> OK so you are confident in the quality of the data going in to your calculation – how confident are you in the data coming out?
<Leslie> What do you mean! It is a simple calculation – a 12 year old could do.
<Bob> How are you feeling Leslie?
<Leslie>Irritated!
<Bob> Does it feel as if I am resisting too?
<Leslie>Yes!!
<Bob> Irritation is anger – the sense of loss in the present. What do you feel you are losing?
<Leslie> My patience and my self-confidence.
<Bob> So what might be my reasons for resisting?
<Leslie> You could be playing games or you could have a good reason.
<Bob> Do I play games?
<Leslie> Not so far! Sorry … no. You do not do that.
<Bob> So what could be my good reason?
<Leslie> Um. You can feel or see something that I cannot. An error?
<Bob> Yes. If I just feel something is not right I cannot do much else but say “That does not feel right”. If I can see what I is not right I can explain my rationale for resisting. Can I try to illuminate?
<Leslie> Yes please!
<Bob> OK – have you got a spreadsheet handy?
<Leslie> Yes.
<Bob> OK – create a column of twenty random numbers in the range 20-80 and label them “daily successes”. Next to them create a second column of random numbers in the range 20-100 and label then “daily activity”.
<Leslie> OK – done that.
<Bob> OK – calculate the % yield by day then the average of the column of daily % yield.
<Leslie> OK – that is exactly how I do it.
<Bob> OK – now sum the columns of successes and activities and calculate the average % yield from those two totals.
<Leslie> Yes – I could do that and it will give the same final answer but I do not do that because I cannot use that data on my run chart – for the reasons I said before.
<Bob> Does it give the same answer?
<Leslie> Um – no. Wait. I must have made an error. Let me check. No. I have done it correctly. They are not the same. Uh?
<Bob> What are you feeling?
<Leslie> Confused! But the evidence is right there in front of me.
<Bob> An assumption you have been making has just been exposed to be invalid. Your rhetoric does not match reality.
<Leslie> But everyone does this … it is standard practice.
<Bob> And that makes it valid?
<Leslie> No .. of course not. That is one of the fundamental principles of Improvement Science. Just doing what everyone else does is not necessarily correct.
<Bob> So now we must understand what is happening. Can you now change the Daily Activity column so it is the same every day – say 60.
<Leslie> OK. Now my method works. The yield answers are the same.
<Bob> Yes.
<Leslie> Why is that?
<Bob> The story goes back to 1948 when Claude Shannon described “Information Theory”. When you create a ratio you start with two numbers and end up with only one which implies that information is lost in the conversion. Two numbers can only give one ratio, but that same ratio can be created by an infinite set of two numbers. The relationship is asymmetric. It is not an equality. And it has nothing to do with the precision of the data. When we throw data away we create ambiguity.
<Leslie> And in my data the activity by day does vary. There is a regular weekly cycle and some random noise. So the way I am calculating the average yield is incorrect, and the message I am sharing is distorted, so others can quite reasonably challenge the data, and because I was 100% confident I was correct I have been assuming that their resistance was just due to cussedness!
<Bob> There may be some cussedness too. It is sometimes difficult to separate skepticism and cynicism.
<Leslie> So what is the lesson here? There must be more to your example than just exposing a basic arithmetic error.
<Bob> The message is that when you feel resistance you must accept the possibility that you are making an error that you cannot see. The person demonstrating resistance can feel the emotional pain of a rhetoric-reality mismatch but can not explain the cause. You need to strive to see the problem through their eyes. It is OK to say “With respect I do not see it that way because …”.
<Leslie> So feeling “resistance” signals an opportunity for learning?
<Bob> Yes. Always.
<Leslie> So the better response is to pull back and to check assumptions and not to push forward and make the resistance greater or worse still break through the barrier of resistance, celebrate the victory, and then commit an inevitable and avoidable blunder – and then add insult to injury and blame someone else creating even more cynicism on the future.
<Bob> Yes. Well put.
<Leslie> Wow! And that is why patience and persistence are necessary. Not persistently pushing but persistently searching for the unconscious assumptions that underpin resistance; consistently using Reality as the arbiter; and having enough patience to let Reality tell its own story.
<Bob> Yes. And having the patience and persistence to keep learning from our confusion and to keep learning how to explain what we have discovered better and better.
<Leslie> Thanks Bob. Once again you have opened a new door for me.
<Bob> A door that was always there and yet hidden from view until it was illuminated with an example.