Thoughts on resistance to Change, and examples of top organizations who overcame them. -by Patrick Neyman, PhD

1. Systems Change Implementation
Preliminary Draft Plan
Objective and Introduction:
The objective of systems change implementation is to move our business group into the proper
mode for the maturity of the product(s). This, as many tech companies, was founded on
innovation, and the systems model was the most appropriate for that task. Fluidity afforded
innovation. In the many years since, the product has reached maturity to the point of being a
commodity, so that our focus is customer satisfaction and competition neutralization. The
modern model of product life cycle, as used by such companies as Toyota and Intel and
sometimes dubbed the “S-curve”, is that system rigidity must progress with product maturity.
This follows from the philosophy that as the product matures into a commodity, quality and price
must be equally foremost considerations.
A commonly-held opinion is that systems necessarily stifle innovation. One argument to this
likely well-grounded fear is the success of the aforementioned Intel and Toyota, as well U.S.
Special Operation Forces. These three examples all incorporate what appears to the untrained
eye as the most rigid of systems. However, they have proven that proper systems implantation
affords flexibility and innovation. In fact, properly developed and implemented systems define
boundaries and best practices that can only be gained by the collective experience of (tens of)
thousands of uniquely talented individuals. Within these boundaries, innovative individuals may
exercise their unique talents while minimizing dead-ends. Such a system might be thought of as
Lean Design wherein such tools as Lean Design for Six Sigma, the Five Why’s and others
known by many names may be a valuable part of an innovator’s tool box.
Consider the recent growth of tires and wheels seen on the road today. The casual observer may
think it no big deal that wheels are nearly twice the diameter, and the tires one-fifth the profile
height of two decades ago. However, two decades ago even the best of wheel and tire
developers may have considered this an impossible task. Had it not been for systems in-place,
such as wheels must be round; X, Y and Z casting techniques have A,B, C limitations; likewise
for SRB cross-linking and belt-weaving techniques; such innovations would not have been
possible. Certainly, similar manufacturing boundaries were also in place, in addition to inter-
departmental cooperation systems. It is the latter that is most often accredited as the major
improvement of the late 20th and early 21st century.
Cooperation and communication between departments, disciplines and functionalities must
certainly be one of the greatest reducers of waste. When this is the case, each individual
contributor understands the input that will come from the necessary resources and the output
necessary for those to whom the individual contributor is a resource. In such a system, one may
focus on the most important and productive tasks, while significantly reducing unnecessary
redundancy. Further under such a system, necessary redundancy, for safety or quality..., may be
properly and expertly performed as a coordinated effort that affords an efficient system of checks
and balances.

2. Implementation of such a system is no easy task. Good and able personnel with long standing
have seen many systems come and go...and fail...and other good and talented people go as a
result. One must consider whether the proper approach is to “sell” the idea, or simply implement
it with explanation. While buy-in may take time, the true test of any system is success. If
system implementation were dependant on a popular vote, then no system, good or bad, will be
given the opportunity of the test. I submit that the approach of Alexander Hamilton (the Father
economist) whereby, in a democracy, the people or representatives of the people vote on the
proper person for the Executive office, without promises or obligations to powerful parties; and
that executive executes their office within the abilities, morals and ethics for which the executive
was voted into office. Hamilton held that the next vote will be the approval / disapproval of the
people; and is the proper implementation of the newly to-be-established democracy. A lesson of
Hamilton’s philosophy is that Thomas Jefferson used the opposite: sell the people on promises.
And so ensued the first mud-slinging campaign of the new democracy: a one-way dirty fight that
led to a slave-owner becoming the leader of the new “free” nation. Following this, Hamilton
went down in earlier-than-recent history as a mud-slinger because the beloved Thomas Jefferson
said it was so. Only recently was nobility and honor of Hamilton given its proper place.
Therefore, one may submit that popular vote, attained as always through making powerful allies
by appeasing their needs and fears is not conducive to a proper, fitting and effective system.
It is for these reasons that I submit that a time-honored system, proven through the success of
companies that implement it, and the failure of the competition that did not, is the proper path for
re-establishing the dominance of this great company that has lost its flexibility and become
stagnant in a system that is was most effective for the past, but improper for the present and
detrimental to the future. As proof I submit the following names:
Intel
Toyota
The U.S. Army
Best Regards,
Patrick J. Neyman, Ph. D., Sergeant, Paratrooper