R:\Bau\Blog >_

Robert Bau 5/15/24 Robert Bau 5/15/24

Going for gold • 5

Service Design for Ethical Circularity

Inspired by an article in Harvard Business Review about the underlying quests for corporate transformation (Anand & Barsoux, 2017), I have identified seven arenas where the power of service design can transform organizations, teams, and people. In this blog post, I explore Service Design for Ethical Circularity.

5. Service Design for Ethical Circularity

Purpose: Crafting approaches, strategies, services, processes, and tools to tackle social and environmental challenges in our world. This can be achieved by integrating systems thinking and circular design principles with behavioral design and strong ethical considerations.

Common themes: System boundaries, dynamics, interventions, and change. Ecological footprint. Life cycle thinking for products, services, and experiences. Upstream and downstream impact. Circular economy with sustainable and circular design strategies. Cognitive and behavioral science for sustainable habits, behaviors, and practices. Cultural, regional, and contextual sensitivity. Ethics and ethical conduct. Social equity. Human rights and working conditions. Diversity, equity, and inclusion. Fair trade practices. Economic viability – without exploiting people or depleting natural resources. Sustainable / circular business models. End-to-end transparency and accountability. Climate resilience and adaptability. Decarbonization. Regulatory and policy frameworks. Purpose-driven change and changemakers. Robust metrics, measurement tools, and dashboards to assess the relative effectiveness and performance of sustainability/circular initiatives.

Project archetypes:

Designing circular service systems. Developing service production and delivery systems based on circular economy principles to minimize environmental impact and build climate resilience across infrastructures, processes, workflows, touchpoints, and assets. This involves decarbonising operations, services, and assets, while promoting environmental responsibility and social governance across a wide range of suppliers, all without sacrificing service productivity or quality. Additionally, embedding circular properties into all touchpoints and assets across end-to-end customer experiences optimises resource use, eliminates waste, and encourages reuse, repurposing, and recycling.
Designing circular business models. Rethinking business models for circularity – such as product-as-a-service, sharing platforms, and take-back programs – to create new revenue streams, drive efficiencies, promote sustainability, and decrease the environmental footprint. This approach extends beyond developing new revenue models to also crafting fit-for-purpose service processes, orchestrating seamless stakeholder experiences, and designing intuitive consumer-facing channels and touchpoints.
Designing circular loops. Designing or redesigning feedback loops in a circular economy to reduce waste, extend product lifecycles, and promote reuse. This involves developing desirable and effective systems, services, and experiences for maintenance, refurbishment, repair, upgrading, repurposing, upcycling, redistribution, remanufacturing, and recycling.
Designing for circular mindsets & behaviors. Encouraging the adoption of circular mindsets, principles, and rituals in daily life through consumer-centric initiatives and interventions. This includes developing educational campaigns, interactive experiences, incentive schemes, actionable dashboards, and practical tools that inspire individuals, households, and communities to integrate circular practices into their everyday routines.
Fostering culture of ethical circularity. Instilling circular mindsets, principles, and rituals in the workplace through organization-wide initiatives and interventions. This involves developing strategic frameworks, training programs, incentive schemes, hands-on playbooks, actionable dashboards, and practical tools to integrate circular and ethical principles into all aspects of operations and teamwork.

Note: Eliminating waste from service creation, production, and delivery is a key focus of the Service Design for Operational Excellence arena. For more details, check out my blog post Going for gold • 4.

Complementary methodologies and toolkits: Systems thinking. Life cycle thinking. Disruptive design. Design for sustainability and circular economy. Nudge theory and behavioral change. DEI design. Theory of Change. Storytelling.

Supplementary methodologies and toolkits: Design thinking. Human-centered design. Process design. Business model innovation. Knowledge management. Change management.

Exploring the problem space: Understanding the broader context. Mapping and assessing systems, value chains, and lifecycles. Identifying stakeholder motivations and barriers. Evaluating the fairness and ethical implications of current practices. Analyzing existing policies and regulations. Framing opportunity spaces for improvement / intervention. Determining ambition levels. Establishing objectives, defining KPIs, and setting baselines. Crafting tentative North Star. Designing provocations to challenge assumptions, provoke reactions, and stimulate discussions. Framing or reframing challenges / problems. Etc.

Exploring the solution space: Generating, screening, and prioritising ideas / interventions for systemic and behavioral change. Continuously developing, testing, and adapting tentative solutions through storytelling, rapid prototyping, experimentation, simulation, and piloting. Defining stakeholder and business impact. Crafting compelling stories and value cases for change. Identifying roadblocks, creating roadmaps, defining requirements, and mobilising resources for implementation and sustained success. Establishing a culture of continuous learning and improvement. Etc.

Project sponsors: Chief Sustainability Officer (CSO), SVP Sustainability, COO, CHRO, CEO, or equivalent

Desired outcomes: ↑ ethical conduct, ↑ compliance (with environmental and social regulations), ↑ resource efficiency, ↓ organizational waste, ↓ environmental impact, ↑ resilience and adaptability, ↑ employee engagement, ↑ customer engagement, ↑ brand reputation, ↑ core innovation, ↑ transformational innovation, ↑ organizational learning

For an introduction to systems thinking and disruptive design applied to sustainability and purpose-driven change, check out Richmond (n.d.), Acaroglu (2017), and The Unschool of Disruptive Design (2024).

Note: Thank you, Glyn Griffiths, sustainability expert at PA Dublin, for serving as such a valuable sounding board for this blog post. Any mistakes or shortcomings in the final piece are entirely my responsibility.

Service Design for Organizational Change will be covered in the next blog post.

References

Acaroglu, L. (2017). Tools for systems thinkers: The 6 fundamental concepts of systems thinking. Medium.

Anand, N. & Barsoux, J-L. (2017, Nov–Dec). What everyone gets wrong about change management. Poor execution is only part of the problem. Harvard Business Review.

Richmond, B. (n.d.). The thinking in systems thinking: Eight critical skills. The Systems Thinker.

The Unschool of Disruptive Design. (2024). Upskill with the Unschool.

Robert Bau 4/15/24 Robert Bau 4/15/24

Going for gold • 4

Service Design for Operational Excellence

4. Service Design for Operational Excellence

Purpose: Crafting approaches, strategies, services, processes, and tools to improve service productivity, quality, and profitability. Service quality is defined as a “high standard of performance that consistently meets or exceeds customer expectations” (Wirtz & Lovelock, 2016).

Note: See also my blog posts Going for gold • 5 and Lean & mean innovation machine • 1.

Common themes: The Toyota Way. Lean thinking. DOWNTIME (8 types of waste). Customer focus and feedback (Voice of the Customer). Service performance, productivity, and quality. Process mapping, journey mapping, and flow charting. Service quality gaps. Standardizing and optimizing workflows. Digitizing and digitalizing processes. Standardisation. Demand patterns, demand management, and capacity management. Automation and RPA (robotic process automation). Continuous learning and improvement. Kaizen. Data-driven, fact-based decision making. Simulation and modelling. Agile ways of working. ISO certification. Return on Quality. Etc.

Project archetypes:

Designing for waste elimination. Streamlining service processes (for value facilitation and co-creation) to reduce variability, inefficiencies, and environmental impact while enhancing service productivity and quality. Key strategies include identifying and reducing sources of waste (think: DOWNTIME); eliminating non-value-added activities, ensuring every step adds value from the customer’s perspective; digitizing and digitalizing processes and workflows; and establishing robust protocols and procedures for effective complaint handling and service recovery.
Note: See the four project archetypes below for additional strategies to minimize waste and maximize customer value.
Example: Amazon uses data-driven decision-making, lean supply chain practices, and advanced automation to streamline operations.
Designing for standardization and adaptability. Balancing standardization and adaptability to create reliable and repeatable systems, processes, and servicescapes that can be easily replicated or scaled (across different contexts, locations, and time zones) while maintaining the same levels of service quality, productivity, and profitability. This may involve taking a modular approach, where certain components are standardized to ensure consistency and efficiency (such as CRM systems, production processes, and onboarding), while other components are adapted to fit local needs and preferences (such as service delivery processes, marketing activities, and DEI training).
Note: Replicating involves duplicating service processes and systems exactly as they are in different contexts or locations. Scaling involves expanding service capabilities to handle increased volume, complexity, or geographical reach. (Inspired by Grönroos, 2007; Normann, 2000.)
Example: McDonald’s standardizes cooking processes, equipment, and training programs while localising (to a certain degree) restaurant designs, menu items, and marketing campaigns.
Designing for automation and augmentation in a team-centric way. Automating tasks and workflows using the power of NLP, RPA, and Intelligent Automation to improve accuracy, reduce time-to-completion, ensure reliability, enhance service productivity, elevate service quality, free up capacity, and improve quality of life (see, e.g., Gupta, 2023; Porwal, 2024). Additionally, by augmenting human capabilities with next-gen AI and XR technologies, project teams can evolve into ‘superteams,’ where human and non-human team members work seamlessly side by side (Schwartz et al., 2020). This approach is particularly valuable during moments in the project lifecycle that benefit from increased firepower and alternative perspectives – such as sensemaking, systematic ideation, or participatory decision-making. Successful implementation of automation and augmentation requires ethical guidelines, redesigned workflows, robust tools, emotional intelligence, data governance, and intentional upskilling.
Note: Enabling or emerging technologies for automation and augmentation include ML (machine learning), NLP (natural language processing), RPA (robotic process automation), adaptive AI, IA (intelligent automation, infusing RPA with AI), cobots (collaborative robots), digital twins, MR (mixed reality, combining elements of both VR and AR), blockchain, IoT (Internet of Things), AI-powered collaboration tools, drone technology, edge computing, edge AI, etc.
Example: The Salesforce Einstein Automate platform combines RPA with AI capabilities to help clients automate a wide range of tasks and workflows, such as customer support, personalized content, patient scheduling, inventory management, loan approval, risk assessment, and so on.
Designing for optimal utilization. Balancing demand and capacity to utilize staff, labor, equipment, and facilities as productively as possible, particularly in the face of fluctuating demand. Strategies to manage capacity include stretching capacity levels and adjusting capacity to match demand. Strategies to manage demand include reducing demand in peak times, increasing demand during low periods, configuring effective queuing systems, implementing reservation systems, and reducing perceived waiting time. (Wirtz & Lovelock, 2016)
Example: Starbucks uses demand forecasting and workforce management techniques to balance staffing levels with customer demand.
Fostering culture of continuous improvement. Building and nurturing a culture of continuous improvement to sustain operational excellence and competitiveness. This involves engaging all employees in identifying and implementing improvements. It also requires consistently acting on feedback from customers, employees, and other stakeholders. Additionally, promoting life-long learning where employees continually acquire new skills and knowledge, is essential. This bottom-up and outside-in approach fosters accountability, empowerment, and customer-centricity.
Example: Ritz-Carlton conducts daily line-ups where employees gather to share stories and discuss ways to enhance service, fostering a culture of continuous improvement and exceptional customer service.

Alternative/complementary methodologies & toolkits: Lean Service for optimizing service delivery and improving workplace efficiency (with tools such as value stream mapping, service blueprinting, 5S, Kaizen, and root cause analysis). Six Sigma for improving service quality by removing the causes of defects and minimizing variability in service production and delivery processes (tools: DMAIC, VOC, SIPOC, fishbone diagrams, control charts, FMEA, etc.). Total Quality Management for enhancing the quality and performance of service delivery (tools: PDCA, SERVQUAL, QFD, service blueprinting, Pareto analysis, root cause analysis, etc.). Theory of Constraints for addressing critical bottlenecks in service delivery (tools: current reality tree, future reality tree, five focusing steps, etc.). Business Process Reengineering for fundamentally rethinking and redesigning core service processes (tools: value stream mapping, process mapping, benchmarking, gap analysis, root cause analysis, etc.). Robotic Process Automation (RPA) for automating routine, repetitive, and rule-based tasks in service production and delivery processes, Intelligent Automation (IA) for handling non-routine, complex tasks and end-to-end workflows with cognitive abilities, and Hyperautomation for automating as many business and IT processes as possible. Queue management software for managing customer flows in real-time and simulation tools for predicting and optimizing queue performance (by modelling different scenarios). Agile and the Scrum framework for managing and delivering projects in service organizations (tools: sprint planning; product and sprint backlogs; daily scrums/standups; sprint reviews and retrospectives; epics and user stories; etc.).

Supplementary methodologies & toolkits: Design thinking and human-centered design. CX and EX management. Knowledge management. Change management.

Exploring the problem space: Understanding the broader context. Identifying customer needs and pain points. Mapping existing processes. Collecting and analyzing quantitative data. Identifying areas of inefficiency/waste. Framing opportunity spaces for improvement. Determining ambition levels. Establishing objectives, defining KPIs, and setting baselines. Crafting tentative North Star. Designing provocations to challenge assumptions, provoke reactions, and stimulate discussions. Framing or reframing challenges/problems. Etc.

Exploring the solution space: Generating, screening, and prioritising improvement ideas. Continuously testing and adapting tentative solutions through storytelling, rapid prototyping, experimentation, simulation, and piloting. Defining stakeholder and business impact. Crafting compelling stories and value cases for change. Identifying roadblocks, creating roadmaps, defining requirements, and mobilising resources for implementation and sustained success. Establishing a culture of continuous improvement and operational excellence – through Kaizen principles, leadership support, upskilling, continuous experimentation, feedback loops, customer involvement/co-creation, revamped performance management systems, revised KPIs, and transparent communication. Etc.

Project sponsors: CIO, COO, CHRO, CFO, CEO, or equivalent

Desired outcomes: ↑ efficiency, ↓ organizational waste, ↑ compliance, ↑ quality, ↑ cost savings, ↑ flexibility, ↑ employee engagement, ↑ customer satisfaction, ↑ customer loyalty, ↑ core/process innovation, ↑ organizational learning

Note: For a rock solid introduction to service processes, service productivity, service quality, and service performance in service organizations, check out chapters 8, 9, 14, and 15 in Wirtz & Lovelock (2016).

Power tip: For all project types, harness the power of data analytics – including descriptive, predictive, and prescriptive analytics – to gain deep insights into past performance, forecast future trends, and recommend optimal courses of action.

Service Design for Ethical Circularity will be covered in the next blog post.

References

Anand, N. & Barsoux, J-L. (2017, Nov–Dec). What everyone gets wrong about change management. Poor execution is only part of the problem. Harvard Business Review.

Grönroos, C. (2007). Service management and marketing: Customer management in service eompetition. John Wiley & Sons.

Gupta, S.K. (2023). The importance of human-centered automation in manufacturing. Forbes.

Normann, R. (2000). Service management: Strategy and leadership in service business. Wiley.

Porwal, Y. (2024). From RPA to Intelligent Automation to Hyperautomation – the progression of business process automation. Binmile.

Schwartz, J., et al. (2020, May). Superteams. Putting AI in the group. Deloitte.

Wirtz, J. & Lovelock, C. (2016). Services Marketing: People, technology, strategy (8th ed.). World Scientific Publishing.

Robert Bau 8/15/23 Robert Bau 8/15/23

Lean & mean innovation machine • 6

Nine types of waste in upstream projects

In the world of software/product development, waste refers to any team activity that does not add value from the customer’s perspective. By continuously identifying and eliminating waste, agile teams can dramatically boost productivity and improve quality of work. What are the implications for x-functional teams working in the fuzzy front-end of service innovation?

In this blog post, I will reintroduce the nine types of waste, present five strategic ways to eliminate waste, and discuss the pros and cons of looking at team performance through the lens of lean thinking and agile practices.

Recap: Wastes 1–9 in upstream innovation projects

W1. The cost of incongruity. The team is creating project deliverables, assets, and solutions that do not seem to fit organizational quests, cultures, and/or capabilities.

W2. The cost of irrelevance. The team is creating deliverables, assets, and solutions that service actors do not seem to need, want, or use.

W3. The cost of complexity. The team is creating project deliverables, assets, and solutions that service actors find too complex to understand, implement, adopt, adapt, and/or reuse.

W4. The cost of rework. The team is altering delivered work that should have been done correctly but was not.

W5. The cost of idle/waiting time. The team (or team member) is waiting for input and/or spending time on low-priority/non-value-added steps, activities, or tasks.

W6. The cost of distractions. The team (or team member) is getting sidetracked by internal or external time-wasters.

W7. The cost of extraneous cognitive load. The team (or team member) is suffering from unneeded expenditure of mental energy.

W8. The cost of psychological distress. The team (or team member) is burdened with unhelpful stress, which may lead to physical, mental, and emotional exhaustion.

W9. The cost of non-utilized talent and knowledge loss. The team is suffering from underutilization and/or loss of knowledge, skills, and experience.

Figure 1. Nine types of waste in upstream innovation projects mapped to the dimensions Product, Process, and People. By continuously identifying and eliminating waste, agile teams can boost productivity (Process + People) and improve quality of work (Product + People).

Five strategic ways to reduce/minimize/eliminate wastes 1-9

► Take a step back and look at the bigger picture

Craft a human-centered, purpose-driven North Star; build a compelling case for change; and instill a sense of urgency (across the organization)
Uncover long-term opportunities for industry and market disruption (rather than ‘just’ chasing short-term value creation)
Identify portfolio gaps based on long-term consumer trends, emerging technology, and industry disruptions
Flatten hierarchies and smash silos through decentralized decision-making, self-managing units and groups, radical transparency, and knowledge sharing
Retrain leaders to become coaches and servant leaders (facilitative leadership)
Recruit people with a customer-centric, collaborative, creative, and entrepreneurial mindset
Promote agile and customer-centric ways of working, and recognize and reward the right behaviors
Drive continuous learning and improvement, encourage talent mobility and skill-building, and bolster diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts
Hold leaders accountable for healthy workplaces, lifestyles, and behaviors
Redesign/optimize team workflows for moments that matter in the project lifecycle (such as onboarding, data collection, and participatory decision-making) built on best practices and best-in-class collaboration tools
Build capabilities in machine learning, adaptive AI, and intelligent automation to add firepower and alternative perspectives in moments that matter (such as collective sensemaking and systematic ideation).
Shape compelling projects that provide purpose, meaning, focus, and direction for teams
Introduce systems, workflows, and rituals for capturing, storing, sharing, and transferring knowledge.

► Set teams & members up for success

Redesign recruiting & onboarding processes for better team composition and dynamics
Provide training to improve collaboration and boost team performance (critical thinking, lateral thinking, divergent & convergent thinking, hybrid work, etc.)
Clarify project purpose, project plan, and team roles & responsibilities (upfront or over time depending on the ambiguity and ‘fuzziness’ of the project)
Clarify project methodology upfront (and be mindful of mixing and matching methodologies & tools)
Discuss and agree upon the right mix of collaboration modes and tools for hybrid work environments
Manage expectations with project stakeholders and push back early on unreasonable deadlines
Build in slack in project plans
Build in recovery & rest time in and between projects

► Boost team adaptability, nimbleness, velocity, resilience, etc.

Make teams truly autonomous and self-organizing (encourage and empower leaders to let go)
Cultivate a strong, cohesive team culture with shared beliefs, attitudes, rituals, and habits
Embrace the upfront ambiguity and ‘fuzziness’ of upstream projects (don’t emerge/converge too quickly)
Challenge project assumptions, reframe problems, and revise hypotheses through research, experimentation, and prototyping
Insert ample opportunities for experimentation, prototyping, and stakeholder feedback into the end-to-end process
Identify strategic opportunities to stop, reflect, learn, and adapt throughout the process
Encourage in-project upskilling and x-skilling
Encourage teams to make project deliverables, assets, features, and solutions that intentionally can be reused for other projects/programs

► Streamline team workflows & dynamics

Introduce team rituals for feedback, reflection, learning, and adaptation (to continuously remove impediments and optimise the flow of value)
Instil a culture of continuous, multi-directional feedback within the team and between team and stakeholders
Make teams truly autonomous and self-organizing (leaders need to let go)
Encourage and embrace multiple perspectives, workstyles, and personalities
Agree upon team process and rituals for participatory/collaborative decision-making
Incorporate proactive solutions for conflict management
Build team empathy and pay attention to team health & wellness
Introduce the role of an independent process coach (like a Scrum Master)
Redesign workflows and introduce workflow automation of mundane tasks if possible
Use machine learning and adaptive AI to provide extra firepower and alternative perspectives when required
Shield team members from time-wasters (e.g., unnecessary administrative duties)
Simplify support processes and systems (e.g., time & expense management)

► Set stakeholders & end-users up for success

Manage expectations upfront with project stakeholders with regard to project purpose, plan, and timeline (in particular for upstream projects)
Co-create solutions with project stakeholders and end-users for better engagement, relevancy, and buy-in
Simplify and hide complexity in project deliverables, assets, and solutions whenever possible
Co-create business cases, roadmaps, and other assets to streamline implementation efforts
Make it easier for stakeholders and users to understand, embrace, and adopt delivered work through familiarity, compatibility, onboarding, training, incentivization, etc.
Educate/train end-users how to best use delivered work in their day-to-day work or lives

Pros and cons

What are the pros and cons of looking at team performance in upstream innovation projects through the lens of lean thinking and agile practices?

Advantages

Relentless focus on the customer/end-user
Relentless focus on team collaboration, productivity, and performance
Relentless focus on continuous feedback, learning, and improvement
Feels relevant for most (if not all) innovation & delivery methodologies

Disadvantages

Teams or individuals may be resistant to change
Teams may not be empowered to make decisions, overcome impediments, and optimise the flow of value
Teams may not embrace the notion of continuous feedback, learning, and improvement
Teams may struggle to resolve/handle ongoing tensions between productivity and quality of work in specific moments that matter in the project lifecycle (such as data collection & sensemaking or ideation & concepting)
Teams may encounter organizational impediments that prove hard to remove/reduce, such as inappropriate/unhelpful planning cycles, reporting structures, and performance management systems
Investment required for redesigned workflows, team upskilling, new collaboration tools, etc.
No direct reference to how to best manage the golden triangle of project management, or how an agile mindset flips the golden triangle on its head – see Team Asana (2022) for a brief introduction

References

Bau, R. (2020). Nine types of waste in software development [unpublished]. Assignment in PROJ_PMI 403-0. School of Professional Studies, Northwestern University.

Design Partners. (2022). Exploring the problem space: Unleashing the human potential in teams [unpublished]. Project work for DELL about the future of collaboration.

Sedano, T., Ralph, P., & Péraire, C. (2017). Software development waste [Conference paper]. ICSE 2017, Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Team Asana. (2022). What is the project management triangle and how can it help your team? Asana.

6/6

Robert Bau 8/1/23 Robert Bau 8/1/23

Lean & mean innovation machine • 5

Nine types of waste in upstream projects

In this blog post, I will introduce three more types of waste that may have an impact on team productivity (and ultimately quality of work) in upstream innovation projects.

Wastes 7–9 in upstream innovation projects

W7. The cost of extraneous cognitive load. The team (or team member) is suffering from unneeded expenditure of mental energy.

W8. The cost of psychological distress. The team (or team member) is burdened with unhelpful stress, which may lead to physical, mental, and emotional exhaustion.

W9. The cost of non-utilized talent and knowledge loss. The team is suffering from underutilization and/or loss of knowledge, skills, and experience.

Reasons why W7–9 may occur in upstream projects

Lack of empathy/support/empowerment. No sense of appreciation or recognition at work. No/limited control over process, workload, or deadlines. No/limited empathy between team members and/or between team and project stakeholders. No safe space for team members to be vulnerable, take risks, and trust each other. No appreciation or recognition for cultural differences in the team (based on ability, age, gender, ethnicity, expertise, etc.). No joint responsibility for the physical, mental, emotional, and social health of team members. No/limited leadership accountability and support for healthy workplaces, lifestyles, and behaviours. Inadequate/ineffectual workplace or team training for topics such as self-organization, hybrid work, emotional & cultural intelligence, continuous feedback & adaptation, and emotional & mental health. Team feedback to leadership, project owners, project sponsors, etc., often ignored or downplayed.
Lack of clarity and direction. Unclear/shifting project scope, purpose, goals, plans, deadlines, backlogs, etc. Unclear/shifting project roles and responsibilities. Ill-defined or poorly designed processes, workflows, and rituals. Poor rightsizing, sequencing, and prioritization of steps and tasks (due to poorly designed workflows, mismanagement of backlogs, scope bloat, etc.). Unclear/shifting/non-existent quality standards and acceptance criteria for project at hand. Scope and feature creep. Inappropriate choice/blend of project/innovation/delivery methodologies. Unnecessary, non-productive, and counterproductive meetings. Disorganized/cluttered digital and physical workspaces.
Lack of focus and engagement. Disengaged, unreliable, or AWOL team members and project stakeholders. No shared understanding of and commitment to project goals and vision. Inability to find purpose and meaning in the work. No sense of belonging and pride due to poor team cohesion/spirit/morale. Unnecessary multitasking due to constant project or task switching. Workday interruptions/diversions (due to social media, household members/pets, household chores, colleagues, pointless meetings/catch-ups, pointless administrative work, unnecessary travel/commuting, etc.). Inadequate/inappropriate team leadership style. Lack of learning/growth mindset within team. No buffer time (in projects or between projects) to recharge and refocus. Team/individual concerns around career progression and job security. Personal issues (e.g., health issues, family matters, financial concerns).
Lack of alignment and synchronisation. High team turnover or churn. No common sense of purpose. No shared beliefs, attitudes, habits, and rituals. Incomplete, incorrect, misleading, inefficient, or absent communication (especially in handoffs, asynchronous work, and hybrid work environments). Team imbalances in terms of composition and dynamics (too big, too small, too fluid, too static, too uniform, too diverse, etc.). Conflicting/contrasting team personalities and workstyles. Ineffectual and inefficient decision-making processes (too authoritarian, too consensus-driven, too myopic, too slow, etc.). Unresolved/lingering team or interpersonal conflicts. Hard-to-manage dependencies on partners, functions, and other teams.
Lack of (timely) information and feedback. No culture of rapid prototyping and experimentation. No culture of continuous feedback, learning, and adaptation. No/slow/insufficient/unclear feedback from project owners, sponsors, and stakeholders. Unreliable or missing project-related information (project documentation, research findings, clarifications, feedback, test results, approvals, etc.). Limited knowledge transfer between team members, teams, and organizational silos. Inadequate systems for systematic feedback and/or knowledge management.
Lack of (timely) access to resources. Hard-to-use, inflexible, unreliable, unavailable, or missing collaboration tools and enablers (think: spaces, furniture, equipment, applications, supporting services, rituals, etc.). Hard-to-find, hard-to-access, or hard-to-utilize resources pertinent to the project at hand (think: data, information, facilities, equipment, software, infrastructure, methods & tools, expertise, leadership, partnerships, etc.).
(Inspired by Sedano et al., 2017; Bau, 2020; Design Partners, 2022; Gallo, 2023; Fernandez, 2016)

References

Bau, R. (2020). Nine types of waste in software development [unpublished]. Assignment in PROJ_PMI 403-0. School of Professional Studies, Northwestern University.

Design Partners. (2022). Exploring the problem space: Unleashing the human potential in teams [unpublished]. Project work for DELL about the future of collaboration.

Fernandez, R. (2016, January). Help Your Team Manage Stress, Anxiety, and Burnout. Harvard Business Review.

Gallo, A. (2023, February). What Is Psychological Safety? Harvard Business Review.

Sedano, T., Ralph, P., & Péraire, C. (2017). Software development waste [Conference paper]. ICSE 2017, Buenos Aires, Argentina.

5/6

Robert Bau 6/1/23 Robert Bau 6/1/23

Lean & mean innovation machine • 4

Nine types of waste in upstream projects

In this blog post, I will introduce three types of waste that may have an impact on team productivity in upstream innovation projects. Why does it take longer than expected for the team to deliver project-related activities, deliverables, assets, and solutions that meet tacit/explicit quality standards and acceptance criteria?

Wastes 4–6 in upstream innovation projects

W4. The cost of rework. The team is altering delivered work (deliverables, assets, and solutions for value creation, facilitation, and co-creation) that should have been done correctly but was not.

W5. The cost of idle/waiting time. The team (or team member) is waiting for input and/or spending time on low-priority/non-value-added steps, activities, or tasks.

W6. The cost of distractions. The team (or team member) is getting sidetracked by internal or external time-wasters.

Reasons why W4–6 may occur in upstream projects

Lack of clarity and direction. Unclear/shifting project scope, purpose, goals, plans, deadlines, backlogs, etc. Unclear/shifting project roles and responsibilities. Ill-defined or poorly designed processes, workflows, and rituals. Poor rightsizing, sequencing, and prioritization of steps and tasks (due to poorly designed workflows, mismanagement of backlogs, etc.). Unclear/shifting/non-existent quality standards and acceptance criteria for project at hand. Inappropriate choice/blend of project/innovation/delivery methodologies. Unnecessary, non-productive, and counterproductive meetings. Disorganized/cluttered digital and physical workspaces.
Lack of focus and engagement. Disengaged, unreliable, or AWOL team members and project stakeholders. No shared understanding of and commitment to project goals and vision. No sense of belonging and pride due to poor team cohesion/spirit/morale. Unnecessary multitasking due to constant project or task switching. Procrastination. Workday interruptions/diversions (due to social media, household members/pets, household chores, colleagues, pointless meetings/catch-ups, pointless administrative work, unnecessary travel/commuting, etc.). Inadequate/inappropriate team leadership style. Insufficient team capabilities and experience.
Lack of alignment and synchronisation. No common sense of purpose. No shared beliefs, attitudes, habits, and rituals. Incomplete, incorrect, misleading, inefficient, or absent communication (especially in handoffs, asynchronous work, and hybrid work environments). Team imbalances in terms of composition and dynamics (too big, too small, too fluid, too static, too uniform, too diverse, etc.). Conflicting/contrasting team personalities and workstyles. Ineffectual and inefficient decision-making processes (too authoritarian, too consensus-driven, too myopic, too slow, etc.). Unresolved/lingering team or interpersonal conflicts. Hard-to-manage dependencies on partners, functions, and other teams.
Lack of (timely) information and feedback. No culture of rapid prototyping and experimentation. No culture of continuous feedback, learning, and adaptation. No/slow/insufficient/unclear feedback from project owners, sponsors, and stakeholders. Unreliable or missing project-related information (project documentation, research findings, clarifications, feedback, test results, approvals, etc.).
Lack of (timely) access to resources. Hard-to-use, inflexible, unreliable, unavailable, or missing collaboration tools and enablers (think: spaces, furniture, equipment, applications, supporting services, rituals, etc.). Hard-to-find, hard-to-access, or hard-to-utilize resources pertinent to the project at hand (think: data, information, facilities, equipment, software, infrastructure, methods & tools, expertise, leadership, partnerships, etc.)
(Inspired by Sedano et al., 2017; Bau, 2020; Design Partners, 2022; Brower, 2023; Christiansen, 2023)

Wastes 7 to 9 will be covered in the next blog post.

References

Bau, R. (2020). Nine types of waste in software development [unpublished]. Assignment in PROJ_PMI 403-0. School of Professional Studies, Northwestern University.

Brower, T. (2023, June). Distraction, diversion and discontent: The truth about remote work today. Forbes.

Christiansen, B. (2023, May). Defining idle time: How to calculate, interpret, and improve it. Limble.

Design Partners. (2022). Exploring the problem space: Unleashing the human potential in teams [unpublished]. Project work for DELL about the future of collaboration.

Sedano, T., Ralph, P., & Péraire, C. (2017). Software development waste [Conference paper]. ICSE 2017, Buenos Aires, Argentina.

4/6

Robert Bau 6/1/22 Robert Bau 6/1/22

Lean & mean innovation machine • 3

Nine types of waste in upstream projects

In this blog post, I will introduce three types of waste that might may have an impact on quality of work in upstream service innovation projects. The following two blog posts will cover the remaining six types of waste.

Wastes 1–3 in upstream innovation projects

W1. The cost of incongruity. The team is creating project deliverables, assets, and solutions (for value creation, facilitation, and co-creation) that do not seem to fit organizational quests, cultures, and/or capabilities.

W2. The cost of irrelevance. The team is creating deliverables, assets, and solutions that service actors (customers, frontline employees, backstage teams, etc.) do not seem to need, want, or use.

W3. The cost of complexity. The team is creating project deliverables, assets, and solutions that service actors find too complex to understand, implement, adopt, adapt, and/or reuse.

Three big reasons why W1–3 may occur in upstream projects

► Suboptimal ways of working (inspired by Bau, 2020; Sedano et al., 2017; Mersino, 2015; Martin, n.d.; The Global Metacognition Institute, n.d.)

Lack of clarity. Unclear/shifting project scope, purpose, goals, and priorities. Unclear/shifting project roles and responsibilities. Ambiguous/volatile market conditions.
Lack of contextual awareness. Flawed/insufficient knowledge of long-term trends, external environment, organizational quests, organizational culture (and sub-cultures), stakeholder needs, etc.
Lack of empathy. Flawed/insufficient knowledge of service actors (due to arrogance, erroneous assumptions, blind spots, limited research, flawed personas, instable markets, flawed/biased data, etc.).
Lack of critical thinking. Inability to question/challenge briefs, problem statements, hypotheses, requirements, constraints, boundaries, assumptions, labels, etc. – even in the light of new/overwhelming evidence.
Lack of lateral thinking. Inability to generate and screen multiple alternatives (perspectives, options, ideas, etc.) throughout the process.
Lack of simplicity. Inability to address scope creep, verbosity, cluttered thinking, conflicting perspectives, bloated ideas, convoluted segmentation, fuzzy target groups, feature creep, etc.
Lack of modularity. Inability to create solutions based on the notion of interchangeable modules and shared platforms.
Lack of feedback. No/slow/insufficient feedback from project owners, sponsors, and stakeholders during the project.
Lack of metacognitive skills. Inability to identify gaps in knowledge and understanding inside and outside the team. Inability to critically evaluate the validity, credibility, and reliability of knowledge & information sources. Inability to continuously reflect, learn, and adapt during the project. Etc.
Lack of knowledge transfer. No/limited knowledge transfer between team members, between teams, and between team and organization.

► Internal barriers to adoption (inspired by Abernathy & Clark, 1985; Johnson & Scholes, 1999; Day, 2007)

Lack of institutional & technical knowledge. Flawed/insufficient understanding of the organizational capabilities and technical requirements required for the delivery, implementation, and maintenance of envisioned solutions.
Lack of suitability. Project owners feel that envisioned solutions are not aligned with organizational purpose, vision, goals, strategies, portfolio strategy, etc.
Lack of familiarity. Project owners feel that envisioned solutions are distant to existing business models, technical competencies, and markets.
Lack of feasibility. Project owners feel that the organisation/ecosystem lacks the necessary resources and capabilities to utilize project deliverables and deliver envisioned solutions.
Lack of acceptability (in terms of the risk-reward balance). Project owners feel that the chance of success is too low and/or the projected impact is not substantial enough (see blog post Get the balance right! • 5).
Lack of motivation/commitment. No/flawed/insufficient onboarding, training, and incentivization of onstage employees and backstage teams. No shared sense of purpose and meaning in either the work or the impact delivered.
Lack of urgency. No/limited sense of urgency for change across the organization. No purpose-driven, aspirational vision (North Star) that can provide meaning, focus, and direction.

► External barriers to adoption (inspired by Rogers, 2003; Linares, 2021)

Lack of simplicity. The new solutions are perceived by change agents, influencers, and service actors to be difficult or challenging to understand, specify, buy, use, store, and recycle.
Lack of differentiation (or relative advantage). The new solutions are not perceived by change agents, influencers, and service actors to be different or superior to existing solutions in the market.
Lack of compatibility. The new solutions are not in harmony with prevailing norms, values, and beliefs. The new solutions do not fit seamlessly into existing lifestyles and experiences. The new solutions do not fit with existing ideas, networks, and solution ecosystems.
Lack of trialability & observability. The new solutions are deemed difficult to try, test, and experiment with (before purchase). The new solutions (and/or outcomes) are not visible, detectable, or perceptible to non-users.
Lack of familiarity. The new solutions may require onboarding, training, education, and incentivization (of change agents, influencers, and service actors) to encourage uptake and optimize usage.
Lack of representation & equity. The new solutions intentionally or unintentionally exclude marginalized groups from gaining access (equity of access), engaging fully in the end-to-end experience (equity of experience), or benefiting equally from potential outcomes (equity of impact).

Wastes 4 to 9 will be covered in the next two blog posts.

References

Abernathy, W.J. & Clark, K.B. (1985). Innovation: Mapping the winds of creative destruction. In: Tushman, M.L. & Moore, W.L. (Eds.), Readings in the management of innovation (2nd ed.). Harper Business.

Bau, R. (2020). Nine types of waste in software development [unpublished]. Assignment in PROJ_PMI 403-0. School of Professional Studies, Northwestern University.

Day, G. (2007, December). Is it real? Can we win? Is it worth doing? Managing risk and reward in an innovation portfolio. Harvard Business Review.

Johnson, G. & Scholes, K. (1999). Exploring corporate strategy. Prentice Hall.

Linares, M. (2021, April). Frameworks for measuring product inclusion and product equity. Medium.

Martin, T. (n.d.). All you need to know about modularization. Modular Management.

Rogers, E.M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Free Press.

Sedano, T., Ralph, P., & Péraire, C. (2017). Software development waste [Conference paper]. ICSE 2017, Buenos Aires, Argentina.

The Global Metacognition Institute. (n.d.). What are metacognitive skills?

3/6

Robert Bau 6/26/21 Robert Bau 6/26/21

Lean & mean innovation machine • 2

Nine types of waste in upstream projects

In this blog post, I will compare and contrast four ways to drive innovation (see table 1). This will help us map the nine types of waste to upstream projects (in the next three blog posts).

Before we begin, let me clarify my assumptions:

Service innovation teams work on projects that are classified as either upstream or downstream.
Upstream projects are about addressing complex challenges and exploring wicked problems in a systemic, people-first, and solution-agnostic way. Upstream teams follow a blended systems thinking and design thinking approach. Upstream teams are manager-led (see previous blog post).
Downstream projects are about developing and releasing specific inventions/solutions for specific customers in an incremental and iterative way. Downstream teams follow a blended lean startup and agile approach. Downstream teams are self-organizing (see previous blog post).
In both upstream and downstream projects, innovation teams and project stakeholders embark on a learning journey based on continuous experimentation, reflection, and adaptation.
Upstream projects may lead to any number of downstream projects. And downstream projects may spark the need for bigger-picture, upstream work. Hybrid projects may occur but are (arguably) not optimal from a learning perspective.

Four ways to drive innovation

Table 1. Side-by-side comparison of four ways to drive service innovation

In the next blog post, I will introduce three types of waste (out of nine) in upstream innovation projects.

References

Acaroglu, L. (2017). Tools for systems thinkers: Getting into systems dynamics… and bathtubs. Medium.

Beck, K., Beedle, M., Cockburn, A., Cunningham, W., Fowler, M., Grenning, J., Highsmith, J., Hunt, A., Jeffries, R., Kern, J., Marick, B., Martin, R., Mellor, S., Schwaber, K., Sutherland, J., Thomas, D., & van Bennekum, A. (2001). Manifesto for agile software development.

Blank, S. (2013, May). Why the lean start-up changes everything. Harvard Business Review.

Brown, T. (2008, June). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review.

Design Council. (2007). Eleven lessons: Managing design in eleven global brands. Desk research report. Design Council, UK.

Design Council. (2021). Beyond net zero. A systemic design approach. Design Council, UK.

Kim, Daniel H. (1999). Introduction to systems thinking. Pegasus Communications.

Mersino, A. (2015). Agile project management. Vitality.

Ries, E. (2011). The lean startup: How today’s entrepreneurs use continuous innovation to create radically successful businesses. Currency.

van Ael, K., Vandenbroeck, P., Ryan, A., & Jones, P. (2021). Systemic Design Toolkit Guide. Systemic Design Toolkit.

2/6

Robert Bau 5/31/21 Robert Bau 5/31/21

Lean & mean innovation machine • 1

Nine types of waste in upstream projects

In the world of software/product development, waste refers to any team activity that does not add value from the customer’s perspective. By continuously identifying and eliminating waste, agile teams can dramatically boost productivity and improve quality of work. What are the implications for x-capability teams working in the fuzzy front-end of service innovation?

Agile teams are self-organizing, adaptive, coordinated, collaborative, transparent, disciplined, and focused (on frequent delivery of what customers need). Agile teams are expected to organize, manage, and monitor their own work as well as resolve internal conflicts and disagreements. (See, e.g., Mersino, 2015) What can upstream innovation teams learn from lean thinking and agile practices in terms of eliminating waste, boosting team productivity, and improving quality of work? What types of waste can occur in upstream projects and what are the underlying causes?

Before diving into the nine types of waste for upstream innovation projects, I will set the stage by briefly introducing three overlapping topics: the major types of waste in software development; the dynamics of dysfunctional and high-performing teams respectively; and the characteristics of self-organizing teams.

Waste in software/product development

Thought leaders Mary and Tom Poppendieck covered the following seven types of waste in their Lean Software Development framework: Partially Done Work, Extra Features, Relearning, Handoffs, Task Switching, Delays, and Defects (Mersino, 2015).

Inspired by lean thinking and Poppendiecks’ work, Sedano et al. (2017) conducted an in-depth study of eight projects in a software development consultancy and identified nine types of waste: Building the wrong feature or product; Mismanaging the backlog; Rework; Unnecessarily complex solutions; Extraneous cognitive load; Psychological distress; Waiting/multitasking; Knowledge loss; and Ineffective communication. Reducing waste, by definition, improves efficiency and productivity.

Dysfunctional and high-performing teams

According to Patrick Lencioni (2002), management teams commonly struggle with five basic dysfunctions: Absence of trust, Fear of conflict, Lack of commitment, Avoidance of team accountability, and Inattention to team objectives. These dysfunctions cause confusion, misunderstanding, and negative morale. Needless to say, dysfunctional teams are not efficient and effective.

Related, a research team at Google studied how team composition and team dynamics affect team effectiveness and performance across the organization. Variables with a significant impact on effectiveness include psychological safety (team members feel safe to take risks and be vulnerable in front of each other), dependability (members get quality work done on time), structure and clarity (members have clear roles, plans, and goals), meaning (members find a sense of purpose in either the work itself or the output), and impact (members believe their work matters and creates change). (re:Work, n.d.) Positive team dynamics reduce project and organizational waste.

Self-organizing teams

According to Hackman (2002), there are four types of self-organizing teams based on the level or amount of authority given/delegated to them by leaders: manager-led teams, self-managing teams, self-designing teams, and self-governing teams. Manager-led teams have the least authority, while self-governing teams have the most. See figure 1.

Figure 1. Four types of teams based on the level of authority given/delegated to them by leaders (slightly adapted from Hackman, 2002).

Self-managing teams have the authority to organize, manage, and monitor their own work as well as resolve internal conflicts/disagreements. Self-designing teams have the additional authority to design the composition of the team and determine reporting structures. Self-governing teams have the additional authority to determine the purpose, set objectives, define success metrics, etc. (Hackman, 2002)

In the context of agile software/product development, self-organizing teams tend to be self-managing (see, e.g., Cohn, 2017). Acting as servant leaders, Scrum Masters play a significant role on these teams to reduce waste and improve productivity; for example, they coach team members in self-management and cross-functionality, help remove blockers and impediments to team productivity and progress, and facilitate stakeholder collaboration as requested or needed (Scrum.org, n.d.; Mersino, 2015; Jarrell, 2016).

Teams do not operate in a vacuum. Organizational leaders can drive self-organization and self-direction by encouraging collaborative play and co-creation across organizational silos and boundaries; by removing organizational impediments such as inappropriate/unhelpful planning cycles, reporting structures, and performance management systems; and by encouraging continuous learning, development, and growth across the organization. (Inspired by Bittner, n.d.; Urch Druskat and Wheeler, 2004; and Rigby, 2020.)

In the next blog post, I will compare and contrast four ways to drive service innovation. This will help us map the nine types of waste that can occur in upstream projects.

References:

Bittner, K. (2019, February). Agile leadership is the key to self-organization. Agile Know-How Magazine.

Cohn, M. (2017, August 15). Two types of authority leaders must give to self-organizing teams.

Hackman, J.R. (2002). Leading teams: Setting the stage for great performances. HBR Press.

Jarrell, J. (2016, May 9). The 3 levels of a Scrum Master removing impediments.

Lencioni, P. (2002). The five dysfunctions of a team: A leadership fable. Jossey-Bass.

Mersino, A. (2015). Agile project management. Vitality Chicago.

re:Work. (n.d.) Guide: Understand team effectiveness. Google.

Rigby, D. (2020, July 20). The agile organization: Balancing efficiency and innovation (even in tough times) [Webinar]. Harvard Business Review.

Scrum.org. (n.d.). What is a Scrum Master?

Sedano, T., Ralph, P., & Péraire, C. (2017). Software development waste [Conference paper]. ICSE 2017, Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Urch Druskat, V. & Wheeler, J.V. (2004, July 15). How to lead a self-managing team. MIT Sloan Review.

1/6

R:\Bau\Blog >_

Five strategic ways to reduce/minimize/eliminate wastes 1-9

Waste in software/product development

Dysfunctional and high-performing teams

Self-organizing teams

R:\Bau\Blog >_