Productivity 5: What do we mean by "Productive"?

This is the fifth in the Productivity Series by Sarah Fraser. If you want to sign up to receive updates in your email inbox or your Reader (your choice) then go to the Blog and click on the Subscribe button.

So what do we mean when we say we want to be productive or we want our services to be productive? This is something we think we know but until we articulate exactly what we mean, the term is uncertain and ambiguous. What one person understands as productivity may not be the same meaning that another has.

The online dictionary provides a number of definitions and I liked the way it provides similar, related and dissimilar words.

ThesaurusLegend:  Synonyms Related Words Antonyms

Adj.	1.	productive - producing or capable of producing (especially abundantly); "productive farmland"; "his productive years"; "a productive collaboration" creative, originative - having the ability or power to create; "a creative imagination" fertile - capable of reproducing fruitful - productive or conducive to producing in abundance; "be fruitful and multiply" profitable - yielding material gain or profit; "profitable speculation on the stock market" successful - having succeeded or being marked by a favorable outcome; "a successful architect"; "a successful business venture" unproductive - not producing or capable of producing; "elimination of high-cost or unproductive industries"
	2.	productive - having the ability to produce or originate; "generative power"; "generative forces" generative
	3.	productive - yielding positive results successful - having succeeded or being marked by a favorable outcome; "a successful architect"; "a successful business venture"
	4.	productive - marked by great fruitfulness; "fertile farmland"; "a fat land"; "a productive vineyard"; "rich soil" fertile, rich, fat fruitful - productive or conducive to producing in abundance; "be fruitful and multiply"

Based on WordNet 3.0, Farlex clipart collection. © 2003-2008 Princeton University, Farlex Inc.

Using the above I came up with a number of questions to ask myself and others who claim to be working on increasing productivity:

1. If being productive can be defined as the capability to reproduce I wonder what productive spread is? I think it is about how efficiently we adopt and implement best practises, but that may not be the all of it.
2. If being productive is about abundance, how can we shift our mindset to one where we aim to use and create abundance rather than to streamline, cut and destroy services? How much impact can a mindset shift make?
3. If being productive is about yielding positive results, I wonder for whom these results are? How do we manage the differing expectations of different stakeholders?

How do you define "productive"?

Productivity 4: Leaders need to be productive

This is the fourth in the Productivity series by Sarah Fraser. Is is possible to have a productive organisation if the leader is not productive?

This short video by Patrick Collins focuses on how leaders can use the 80:20 rule to ensure they focus on what matters and what provides the value you provide as a leader.



If you think you know the 80:20 rule, then I challenge you to watch this video and test whether you put it into action.

Productivity 3: Productivity is more than a process

This the the third in a series of Productivity notes by Sarah Fraser. Productivity is more than a process.

New and improved policies can impact the design and implementation of efficiencies. For example, new recruitment, pension, appraisal and similar policy changes can impact processes not only in the short term but also long term. I do think that policy improvements are a necessary condition for many other efficiencies to be put into place.

Clinical productivity is often conceived as as "how hard are we sweating out clinical assets". Another way of looking at this is to see clinical productivity as the most up to date and best practice clinical methods being used. For example, continuing to carry our surgical procedures that are no longer proven to be effective is not productive.

Process productivity is the most familiar aspect of efficiency chasing in healthcare. Largely based on the principles of Lean (or reduced and less focused use of Lean) it is helpful but not enough to meet the healthcare challenges for the next 2 - 5 years.

Productivity 2: Reduced variation is not enough

This is the second in a series of productivity notes. Reducing variation is only part of the productivity process.

Reorganising processes so they are precise and prediction is helpful but not enough. In the diagram, the red dots are hitting the target in a predictable way. However, while they may be precise, they are not accurate. The green dots, with less precision, are more accurately placed around the bulls eye.

What I learn from this is the need to

• know the definition and position of the bullseye (what is the purpose of the process being improved)
• measure for accuracy as well as measuring variation
• fix accuracy first, then go for reduced variation

Productivity 1: Operational Efficiencies are not enough

This is a the first in a series of Productivity notes from Sarah Fraser.  Are your productivity projects innovative enough?

Organisations, like the NHS, will need to do more than streamline some processes as part of their cost saving initiatives. Many projects underway are badged as productivity improvement yet mostly they are about basic good management. For example, reducing DNAs (Did Not Attends), improving the Discharge Process, holding less meetings, carrying less stock etc. These are important and help to provide a good base form which to develop more innovative approaches, however, I am concerned few organisations considering gains in productivity through redesign and reconception of processes.

Many managers may feel like they are standing in the equivalent of the Victorian cotton mill with a clipboard in one hand and a stop watch in the other. Yes, it is possible to gain more efficiency from a process. I argue, however, that the leaps in efficiency come from reconceptualising what is being delivered. For example, in many countries for at least a decade, group appointments are available for patients with long term conditions. This is one small example of how rethinking a process can create both an efficiency and an improved patient experience.

Gartner's Hype Cycle is more useful than the Rogers' Diffusion of Innovation Curve

The classic Diffusion of Innovation curve was created by Everett Rogers back in the 60's, before many improvement facilitators were born.The terms, early adopter, majority, laggard etc have survived because they provide an explanation for something that is often difficult to fathom - how different groups of people respond differently to the same innovation. I have written at length (see previous posts and books) about the limitations of this theory and it inability to predict or provide guidance about what to do next.

Gartner introduced a theory in 1995 designed to explain what happens when a product or innovation is hyped, and then goes through various stages to acceptance. I like this theory because it steps away from the position of blaming people for not doing something and focuses more on the intrinsic value of the innovation or product.

Image from Wikipedia: Hype Cycle

The Trigger is the first breakthrough event that starts the interest in the product/innovation. This is followed by the peak of inflated expectations where the optimism for application outweighs the difficulties. The focus is on the possibility of the product/innovation. The trough of disillusionment comes when the failures start stacking up, expectations are not met, or something new comes along and this idea is no longer fashionable.  The slope of enlightenment may turn up years later when the original idea is tweaked and adapted and made more applicable. The plateau of productivity is reached when the product/innovation becomes mainstream due to its stability and usefulness.

Obviously, this curve will have different shapes for different products. Here are a couple of exercises:

1. Take one product/innovation which you believe to be at the Plateau of Productivity, and track back, seeing how the curve shapes with regards time and visibility (visibility = talked about, in the press, on agendas etc)
2. Map your current products, innovations and ideas on the cycle and see what you learn. Are they grouped in one area? What might you need to do to manage the transition to the next phase?

Let me know how you do by filling in the comments section below.