MAYA-principle: a successfactor for implementing change

The key to any well implemented change is how well the change is embedded inside the minds, behavior and actions of the involved people. They MAYA-principle, Most Advanced Yet Acceptable, can be very useful for planning the change to maximize the embedding of the change.

We first encountered the MAYA-principle in our research to develop a good Personal Branding process. It turned out that in our Personal Branding process the MAYA-principle was extremely useful for both branding the process in our company, and in branding our people.

The MAYA-principle is the invention of Raymond Loewy, an industrial designer. He believed that, "The adult public's taste is not necessarily ready to accept the logical solutions to their requirements if the solution implies too vast a departure from what they have been conditioned into accepting as the norm." Calling the concept "beauty through function and simplification," Loewy spent over 50 years streamlining everything from postage stamps to spacecrafts. "I'm looking for a very high index of visual retention," Loewy explained of his logos. "We want anyone who has seen the logotype even fleetingly to never forget it." Among Loewy's highly visible logotype designs are those for Shell Oil Company, Exxon, Greyhound and Nabisco.

What we learned from the MAYA-principle is that in order for something/somebody to be well placed and ‘sticky’ in the mind of the target audience, the basic message must be simple, recognizable, and at the same time very different from past experiences.

To give an example. We’re in the process of developing a product for the time being called “Project Portfolio Management the Symbision Way”. We believe from our experiences that we have a way of implementing and managing the Project Portfolio of an organization that is both very effective and practical in terms of realizing the organization’s objectives.

Of course there are others that claim to be similar, even better, and/or that it is done already 30 years ago. This is like ‘fighting a battle uphill’, you need to be hugely outnumbering the others and accept high losses. Well Sun Tsu claimed that the best way to win is to position yourself in such a way that you don’t need to fight. And here we believe the MAYA-principle can be very useful.

When the objective is to implement a change, the best way to have it implemented is by not fighting the people that are confronted with the change. Of course there are plenty of alternatives to the one that is chosen to be implemented, possibly some of them even are much better. Of course any good change is sound in its basic and of course people did in the past sound things as well, thus it resembles what was done years and years ago. If we have to address this kind of energy we’re fighting a battle uphill.

The change should be communicated visually with a high degree of retention. The communicated change should be simple enough to directly grasp directly the essence and apply to every detail of the change. And yet, the change must be experienced as something unique as something invitingly new.

During my career I’ve seen some people hopelessly fail in well implementing a change. I’ve stood aside people implementing the seemingly impossible as it was the easiest thing in the world. Even in situations that were ‘tainted’ with many years of failure. One of the key differences was how the change was communicated. If ‘not advanced’ enough, people ‘resisted’ because they kept asking why this change and not something like …. If ‘not acceptable’ enough, people ‘resisted’ because they couldn’t grasp it directly and needed more ‘time’ and ‘understanding’. The change agents that were successful had an easy to grasp message that was very different from what most, if not all, knew.

A very good example is Demings’ PDSA-circle. Over 60 years later it is still an essential part of improvement and quality programmes. The PDSA is so different from anything else before and after. The PDSA it is so simple and yet very profound. The PDSA grasps you visually. All the key ingredients of Loewy that he formulated into one single term: MAYA; Most Advanced, Yet Acceptable.

Team Forming

In forming the team three things are important:

having the right styles in the team creating shared values creating a shared vision

Style

In any change that has some impact, it is important to have a quick start. Momentum must be created and all the basic processes, procedures, tooling, etc must be in place as soon as possible. The style, start-up'ers, that is required is quite different from the next phase. Usually this phase takes between 3 to 6 months. To make the change lasting, slowly but with persistance, people have to be guided in the new way of working. The time frame associated with this is in the order of 18 to 24 months. The style, implementors, is very different from the style needed in the previos phase. One of the biggest pitfalls we experienced in many organizations in every type of industry, is that good people are in charge with the inappropriate style given the phase. The most success has been achieved by having a person with start-up style in place in the beginning and that the implementor is already present in the team. When the start-up nears completion, the implementor becomes more and more dominant and will take full charge at a given moment. The start-up'er will stay available and will emerge when a crisis might take place.

Shared values

Too often people want to start working too soon on the change. A change is never a one man show. People have to work closely together and sooner or later differences will pop-up. Having strong binding shared values ensure speedy and proper solutions whilst ensuring the relationship; making it usually even stronger. Shared values come into existance via the well known steps Forming-Storming-Norming-Performing-Adjourning. However, each of these steps must be carefully prepared and managed. People with natural leadership skills can do this on the fly, however, to ensure the right outcomes they do well by doing what others for sure must do: following Plan-Do-Study-Act for each stage. A start-up'er must embrace and breath-and-live the shared values that are created together very quickly. Implementors usually require more time and tend to focus on those shared values that in the implementing stage are so important.

Shared vision

Very quickly the team must embrace a strong, compelling and above all shared vision. It must be felt in the gutt. Frequently the initial vision changes during the process. If people only agreed, or can only agree to an initial explicit made vision, success is very unlikely. And, at the same time a strong shared vision is required to make people enthusiastic, to mobilize them. It is almost mandatory that the start-up'er has a strong vision. A strong vision provides certainty in times of uncertainty that any change will bring. The shared vision must address the why, the what, and the how-to.

The creation of shared values and a shared vision go nicely together. To make a change last it is necessary that the implementor is part of this process. Not only to ensure that the momentum of the change continues, but it is harmonius as well. This will make the transition much smoother and increases the overall success. A good start is a job half done.

PDSA

No, not a typo. There is definitely an "S" in PDSA rather than a "C". Most likely the "C"-version is best known because of the same behavior Deming tried to correct on so many occasions.

The well-known PDCA and SPC were invented by Walter A. Shewart   The impression he made on W. Edwards Deming was such, that Deming became a great advocate of Shewart's methods. It lay out the foundation of how Demming helped Japan after being defeated in WOII to become one of the biggest industrial players in the world.

"I called it Japan in 1950 and onward the Shewhart cycle. It went into immediate use in Japan under the name of the Deming cycle, and so it has been called there ever since" Out of the Crisis by W. Edwards Deming

Still, some of the credits have to go to Deming as well. In the words of Deming "Shewhart has the uncanny ability to make things difficult". So Deming spent a great deal on figuring out Shewhart's ideas, and devise ways to present them with his own twist. In this way the simple concept of PDCA came into existence.

The idea of PDCA was to act as a guide for all projects, not just quality projects.

PLAN	Objective Questions and predictions Plan to anwer the questions(who, what, where, when)
DO	Carry out the plan Collect the data Begin analysis of the data
STUDY	Complete the analysis of the data Compare data to predictions Summarize what was learned
ACT	What changes are to be made? Next cycle

When looking at the last bullet under Study, summarize what was learned, it is not hard to imagine why Deming changed the "C" into an "S". A check will only look whether something did or didn't meet the expectations. A study will look as well into why the deviations occured; both in a positive and negative sense.

In orde to do the Study correctly, the Plan must minimally contain the predictions (second bullet under Plan). And, ideally the Plan should contain the fundamental assumptions on which the predictions are based.

If you want to read a bit more about the background, there is a nice paper called Evolution of the PDSA Cycle.. It step-by-step shows how Shewhart's original ideas evolved into what we now know as PDSA.

Project Management versus Line Management

What is so special or different about Project Management? Nine out of ten will anser:

A project:

• Is unique
• Has (clear) predetermined deliverables
• Has a (fixed) start and finish
• Has a (limited) budget
• Works with a multi-disciplinair team

What we found is that regardless the type of industry, the above list is equally, if not more, applicable for non-projects - operations. Below is a generic description, but I like to invite you to verify if it is also applicable in your own experience.

Most products or services require quite a number of people that work together; purchasing, sales, production/operations. Even within a departement, especially in production/operations, there are different specialists involded. A multi-disciplinair team is not something unique to a project.

If a project finishes within 10% of the original budget, everybody is estathic. If an operations departement exceeds its budget by just over 5%, its manager isn't really hailed as a hero. A limited budget is not something unique to a project.

Most projects can get away with delivering the results later, sometimes months or even years later. Yes, there are some projects that will cause serious problems if the planned due-date is not met. Most organizations will get in serious problems when production/operations deliver later than originally promissed. Customers will switch suppliers when they can have a more reliable one; even when it comes at a premium. This because starting production/operations on time is necessary to meet the promissed due-dates; the amount of slack in production/operations is limited and starting later easily upsets the reliability of delivering other promissed products/services. A fixed start and finish is usually more important for production/operations than for projects.

The scope changes are quite normal in a project. It can be initiated by the impossibilities for whatever reason, changes in user requirements, whatever. The consequence is that quite a number of project deliver not the original agreed upon deliverables. This is for project not unusual. What is highly unusual is that production/operations delivers something different than what was promissed. Clear (predetermined) deliverables are more important in production/operations than for projects.

Like every project, every product/service is unique. If not because it was done by other people, by using different procedures, or by using (slightly) different materials then it is because of the perception and usage by the customer. If every product/service in production/operations was exactly the same, no quality control was necessary at any stage, no scrapping or reworking needed to be done. All products/services are unique.

Everybody feels that project management is different from line management. However the difference is not in what makes a project unique. The difference lays in what type of management is required to make the assignment a success.

http://geekandpoke.typepad.com/geekandpoke/2007/08/the-1015th-proj.html 

What we found was that the main difference between production/operations and projects lay in the necessity to manage uncertainty. That is, like in the cartoon, when you are 80⁺% certain  that without regular (pro)active intervention the assigment will not be completed successfully, you need project management. On the other hand, if you're 80⁺% certain  that without regular (pro)active intervention the assigment will be completed successfully, you should apply line management.

Doing the assignment without regular (pro)active intervention:

• 80⁺% probable FAILURE  -->  Project Management
• 80⁺% probable SUCCESS -->  Line Management

This rule of thumb also helps to decide which parts should be in-scope or out-of-scope in a project.