If you’ve been following the Lighthouse…

Then you are becoming aware of the power that Failure Modes and Effects Analysis and other techniques bring to both design and process professionals. And, if you are like most people, you are eager to persuade or encourage other people on your work teams to join you in the use of this potent tool. Even more to the point, you are excited about the potential benefits that your company and team can gain if you adopt logical methods like FMEA as a fundamental element of new product and process development.

Be prepared to be disappointed.

I am sorry to say that, but it is extremely unlikely that your colleagues will become excited about the benefits of FMEA studies. It might happen—if the circumstances are right—but it probably won’t. In fact, leading almost any kind of change initiative in any organization is a difficult and usually frustrating activity. For FMEA in particular, which requires serious effort for an exceptional outcome, it can even be more challenging.

There’s a natural and reasonable level of resistance to change that is fundamental to human nature, and if you try to ignore that fact, you are going to find nothing but disappointment. It’s also possible that you might try to smother resistance to change by challenging the underlying assumptions that lead to resistance.

If you are a fan of the Star Trek universe, you know what the terrifying and ruthless cybernetic race called the Borg say: “Resistance is futile.” And you also know what all of the races of the Federation do when they hear that—they resist. As the adventures of the various Trek timelines unfold, it becomes very clear that resistance works, and it works extremely well. Even when slavery based on advanced technology and exploitation via supercharged neuroscience is applied, beings who are “assimilated” resist the Borg collective.

In my long career, now spanning more than fifty years…

I’ve virtually never seen any organization embrace change in any meaningful way simply because there’s a better way to do something. The promise of a brighter future, by itself, is never sufficient to drive change.

Almost two decades ago, I discovered a principal that explains why change is so difficult. It was first proposed by David Gleicher in back in the early 1960’s, when I was a boy growing up in the world’s manufacturing hub at that time—Detroit. Since then, this idea has been restated many different ways, but the idea is always the same.

Gleicher’s idea is captured in a simple mathematical statement, an inequality condition, which determines whether or not change is possible in an organization. For change to occur, this inequality must be satisfied:

D x V x F > R

In this inequality, R is resistance to change. And R is always greater than zero. D is dissatisfaction with the way things are currently. V is your vision of what the future will look like if the change that’s being considered works as advertised. Finally, F is a measure of the likelihood that your detailed plans to accomplish change, particularly the first steps in your plans, will be successful.

While this has the look and feel of a precise mathematical statement, in reality we really can’t measure any of these factors in a quantifiable way. We can, though, look at D, V, and F and know if any of these are close to or equal to zero. And again, I want to emphasize that R is always greater than zero.

If you have no vision or you have no plans, V or F could be equal to zero. However, most people who are trying to lead change have a vision, and they also have realistic and practical plans to move toward the vision.

The common problem is that D—dissatisfaction with the status quo—is often or even usually close to zero. People tend to like the way things are, even if they are miserable about that state of affairs. But if they really are unhappy, is their unhappiness sufficient to embrace the pain of rejecting their reluctance to change?

On the other hand, some people think they can drive down resistance with logic or some form of persuasion–or even by forcing change with authority. But that never works, and what it usually does is increase the level of resistance. Resistance is nearly always driven by emotional factors—factors which can be present even if the underlying reason for those emotions have a weak basis in facts.

Another way to put it is to say, “Change will not happen if the pain of the change itself is greater than the pain the organization already feels.” Throughout human history, people have starved to death because they have been reluctant to embrace change. I once heard it said that people die every day because they are reluctant to leave the current and familiar circumstances they live in, even when those circumstances are threatening and dangerous.

So, if you are working for a company that’s making a lot of money, don’t think you are going to get enthusiasm for something (like better FMEA methods) just because the change you are proposing offers a better tomorrow. That’s true even if you know your company is leaving money on the table—or not getting the market share that would be possible with better products and processes.

If the status quo is fine, resistance will win.

Of course, sooner or later the marketplace may very well punish a company that becomes too set in its ways. When that happens, changes are more likely to be considered. That doesn’t mean change is certain, it just means that it will become possible. If the vision and the plans aren’t appealing, a change initiative is still doomed, because even threats won’t reduce resistance.

What can you do if you have the foresight to realize that the status quo is likely to lead your firm off the edge of a cliff, even if the current state of affairs seems fine? A determined change agent, one who has a strong sense of leadership, will undertake one of the most difficult professional tasks possible.

You will have to try and educate those around you, those above you, and those below you, about the true state of affairs. This will take hard information, not just worrisome predictions of coming disaster. And, be prepared for a long struggle. You’ll need to show how and why the current way of doing things isn’t as good as your competitors, and that’s not easy because you can rarely get directly comparable information of that sort.

You will also need to assess, compile, and circulate the information that infers or demonstrates that your current methods are inadequate. This will likely be a lonely and often unpopular thing to do—your boss might even tell you to stop. It’s even possible you could be fired. And you might not be thanked even if your information turns out to be correct.

Leading change is a difficult task.

Because FMEA is all about discovering and addressing things that might go wrong unless changes are made, you need to understand the change equation—and know something about what you can do to overcome resistance to change.

Finally, I have never seen an exception to this principal–not anywhere. Not in business, nor in my personal and family life.

Gleicher’s initial work has been discovered several times and attributed to many different people. For a look at the history of this powerful idea, check out the Wikipedia article on the subject here.