But these two concepts are diametrically opposed. How could these two ideals cohabitate within the same organization? Adhering to the first calls for casting the mold, drawing the lines, and creating a culture and belief system that calls for staying within those lines. Adhering to the second calls for breaking the mold, erasing the lines, and creating a culture and belief system that calls for stepping outside of those lines at every opportunity. How could you possibly run an organization that attempted to pursue both?

Alternating current: balance through timing
The trick is to strike a balance between stability and innovation through timing. By alternating between periods of stability and periods of innovation, you can create a stair-step approach to continuous improvement. The process, which takes a certain amount of leadership and management skill to pull off, involves introducing an innovation into a stable environment and managing that implementation until the innovation becomes institutionalized. Once that occurs, a new period of stability begins, but at a higher level of productivity than before. This period of stability is then allowed to continue for a certain length of time before a new innovation is introduced, initiating the cycle once again. These alternating periods of stability and innovation are illustrated in Figure A.

FIGURE A


By alternating between periods of stability and innovation, you can improve productivity, one step at a time. Roll over picture for a larger image.

Managing the transition
The moment that you introduce change into a stable environment, productivity decreases. There are a number of reasons for this phenomenon, including initial problems with the new way of doing things, problems with the new product, and the fact that new things just aren't done as efficiently as things that are familiar.

Knowing this, the prudent manager takes steps to minimize this wherever possible and to reduce the duration of this effect. Effectively managing this transition from stability to innovation is the key to succeeding in this process. With the right combination of pre-implementation preparation and post-implementation responsiveness, effective IT leaders can minimize this effect and maximize the potential of the innovation, moving quickly to the new period of stability at the next level.

Flying on instruments: managing through measurements
One of the most reliable indicators of the stability of a new IT system is the number of problems, or software defects, present in the system. Despite the ideals pursued in programs such as zero-defect strategies, all newly implemented software systems contain problems. These problems can range from poor design to missed requirements to simple coding errors. It would be erroneous to assume that a complex information technology system that had yet to be implemented could be deployed without any such defects.

Such perfection, even if it were attainable, would require pre-implementation testing and validation so far beyond the point of diminishing returns that no reasonable entity could afford the product, nor could they afford to wait for it. While the intent of all of the various quality assurance activities prior to implementation is to remove as many defects as possible, there will always be some defects remaining on the day the system goes into production. Managing the efficient removal of those remaining defects is the key to minimizing the productivity dip inherent in all new software implementations.