1 Introduction

From Theory to Execution

Welcome to The HELIX Factor II - The Implementer’s Guide and Case

Study Workbook. This is the second book in the HELIX Factor series and
presents detailed instructions and examples on how to plan for, organize,
conduct and present the findings of a HELIX (process improvement /
reengineering) project. To enhance the ease of learning, the reader is
presented with a how-to approach in a case study format.
In the first book of The HELIX Factor series, the 17 key factors that
underscore the principles and philosophies of HELIX were presented. The
importance of aligning an organization’s strategic direction to its objectives
and to its Value-added Delivery Systems (VADS) were discussed.
If it has been a while since you read The HELIX Factor - the key to
streamlining your business processes, you might find it helpful to review
the essential principles and alignment concepts provided in the appendix
before you begin this book. Thus, there will be no confusion over the
terminology and general concepts presented in this Implementer’s guide.
As you venture into your first HELIX project, keep this guidebook with you.
For the best results, follow every step and procedure. Resist the urge to take
what appear to be shortcuts. Remember, it is not how fast but how well you
finish that counts.
This guidebook provides all the tools and techniques needed to organize and
conduct a HELIX project. The methods presented have been tested and fine
tuned for over a decade. You can expect your efforts to produce results that
are nothing short of impressive. Remember, achieving returns of 500 to 1,000
percent on HELIX projects is very common.
The guidebook is organized in the sequence of a project. It walks you through
each step needed to produce successful results.
First, you will learn how to identify winning projects. Next, you will learn
how to kick off projects to achieve energy, momentum and executive support.

1
From there, a realistic case study will be explored in detail to show you how
to perform the work needed to complete a project successfully. Finally, how
to package, present and implement project recommendations will be reviewed.
In short, this book contains everything you need to identify, conduct and
implement high-payback, process improvement / reengineering projects.

2
2 Identifying Winning Projects
Assessing Support, Payback and Succe ss

There seems to be an unlimited number of projects an organization can

pursue. A person’s success or failure in an organization is often based on the
outcome of projects on which he or she has worked. Ideally, people want to
get involved only with projects that are guaranteed to be successful.
Unfortunately, there are no guarantees. So how are winning projects
recognized? Do projects have inherent attributes that make some more likely
to succeed than others? What about payback? What is it? Does payback
mean a high return on investment, or is it driven by perception?

How Money is Spent

First, I want to explain how organizations spend money. The monies an
organization spends can be grouped into three categories. I call the first
category “positioning dollars”. Positioning dollars are those monies spent
with a specific objective or return on investment (ROI) in mind. Typically,
positioning dollars are future-oriented and highly visible. Capital
expenditures, research and development and various projects are budgeted in
terms of positioning dollars. Because of their high visibility, getting
positioning dollars usually requires a proof of concept, cost justification
studies, persuasion and political skill.
I call the second category “inertia dollars.” Inertia dollars are found on
income statements. They represent cost of sales, salaries and operating
expenses. Justification for these dollars is typically based on what was spent
the previous year. They are spread over multiple divisions and departments
among hundreds of accounts. The costs related to projects financed through
inertia dollars are difficult to track. Many unofficial (underground) initiatives
are paid for with inertia dollars.
The third category involves bias, preference and emotion. This type of
spending always takes the form of positioning or inertia dollars; however, the
justification process is an afterthought used to rationalize and justify the
spending. Although there are no studies to reference, I believe that about 50
percent of positioning dollar spending is really biased, preference and
emotional spending in disguise.
3
Process improvement, reengineering and organizational alignment projects
typically require positioning dollars. These types of projects can be justified
in two ways. The first way is to promise to reduce future costs. The concept
is that by spending positioning dollars now, the organization can save inertia
dollars in the future.
To determine the amount of savings or ROI requires an understanding of how
many inertia dollars are currently being spent compared to how many will be
spent after the project is completed. The difference is the “return” and should
exceed the cost of the project. This means that a project costing $250,000 in
positioning dollars would need to save $250,000 in inertia dollars to break
even. If it were to provide an annual return on investment of 15 percent over
the next three years, it would have to generate $362,500 in inertia dollar
savings ($250,000 [original investment] + $37,500 x 3 [15 percent return for 3
years]).
However, it gets more complicated than that. The monies being saved are
future dollars. Any good CFO will want to justify the project based on a
minimum ROI that takes into account the net present value of future cash
flows. Typically, in the absence of an ROI justification, the project will be
viewed as a cost without an underlying benefit and therefore will go nowhere.
Even harder to justify are projects that promise to increase revenues. These
types of projects require great salesmanship because the paybacks are focused
on forecasting the performance of customers, markets or investments, each
harder to control than costs.

The Resistance Factor

Because most projects threaten someone’s territory, they are met with varying
levels of resistance. This resistance is manifested in a number of ways. The
first way is resistance to the project being approved. This opposition may be
motivated by political or budgetary considerations. Whatever the reason, the
risk faced at this point is not getting the project approved.
Once the project is approved, resistance may then manifest itself as a lack of
cooperation and participation. This can be subtle or overt. Getting projects
approved without the right level of support is tantamount to committing
project suicide, since it is unlikely that the project will ever be completed on
time or within budget, if at all. In general, it is better to propose a project and
have it never be approved than it is to get a project approved and then fail in
its implementation.
Few organizations forgive someone who squanders millions of positioning
dollars. However, most organizations seem to unknowingly reward those who
4
squander millions of inertia dollars due to inefficient operations and work
processes. Remember, inertia dollars are buried and spread out among many
entities and accounts while positioning dollars are highly visible, both
financially and politically.
In assessing potentially winning projects, two levels of risk need to be
considered. First, is the risk of promoting the project and not getting it
approved? Second, is the risk of getting approval and failing to achieve the
promised objective or payback?

Success Criteria
When assessing a project’s probability for approval, consider the following:
Is there a good business case?
Be sure that the project has the potential for a higher-than-average ROI
and can be achieved within a reasonable period. Ideally, the ROI
should be a percentage greater than inflation or other competing
projects, and should be achievable within a reasonable period. For
example, most highly successful technology projects are completed in
18 to 30 months. A longer time frame increases the possibility of
technology changing or perhaps having to confront a different set of
needs.
Has low-hanging fruit been identified?
A project that starts providing paybacks right away is said to have low-
hanging fruit. These immediate paybacks often help fund the project
and build the team’s credibility to deliver. Always look for low-
hanging fruit. Do not forget about low-hanging fruit that might be
preference or bias motivated. Remember people tend to buy on
emotion not logic.
Is there grassroots support?
Assess whether the people in the rank-and-file buy into the project.
Getting their support will often influence their superior to support the
project. Bottom-up supported projects typically have a greater chance
of succeeding than top-down driven projects. On the other hand, top-
down driven projects have a better chance of being approved. Having
both types of project support is ideal.

Is there an executive sponsor?

5
 Start with the CEO and work down. Having the right sponsor may be
all that is needed. After all, in the final analysis, it is often not what the
project can achieve but who wants it that counts.
Is there a sense of urgency?
Many organizations urgently react to fixing something in order to avoid
experiencing painful situations. The greater the pain, the greater the
urgency to relieve the pain. This will increase the chance for project
approvals. Remember, it is management’s perception of pain that is
important. Sometimes management responds to perceived pain where
none really exists. Pain must be perceived and truly exist if a project is
going to be successful.
It is very difficult to convince someone to change if there is no pain.
That is one reason why people pursue habits like smoking, drinking or
taking drugs. The pain is future-based while pleasure is based on the
present. Companies are no different. They tend to do what feels good
at the moment, even though it will damage their future success.
Likewise, it is difficult to deliver true improvements where there is no
need. Pain that is merely perceived, but in fact is not present, usually
cures itself once the perception is corrected. Thus, unnecessary projects
rarely see completion.
Once the project has been approved, it needs to be assessed as to its
probability for successful completion. Here, the five preceding questions can
be used again. However, the greatest factor for potential success lies in the
answer to this question: Is the organization and the key people involved
committed to the project?
Commitment to a project often increases directly in proportion to a person’s
personal stake in its success. The worst form of commitment is verbal.
Assess what each person has to lose or gain by the project’s success. No
matter what the sponsorship and funding, lack of commitment will doom even
the best-intentioned or highest ROI projects.
There are no magic formulas for achieving the support, time and funding
needed to create a successful project. There are some criteria for assessing
which projects are most deserving, so beware of projects that have too many
negative answers to the previous questions.
To maximize the potential for success, consider breaking a project into small
pieces to deliver value on the completion of each piece. HELIX projects can
have either a scope that addresses an entire organization or one that is tailored
to address a single Value-added Delivery System (VADS).

6
Start with a single VADS as the scope. Often, these projects can be
completed quickly with big paybacks. A single VADS project can take from a
few weeks to about three months. Market the project as a “proof of concept”
study focused on introducing HELIX to the organization. Select a VADS that
top management and the workgroups involved view as currently inefficient
and expensive. The project’s goal should be to build consensus and to
identify opportunities for practical and cost-effective improvements.
Approaching the project in this way will minimize the political risk. It will be
funded with inertia dollars and maintain a low-profile posture. My experience
is that the implementation of the project’s recommendations will be
significant and impressive (over 100 percent ROI) making future projects
easier to initiate and complete. The level of grass roots acceptance of the
process will increase, as will your creditability.

7
3 Welcome to Jonathan, Mills Inc.
Introduction to the Case Study

This case study is based on a cross-section of actual projects, so it is very

realistic. However, in order to keep this case study manageable, it has been
simplified. The company, people and information contained within the case
study are fictitious and are not intended to represent any specific individual or
group of people. The company, called Jonathan, Mills, Inc. (JMI), is a
wholesale distribution company that sells fabric to interior designers. In
working through the case study, keep in mind that the tools and techniques are
totally independent from the case study data, example content and the industry
selected. They can be applied to any organization regardless of industry, size
or process function (planning, staff or line). At times, you might get so
engrossed in the case study’s content that you will forget about the lessons
being presented. For the best outcome, stay focused on the tools and
techniques.
Through this case study, each aspect of HELIX will be covered: from project
identification to developing project support to delivering the finished product.
Key areas presented include:
Project Planning and Estimating
Facilitating Management’s Objectives and Buy-in
Working with HELIX Facilitation Tools
Workflow Modeling and Mapping
Conducting Post-Work Session Diagnostics
Estimating Time and Cost of Implementation
Organizing, Packaging and Presenting Results
Each section will present theories, tools and techniques, followed by their
application within the context of the case study. This way, there will be dual
reference points. The first is an academic presentation, while the second are
real life examples that build one to the next. This approach will prove helpful

8
as an ongoing reference point during the planning, conducting and
implementing of actual HELIX projects.
In order to set the stage for conducting a HELIX project, some background on
the case study company is needed.
JMI sells primarily to large interior designers, retail outlets and large principal
buyers like hotels and developers. During the past 18 years, the company has
experienced average growth and has maintained its fair share of the market.
In recent years JMI has found itself losing market share and experiencing
virtually no growth. The company is concerned that its business processes are
out dated thus hampering its ability to compete.
Two of JMI’s competitors have recently gone through major reengineering
efforts that seem to have improved their bottom line by reducing costs
(downsizing). JMI rejects the notion of downsizing, and has always
considered itself strongly loyal to its 7,500 employees, many who have been
with the company since its inception 20 years ago.
You work for the HELIX Foundation (HF), a nonprofit organization. After
JMI’s CEO, Robert C. Jonathan, listened to a HELIX presentation, he became
convinced that a process improvement project using HELIX might provide
some needed insights into how to turn the company around. He was interested
specifically in the potential of aligning JMI’s strategic direction to its
operational processes. Mr. Jonathan arranged for a meeting between your
team and his top executives:
Cynthia Mills, Executive Vice President (EVP)
Michael Jacobs, Chief Financial Officer (CFO)
Brad Crenshaw, General Manager and Chief Information Officer (CIO)
Steven Ethridge, Vice President, Human Resources
Marie Richards, Vice President, Sales and Marketing
The purpose of the meeting was to provide you with some background on
JMI, as well as its current situation and future aspirations. Here is what you
learned:
The discussion centered on JMI’s belief that it needs to make major
improvements to the inventory and order management functions. For the last
two years, the company’s sales have stabilized at about $600 million (no
growth) even though the industry overall has enjoyed an eight percent growth
rate.

9
The average customer buys about three fabrics per order at about 100 to 150
yards per fabric. JMI’s markup is about 40 percent. Direct cost for fabric
ranges from $7.50 to $38.50 per yard, the average being about $28.50 per
yard. However, JMI does carry some very expensive lines that run as high as
$150 per yard. JMI receives about 150 orders per day.
At any given time, JMI’s active customers number about 5,000. The typical
customer orders about eight times a year. Inventory levels average about $60
million at any given time. Accounts receivables are currently averaging about
47 days in age. About 12 percent of orders are lost due to out-of-stock
inventory situations. A typical order takes about five days to ship and two
more days to bill.
When you asked to see JMI’s business plan, the executives smiled politely.
Ms. Mills stated that they (top management) were a tightly knit group who
shared a common understanding of the goals and plans of the company. As a
group, they felt no need to write it all down. Given this answer, you asked for
a briefing on JMI’s strategic direction and current year’s plan of action. At
the briefing you learned:

Vision
JMI wants to be the industry leader.
JMI would like the company to become public within the next three
years.

Plan
Increase sales about 20 percent a year.
Stabilize workforce at current levels.
Increase cash flow by $15 million a year.
As Ms. Mills stated, there appears to be 100 percent consensus among the
executive team. Another meeting would be scheduled after you had an
opportunity to digest the information JMI had given you.

What’s Going on at JMI?

At first blush, JMI seems to understand its situation and has a clear idea of
where it wants to go. But what does the data actually mean? To understand
all this, the data needs to be reviewed in concert with some of the alignment
10
concepts presented in The HELIX Factor (see appendix for summary of
alignment factors). This way, the team can identify any additional
information needed. Remember, it is just as important to know what is known
as it is to know what is not known.
As you conduct the initial management work session, look for information and
clues that help build an understanding of where potential misalignments
between stakeholder needs, strategic direction, business objectives and VADS
exist. This effort typically requires one or two work sessions with upper
management. The first session should focus on becoming comfortable and
familiar with your contacts and to learn how top management views the
situation. Understand their perspective as to what improvements need to
occur. Also, take advantage of the work session to increase the team’s
industry perspective. Be careful not to dominate the session by trying to
educate people about HELIX or lecture them about why alignment is so
important. Remember that this is a time to listen and learn, not to teach.
After the first session, the team needs to perform some diagnostics on the
collected data. The core project team (Facilitator and Analysts) does this
away from project participants. The focus of the diagnostics will be to:

Correlate and align the information collected.

Identify missing information and gaps in knowledge.
Identify potential alignment gaps.

Develop a list of questions to help explore and

validate the understanding of top management’s
needs.
Develop a basic plan of action for the project. Using the data
collected at the first meeting, the team can perform this diagnostic
process.

Correlating and aligning the information collected

When correlating information, look at both the explicit and the implicit
information collected. First, take each piece of collected information and
work from the company vision down to specifics. At JMI, the team explored
the following:

Vision
JMI wants to be the industry leader in fabric distribution.

11
 What does this mean? Does being the industry leader mean having
the highest sales, best bottom line, largest market share or best
reputation? If JMI defines an industry leader as one having the
highest sales and market share, then it might want a strategy of low
margins and aggressive credit terms. On the other hand, if the
bottom line is the goal, then the strategy might lean more toward
pursuing fewer but more profitable customers who will support
higher margins. The team will need to define clearly this “industry
leader” concept with JMI management.
JMI wants to take the company public within three years.
How does this align with becoming an industry leader? As an
industry leader, would JMI be attractive to future stockholders? If
so, then bottom line performance will be critical to its success.
However, if JMI is striving for the largest market share, then it may
become unattractive to investors. Here, the needs of future
stakeholders must be discussed.
Implicit to any vision or goal is the assumption that the originators
believe them to be good. We can assume that JMI’s management
believes that being the industry leader and going public is good. The
question is, good for whom? At the next meeting with JMI, the team
will want to hear JMI’s thoughts on how the two vision points would
benefit the following stakeholders:
 Customers
 Owners (current and future)
 Employees
 Community

12
Business Plan
JMI wants to increase sales about 20 percent a year.
Why 20 percent? Is 20 percent what JMI believes will make it the
industry leader? Why not 5 percent or 30 percent? It would be
erroneous to assume that this objective ties directly to the vision. It
may be that JMI is merely trying to recover some lost ground.
Is 20 percent achievable? What changes does JMI think it must
make in order to achieve this growth? What percent of the growth
will come from industry growth vs increased market share? Again,
the answers to these questions will help establish the degree of
alignment that exists between their vision and plan.
JMI wants to stabilize the workforce at about 7,500.
Why 7,500? From the work session, you know that reducing the
workforce is not philosophically desirable. How does JMI intend to
grow sales without increasing the number of employees? Does it
believe that the current workforce can take on the additional volume
that comes with 20 percent growth a year? If that is true, then JMI
must believe it has substantial unused capacity. How many
employees do comparable competitors employ?
Remember that the team is seeking to understand how the vision and
the plan support each other. Misalignment at this level will result in
operational confusion and chaos. Before attempting to solve low-
level issues, the team must understand any high-level anomalies that
might be driving the organization in the wrong direction.
JMI wants to increase cash flow by $15 million a year.
Again, why $15 million? What is driving this perceived need? Will
a strong cash position make the company more attractive to
investors? Is JMI planning to retire its debt, buy out competitors or
pursue large capital investments? Certainly, increased sales with
stable costs should improve cash flow, but will 20 percent growth
produce the $15 million needed?
By now, more questions have been raised by the data than have been
answered. That is good. The seeds for a productive dialogue with
management have been planted.

13
The Issues
JMI wants to make major improvements to its inventory and order
management functions.
While a number of statistics have been collected, it is unclear what
JMI wants to do about them other than make improvements. It
would be easy to assume that, since these statistics were provided in
the context of making improvements, JMI is not happy with one or
more of the following:
 Markup (40%)
 Average order size ($14,963)
 Number of active customers (5,000)
 Order frequency (8 per year)
 Inventory levels (average = $60 million)
 Outstanding account balances (average = 47 days)
 Out-of-stock situations (12%)
 Order processing times (end-to-end = 7 days)
The team needs to formulate questions that will help JMI contrast these
statistics with what it thinks they should be. Most likely, some of the statistics
will be targets for change while other statistics will not. The team will also
want to develop questions that help JMI determine how the planned
improvements will help the company achieve its vision and objectives.
Finally, the team needs JMI management to identify potential VADS for
review. At this point, signs are pointing to the VADS that are related to
selling products to customers.

The Questions
Using HELIX Factors 9 through 11 (see appendix for summary of the HELIX Factors) for
reference you can now create the questions to be explored at the next meeting
with JMI.
Factors #9 & #10 - Alignment of Stakeholder Needs to Strategic Direction
and Business Objectives. Conspicuously missing from JMI’s data was any
reference to its stakeholders and how JMI does, or wants to, add value to
them. This is not unusual since most organizations overlook this. Therefore,
the first questions should be aimed at clarifying how JMI sees its vision and
objectives benefiting the stakeholders.
The team should take care to watch its communication skills and not come
across as preachy or arrogant. The questions need to be structured to

14
encourage dialogue and to educate the team so it can propose the best
approach for helping JMI achieve its goals.
Reading the diagnostics on the vision and business plan, the team found itself
asking traditional “who, what, when, where, why, and how” questions. Here
are some examples of questions that could be formulated from the data so far.
What does being the industry leader mean to you (JMI)?
Who will benefit from JMI achieving the industry leader position?
Why is taking the company public important, and who will be the
beneficiaries by doing this?
What is the connection between becoming the industry leader and going
public?
What do the employees think of going public?
What do the customers think of going public?
How does increasing sales by 20 percent a year help JMI achieve a
leader position and eventually go public?
What has kept JMI from achieving this kind of growth in the past?
How much of the growth does JMI expect from general industry growth
vs. increased market share?
How does stabilizing the workforce at 7,500 support becoming an
industry leader, going public and growing at 20 percent a year?
Why does JMI want to increase cash flow by $15 million a year?
How does this cash flow increase support becoming an industry leader
and going public?
Certainly more questions might be developed. However, these should provide
an ample framework from which to work. In reviewing these questions,
notice they are open-ended in nature. They cannot be answered yes or no.
Also, notice that there are no right or wrong answers. Each question is
designed to foster dialogue and increase shared understandings.
Factor #11 - Alignment of Business Objectives to Value-added-Delivery
Systems and Process Groups. The next set of questions focus on the more
detailed operational data received from JMI. Here, the same open-ended,
dialogue-fostering approach is used for each question. The goal is to develop
an understanding and let JMI management reflect on the data gathered and
begin to develop some specific objectives. The questions target some of the
operational functions and related VADS for review.

15
Statistic Questions
How long should it take to ship and bill an order?
What is an acceptable level of orders lost due to out-of-stock situations?
How long should it take to collect an invoice for an order from an
average customer?
What should be the average value of inventory at any given time?
How many orders will JMI need to process each day in order to meet its
growth objectives?
What should be the average value of those orders?
How many of those orders will come from new customers vs increased
order frequency or size?
What changes to the 40 percent markup does JMI need to make to
support its objectives?

VADS Questions
What organizations within JMI participate in processing orders and
managing inventory?
How many different ways does JMI sell fabric?
What are the various stages through which a sale goes, starting from the
point at which a customer makes an inquiry through shipment and
payment for the product?
In what ways can JMI increase or decrease inventory?
Up to this point, the project team has performed some basic diagnostics based
on the information collected after one work session with JMI’s management.
So far the diagnostics performed centered around developing a series of
clarifying questions to be used in the second work session with JMI’s
management team. To assist the team in formulating the questions, HELIX
factors #9, #10 and #11 were utilized.
The questions developed in the first management work session will be
reviewed in the second session. As stated previously, when working through
the questions, it is important to remain cordial and friendly. The team should
expect to encounter some resistance during these and other types of
facilitation work sessions. Do not press too hard for answers. Instead, gather
whatever insights you can and come back to unanswered questions later.
Most likely, the team will leave the meeting with most of what they need.

16
You want to end with the knowledge that management felt the team listened,
heard and demonstrated an understanding of their needs and concerns.

Preparing for Management Work Session Two

Before going to the second management work session, the team needs to
organize its questions thus helping management focus and provide meaningful
answers. A flip chart, tape and a few fresh marking pens (three colors should
do) are needed for this work session. Using the flip chart, the team organizes
the questions in the form of an interactive presentation. As the team works
through each question, management’s responses are summarized on the flip
chart. This process will guarantee that management stays involved in the
session and reinforces their confidence that the team understands their
expectations.
The first page of the flip chart should state the goal of the session. In the JMI
example, it should read something like this:
The goal of this session is to demonstrate that the team understands
JMI’s objectives and to align the outcomes of the improvement project
with JMI’s strategic direction.
This type of statement helps to set the stage for the upcoming dialogue. It
reinforces the idea that the project is going to happen. It also sets an
objective, “To ensure that the outcomes of the improvement project support
JMI’s strategic direction”.
Each of the subsequent pages should focus on one question. At the top of
each page, list the facts or statistics from the first meeting that led to the
question. Next list the question. Under the question, leave enough room to
write a summary of the answers received.
Figure 3-1 presents the suggested format to be used for framing each question.
Figure 3-2 presents a sample question with enough blank space to write
answers
As each page is finished, remove it from the flip chart and tape it to the wall.
This will allow each data sheet to be kept in view throughout the work session
making it easy to refer to items when clarifying questions and it will also
demonstrate how much is being accomplished.
Certainly, many other tools that can be used to conduct a work session: white
boards, PC projection units or electronic white boards to name a few.
However, I have not found any medium as flexible and as effective as a flip
chart for facilitating this kind of work session. Posting completed flip charts
17
pages on the walls in full view of the work session participants allows for easy
reference and demonstrates what is getting accomplished.
Figure 3-1 - Flip Chart Question Format

Flip Chart Question Format

Statistics or Data that led to the Question

The Question

Summary of the Answer

18
Figure 3-2 - Sample of preformatted question.

JMI wants to become an industry leader.

JMI wants to grow 20% a year.
JMI wants to stabilize the workforce at 7,500
10. How does stabilizing the workforce at 7,500 support becoming
an industry leader, going public and growing at 20% a year?

Work Session #2 – Facilitating, Clarifying and Aligning

Dialogue
The second work session focuses on facilitating dialogue. Provide
management with the opportunity to reflect on its vision, objectives and plans.
The goal is to help management revisit the vision and objectives in context of
the questions developed. Do not be surprised if a lively discussion ensues
among the management team. It is through such animated discussions that
real issues surface and can be addressed in an open and candid manner. The
team’s role is to facilitate these discussions, using the summary answers from
the flip chart as a stimulus trigger for moving on.

19
Limit the work session to two hours. This pace will help maintain the work
session’s momentum and direction. In addition, keep in mind that time is
precious to everyone and even more so for executives.
Here is what was learned from the second work session with JMI’s
management:
What does being the industry leader mean to you (JMI)?
JMI wants to be the most profitable distributor within the industry. The
company’s management realizes that JMI cannot become the leader in
gross sales within the next three years. However, by taking most of
JMI’s planned growth to the bottom line, they believe JMI can become
the most profitable in terms of operating profit as a percent of gross
sales.
Who will benefit from JMI achieving the industry leader position?
JMI believes that everyone except its competitors will benefit from
achieving an industry leader position. The owners, Mr. Jonathan and
Ms. Mills, benefit because the company becomes worth more. The
employees benefit because JMI will be able to offer better salaries and
benefits. The customers benefit because JMI will have the means to
provide higher levels of customer service.
Why is taking the company public important, and who are the
beneficiaries of this?
Robert Jonathan is now 67 years old. Cynthia Mills is 63. They take a
great deal of pride in having taken JMI from a small organization 18
years ago to the successful business it is today. However, they feel that
if the company is to continue to prosper, it will need to grow and
expand. They also want to allow employees to share in the ownership
of the company. Finally, they would like to retire soon. Taking the
company public provides a vehicle for all these things to happen.
What is the connection between becoming the industry leader and going
public?
By becoming the industry leader, JMI will become a very attractive
company to investors. Management believes that achieving this position
What do the employees think of going public?
At first, the employees were not in favor of the concept, primarily due
to poor communications. As part of taking the company public, JMI
will set aside 20 percent of the offering for employees. Communicating
this to the rank and file breathed life into the operation. As Cynthia

20
Mills stated, “There is something in this for everyone and that’s the way
we want it.”
What do the customers think of going public?
There has not been any formal discussion with the customers over the
plan to go public. JMI’s management team feels that communicating
its plans to go public will require careful planning and should occur at
the right time and place.
How does increasing sales by 20 percent a year help JMI achieve a
leader position and eventually go public?
Achieving a 20-percent-growth-per-year track record will demonstrate that
JMI is on a strong growth path and is an aggressive competitor. This will
make JMI more attractive to investors. The 20 percent growth will also
exceed the current 8 percent trend in the industry. Based on JMI’s
calculations, although it needs only an 18 percent growth rate to achieve an
industry leader position, the extra 2 percent offers a safety net.
What has kept JMI from achieving this kind of growth in the past?
JMI believes that it has become inefficient over the years. Its
operations need to be streamlined, and its facilities, systems and
approaches should be upgraded. This is why the company is talking to
us.
How much of the growth does JMI see coming from general industry
growth vs. increased market share?
The industry has been growing at about 8 percent in recent years.
Based on this continued growth, JMI has projected that it will need to
make up the rest in increased market share. To do this, a very
aggressive marketing effort will need to be implemented.
How does stabilizing the workforce at 7,500 support becoming an
industry leader, going public and growing at 20 percent a year?
JMI has too many employees for its current volume. The management
hopes that their expansion efforts will allow the work force to become
efficient and productive. The management believes that downsizing is
a last resort and a sign of defeat. They also feel that by sharing this
point to its employees, the company will build momentum for the
growth effort. Since JMI has the capacity to support the growth, it can
do so in a relatively stable cost structure. Building a record of
accomplishment as an efficient and aggressive company can only
improve JMI’s image to prospective investors.
Why does JMI want to increase cash flow by $15 million a year?
21
JMI is relatively debt free. However, it is also relatively cash lean. The
management team understands that in order to streamline the operations
and facilities, it will probably need to invest capital. Preferably, this
capital will come from cash flow and not debt. The $15 million per
year represents the management team’s best guess of what the
expansion effort will cost.
How does this increase support becoming an industry leader and going
public?
To the extent that debt can be avoided and the capital investment is
successful, the increased cash flow strategy supports the overall goal.
How long should an order take to ship and bill?
Orders take about five days to process. Competitors average about four
days. JMI’s goal is to process an order, from point of order through
shipping, in 24 to 36 hours. All orders shipped should be billed the
following workday.
What is an acceptable level of orders lost caused by out-of-stock
situations?
JMI knows it will probably never tune the inventory to eliminate all out-of-
stock situations. However, JMI does not want this to exceed one percent.
The company wants to do this without creating massive overstocking
situations. Currently, the management agrees that JMI stocks too much
low-demand fabric and not enough high-demand fabric. They definitely
see the alignment of inventory levels to customer demand as an important
area for improvement.
How long should an average customer take to pay for an order?
JMI was not as interested in average collection periods as it was in changes
in customer’s paying habits. Certainly being paid quickly (30 days) would
be great. What management really wants is an early-warning system that
indicates when customers are changing their payment habits in a way that
negatively affects JMI.
What should the average value of inventory be at any given time?
JMI was quick to point out that this was very much related to the lost
orders and overstocking issues. Its first goal is to tune inventory levels to
reflect customer demand. Once that is achieved, JMI would like to work
on improving the inventory turnover rate. JMI firmly believes that a
properly tuned inventory would increase turnover and reduce the average
inventory from $60 million to about $40 million.

22
 How many orders will JMI need to process a day to meet its growth
objectives?
What should be the average value of those orders?
How many of those orders will come from new customers vs
increased order frequency or size?
The JMI team had not discussed these areas before. Their projections were
done at a macro level. However, Cynthia Mills saw the value in knowing
the answer to these questions. The team agreed that part of the project
should be to develop a model that would help them understand the impact
of the growth objective on order volume, frequency and value.
What changes to the 40 percent markup does JMI need to make to
support its objectives?
To stay competitive, JMI believes it will not be able to increase its
margins. However, by becoming more efficient and stabilizing operating
costs, JMI expects to keep more of the gross profit from sales.
What organizations within JMI participate in processing orders and
managing inventory?
This question generated the most discussion. The management had never
really thought in terms of organizations and processes before. It required a
few rough diagrams to help them visualize the processes. Consequently,
management identified the following groups:

Order Desk Field Sales Sampling

New Accounts Shipping Credit

Billing Collections Purchasing

Receiving Will Call Contracts

How many different ways does JMI sell fabric?

JMI sells fabric COD, on account and via contracts.
What are the various stages through which a sale goes, from the point a
customer makes an inquiry until the order is shipped and paid for?
Although it varies by the type of sale, the basic stages (from left to right)
are as follows:

23
 Open Quote Open Order Credit Approved Order

Shippable Order Shipped Order Billed Order

Paid Order

What are the ways JMI can increase or decrease inventory?

JMI identified the following ways to move fabric in and out of inventory:

Taking it back from

Buying it Selling it Throwing it away
customers

Finalizing the Data Gathered and Proposing the

Project
At this point in the project, the team has spent about three hours with JMI’s
management and a few hours performing some diagnostics on the data
collected. In the last meeting, the team facilitated answers to 22 questions
from JMI. The team now needs to review and perform a few diagnostics on
the answers to those 22 questions. As in all HELIX diagnostic work sessions,
this one should be done immediately after the meeting. To help do this, it is
best to schedule the team for the entire day. Conduct facilitation sessions
in the morning and perform the diagnostics during the rest of the day. At the
end of this diagnostic session, a project proposal will be produced. This
proposal will contain:
Objectives of the project
Scope of the project
Preliminary project plan (time line, tasks and level of effort)
Before meeting with JMI, the team had very little knowledge about the
company, its goals, objectives and challenges. After a few hours of
interfacing with the management, the team has discovered a great deal and
increased its understanding of JMI’s desires and expectations.
After every work session, always take some time to document the information
gathered. By doing this, new knowledge is not taken for granted. Becoming
consciously aware of new knowledge ensures that the whole team interprets
the information in the same way. The concept is to huddle and make sure
everyone is playing the same game and running the same plays. The

24
knowledge gains are documented throughout the 22 pages of flip chart paper.
The flip chart is good, too, because it clearly distills the data as it is collected
so the whole group sees it, thus helping to ensure consensus.
The first step is to formalize the data from the flip charts by simply entering
the data into a computer. It is best to do this in a group setting using a large
PC screen or PC projector unit.
At this point, some team members will be tempted to make their first
departure from HELIX. Typically new teams will want a secretary or clerk to
type up the data. Some questions may be: “Why do we all have to do the data
entry? Isn’t this a waste of our time?” The answer is this:
Doing the work as a team is critical to fostering continuing dialogue
and to avoiding misinterpretations of the data.
Using a football analogy, for instance, the team watches the game films
together. This way they maintain the same set of goals and strategies from the
team’s point of view.
The second step is to take the documented knowledge gained and formulate
the project’s objectives.
The third step is to correlate the data collected. To do this, develop a matrix.
This will help demonstrate alignment between the project objectives, JMI’s
stakeholders, vision and plans.
Finally, the results of the effort will be packaged into a proposal for
conducting a HELIX project.

S TEP 1 - F ORMALIZING TH E F LIP C H ARTS

The summarization of the 22 questions will serve as the documentation of the
flip chart data. Again, resist the urge to view this step as a clerical process.
The team needs to function as a single unit during these diagnostic sessions.
They must possess one mind and one understanding. Take turns at the
keyboard. Use this opportunity to have constructive dialogues.

S TEP 2 - F ORMULATING THE P ROJECT ’ S O BJECTIVES & S COPE

From the knowledge gained to date, the team can see that JMI has analyzed its
goals to become an industry leader and take the company public. Its plans to
grow 20 percent a year, stabilize the workforce and generate $15 million a
year in additional cash flow appear to support the vision. Finally, through the
answers received in the second work session, JMI’s management has
expressed some definite expectations related to improving its operations. The
25
project’s objective is to discover how those expectations can be satisfied.
Below is a summary of the expectations articulated to date:
The company can increase its volume without a significant increase in
operating costs. This allows it to add more profit to the bottom-line,
making JMI more attractive to investors when it goes public.
When the company is successful enough to go public, it will be able to
reward its employees by providing them with 20 percent ownership.
The company expects that by achieving its growth objectives it will
avoid any downsizing programs.
JMI anticipates that this project will help it to achieve the following:
Reduce order-processing time from five days to two or three days.
Reduce lost sales due to stock shortages from 12 percent to less than
1 percent of the orders taken.
Implement an early warning system for detecting changes in
customer payment habits.
Eventually reduce average inventory from $60 million to $40
million, improving inventory turnover by 33 percent.
Develop a model that would forecast the impact of achieving various
growth objectives on order volumes, order frequency and order
value.
Improve operating profit margin by becoming more efficient while
keeping gross profit margins at 40 percent.
With these expectations and the information gathered in questions 19 through
22, the team has the necessary data to establish the objectives of the project.
HELIX Factor # 5 - The Principle of Context states that objectives must be
presented so that the project participants can understand them in the context of
the jobs they perform.
For example, “In order to achieve our vision of becoming an industry leader,
taking our company public and providing our employees with an ownership
opportunity, we need to become more aggressive, focused and efficient. This
project signifies our first step in this quest. The objective of this project is to
discover ways to:
Improve our customer service and beat the competition by reducing the
time it takes to process an order through shipping, from five days to two
days.

26
 Increase our sales by over $40 million a year by keeping the number of
lost sales due to stock shortages to less than two a day.
Improve our collections by identifying when a customer has a three day
change in their paying habits.
Become the industry sales leader by increasing our sales volume by 30
orders a day.”
Notice that the objective does not try to address every expectation of JMI’s
management. Increasing inventory turns and developing predictive models
are difficult to express in terms of operational actions that need to be taken.
Often, they are side-bar objectives that can be achieved while achieving the
main objectives.
These objectives could be stated in many ways. What is important to
understand is the way in which the focus has been reduced to a few, very
tangible goals. The objectives reflect an opening context sentence or two
that aligns with the company’s vision. The project objectives are expressed
in operationally measurable terms so success will be easy to track.
Given these objectives, the team can construct a scope statement that reflects
the work to be done. Scope statements should identify what areas of the
business will be reviewed, the approach that will be deployed and the time
frame in which the work will be completed. The JMI scope might read
something like this:
The scope of this project will consist of reviewing the processes related to
sales (contract, on account, C.O.D. & returns), purchasing (replenishment,
new products) and inventory management with the intent of discovering ways
to:
Improve our customer service and beat the competition by reducing the
time it takes to process an order through shipping, from five days to two
days.
Increase our sales by over $40 million a year by keeping lost sales to
less than two per day because of insufficient inventory.
Improve our collections by identifying when a customer has a 3-day
change in their paying habits.
Become the industry sales leader by increasing our sales volume by 30
orders a day.
Participants in the project will consist of representatives from:

27
 Order Desk Field Sales Sampling

New Accounts Shipping Credit

Billing Collections Purchasing

Receiving Will Call Contracts

Representatives from these groups will work together in cross-functional,

collaborative teams to identify opportunities to streamline operations and
achieve the stated objectives. The project will be conducted over the next six
months and will culminate with a report to management targeting
improvement opportunities.
This scope of work provides a clear basis for organizing the project. It
restates the objective and clearly identifies the groups, the approach to be used
and the period for completion.
Keep in mind that the JMI case study is intended to provide a set of examples
from which to learn. Remember to focus on the organization of the material
and not on the specifics of the data being presented.

S TEP 3 - F ORMULATING THE P ROJECT P LAN AND C OST E STIMATE

To complete the proposal requires a project plan and associated project costs.
Since HELIX uses a very pragmatic series of steps, estimating the level of
effort and related costs of a project is relatively straight forward. The
following givens apply to the estimating process:
Every HELIX project consists of conducting a series of three
facilitation work sessions for each VADS identified. Each facilitation
work session is followed by a diagnostic work session to formalize and
correlate the data gathered (three facilitation work sessions and three
diagnostic work sessions).
Each facilitation work session is limited to 2½ hours.
Each subsequent diagnostic work session takes about eight hours per
person to complete.
Each facilitation work session is comprised of representatives from the
groups that participate in the VADS and two project team members
(facilitator and monitor).
Each non-team member project participant can expect to spend two
hours of data-collection time for every work session attended.

28
 The number of VADS and participants will change during the project
but not significantly. Remember that this is a discovery process, so
flexibility needs to be built into the plan and related estimates.
The management-report production process takes about 40 hours to
complete.
There are only three variables that need to be known to forecast the cost of the
project: 1) the number of VADS to be reviewed, 2) the number of participants
and 3) the hourly cost/rate of each participant. Given these three pieces of
data, the team can calculate the level of effort and the related costs required to
complete the project. Given the level of effort, the team can forecast the
duration of the project based on scheduling the facilitation and post-diagnostic
work sessions. A good general rule is to allow for one facilitation and one
diagnostic work session per week per facilitator/monitor team.
For the purposes of JMI, assume the following:
There is only one facilitator/monitor team.
There are six VADS to be reviewed; items in the (#) column are the
number of groups/participants involved.
Contract Sales (field sales, sampling, contracts, order desk, credit,
shipping, billing/collections) (7)
Sales on Account (order desk, credit, shipping, billing/collections)
(5)
New Account sales (field sales, new accounts, sampling, order desk,
credit, shipping, billing/collections) (8)
Backorder Sales (field sales, order desk, credit, purchasing,
shipping, receiving, billing, collections, accounts payable) (9)
Replenishment Purchasing (purchasing, receiving, accounts payable)
(3)
New Product Purchasing (marketing, purchasing, receiving,
sampling, field sales, accounts payable) (6)
The average cost per participant is $35 an hour.
The cost of the two-person team is $200 an hour.
Figure 3-3 provides a summary of the calculations based on the above
assumptions.

29
 JMI Staff Participants Cost Project Team
Facilitation
Post Session Facilitation
Session Cost Post Diagnostic
Costs ($35 x 2 Session Cost
($35 x 2.5 Session Cost
VADS (6) # hours x # of ($200 x 2.5 Total Cost
hours x # of ($200 x 8 hours
staff x 3 hours x 3
staff x 3 x 3 sessions)
sessions) sessions)
sessions)
Contract Sales 7 1,838 1,470 1,500 4,800 9,608
Sales on Account 5 1,313 1,050 1,500 4,800 8,663
Figure 3-3 — Level of Effort Estimate

New Account Sales 8 2,100 1,680 1,500 4,800 10,080

Backorder Sales 9 2,363 1,890 1,500 4,800 10,553

goes beyond the scope of this case study.

Replenishment 3 788 630 1,500 4,800 7,718
New Products 6 1,575 1,260 1,500 4,800 9,135
Total Base Cost 55,755
Report Packaging (40 hours @ $200 a team hour) 8,000
Allowance for New VADSs and changes in JMI participant levels (20%) 11,151
Total Estimated Project Cost 74,906
Estimated Weeks to Complete Project at One Facilitation/Diagnostic Work Session per Week 23

The logistics of scheduling dates and times for each specific work session

30
At this point, the team has developed the project’s objectives, scope and cost
estimates.

S TEP 4 - B UILDING TH E A LIGNMENT M ATRIX

Before a formal proposal can be drafted, the team needs to develop the
alignment matrix mentioned earlier. This matrix will help demonstrate that
the project’s objectives are aligned with JMI’s stakeholder needs, vision and
plan.
Figure 3-4 presents the matrix based on the data gathered.
Figure 3-4 - Project Objectives Alignment Matrix

Supports Value-added to
Project Objective Vision Plan Customers Owners Employees
Improve our customer Better sales and Supports 20% Improved Better service Reduced
service and beat the service levels growth service levels. levels improves frustration and
competition by reducing improves industry objective. sales. customer
the time it takes to process leadership complaints.
an order (from the order position.
desk through shipping)
from 5 days to 2 days.
Increase our sales by over Increased sales Supports 20% Improved Better service Reduced
$40 million a year by makes JMI more growth service levels. levels improves frustration and
keeping lost sales due to attractive to objective. sales. customer
stock shortages to less investors. Improves cash complaints.
than 2 a day. position.
Improve our collections by Better sales and Supports cash Avoids Improves value Moves them
identifying when a service levels flow objective embarrassing of company. closer to
customer has a 3-day improves industry and reduces bad debt ownership.
change in their paying leadership bad debts situations. Avoids
habits. position. downsizing.
Become the industry sales Better sales and Supports 20% Demonstrates Improves value Moves them
leader by increasing our service levels growth customer of company. closer to
sales volume by 30 orders improves industry objective. satisfaction ownership.
a day. leadership Improves cash with JMI's Avoids
position. position. products and downsizing.
services.

S TEP 5 - F ORMALIZING TH E P ROPOSAL

The proposal can be prepared once all the diagnostic and preparation work is
completed. Proposals for HELIX projects should be brief and to the point.

31
This will increase the probability that it will be read. Along with the proposal,
there should be a second document: the project workbook which contains all
the documentation assembled to date. Use the project workbook as an
important source of reference to answer management’s questions at the
proposal presentation.
There are many ways a successful proposal can be organized and presented.
Below is a structure for the proposal that has worked well:
Section 1 - Project Scope and Objectives
Section 2 - Scope of Work Performed to Date
Section 3 - Project Benefits and Alignment Matrix
Section 4 - Project Cost and Time Line for Completion
Section 5 - Project Work Schedule
Section 6 - Project Kick Off and Authorization to Proceed
The proposal should be limited to about 15 pages. The first section should
summarize everything that management needs to know to approve the project
(short description, costs, savings, ROI, timeframe and staff commitments).
The rest is backup and support material.
Assume at this point that the project has been approved, and the team is
moving forward at full steam. For the sake of brevity, the case study will be
limited at this point to two VADS: Sales on Account and Replenishment
Purchasing. The case study will be limited further as it moves deeper and
deeper into the details. Each reduction in scope will serve to enhance the
learning process.
Before launching into the project, the team needs to summarize what it knows.
So far, the team has met with management three times.
Although this number of meetings could vary based on the size and
geographic locations of the project, it should never take more than five
work sessions. If more than five are needed, it is usually due to lack of a
sponsor or that no one understands the project’s benefits.
At the first work session, the team received an orientation of
management’s vision, goals and expectations. It then developed a
series of questions for management and prepared them in a format that
would facilitate dialogue and understanding.

32
 Based on what was learned at the second meeting, the team formulated
the objectives, scope, costs and timeline for the project. It developed
an Alignment Matrix to satisfy itself that the project’s objectives
supported the company’s vision, business plan and stakeholder value.
Finally, the team formalized the work into a proposal that was brief and
to the point and presented it to the management team. Management
approved it.
Up to this point, the team has invested about 20 to 30 hours on the project
over a two-to-four-week period.
Take a moment to reflect on this. In under a week of effort, and in less than
one month’s time, the team has gone from ground zero to developing a
fundamental understanding of the business’ needs and objectives. They have
distilled that data into objectives that are compelling and translatable into
specific workflows. The team has a plan to share those objectives with JMI’s
knowledge workers. The team has the opportunity to facilitate these workers’
expertise and creativity through a series of cross-functional collaborations,
and thus jointly discover ways to achieve the project’s objectives.

33
A good leader provides a compelling
vision of the outcomes the organization
aspires to achieve.
A great leader knows how to engage an
organization’s workforce to determine
how to achieve the vision set forth.

34
4 Kicking Off the Project
Setting the Right Tone — Sending the Right Message

JMI management has now authorized the project. The first step toward a
successful
project is a proper kickoff. To do this, a formal kickoff meeting needs to be
held. At this meeting, at least one of the executive management team
members should be present to endorse the project. Ideally, the CEO would do
this. If the CEO is not available, then the next choice is to have the
endorsement made by an executive who represents the groups performing the
VADS.
If the project is of a strategic nature, as is JMI’s, it should be kicked off with a
formal event. Before the project kickoff event, those being assigned to work
on the project should be briefed in advance about the project’s scope,
objectives and their individual roles. Formal invitations should be sent for the
kickoff. Refreshments should be served. The goal is to begin building a team
and to impress on that team how important each person is to the project and to
the company.
The kickoff should be formal, yet social in nature. Each team member’s
rapport with the other members is crucial to the project’s success. As the
project progresses, the messages team members bring back to the work place
will have a major impact on both overall morale and implementation efforts.
Messages that support the project will build success. Messages that are
negative about the project will breed failure.
Often, the most difficult part of the project is selecting the project participants.
No matter how much effort is put into this, there are bound to be changes.
The key to selecting the project’s participants resides in the VADS to be
reviewed. If the number of VADS increase or decrease as the project unfolds,
the number of participants will also change. Typically, the number of a
project’s participants will need to be adjusted once or twice. The work effort
estimate (see figure 3-3) identifies the VADS within the project.

35
For each VADS included in the project, key knowledge workers from each
workgroup or department who perform the work will need to be identified. It
is important to recruit employees who actually perform the work on a daily
basis. Try not to fill the group with management and supervisory personnel.
A line supervisor, for example, who grew up through the ranks and is well
respected by subordinates, is acceptable. The objective is to get people who
live and breathe the VADS onto the cross-functional team.
Some workgroups usually participate in more than one of the VADS being
studied. In these cases, select more than one person from those workgroups to
participate. If there are multiple shifts involved, select people from different
shifts. Form the project team using participants who mirror the VADS as
closely as possible.
At this point, the case study consists of two VADS: Sales on Account and
Replenishment Purchasing. Based on the work done with upper management,
the following workgroups have tentatively been identified in ( ):
Sales on Account (order desk, credit, shipping, billing and collections)
Replenishment Purchasing (purchasing, receiving and accounts
payable)
Overall, there are eight workgroups. The team will, therefore, want at least
eight project participants, one from each area listed above. Since participation
in this project will be over and above the participant’s normal workload, the
team will want people who are energetic, highly motivated and well versed in
their job. They must be willing to undertake this additional responsibility and
continue to be accountable to the team as well as to their immediate
supervisors. Their supervisors and subsequent chain of command must be
supportive of the people’s work on the project. This is why it is so important
to have a project kickoff and that the project be properly endorsed by
executive management.
However, as the project progresses, be prepared to meet resistance from
middle management. Remember that resistance to change is natural. To
minimize this resistance, be prepared to offer constant feedback on the
project’s progress to supervisors and management. Do this on a one-to-one
basis. Use memos only as a confirmation tool. One technique is to conduct a
formal debriefing on the project’s progress about every two weeks. At the end
of the meeting, hand out a memo that covers the status as well. Keep each
meeting to 15 minutes or less.
Once the teams have been formed and the kickoff meeting completed, there is
only a little more administrative work to do. A tentative work-session
36
schedule needs to be developed. For each VADS, three work sessions will be
scheduled with the project participants. Each work session will be limited to
2½ hours. These work sessions should be scheduled at the beginning of the
week in the morning hours. Try to meet with each VADS group each week
once the sessions have started.
This means that an entire VADS should be able to be reviewed in about three
weeks from the date of the first work session. In the early stages of learning
HELIX, it is best to focus on one VADS at a time. It is better to take the
VADS sequentially than to rotate through them throughout the life of the
project. Since there are only two VADS to review, they will be done at the
same time. This will allow the team to complete the work session efforts in a
total of three weeks.
Figure 4-1 presents a typical schedule based on the case study.

37
Figure 4-1- Typical work schedule
Facilitation Work Session Diagnostic Work Session
VADS / Task Other Tasks, Date & Time
Date & Time Date & Time

Week 1 - Monday - 9 to Week 1 - Monday - 1 to

Sales on Account
11:30 am 5 pm

Tuesday - All Day

Week 2 - Monday - 9 to Week 2 - Monday - 1 to

11:30 am 5 pm

Week 2 - Wednesday - 15
Tuesday - All Day minute debriefing with
management - 11:45 am

Week 3 - Monday - 9 Week 3 - Monday - 1 to

to11:30 am 5 pm

Week 4 - Monday &

Tuesday - All Day Tuesday - Package
Results

Replenishment Week 1 - Wednesday - 9 Week 1 - Wednesday - 1

Purchasing to 11:30 am to 5 pm

Thursday - All Day

Week 2 - Wednesday - 9 Week 2 - Wednesday - 1

to 11:30 am to 5 pm

Week 2 - Friday - 15
Thursday - All Day minute debriefing with
management - 11:45

Week 3 - Wednesday - 9 Week 3 - Wednesday - 1

to 11:30 am to 5 pm

Week 4 - Wednesday &

Thursday - All Day Thursday - Package
Results

Present Findings &

Week 5 - To Be
Recommendations to
Announced
Top Management

This simple schedule is all that is needed to manage the case study. Feel free
to present it in any way that is appropriate for your organization. However,
keep it simple. At a major film studio, a twelve hundred-hour project was
successfully tracked and managed from a single piece of paper similar to the
schedule above. It was performed by a new team in just three months and was
completed under budget.

38
5 Facilitation Tools and Techniques
What Every HELIX Analyst and Facilitator Should
Know

The team is now ready to start the facilitation and diagnostic work sessions.
During these work sessions, the team will be using a set of tools and
techniques specifically designed to accelerate the work process and achieve
success. The tools will take the form of models. The facilitation work
sessions are centered on helping the project participants toward identifying
how VADS work and how VADS can be improved. The information is
collected using a series of models. The subsequent diagnostic work sessions
focus on applying a series of rules to the models to ensure they are complete
and accurate.
Since the tools are dynamic, they will be covered first in terms of their
technical syntax and construction, and then in context of the case study.
Facilitation work sessions rely heavily on a structured form of facilitation.
During the initial work session on a specific VADS, the HELIX facilitator’s
goal is to work with the knowledge workers to develop and correlate three
basic models. For many, facilitating a group, and simultaneously constructing
models, feels like juggling while walking a tightrope. For others, facilitating
is easier. In either case, the concept to facilitation needs to be reviewed in
context to HELIX.
First, consider these definitions for facilitation:
“To make easier” (Webster’s Dictionary)
“To lessen the labor of. To help promote movement forward. To
allow progress with little or no effort.” (Oxford English Dictionary)
Both of these definitions apply to facilitation in context of a HELIX work
session. However, one more definition is needed:
HELIX: The act of drawing out affably, courteously and graciously without
thoughtlessness.
Using these three definitions, a HELIX facilitator can be defined as follows:
39
 A person who is able to draw out of a group of knowledge workers
information related to a specific VADS and how to improve it, in a
manner that encourages and rewards participation.
A person who is able to work with an organization’s knowledge
workers to identify, plan for and implement change.
A person who, because of his or her mastery of the key HELIX models
and facilitation techniques, can develop and correlate those models
interactively with a cross-functional group of knowledge workers to
accurately depict how a VADS functions today and how it might be
improved to achieve key organizational and workgroup goals in the
future.
By now, you might be asking yourself, “Who in the organization can do this?”
This is a very good question. Experience indicates that not all people can
become HELIX facilitators. Some are just not comfortable standing up in
front of a group. Others cannot seem to stick to the process or the models.
The fact is, though, HELIX facilitators can be trained and developed. In many
ways, facilitating a HELIX work session is easier than conducting normal
group facilitation. HELIX facilitators conducting a structured facilitation
know they need to build a specific set of models. They know there is a
specific subject matter to be addressed: the VADS. They have props: flip
charts and colored marking pens. They know the order in which the models
are to be developed. Finally, they know the kinds of questions needed to be
asked to help the group stay focused and work through the model
development process.
What makes the facilitation effort difficult is encouraging
participants to contribute freely while structuring the output.
In virtually every initial work session, participants go through a process of
catharsis and revelation (see appendix - Factor # 7 - The Principle of
Catharsis and Revelation). This is good, because it helps people become
more creative and inspired. However, this process is a double-edged sword.
The accomplished facilitator knows how and when to let the group run on and
when to reign them in, in order to complete the modeling tasks at hand. This
balancing act represents the challenge for the HELIX facilitator.
All good HELIX facilitators share the following attributes. They have the
ability to:
Project a good sense of humor.
Focus at macro and micro levels of detail in real time.

40
 Maintain poise in front of a group (regardless of the management level
present).
Take control of a group without being obtrusive, abrasive or autocratic.
Stay on course while allowing freedom in dialogue.
Improvise with confidence when under pressure.
Work well with knowledge workers to discover improvement
opportunities.
Work well with the HELIX models.
Not improvise or take license with the HELIX models or model-
building process (until mastery has occurred).
Resist imposing personal views and opinions during the process.
Demonstrate basic business acumen ensuring understanding of
dialogue.
Those who have demonstrated these abilities and have honed their facilitation
and HELIX modeling skills make excellent HELIX facilitators.
The need to strictly follow the HELIX facilitation process cannot be stressed
strongly enough at this point. When the facilitator departs from the process,
by either changing the props, the format or the approach of the work sessions,
any of the following may result:
The existing VADS models do not reflect how the organization does
business.
The proposed VADS models do not reflect the achievement of the
organization’s needs.
There is failure to build credibility and rapport with the knowledge
workers and management.
The focus becomes individual-oriented and not process-oriented,
resulting in hostility, resistance and resentment.
The environment becomes counter-conducive to moving forward
toward achieving positive change.
In essence, bad facilitators set the stage for achieving the opposite of HELIX’s
purpose. With all good intentions, they undermine their own success.
Remember: the goal is to develop models that reflect how to achieve key
objectives and to build a team that can demonstrate its understanding and
ability to achieve those objectives.

41
Our focus will now be turned toward some specific facilitation techniques.
During each work session, five things will need to be managed:
Props (flip chart, marking pens, tape, wall space)
Tools (HELIX models)
Pace (how fast or slow the session moves)
Language (body and verbal)
Group dynamics
In many ways, conducting a work session is like giving a performance.
Facilitators are on center stage. The audience is composed of the knowledge
workers. The goal is to keep the knowledge workers focused on the plot.
Therefore, the facilitator must use the set, props and skills to direct the action
while letting the specific details (model content) develop on their own.

Props
At every work session, the facilitator will use some props. These include:
One or two flip charts with full pads of paper
Masking tape
Three different colored marking pens (black, red, green)
Plenty of empty wall space (for taping up completed flip chart pages)
These props are the tools of the trade for the HELIX facilitator.
The flip chart should have at least 20 sheets of paper on it. This is where the
models will be developed during the work session. Flip charts allow easy
reference to all the models developed during the work session, while white
boards, overhead transparencies or other mediums do not.
As each page is completed, it is taped to the wall so everyone can see it.
There are reasons for doing this beyond ease of reference. Part of the
facilitator’s job is to build trust. By working in the open, the participants can
see exactly what is being produced. This helps build trust. In addition, as the
sheets are posted on the walls, the participants can begin to visualize the big
picture and become more focused. Finally, posting all the completed work
tends to keep the dialogue honest. In a sense, all the work is on display and
must pass the “light of day.” Using a flip chart helps to promote dialogue
while building trust and openness.

42
 HINT: To speed up the hanging process, use 3M self adhesive flip
charts or pre-tear about 40 two-inch strips of tape and place them on
the back of the flip chart easel. As each page is completed, place two
pieces of the tape on the paper and hand it to one of the participants
to mount on the wall. Involving participants in the hanging process is
a subtle way to build involvement and ownership.
Using at least three different colored marking pens allows the facilitator to add
contrast and distinction to the models. The use of various colors helps draw
people’s eyes to important points and makes the models easier to read. As
obvious as it seems, be sure that the marking pens are fresh. Color usage will
be covered later as specific models are reviewed.
HINT: Jumbo markers work very well. Their chiseled tips allow for
line width variation, adding more flexibility to the drawing process.
The wall space needs to be ample. There should be enough space to hang
about 20 flip chart sheets. Typically, the pages will be hung one above the
other, making two rows of 10 sheets.
HINT: Be very careful when removing the sheets from the wall. The
tape needs to be peeled off slowly. If it is jerked off, it can remove
wallpaper, paint and even pieces of wallboard.

Tools
The tools used during the work sessions are the HELIX models. Three basic
models will be used:
Change Analysis Model
Level 1 Workflow Model (existing)
Level 2 Workflow Model (existing and proposed)
These models capture all the raw data needed to implement the diagnostic
work sessions. While they are simple in nature, they are rich in content. Each
is intuitive, understandable and easy to read. Each is designed to work in
context with the other, and yet each is meaningful by itself.
The models provide the structure around which the facilitation takes place.
The models are developed in the order listed.
In the next chapter, the creation and use of each of these models will be
defined in detail.

43
Pace
The pace of the work session is crucial. If the pace is too slow, participant
concentration will drift. They will begin sketching on paper, or having side-
bar conversations. In effect, the facilitator will lose them. If the pace is too
fast, participants will not be able to keep up. The effect is the same.
Recording the models on the flip charts will help keep the pace from going too
fast.
The limit of 2½ hours for the work session will help it avoid dragging.
However, the facilitator must constantly meter the pace to ensure the goal of
the work session is accomplished. Pacing the work session takes practice. If
not all three models are completed within the 2½ hour limit, don’t panic.
There will be time in later work sessions to catch up.

Language
Language is very critical to the effectiveness and success of the work session.
In evaluating language, you must consider how it is seen as well as heard.
How the facilitator is seen in terms of body language will influence how
people will interpret what is being said. Conversely, how the facilitator
speaks will influence how the body language is interpreted. Therefore, verbal
and physical language play an important role in how the facilitator is received.
There are seven important areas to keep in mind regarding verbal language:
Pace of speech (how fast or slow)
Volume and intensity (how loud or soft)
Inflection and tonality (what is emphasized)
Vocabulary (what words are chosen)
Timing (when to speak)
Duration (how long)
Focus (the subject of the message)
Each of these blends together every time anything is said and will shape the
way the message is received and interpreted. Talking quickly and loudly with
harsh inflections can sound angry. Interrupting while others are talking can
appear to be rude and inconsiderate. Talking too long can come across as
boring or self-absorbed. Speaking softly and slowly, using inflections and
words that convey reflective insight can make one appear wise and get an
audience’s attention. Other times, talking softly and slowly will put the

44
audience to sleep. The timing and use of pace, volume and inflection are
critical to maintaining the attention and focus of the audience.
While these verbal cues are important, they must be considered in context to
body language. Body language is what is conveyed visually to others.
Postures, clothing, use of space, eye contact and mannerisms all play a role in
how your words are interpreted. The only question is whether the message
being sent is the intended one.
Consider how many ways the phrase, “good morning,” can be said and how
each conveys a different message.
If you say “good morning” in a low, muttered voice while staring at the floor
as you hurry by someone in the hall, a person might doubt your sincerity.
“Good morning” whispered in a loved one’s ear while giving them a gentle
hug says, “I love you.” If it is said with a warm smile in a happy, energetic
and confident voice with about two seconds of eye contact it tells the world
it’s great to be alive.
However, the same energetic and confident “good morning” made wearing
tattered, disheveled clothing might confuse the receiver and generate thoughts
such as, “Why should he be so happy?”.
Remember: the HELIX facilitator is both an actor in and a
director of a play that must immerse the audience in focused
creativity and problem solving.
Everything that can be done to provide an outstanding performance should be
considered. The facilitator needs to be constantly aware of how he or she is
being perceived and received.

Group Dynamics
Managing group dynamics is an important aspect of the HELIX facilitator’s
job. A typical work session will have four to eight participants, each
representing a different functional area of the organization and each sharing a
common interest in a particular VADS. Since the facilitator is directing the
flow of the meeting, he or she takes on the role of leader. The facilitator needs
to be mindful of the following points to be an effective leader:
The facilitator needs to maintain a balance between gaining,
maintaining and giving control during the work session.

45
 If the facilitator is too controlling, the participants will abdicate
their views to those of the facilitator and will not buy into the
process or the results produced.
If the facilitator cannot maintain a certain level of control in
directing the work session, there will be chaos and confusion,
resulting in loss of focus and a failure to produce the needed
HELIX models.
If the facilitator fails to give control to others who are expressing
insights and helping to move the process forward, then he or she
will lose the benefits of those insights. Also the facilitator risks
turning off the participants’ desire to contribute.
This balancing act requires the facilitator to be aware of
people‘s responses to his or her questions. The facilitator needs
to become skilled in reading the verbal and visual cues of the
work session participants and to adjust to them.
The facilitator needs to demonstrate respect for the knowledge worker’s
participation in the work session. Participants may be intimidated by
the facilitator’s position, the project or just speaking in a group. The
facilitator needs to take active steps to encourage all the knowledge
workers and treat their questions, insights and ideas with respect. This
will help build the facilitator’s credibility and the participants’ self-
esteem. Each has a valid contribution to make to the project.
As the leader, the facilitator must keep the work session on track. He or
she must be outcome-oriented yet process-focused. This means that
neither the outcome nor the process can be sacrificed. Again, this
balancing act requires the facilitator to be acutely aware of the pace,
tone and content of the dialogue. If the focus wanders, the facilitator
needs to redirect it back to the VADS. If the pace stalls, the facilitator
needs to infuse energy into the group. Again, the facilitator is
managing them self, the group and the models while not stifling
participation.
Since the results produced during the work session can be dramatic, and
since the facilitator led the work session, credit for the results are often
given to the facilitator. Here, the facilitator must redirect the credit for
success to the knowledge workers. In doing this, the facilitator does not
lose credit but rather builds respect as a leader and rewards the
knowledge workers’ participation.
The facilitator should take every opportunity to recognize the
knowledge workers while down playing his or her own role.

46
 Statements such as, ―All I did was write the stuff down. Tony from
purchasing and Sally from sales are the ones who really made the
difference‖, gives credit to the knowledge workers.
Finally, the facilitator must be patient while being compelling and
inspiring. This patience comes into play when allowing the participants
to struggle with concepts and ideas. Often, the facilitator will discern
ideas and solutions more quickly than the knowledge workers. He or
she will then share them with the group. This can suck the life out of a
work session. Part of the gratification and reward of participating in
work sessions is coming up with ideas for improvement. The facilitator
needs to let the knowledge workers have this fun and gratification. The
facilitator’s gratification should come from his or her success in
inspiring the group to participate in the process and be creative.
Another area of the group dynamics of a work session deals with the interplay
between the facilitator and the group and between the group members. Since
the work session is a structured facilitation, the facilitator needs to maintain
focus on the VADS and on completing the models. Here are some concepts
and techniques that will help the facilitator accomplish this:
Filtered Listening - As the facilitator is developing models with the
knowledge workers, the conversation will not necessarily be direct and
to the point. Discussions will tend to wander, and the exchange of ideas
will be very fast paced. To allow this to happen, the facilitator needs to
listen for information that belongs on the models. As that information
surfaces, the facilitator needs to take control of the dialogue. The
facilitator needs to refocus the group back to the flip chart and update
the model by feeding back what was heard. Getting confirmation that
the hearing was correct is accomplished by paraphrasing the
information on the flip chart and asking the group if the paraphrased
information is correct. This filtered listening allows the facilitator to
give a great deal of freedom to the dialogue process, while maintaining
focus and control over the process. It also ensures that the results are
captured in the proper form.
Mind Pictures - From time to time during a work session, momentum
might slow or the participants may have mental blocks. This is a
natural occurrence. When momentum slows or people have mental
blocks, the facilitator can employ mind pictures to help everyone
visualize alternatives and solutions. Mind pictures can take the form of:
an analogy
an example through experience

47
 a simulation or exercise
Since facilitators are dealing with abstraction when working with
models, they need to be ready to provide avenues for helping
participants maintain their level of creativity and momentum.
Analogies can help draw parallels between concepts that are foreign to
people and concepts that are familiar. In The HELIX Factor – the key
to streamlining your business processes, I used the analogy of a football
team’s organization to demonstrate the flaw in stovepipe organizations.
Simulations and exercises help people physically experience an idea or
situation. An example through experience reduces skepticism. When
solutions that have merit are discounted because they are radical to the
group the use of a “real life” example can help them become comfortable
with the idea. The story of the data entry operator in The HELIX Factor
(page 84) is an excellent example of a “real life” situation.
Defusing Conflict - During the course of a work session, energies will
be high and tempers might flare. When this happens, the facilitator
needs to get things back on course. There is a difference between
lively, constructive dialogue and verbal jousting. The way to tell the
difference is easy:
Dialogue focuses on the subject, not the individuals. People,
although animated and loud, are exchanging ideas and are enjoying
the exchange. Emotions are running high people but are not
exhibiting anger or hostility.
Arguing, on the other hand, tends to focus on the people, not the
subject. People are not engaged in dialogue, but in alternating
monologues. They tend to respond to their opponent’s viewpoints
with personal attacks or defensive language.
The key for the facilitator is to discern the difference and to stay on course.
To do this, the facilitator must remain neutral and mediate the opposing
views. Here, the facilitator can help to clarify each person’s point of view.
He can inject humor to break tension and reduce stress. She can refocus
energy away from the individuals and on to the subject. He can paraphrase
key points and ask open-ended questions to help draw out ideas and create
common ground for constructive dialogue. This is not easy to do, and in
the heat of battle, stepping between two opposing forces can be risky.
Both can turn on the mediator and attack. While this breaks the deadlock,
it does little for the mediator.
The least desirable alternative is to stop the work session. This does not
allow closures and resolves nothing. When conflict arises between
48
knowledge workers, it must be resolved. The team’s continuity and
rapport must be maintained. Therefore, the facilitator must make every
effort to resolve such conflicts quickly and amicably.
One way this can be done is by the facilitator interrupting the process and
asking each person to help him understand that person’s point of view.
This process begins by having the first person present his issues and
opinions uninterrupted. The facilitator then paraphrases and writes down
(on the flip chart) what was heard and asks if the understanding is correct.
The facilitator then asks the next person to contrast their point of view to
the one paraphrased on the flip chart. The contrasts are then paraphrased
and written down. This goes on until all the contrasting viewpoints are
recorded and acknowledged.
The facilitator then works through the contrasting viewpoints seeking to
understand them in terms of their objective merit. This process takes the
emotions out of the discussions and refocuses people on the information on
the flip chart. Ideally, a compromise or consensus will be found. If not,
the parties can agree to disagree and the group can get back to the goal of
the work session.
Mind Games - There are times on a project when some people will
consciously try to derail progress. These efforts can take the form of:
Passive Resistance - finding reasons not to get things done in order
to slow progress.
Subtle Sabotage - taking direct but hard-to-detect actions that
hinder progress.
Overt Resistance - frontal attack approach. Typically using
politics, budgets or character assassination to stop the project dead in
its tracks.
Passive resistors are subtle saboteurs who frequently use mind games in
work sessions to be disruptive. They are adept at understanding,
manipulating and exerting control over a process. One of the most
prevalent tactics is called “bear trapping” or the “Now I Got You, You
SOB” approach. In “bear trapping”, the trapper asks seemingly innocent
questions of participants or the facilitator with the intent of embarrassing
or discrediting the respondent. In essence, the question is the trap.
Excellent examples of “bear trapping” can be seen in any courtroom or,
better yet, on TV nighttime news/interview shows. A question can be
discerned as a trap when it is conclusive in nature. For example, the
question, “Isn’t it true that your company knowingly cut prices to put the

49
competition out of business?” is an allegation in the form of a question
intended to place respondents on the defensive.
If the person being questioned defends himself or herself, he or she looks
guilty. The questioner might roll his eyes or feign an incredulous look.
These theatrics are all part of the game and are done for the benefit of the
audience. If respondent denies the allegations, the questioner responds
with another attack, maybe something like this: “NO, you didn’t
knowingly cut prices or NO, you didn’t try to put the competition out of
business?”. The questioner’s goal is to fluster and confuse the respondent
so he loses his composure or says something that can be taken out of
context and blown out of proportion. If this happens, the trap is sprung.
One way to avoid this type of trap is to respond with a question. In the
example, the respondent might have replied with: “What would lead you to
believe that our company would ever engage in such a practice?” Here, the
tables have been reversed. The response is made in a rationale, cordial
manner. The burden of proof has been shifted. The audience tends to the
see respondent as reasonable and concerned.
When the facilitator senses “bear trapping” between knowledge workers,
he or she should interrupt the process and diffuse it at once. If one of the
participants is persistent in this practice, he should be removed from the
team.
Another popular tactic is “Yes, but…” For every idea presented, users of
this tactic begin their response by agreeing with “yes,” followed promptly
with a “but”. The “yes” gives them the floor and the “but” allows them to
shoot down the idea presented. When this happens, the facilitator should
interject by asking what the “yes, but” person’s ideas or alternatives are.
Since they cannot rebut their own thoughts, they are on the spot. If they
have nothing to contribute, the group will tend to discount their
distractions and the facilitator can allow peer pressure to correct the
situation. If the situation persists and the distraction becomes too great,
such a member should be removed from the team.
Removing someone from a team is very rare. However, there are several
ways to remove a person from a team and minimize the repercussions. The
first is to explain the situation to the person and hope that she will remove
herself. Many times this works because the disrupter wants out of the
process anyway. Another way is to speak with the person’s supervisor and
have the person reassigned to efforts that are more appropriate. There are
no guarantees. The facilitator should use removal as a last resort. It is

50
usually time to consider removal when the process disrupter begins to
introduce negative value to the work sessions.
The success of the project will largely depend on the models that are
developed during the work sessions. These models represent the input into
the entire diagnostic process. If the models are flawed, or the knowledge
workers do not buy into them, then it is unlikely that improvement
opportunities will be implemented. The skills and adeptness of the HELIX
facilitator are of paramount importance to the quality of the results and the
“buy-in” achieved during the facilitation work sessions.

51
Simple is Better!

52
6 Conducting Facilitation Work Sessions
Working with the Change Analysis Model

The first model to be developed or updated in a work session is the change

analysis model. The change analysis (CA) is a tabular model that contrasts
existing situations (situations needing improvement) with preliminary goals
(solutions that constitute an acceptable improvement). The CA is developed
interactively with the knowledge-worker group, using a flip chart to record the
situations and goals. It is very important that this model be done first. The
CA sets the stage for achieving the catharsis and revelation needed to release
creativity in the work session (see appendix-Factor 7 – The Principle of
Catharsis and Revelation). About 45 minutes of the 2½ hours allocated for
the work session is used to develop the CA.
During the development of the CA, the facilitator takes on the role of
paraphraser, clarifier and recorder. As each situation is expressed by
participants of the work session, the facilitator paraphrases the situation and
writes it on the flip chart. This act of feeding back the situation, getting
acknowledgment that understanding took place and writing it down completes
a communication loop that is essential to the CA process. This
communication loop can be seen in Figure 6-1.
Figure 6-1- Making a Complete Communication

Communications Model

1 Sends Message

Sender 2 Paraphrases Message Back Receiver

3 Acknowledges
Understanding

53
This send-paraphrase-acknowledge process ensures that the knowledge
workers feel they are heard as well as understood. Paraphrasing and
committing that paraphrased statement to paper also has a psychological
impact on the sender. The sender and the group become committed to the
statement as it takes printed form. Situations and goals tend to be more honest
as people realize that the information is being recorded formally and will be
shared.
Once the paraphrased situation has been written down, the facilitator opens
the situation for discussion among the group. Here the facilitator helps the
group determine the level of consensus that collectively exists regarding the
situation. Typically, some dialogue and clarification will go on for a few
minutes. During this time, the facilitator adds supporting and clarifying
information below the original situation on the flip chart.
Once this process has finished, the facilitator begins the process of clarifying
vague aspects of the situation with measurable support. The facilitator will
read the situation aloud to the group and underline adjectives and phrases like
“too fast, too slow, too much, etc.” The facilitator then goes through each of
the underlined items and ask the group to provide clarification of what they
perceive to be a measurement of that item.
During the first JMI work session on the Sales on Account VADS, the first
existing situation reads:
It takes too long to process sales orders through credit.
“Too long” is not well defined in this statement. What is “too long” in one
person’s opinion may be “too short” for someone else. Here the facilitator
will query the group for a definition of “too long”. As the group discusses the
definition of “too long”, the facilitator is listening for quantifiable definitions.
As quantified definitions emerge, the facilitator moves towards the flip chart
and writes them down. It is important for the facilitator to stand about four
feet from the flip chart while group discussion takes place. When the
facilitator wants the group to finalize their discussion on a topic, he or she can
move toward the flip chart. Doing this a few times will create a subconscious
cue for the participants to complete their discussion.
In the case study, the finished situation appears as:
It takes too long to process sales orders through credit.
Too long = more than 45 minutes from the time the Credit
Manager receives the order from the order desk
until the time the order is released to the warehouse
for shipping.

54
Now there is a definition of “too long”. However, what is not known is why
45 minutes is “too long”. This leads to the next question. Here the facilitator
is trying to develop a consensus of what makes 45 minutes bad and what
would be good. The participants are now focusing on how taking longer than
45 minutes detracts value from some stakeholder group(s). Repeating the
same filtered listening and communications loop process, the facilitator
updates the current situation to read:
It takes too long to process sales orders through Credit.
Too long = more than 45 minutes from the time the Credit
Manager receives the order from the order desk
until the time the order is released to the warehouse
for shipping.
This is bad because orders received after 2 p.m.
cannot be shipped until the next business day. This
results in poor customer service and, sometimes, in
lost orders.
The above statement represents a fairly complete situation. It states the
situation in measurable terms and why it detracts value from a stakeholder
group.
The next enhancement to the situation is to establish the frequency that it
happens, the cost of each occurrence (if possible) and an explanation of why
the situation happens. Again, the facilitator puts the questions to the group
and helps facilitate an answer.
Opinions on frequency, cost and why, typically vary depending on which
knowledge worker is talking. However, the “why” aspect of the situation
should be answered only by the work group that performs the task. At JMI,
this is the Credit department. A knowledge worker from the Credit
department (Credit) should be part of the group. If not, then one should be
added at this point. Since this situation deals directly with the actions of
Credit, only members of that group can speak to it.
It is important for the facilitator to keep the group’s focus on the process and
not on those who work in Credit. Frequently, the reasoning given behind why
the situation happens can expand the discussion to include others. It is
common for one department to assign blame for a situation to another
department. Sometimes the situation is denied and dismissed out of hand.
When this happens, it is up to the facilitator to redirect the group away from
one another and on to the process.
At JMI, the representative from Credit said the following:

55
 ―Of course, it takes over 45 minutes. I have to process over 150
sales orders a day. Each one requires me to look up the customer‘s
credit status, reduce his credit line by the value of the order and, in
many cases, call the customer and work out terms. That assumes
the order forms are completed correctly by the order desk, which
isn‘t too often. What do you expect-miracles?‖
This defensive response is typical. Here, Credit has blamed the situation on
volume and poor input from the order desk. Credit could be right or just
trying to avoid embarrassment or accountability. In either case, the
facilitator’s job is to maintain focus, defuse potential emotional outbreaks and
direct everyone to the same side. The flip chart is very useful here because
people tend to focus on the chart and not the people. Since the chart cannot
fight back, it is hard to sustain an argument. In addition, the facilitator can
focus on the objective aspects of Credit’s statement.
Two points emerged from the above:
First, Credit has revealed that there are over 150 orders that must be approved
each day. Second, there is another situation that needs to be explored: the
completeness of sales orders being sent from the order desk to Credit for
approval.
The order volume can be verified quite easily. Examples of missing
information can likewise be verified. However, neither is the point here.
What is important is to complete the current situation statement and develop a
preliminary goal that would resolve the situation to everyone’s satisfaction.
By now, it should be apparent that the group is in a cathartic phase of the
situation-goal process (see appendix-Factor #7 - The Principle of Catharsis
and Revelation). Based on Credit’s response, assume that the situation’s
final form is as follows:
It takes too long to process sales orders through Credit.
Too long = more than 45 minutes from the time the Credit
Manager receives the order from the order desk until the
time the order is released to the warehouse for shipping.
This is bad because it means that orders received after 2
p.m. cannot be shipped until the next business day. This
results in poor customer service.
This occurs because of the volume of orders (greater than 150 a
day) coupled with the number of steps required to review and
approve credit and complete the order. Based on an average
56
 wage of $30 an hour and 45 minutes of processing time, the cost
to approve a sales order is $22.50. Given a volume of 150
orders a day, it requires about 14 Credit staff members to keep
up with the volume. Since there are only six Credit staff, there
is substantial overtime and use of temporary help. At present,
the daily cost for overtime and temporary staff is about $1,785.
The average daily cost to process orders through credit with 14
staff members would be about $3,375 a day.
Now the statement is complete. The situation statement developed reflects:
What is happening
Why it happens
How much it costs
What makes it undesirable
Who is impacted (loses value) because of it happening
Notice that the statement is focused on sales orders being approved and not
the individuals who work in Credit. The statement is “subject focused”.
People and personalities are not part of the process.
The facilitator can now shift the emphasis toward helping the group develop a
preliminary goal for resolving the situation. The goal statement should always
start with the phrase “The ability to…”
In the case study, JMI is seeking a goal that will give it:
The ability to process a work order through Credit in less than 45
minutes.
The question is how much under 45 minutes? Here, the facilitator turns the
question back to the group. The facilitator wants to help the group determine
what would be worth achieving. What would constitute “Good”? Is it 44
minutes, 30 minutes or 1 minute?
Now the group is in the revelation, or creative mode. The facilitator is
directing the focus to a “future state” statement that reflects the credit
approval process in an ideal form. When completed, the statement must
reflect the following:
What should happen?
When should it happen?
What changes so it can happen?

57
 Why is it better than the way it is done now?
How much will it save?
Who will benefit (gain value)?
To achieve this, the facilitator must allow participants to do some active
brainstorming. The group needs to explore some “what if” scenarios. To
expedite the effort, the variables that can be manipulated need to be identified.
In the example, these variables include:
The number of orders requiring credit approval
The steps being performed to approve credit
The number of people used to perform the approval process
The information needed to perform the approval process
The facilitator should ask the group to challenge each one of these variables.
This can be done by asking questions like: “What if we changed the number
of orders requiring credit approval? What would happen then?”.
Alternatively, “What if we only approved credit on orders over a certain
amount, how might that work?”
Here the goal is to encourage the group to explore possibilities and the
implications each presents. As ideas begin to crystallize and the group moves
toward a consensus, the facilitator returns to the flip chart and begins the
process of paraphrasing and recording.
At JMI, the following preliminary goal could be developed:

The ability to process work orders directly to the warehouse

when the customer‘s available credit line is greater than the
order amount and the outstanding balance is current. This
would require a change to our order processing system.
Specifically, it would require the system to automatically check
the order for credit-related data and route it to the appropriate
location (Credit department or warehouse).

This would allow about 125 orders a day to be processed to the

warehouse in less than 5 minutes, from the time the order was
taken, saving about $3,700 a day (elimination of overtime and
temporary help). This would also allow the 6 staff members in
Credit to focus on orders with real credit issues and collections
and position them to support more volume.

58
 This will benefit our customers by allowing the company to ship
merchandise quicker, thus improving service levels. This will
also reduce the stress in the understaffed Credit department.
The above illustrates a preliminary goal with far-reaching implications. It sets
forth a goal that resolves the conflict between the order desk and the Credit
department, while simultaneously streamlining the process, reducing costs and
improving customer service levels. This is typical of the quality of goal
statements that are developed by knowledge workers during work sessions.
Sometimes, achieving the level of completeness reflected in the above
example takes more than one work session. The facilitator should take each
current situation and preliminary goal as far as the group can at any one time.
However, by the end of the third work session, the statements should be as
complete as the one above.
The facilitator can expect to generate 8 to 12 situations and goals during a 45-
minute period. Each will be at various levels of completeness. Each will
require post work session diagnostic time to generate questions for the group
during the next work session.
As each situation/goal pair is completed the facilitator posts it to the wall.
This allows it to be seen by all the participants and easily referenced
throughout the work session.
Figure 6-2 illustrates the JMI situation/goal pair as it might appear after the
first work session:
The change analysis provides the first point of buy-in to improving a VADS
by the knowledge workers. By recognizing what is “BAD” about the current
situation and by projecting themselves into what is “GOOD” about the
preliminary goal, the knowledge workers begin developing the creative
tension (see appendix-Factor # 5 -The Principle of Context) and leverage
needed to support successful change.
Notice that the statements are not as complete as in the full example. During
the first session, capturing 8 to 12 statements at level of completeness
illustrated in figure 6-2 represents a job well done. Since it is done in about
45 minutes, it is a substantial accomplishment. The key is to capture
sufficient detail and insight to allow the process to continue smoothly. If the
pace drags, post the developed situation/goal pairs on the wall and move on to
the next model. It is more important to make a pass at all the models than to
develop only an eloquent CA at this point.

59
Figure 6-2 - Change Analysis

Change Analysis
Current Situation P re lim in a ry G o a l

1 . It takes 3 da ys for a sales orde r 1 . T he ab ility to get orde rs to

to get fro m cre dit to the
wa reho use:
– Competition averages 2 days.
– M ain reason custom ers com plain
and leave.
wa reho use with in 6 ho urs of
placem e nt:
– W ould undercut com petition by at
least 1 day.
– W ould require stream lining of order
processing through credit.

2. T he a bility to au th orize cre dit

2. 3 0% of first-tim e cu sto m er
lim its u p to $ 200 o ver th e pho ne
qu otation s u nde r $ 200 a re
for first- tim e custom e rs:
ne ver tu rned into orde rs:
– W ould increase sales $60,000 a
– New custom ers cannot wait for
m onth with m inim al bad debt risk.
credit approval (takes 2 weeks).
– W ould require stream lining of order
– Competition approves in 24 hours.
processing to handle increase in
– Lose up to 300 orders & new volum e .
customers a month.

The change analysis will be revisited later in the sections on diagnostic work
sessions, at which time the process of taking the goal from the status of
preliminary to realistic will be explored. Indexing of the models into a set of
formal working papers will also be reviewed.

Review
About 45 minutes have elapsed in the first facilitation work session. The
facilitator has captured 8 to 12 change analysis statements on flip chart paper
and posted them on the wall for easy reference. Each current situation and
preliminary goal has been tested for measurability and completeness.
The next step is to understand where the changes in the VADS process
identified in the preliminary goal need to occur. To do this, the facilitator will
work with the knowledge workers to develop two workflow models.

60
Building the Level 1 Workflow Model
The next model to be developed in the facilitation work session is the Level 1
Workflow (WFL1). This model presents a simplified version of the VADS by
depicting the workgroups and the information that is shared between them in
order to complete a VADS cycle.
The WFL1 is developed in real time (on a flip chart) at the work session with
the knowledge workers. It provides the first complete picture of a VADS on a
single piece of paper. It has a very simple and intuitive syntax, making it easy
to draw, read and understand. The average WFL1 takes about 15 to 20
minutes to complete during the work session.

Model Syntax
The WFL1 model has a very limited syntax. This is what allows it to be
complete yet simple to understand.
Figure 6-3 lists the components of the Level 1 Workflow Model.

61
Figure 6-3 - Model Syntax
Symbol
Process Group
File or Data Store
Scope Constraint Boundary
To WFL1 - 2.1 From WFL1 - 1.4
Outbound / Inbound “Ts”
Drawing the WFL1 Model
Description
The oval or circle represents a work or
process group that participates in the VADS.
This group represents one or more people
who perform a specific set of procedures on
a VADS. This group can be a sub-
organization within the organization
(division, department, specific job title or
specific work area). The group can also
represent outside organizations or people
(customers, vendors, government, etc.). An
icon can be substituted for this symbol.
However, if icons are used they should be
consistent throughout all models.
The rectangle represents a file, data
store or system. This object can be a file
cabinet, ledger card, a computer system or
any other non-human repository for storing
information. An icon can be substituted for
this symbol. However, if icons are used they
should be consistent throughout all models
The arc represents a constraint or
boundary. It denotes an intentional
limitation in the scope of the model. The
text behind the arc is used to clarify the
scope limitation. For instance, in a sales
VADS, the model may not reflect how the
customer decided to place an order. If this
information was not going to be reflected in
the VADS, a scope constraint boundary
would be placed on the edge of the
customer process group to reflect the scope
limitation.
The “T” represents a link between two
models. This linkage can be inbound
(feeding this model) or outbound (feeding
another model). The direction of the
connection is indicated by the arrow.
Arrows pointing toward the top of the “T” are
outbound. Arrows pointing away from the
“T” are inbound. The text at the end of the
“T” is the reference to the model being
referenced.
62
The WFL1 model is initially drawn interactively with the knowledge workers
during the first work session. It is drawn right after the change analysis.
Using the flip chart, the facilitator has the participants systematically walk
him or her through the VADS from the point of the first communication
between process groups through its successful completion.
The basic conversation begins with a question from the facilitator like: “How
does this process start?”. As the starting point is identified, the facilitator
draws the first oval and labels it with the name of the workgroup or process
group that begins the process. Typically, the model starts with some form of
communication between two process groups. In the JMI work session, the
person representing the sales order desk might say, “It starts when a customer
calls an order into the order desk”. In that one statement the following were
identified:
The customer (process group)
The sales order desk (process group)
The order (an object)
At this point, the facilitator would post the data on the flip chart (see Figure 6-
4).
Figure 6-4 – Customer Calls in Order

Customer Calls in Order

Customer Sales Order Desk

Notice that the arrow connecting the customer to the sales order desk is not
yet numbered. Numbering will take place after the rough model is completely
drawn.
From this point on, the facilitator asks, “What happens next?” The knowledge
worker whose area is listed will typically begin describing what the
department does with the object received. As the knowledge worker describes
the tasks, the facilitator is listening for the moment when the knowledge
worker initiates a transfer of information to another process group or data
store. When this happens, the facilitator moves to the flip chart and asks the
knowledge worker to repeat that part of the description pertaining to the new
transfer of information. As the person describes the transfer, the facilitator
updates the model. Initially, the facilitator is not interested in what goes on
63
inside each process group. The facilitator is interested in how and when
information is transferred between process groups and/or data stores.
However, most people need to talk their way through a process to accurately
identify and describe the interactions that occur. It is the job of the facilitator
to filter out the needed data and capture it on the model.
In the above example, the dialogue might resemble this:
Facilitator: “So the customer calls the order desk to place an order.
Sales Order Desk Knowledge Worker (order desk): “First, I bring up
a new order screen and identify the customer on the computer. Then I
take her order information.”
Facilitator: “The customer and order information is maintained on the
computer?”
Order Desk: “Yes, and it really causes us problems.”
Facilitator: “Sounds like we should talk about that, but let us finish
this first. Go on.”
Order Desk: “Well, once I enter the order, I print out the rough order
and send it to Credit for approval.”
Facilitator (moving to flip chart): “So a “rough order” is one that
needs to be approved by credit?”
Order Desk: “That’s right.”
Here, the facilitator stops and updates the model to reflect the movement of
information from the order desk to Credit. The facilitator also has the option
at this point to reflect the computer system interaction that was discussed.
Figure 6-5 illustrates what the model would look like if it was updated for
both.

64
Figure 6-5 - Sales Order Sent to Credit department

Customer Calls in Order

Customer Sales Order Desk

r
rde
sO
ter
En r
Orde
h
oug
R

pproval
Sales Order

Order for A
System

Credit Department

Notice that the arrow labeled “Enters Order” is a two-way arrow. This
denotes the interaction between the order desk and the sales order system
(system). Since the system does not contain people, it is drawn as a rectangle.
In addition, notice how some lines appear to be action oriented “customer
calls in order” vs. “rough order”, which is just a type of order. Each is okay.
The key here is communication and understanding. Generally, the more
complete the text on the line the better. “Rough order”, could have read
“rough order is printed”, That also would have been okay. Finally, notice
that the model has no crossed lines. To make the model readable, minimize
crossing lines. Too many crossed lines makes the model look like a plate of
spaghetti and meatballs and is difficult to read.
At this point, the facilitator has one more decision to make before going on:
whether to take time now to talk about the system issue raised by the
knowledge worker. If the decision is yes, then the facilitator simply turns the
WFL1 model over the back of the flip chart and starts a new change analysis
page. If the answer is no, the facilitator will want to make a note on the next
flip chart page to discuss the system issue later. Either way, the issue must be
dealt with sufficiently to allow the group to deal with it and move on.

65
To continue building the model, the facilitator turns to the Credit department
knowledge worker and asks, “What happens next to the order?” A similar
dialogue ensues and the model is updated. The dialogue continues with the
group until there are no more communications required to process an order
through a VADS cycle.
As the model unfolds, there will be times when the knowledge worker will
respond to the “What happens next?” question with something like “It
depends”. Since the model syntax, by design, does not support choices, the
facilitator must focus on one choice at a time. Here the facilitator asks the
knowledge worker to talk about the option that happens most often or
represents the process when it works correctly. Once a choice is made, it is
written at the top of the model as an assumption. In the example, the Credit
Manager must make a choice to approve or deny the order. Since order
approval happens more often than not, that choice is taken. However, another
model may need to be drawn of the process when the order is denied. This
will be done in a subsequent work session.
The first version of a VADS always should be the positive view
(when things work right). A ―positive view‖ model can always be
challenged at each step in the process for what happens when the
process breaks down.
Once the model appears to be completed, the facilitator performs some real-
time diagnostics with the group. The first diagnostic is to ensure that the
model has no loose ends. Specifically, the facilitator is looking for arrows
pointing to process groups and/or data stores that are “open-ended”. Assume
the example appeared as depicted in Figure 6-6.
As the facilitator begins the diagnostic process, a number of discrepancies can
be identified:
Billing posts the customer’s payment to the sales order system.
However, nowhere on the model does Billing ever receive the payment
from the customer. There is no line between the customer and Billing
to reflect the receipt of a payment.
Billing invoices the customer. How does billing know to do this?
There is no indication of an invoice ever being sent to the customer.
A system is reflected in the model. The facilitator can logically ask
how it is used in context to tracking the customer’s credit status. If the
Credit department does not use the system, then what files or
paperwork is being used to track this information?

66
One by one, these questions are discussed with the group and the model is
updated as needed.
Figure 6-6: Pre-numbered Level 1 Workflow Model

ASSUMPTION: Sales order process when credit is good, inventory is in stock and the customer pays on time.

- C u sto m e r C a lls in O r d e r
-

Customer
Sales Order Desk

-
er
rd
O
s
er -
nt er
E
- rd
O
r-

gh
ou
de

-R
d Or

Sales Order
- B il le

va l -
System
- S h ip p e d O rd e r -

pro
fo r A p
nt -
P aym e

r
- O rd e
- P ost

Billing

Warehouse - Approved Order - Credit Department

When the model is completed to the best of the group’s ability, the facilitator
starts from the beginning and numbers it. Numbering the steps in the model
does two things. First, it allows the knowledge workers to walk through the
model again, helping to ensure it is accurate. Second, it provides the
sequential “cause and effect” relationships needed to understand the
information flow and related stimulus triggers.
The facilitator should select a different colored pen to number the model.
This allows the eye to quickly trace the numbers from one point to the next.
By the time the facilitator has completed numbering the model and making
any needed updates, the group has actually walked through the VADS four
times as follows:
Change analysis - a negative view of the process

67
 Undiagnosed version of the WFL1 model
Diagnosed version of the WFL1 model
Numbered version of the WFL1 model
Going through the model multiple times is important because each time the
process is walked through; it becomes a more accurate reflection of what
really happens. By the time the work session is done, the VADS will have
been reviewed four more times. Each pass through the VADS will add
incremental value to it.
At this point in the work session, the knowledge group has developed a
change analysis and a numbered WFL1 model. This has taken about an hour
and fifteen minutes of the scheduled two and one-half hours.
At this point, the number model appears as shown in Figure 6-7.

68
 Figure 6-7 – Numbered Level 1 Workflow Model

A SSU MPTIO N: Sales order process when credit is good, inventory is in stock and the customer pays on time.

1 - Customer Calls in O rder -

Custom er Sales Order Desk

-
rd e r
3

s O
ent
2

r -
te r
-

Paym

de
- En
v o ic e

Or
gh
9
- M a i l In

ou
10

- R
8

O r de r f o r A p p ro v a l
- S h i p p e d O rd e r -

- F in a liz e O rd e
r
& P rin t In v o ic e Sales O rder
-
System
Billing 4

- Post P aym ent -

11

- R
7 5
fo r

ev
-
in g

ie
der

ws
B i ll i
- Or

Cr
ed
it
-
7

Warehouse - Approved Order - Credit Department

Now each communication line on the model is numbered. This number

indicates the sequence of communications. Each communication is dependent
on the prior communication. For example, the warehouse needs to have an
approved order from the Credit department before it can ship that order to the
customer. This is because the information on the approved order is required
by the warehouse (who to ship to and how much product to ship).
The model does not reflect what procedures are performed by each process
group on the sales order being processed. The identification of these
procedures will be completed on the next model to be developed.
69
One final note on the above model. Notice that there are two 7s emanating
from the warehouse process group. This represents a distribution of
paperwork.
The communications happen almost simultaneously and are not sequentially
bound, therefore they are numbered the same. Do not worry about making the
model perfect at this point. There is still a set of diagnostic work sessions and
two more facilitation work sessions to be performed to clean up any loose
ends.
The above example did not depict any constraint boundaries or
inbound/outbound “T” connectors. These will be explored later in the case
study.

Review
The project team and knowledge workers have now completed 8 to 12 change
analysis items and a depiction of the VADS process via the Level 1 Workflow
model. The WFL1 provides a basic picture of how information is shared
between process groups when processing an order from the customer’s initial
call through payment.
About 1 hour and 15 minutes has elapsed since the start of the work session.
The team now has the information needed to build a Level 2 Workflow
Model. The Level 2 Workflow Model will provide a more detailed view of
the VADS and will be developed next.

Building the Level 2 Workflow Model

The Level 2 Workflow Model (WFL2) is developed immediately after the
WFL1 model during the facilitation work session. It represents an expanded
view of the WFL1. The WFL2 provides the detail needed to understand what
procedures are performed during the VADS process. The WFL2 also
identifies the phases through which the primary object (in the JMI example-a
sales order) moves during a VADS cycle. Each column of the model
represents a phase within the VADS. Each phase has five components as
follows:
Beginning Status - The beginning status appears at the top of each
column of the model. It indicates the status of the primary object
before the subsequent procedures take place.
Procedures - The procedures appear beneath the beginning status. The
procedure section lists the actions that must take place to move the
object to the ending status. These actions reflect all the information/
70
 communication steps found in the WFL1 model plus the critical steps
taken within each of the process groups.
Ending Status - The ending status appears next on the model. It
reflects the status of the primary object of the VADS after the
procedures have taken place. The ending status becomes the beginning
status of the next phase on the model.
Lapsed Time - The lapsed time is how long it takes to complete the
related phase of the VADS. It can be expressed in any unit of time
(days, hours, minutes, etc.). Comparing lapsed time with level of effort
can help to identify workflow bottlenecks and improvement
opportunities. If the lapsed time is greater than the level of effort, there
could be an opportunity for improving the VADS in that area.
Level of Effort - The level of effort represents the actual labor needed
to perform the procedures of the VADS phase. This too, can be
expressed in any unit of time. The cost per hour of those performing
the VADS multiplied by the total hours of effort provides an estimate of
the cost to complete one cycle of the VADS.
The WFL2 model provides a snapshot of the phases, procedures, time frames
and effort needed to complete a single cycle of a VADS. Once the number of
cycles that occur per year are established, an estimate of the total cost of the
VADS to the company can be developed. This cost can be evaluated in light
of the VADS contribution to the organization to establish its ROI or cost
benefit.
The WFL2 also provides insights as to the number of objects being
transformed (changed) during each cycle of the VADS. With that knowledge,
the group can assess whether the record keeping and information systems are
being properly updated to reflect these transformations.
The WFL2 model becomes a focal point for linking situations identified in the
change analysis to specific phases and procedures within the VADS. It also
becomes the vehicle for conceptualizing how work processes can be changed
to achieve the objectives and goals identified by management and the
knowledge workers.
The Level 2 Workflow Model is the pivotal model of a HELIX Discovery
project. Around this model a framework can be established for:
Understanding where specific improvement opportunities exist in the
context of how work is done,

71
 Pinpointing flaws and improvement opportunities in existing
information systems that support VADS,
Establishing the cost/benefit relationship of the VADS to the
organization and its stakeholders,
Aligning business objectives of the organization to the actual business
activities that achieve those objectives,
Conceptualizing new VADS and related systems, policies and
procedures for achieving breakthrough improvements.
During the work session, two WFL2 models are developed. The first reflects
the existing VADS based on the WFL1 model. The second represents a
concept for a new VADS that achieves management’s project objectives and
achieves the goals identified by the knowledge workers.
There are six rules related to the WFL2 model construction.
Rule 1: Each phase must be sequentially dependent on the successful
completion of the preceding phase.
Rule 2: Each phase must reflect all the communication steps contained in the
related WFL1 model and the process group actions needed to transform the
main object of the VADS from its current status to the next.
Rule 3: Each phase can only contain one transformation to the primary object.
Rule 4: Each phase must contain at least one input, process and output related
to the primary object.
Rule 5: Each phase must identify secondary objects and any transformations
taking place on those objects within that phase of the VADS’ cycle.
Rule 6: Each phase must contain estimates for the lapsed time and actual level
of effort needed to complete the phase.
Figure 6-8 illustrates a skeleton of a WFL2 model form with three levels.
Typically, a WFL2 will have between three and eight phases. There are rarely
more than five objects being transformed within any one VADS. Like the
WFL1, the WFL2 model is easy to read without understanding its nuances and
syntax.

72
Figure 6-8: WFL2 Skeleton Format

VADS Name: __________________________

VADS Reference: WFL2 - ___________________
VADS Cycles per Year: __________________
VADS Estimated Annual Cost: _______________

Assumption: [from WFL1]: _________________________________________________

Phase A Phase B Phase C

Beg. Status

The Status of the Object

Phase A's Ending Status Phase B's Ending Status
when the Cycle begins

P 1 Text about action 1 Text about action 1 Text about action

R
O 2 Text about action 2 Text about action 2 Text about action
C
E 3 Text about action 3 Text about action 3 Text about action
D
U 4 Text about action 4 Text about action
R
E 5 Text about action
S
End Status

The Final Status of the

The Status of the Object The Status of the Object Object. When no more
when the Phase ends when the Phase ends transformations can take
place and the Cycle ends.
Lapse
Time

Time it takes to go from Time it takes to go from Time it takes to go from

first to last procedure first to last procedure first to last procedure
Effort

Labor it takes to complete Labor it takes to complete Labor it takes to complete

the phase the phase the phase

It takes from 10 to 20 minutes to complete the existing version of the WFL2

model during the work session. The model is drawn on the flip chart. Using
the WFL1 as a starting point, the facilitator draws the first column (phase) and
asks the group what label they want to give as the VADS’ starting point. In
the case study this is: A customer wanting to order product.

73
The facilitator then asks, “What is the first thing that happens on the WFL1?”
(This is posted in full view in the room). Looking at the first item on the
chart, the group’s response is: “The customer calls the order desk with an
order.”
Hint: As the facilitator, it is often a good idea to walk over to the
WFL1 and point to the first communication line to draw the group’s
attention to it. After that, they will understand what is being asked.
The facilitator writes down the group’s response as the first procedure. The
facilitator then turns to the order desk knowledge worker and asks him to
describe the actions taken on the order before it is sent to Credit for approval.
Here the knowledge worker talks his way through all the processes that take
place. This might go as follows:
Knowledge Worker: First, I bring up a new order screen and identify
the customer on the computer. Then I enter the order information. I
confirm the inventory availability and ship dates with the customer.
Then I print out the rough order and send it to Credit for approval.
Combining this information with the data on the WFL1 model, the facilitator
updates the WFL2 model.
The result to this point appears in Figure 6-9.
Once the order was entered, its status became “rough.” Technically, the order
(the primary object) has transformed at this point. However, until it is printed
and sent to Credit for approval, only the order desk person who entered the
order knows that the order status has changed. The act of sending the order to
Credit and its subsequent receipt becomes the stimulus trigger for taking more
action on the order.

74
Figure 6-9: Phase ‗A‘ of WFL2 Model

Phase A

Status
Beg.
A customer wanting to order product

P 1 The customer calls the order

R desk with an order.
O 2 Order desk identifies the customer
C and enters order via order entry
E screen.
D 3 Inventory availability and ship
U dates are verified with the customer.
R 4 Rough order is printed and sent
E to credit for approval.
S
Status
Lapsed End

Rough sales order pending credit approval

Time
Effort

At this point the facilitator will do a quick test of the model by using the
WFL2 rules to help ask clarifying questions, if any, of the group.
Rule 1: Each phase must be sequentially dependent on the successful
completion of the preceding phase.
Since this is the first phase of the cycle, there are no prior phases. Rule
1 does not apply to the first phase of the model.
Rule 2: Each phase must reflect all the communication steps contained in the
related WFL1 model and process group actions needed to transform the main
object of the VADS from its current status to the next.
Looking at the WFL1 model reveals that the group is now at step four
“Order for Approval.” This means there should be four
communications represented in phase A of the WFL2. In this case, the
four procedures correlate exactly with the WFL1 model.

75
 Had the order desk performed other steps, such as stamping the order or
keeping a copy for reference, this correlation would not be so exact.
The key is that the WFL2 has to have the number of communications
represented on the WFL1. It can have more procedures, it just cannot
have less.
The only question that comes to mind at this point is one related to the
sales order system. Other than printing the order, what else does the
system do? If this observation were overlooked at this point, it would
be picked up in the diagnostic work sessions later. Just as the
facilitator wants to know what people do with information, the
facilitator also wants to know what systems do with information. In
this case study, by asking the question now, the facilitator might have
learned the following:
Knowledge Worker: The system simply stores the order with a status
of “rough”.
The facilitator updates phase A with this information.
Rule 3: Each phase can only contain one transformation to the primary
object.
What is the primary object of this VADS? Is it the customer, the
inventory or the order? The answer comes from examining the “what”
that is being moved through the VADS.
The primary object of a VADS is the subject matter that is being
moved between process groups via the communication lines.
In the example, the primary object is the order. In the first phase, the
order went from a status of nothing to a status of “rough” order. It
changed its state, it transformed. Phase A passes rule 3.
Rule 4: Each phase must contain at least one input, process and output
related to the primary object.
What is the input to phase A? In the example, it is the
customer calling the order desk with an order. The stimulus
trigger (the customer’s call) sets the order desk into action and
results in the entry of the order into the sales order system.
What is the process in phase A? The order desk’s interaction
with the customer and related data entry function represent the
process that transforms the order from nothing to rough.

76
 What is the output in phase A? There are two outputs. The
first is the output of the system storing the order with a status of
“rough”. The second is the physical sales order itself,
which is printed and sent to Credit for approval. Phase A
passes rule 4.
Rule 5: Each phase must identify secondary objects and any
transformations taking place on them within that phase of the
VADS’ cycle.
Are there any secondary objects explicitly or implicitly
referenced or transformed in phase A? The answer is yes. To
identify these objects look again at the WFL1 model. On the
model, there are clues about secondary objects. Those clues
reside in the text written in the process group ovals and on the
communication lines. There are three process groups involved in
phase A: the customer, the order desk and Credit. By asking:
“Does the company track or want to track any information about
the process groups or subject(s) being communicated in context
to this VADS?”
The facilitator can determine if secondary objects exist. Asking
this question about the customer process group the answer is yes,
because JMI wants to know who its customers are, where they
are, what they have purchased, how much they owe, etc. Given
the answer is yes, the facilitator now asks:
“As a result of the procedures performed in phase A, has
anything about the customer changed?”
According to the model, thus far the answer is no. However, in
actuality, the customer’s credit line has changed by the value of
that order (assuming it is not COD). Nowhere in the model has
this been explicitly indicated. Two possibilities arise at this point.
Either the model is wrong (it does not reflect what procedurally
happens) and must be updated or the model is correct (reflects
what procedurally happens) and, therefore the process is flawed.
If the process is flawed, the possibility exists for the customer to
order product that exceeds their credit limit. In JMI’s case,
assume the model reflects the actual way the company does
business and there is a flaw in the process and related record
keeping. Reviewing the change analysis will indicate whether
the flaw has been addressed yet. If it has not, the facilitator

77
 would update the change analysis with a new current situation
and develop a preliminary goal that resolves it.
This initial update might appear as in Figure 6-10.
Figure 6-10 - Credit Limit Example

Change Analysis
Cu rren t S ituation P reliminary G oal

3 T h e c u s to m e r’s c re d it lim it is n o t T h e a b ility to u p d a te th e c u st o m er ’s

u p d a te d in th e c o m p u te r u n til th e c re d it lim it a t t h e t im e t h ey p la c e
s a le s o r d e r is a p p ro v e d b y t h e a n o rd e r
c re d it d e p a rtm e n t.
T h is w o u ld allo w th e o rd e r d es k to
T h is s o m e tim e s r e su lt s in t h e c a tc h p o te n tia l c re d it lim it
c u s to m e r b e in g s o ld p ro b le m s b e fo re th e o r d er is
p ro d u c ts b e y o n d w h at th e ir ta k e n a n d a d e liv e ry d a te
c re d it lim it s u p p o r ts . p ro m is e d .

W h e n th is h a p p e n s , it is T h is w o u ld im p ro v e cu s to m e r
e m b a rra s s in g fo r t h e s e rv ic e an d r e d u ce b a d d e b ts .
c u s to m e r a n d e x p o se s th e
c o m p a n y to a p o te n tia l b ad
d e b t.

Based on the review so far, it can be deduced that the customer is

a secondary object that transforms in phase A and that the current
VADS fails to recognize the credit limit transformation correctly.
Are there other secondary objects reflected in the process
groups that transform in phase A? The sales order desk and
Credit departments are not objects that make sense to track in
the context of this VADS. JMI might want to track the number
of orders processed and approved each day, or track some other
aspects of the two departments’ productivity and efficiency. That
efficiency would always be stated in terms of those departments’
efficiency in handling objects like customers and orders, not in
terms of the physical characteristics of the departments (square
feet of work area, furniture, etc.).
78
 The final area in which to look for secondary objects is on the
communication lines. It has already been determined that the sales
order is the primary object of this VADS. However, the facilitator
will still want to ask a few questions about the primary object. The first
question is: ―What subjects of information does the primary object
address?‖
In the example, the order deals with two subject matters. The first is
the customer. The second is inventory or product. Since the customer
has already been identified as a secondary object, nothing more needs
to be done at this point.
How does the facilitator know that inventory is a subject related to the
order? There is nothing on the WFL1 about inventory. However,
product and inventory are mentioned in phase A of the WFL2. Product
is referenced in the Beginning Status and inventory is mentioned in
procedure 3.
The facilitator does not need to be pre-educated about order processing
or customer and inventory management to know this. They are simply
looking for nouns and pronouns for clues. As nouns and pronouns are
found on any of the models, they should act as stimulus triggers for the
facilitator to begin asking subject and transformation-oriented
questions.
Does inventory transform in phase A? Again, the answer is yes, but
this model does not reflect any such transformation. However, there is
in fact, less inventory available for sale than there was before the
customer placed the order. As before, the same two possibilities exist
Either the model is incorrect or the VADS has a flaw in it. Assume that
for JMI, the VADS is flawed - that JMI’s procedures and records do not
accurately reflect reality for orders in the “rough” status. The action is
to update the change analysis and move on.
Although phase A passes rule 5, the testing of the phase has identified
flaws in the VADS with respect to the customer’s credit limit (not
beingreduced for the value of the order) and the inventory (quantity
available for sale not being reduced for the quantity ordered). These
flaws will need to be resolved in the proposed VADS.
Rule 6: Each phase must contain estimates for the lapsed time and
actual level of effort needed to complete the phase.
How long does it take to move an order from the point of the customer’s call
to the point when the “rough” order is sent to Credit for approval? How much
79
labor is involved? Looking at phase A we see that this data has not yet
been entered. Here, the facilitator would ask the group for their “best guess”
as to lapsed time and labor. The facilitator is not looking for precision here,
for a relatively accurate approximation. Later, if needed, the estimate can be
honed. Assume for now that, on average, it takes about 5 minutes to enter and
print an order. Because the process is interactive, assume that there is also 5
minutes of labor expended.
Now that the facilitator has completed the quick test of phase A, the models
can be updated and the group can move on to modeling the rest of the phases.
At this point, the models appear as shown in Figure 6-11
Figure 6-11: Models After Application of Rules.

Change Analysis

Cu rren t Situation Preliminary G oal

1 It takes too long to process sales orders
through Credit.
Too Long = more than 45 minutes from the
time the Credit Manager receives the
order from the order desk until the time
the order is released to the warehouse
for shipping.
This is bad because it means that orders
received after 2 p.m. cannot be shipped
until the next business day. This results
in poor customer service.
The ability to process work orders directly to the
warehouse where the customer’s available
credit line is greater than the order amount
and his outstanding balance is current.
This would require a change to our order
processing system.
Specifically, it would require the system to
automatically check the order for credit-related
data and route it to the appropriate location
(credit department or warehouse).

80
 Change Analysis
Current Situation
2 Inventory is often over sold resulting in
missed delivery dates, poor customer
service and / or canceled orders.
This happens because the inventory is
not reserved at the time the order is
taken.
About 12 to 18 orders are lost a day due
to inaccurate inventory.
Figure 6-11 — Models After Application of Rules (cont.)
C hange Analysis
Cu rren t Situation
3 The customer’s credit limit is not updated
in the computer until the sales order is
approved by the credit department.
This sometimes results in the customer
being sold products beyond what
their credit limit supports.
When this happens, it is embarrassing
for the customer and exposes the
company to a potential bad debt.
Preliminary Goal
The ability to reserve inventory at the time the
order is taken.
This would make the inventory records more
accurate and would insure that the stock
would be there when the warehouse went
to ship it.
This would increase sales by about $ 57,000
a day.
Preliminary G oal
The ability to update the customer’s credit
limit at the time they place an order
This would allow the order desk to catch
potential credit limit problems before the
order is taken and a delivery date
promised.
This would improve customer service and
reduce bad debts.
81
ASSUMPTION: Sales order process when credit is good, inv entory is in stock and the customer pays on time.

1 - Customer Calls in Order -

Customer Sales Order Desk

-
rder
3

ers O
2

nt
Payme

er -
-

- Ent
oice

Ord
- Mail Inv

ugh
9

- Ro
10
8

Order for Approval

- Shipped Order -

- Finalize Order
& Print Invoice - Sales Order
System
Billing 4

- Post Payment -
11

-R
7 5
Billiin for

ev
g-

iew
er
- Ord

s
Cr
ed
it-
7

W arehouse - Approved Order - Credit Department

82
Figure 6-11 - Models after application of rules (cont.)

Phase A Phase B Phase C Phase D Phase E

Beg. Status

Rough sales order pending credit Approved sales order ready for
A customer wanting to order product Shipped sales order ready for billing Billed sales order pending collection
approval shipping

P 1 The customer calls the order
R desk with an order.
O 2 Order desk identifies customer
C and enters order via order entry
E screen.
1 Credit receives rough order from
the order desk.
2 Credit retrieves order from
system and verifies the credit
limit.
1 Warehouse receives order
from Credit.
2 Warehouse picks order and
updates quantities picked on
the order form.
1 Billing receives order from
warehouse.
2 Billing retrieves order from the
system and enters the actual
quantities shipped.
1 Customer receives the invoice.
2 Customer sends payment to
billing.
3 Billing retrieves the customer's
invoice from the system and

D 3 Inventory availability and ship 3 Credit reviews customer's 3 Warehouse packages and 3 The system updates inventory, posts the payment.
U dates are verified with customer. outstanding A/R. ships order to customer. adjusts the customer credit limit 4 The system updates the
R 4 Rough order is printed and sent 4 Credit approves order on system, 4 Warehouse sends shipped and creates the invoice. customer's credit limit and

E to Credit for approval. stamps it approved and forwards order to Billing. 4 Billing prints the invoice and accounts receivable balance.
S it to warehouse for shipping. mails to customer.
Status

Rough sales order pending credit Approved sales order ready for
End

Shipped sales order ready for billing Billed sales order pending collection Collected sales order
approval shipping
Lapsed
Time

5 minutes 2 days 1 day 2 hours 45 days

Effort

5 minutes 45 minutes 1 hour 10 minutes 10 minutes

85
Review
The three core models have now been completed. About two hours of the two
and a half hours has been spent in the work session. There are a few more tasks
to be completed before the work session is over. These tasks are:
Correlate, “MAP”, the existing situations from the change analysis with
the WFL2 model.
Develop a proposed WFL2 model that will reflect how the VADS might
function if the preliminary goals from the change analysis were
achieved.
Correlate the project goals to the proposed WFL2.
Review session accomplishments and make any data collection
assignments needed to support and clarify the VADS models developed.

Correlating Situations to Workflow - First proof of

Correctness
The next step in the work session is to conduct the first “Proof of Correctness.”
This is done by correlating the situations developed in the change analysis (CA)
to the WFL2 model. The process of mapping these two models together will
verify that all the situations identified apply to the WFL2. If the change analysis
does not correlate to the WFL2, it could mean one of the following:
1. The current situation of the change analysis applies to a different
VADS. If this is true, a decision will be needed to determine if the VADS
in question is to be added to the scope of the project.
2. The WFL2 of the current VADS is incorrect. If this is the case, the
WFL2 will need to be corrected before continuing with the correlation
process.
3. Both 1 and 2 are true.
The correlation process is done by indexing the current situations, via their
number, directly onto the WFL2. This technique helps the group visualize where
each situation occurs within the workflow. Knowing this will help the group to
develop a proposed WFL2 (a Level 2 Workflow Model that represents an
improved VADS).
The facilitator starts the process by working with the group to determine where in
the WFL2 the first situation from the CA occurs. Once this location is identified,
86
the facilitator will write the number of the situation next to the procedure or at the
top of the phase where the situation correlates. To help the group see this
correlation clearly, the facilitator uses a red marker pen.
The facilitator will continue this process until all the situations are correlated to
the VADS being worked on or linked to another VADS.
Once this is completed, the facilitator will conduct a quick test of the correlated
data to ensure it reflects where a situation was introduced into the VADS and
where its impact is felt throughout the VADS. Both of these mappings are
important.
Understanding where the situation is introduced into the VADS points to where
the VADS will need to be changed. This coordinate on the WFL2 will make
developing new concepts and procedures to achieve the project objectives and
preliminary goals much easier.
Understanding the impact of a situation in terms of disruptions to the current or
future cycles of the VADS will help everyone understand how the situation
detracts value from the stakeholders it is intended to benefit. The facilitator must
ripple the occurrence of each situation through the current cycle and future
cycles. It is possible that an error in a VADS in cycle 1 may not cause erroneous
actions or decisions until cycle 2 or beyond. It is also possible for the results of
an error introduced in one VADS to be manifest in another VADS.
For example: Overselling inventory, followed by customers canceling their
orders because of missed delivery dates might cause the purchasing department
to buy more stock than is actually needed.
This multiple VADS situation typically occurs when erroneous information about
the status of an object is introduced into the organization. This erroneous
information becomes a false stimulus trigger to a workgroup and seemingly
correct actions are taken in error. In the example, the overselling of inventory
created an “out-of-stock” condition. This “out-of-stock” status on the inventory
triggers purchasing to replenish the stock in order to satisfy future demand. The
subsequent event of order cancellations by disgruntled customers reduces the
back order situation that created the “out-of-stock” state. The net result is an
overstock situation.
In rippling each situation through the VADS, the facilitator wants to be sensitive
to any situation that erroneously influences primary and/or secondary objects.
When this occurs, the facilitator should have the group identify any other VADS
that use this object. Each VADS identified may represent an increase in the
scope of the project. Remember, adding a new VADS into the project’s scope
will require an update to the project’s time line and cost.
87
The final step in this correlation process is to determine if any of the project level
objectives can be mapped to the WFL2. The facilitator will repeat the correlation
process for each of the project objectives. Again, this will help focus the group
on where the VADS can be changed to achieve project level objectives. Also, it
will ensure that the project objectives are constantly focused on and dealt with.
Figure 6-12 graphically illustrates the correlation process.
In the case study, three situations have been identified that should correlate
directly with the Sales on Account VADS. There are also four major project
objectives. Taking each one in sequence, they can be correlated to the WFL2.
Figure 6-12 - Correlation Process

Correlating Situations to Workflow

First Proof of Correctness
Situation Goal
A. No inventory
available
No shortfalls Existing WFL2
B. Slow Average Beg Customer wants Shipped Order
….collections 38 days Status product Open Order Billed Order

P
r
1. ------ 1. ------ 1. ------ 1. ------
o
c
2. ----- 2. -----
A
e
d
3. ----- 2. ----- 3. ----- 2. B-----
u
r
4. ---- 4. ----
Isolating
Isolatingproblems
problemsalong
along e
flow
flow line, helpspeople
line, helps people s 3. ----- 3. -----
visualize
visualizewhere
whereproblems
problems End Open Order Shipped Order Billed Order Paid Order
occur
occur andget
and getleverage
leverage Status
on
onchange.
change.

88
Situation #1: It takes too long to process a sales order through Credit.
Where does this situation occur on the WFL2? Analyzing the model (figure 6-
11), we can see that it would logically occur in phase B. This is the phase in
which the order is transformed from the status of “rough” to the status of
“approved.”
The question now is: Which procedures cause this process to take too long (45
minutes)? If there were one specific procedure, the facilitator would write the
situation number by it. If the situation applies to the phase in general, due to
volume or some other variable, then the facilitator would write the situation
number at the top of the phase. In this case, assume that the situation is phase
specific and a S1 (situation 1) is written at the top of phase B in red.
Situation #2: Inventory is often oversold resulting in slipped delivery dates,
poor customer service and/or canceled orders.
Where does this situation occur on the WFL2? This situation is a little more
complicated than the first. Even though the error in the status of inventory occurs
in phase A (when the order was taken), it remains benign until the warehouse
goes to pick the product only to find that there is insufficient inventory to fill the
order. Discovering this error in inventory can occur one to two days after the
order is taken. By the time the inventory shortfall is discovered, more of the
same product may have been ordered exacerbating the situation (causing more
shortfalls in inventory). This can also affect the actions of Purchasing.
If the system reflects ample inventory to satisfy demand when, in fact, there is
not ample inventory, purchasing has no reason to replenish it. Once purchasing
becomes aware of the need (warehouse backorders an item), they may tend to
replenish more inventories than needed to compensate for the backorder
situation.
Meanwhile, the customer may try to order more product. However, their credit
limit may not support the purchase. Since the customer has not been billed for
products not shipped, they have not paid for it. They may find it appropriate to
cancel the backorder in order to get product that is in stock. If this happens after
purchasing has filled the backorder, a complete breakdown occurs in matching
inventory to customer needs. Here the facilitator will want to write a number S2
on the procedures A2 and C2. A2 represents phase A, procedure 2 and C2
represents phase C, procedure 2 (figure 6-13).
The facilitator will also want to update the change analysis to reflect the ripple
effect of this situation to the replenishment purchasing VADS.

89
Situation #3: The customer‘s credit limit is not updated in the computer
until the order is approved by Credit.
Where does this situation occur on the WFL2? Again, it appears to relate to
phase B. Specifically, the approval occurs on procedure B4. The complication
related to this situation occurs when the customer orders more products before
the credit limit is updated. This can cause the customer’s credit limit to be
overstated and potentially result in a collection problem in procedure E2
(customer sends payment to billing).
What happens when Credit discovers the problem during a subsequent
cycle? It is here a potential for poor customer service arises. The customer
might be upset that they were not notified of the situation at the time the order
was taken. The customer might be embarrassed, cancel the order and reconsider
doing business with JMI.
Finally, when this event occurs in conjunction with situation # 2, the customer
will find himself in a “Catch 22” dilemma. The customer may find it easier to
cancel all outstanding orders rather than address the problem. This can result in
JMI experiencing a serious loss of business and goodwill.
On the WFL2, the facilitator places a S3 by E2 (customer sends payment to
billing).
Project Objective #1: Improve our customer service levels and beat the
competition by reducing the time it takes to process an
order from the order desk through shipping from five to
two days.
Where does the WFL2 keep this objective from being achieved? Here, there
is a conflict in the data. The knowledge worker group has indicated that it
presently takes about three days to process an order. This is calculated by adding
the lapsed times of phases A, B and C. The management believes it to take five
days. Both cannot be right. Here the facilitator may want to dig deeper into this
difference in perception. For now, the facilitator simply notes the difference.
From the first three situations, we can see that there the process that can be
improved by resolving existing impediments. We can also see that improvements
related to project objective 1 will need to take place in phases A, B and C.
Therefore, the facilitator would post objective 1 (PO1) on the model at the top of
these phases.
Project Objective #2: Increase our sales by over $40 million a year by
keeping lost sales resulting from stock shortages to less
than two per day
90
Where can stock shortages occur in WFL2? The first place they can occur is
during the ordering process. Since the inventory quantities are most likely
overstated in the system, the order desk will tend to sell more than is available.
As previously seen, this flaw in the WFL2 corrupts the inventory object and
causes a ripple effect through Purchasing, creating a state of disequilibrium in the
management of inventory.
Resolving situation # 2 of the change analysis will contribute to achieving this
project objective.
Therefore, the team would place a reference to objective #2 (PO2) at A2 on the
WFL2.
Project Objective #3: Improve our collections by identifying when a
customer has a three day change in their paying habits.
Where does the customer have the opportunity to pay for the order?
Looking at the model, we can see that the payment cycle begins when the
customer receives an invoice. The time between the day the customer has the
invoice and remits a payment constitutes the number of days it takes the customer
to pay their bill.
Over time, the average number of days to pay could be calculated. This average
could be monitored against a baseline to detect a three-day variation. Given this,
is there anything in the current model that would prevent JMI from identifying a
three-day change in a customer’s payment habit? The answer is no because the
process records invoices billed and payments received in a logical and timely
manner. So, why isn’t this being done? Is there another VADS that needs to be
reviewed? The answer lies in the assumption on which this VADS is based.
This version on the VADS assumes that the customer pays “on time”. What
happens when the customer does not pay on time? Is there another VADS for
this or a variation on this VADS?
For now, assume there is a collection process for collecting invoices that are past
due. This will have the same A through D phases as the current WFL2. The
process changes occur after the customer fails to pay “on time”. Project objective
#3 does not map to the current WFL2. However, in a subsequent work session,
the facilitator will need to model the procedures that take place when a customer
does not pay “on time”. The facilitator will need to develop a concept with the
knowledge workers on how payment habit variations can be monitored in order
to achieve project objective #3.
Project Objective #4: Become the industry leader by increasing sales
volume by 30 orders per day.

91
How does this objective correlate to the Sales on Account VADS ? Is
there anything in the VADS that keeps the sales volume from
increasing? The answer is yes and no. The VADS has the tendency to
promote lost sales through the overselling of inventory. Resolving that flaw will
contribute to increased sales volume. So the facilitator would post objective #
(PO4) to A3 (inventory availability and ship dates are verified with the customer)
on the WFL2. However, at best that will only account for about 12 orders a day
(lost sales). Where will the remaining 18 orders come from? Again, the
facilitator asks the question: “Are there other VADS that influence sales
volume?”. In the case study, we find that JMI has a Field Sales and Marketing
group. The team might learn that this group is responsible for promotion sales,
trade shows and direct sales calls. Since this is the case, it is likely that the
project’s scope would be expanded to understand how the related VADS function
and how they might be improved.
Figure 6-13 presents the WFL2 model after completing this correlation process.
(Note: Situations start with an “S” and Project Objectives start with “PO”):

92
 Figure 6-13 -- Existing WFL2 after Correlation process.

Phase A Phase B Phase C Phase D Phase E

Status
Beg.

Rough sales order pending credit Approved sales order ready for
A customer wanting to order product Shipped sales order ready for billing Billed sales order pending collection
approval shipping
PO1 S1 PO1 PO1

P 1 The customer calls the order
R desk with an order.
O 2 Order desk identifies customer
C and enters order via order entry
E screen. S2 PO2
D posts the payment.
3 Inventory availability and ship
U dates are verified with customer.
R PO4
E 4 Rough order is printed and sent
S to Credit for approval.
End Status
1 Credit receives rough order from
the order desk.
2 Credit retrieves order from
system and verifies the credit
limit.
3 Credit reviews customer's
outstanding A/R.
4 Credit approves order on system,
stamps it approved and forwards
it to warehouse for shipping.
S3
1 Warehouse receives order
from credit.
2 Warehouse picks order and
updates quantities picked on
the order form. S2
3 Warehouse packages and
ships order to customer.
4 Warehouse sends shipped
order to Billing.
1 Billing receives order from
warehouse.
2 Billing retrieves order from the
system and enters the actual
quantities shipped.
3 The system updates inventory,
adjusts the customer credit limit and
creates the invoice.
4 Billing prints the invoice and
mails to customer.
1 Customer receives the invoice.
2 Customer sends payment to
Billing. S3
3 Billing retrieves the customer's
invoice from the system and
4 The system updates the customer's
credit limit and accounts receivable
balance.

Rough sales order pending credit

Approved sales order ready for shipping Shipped sales order ready for billing Billed sales order pending collection Collected sales order
approval
Lapsed
Time

5 minutes 2 days 1 day 2 hours 45 days

Effort

5 minutes 45 minutes 1 hour 10 minutes 10 minutes

93
 Notice how the clustering of the Existing Situations on the WFL2 draws the eye
to specific areas of the model. Reviewing these clusters provides clues as to
where change will most likely need to occur in order to streamline the VADS,
correct inherent flaws and achieve the preliminary goals contained on the change
analysis and in the related project objectives. When situation clusters are
accompanied by large differences between the lapsed time and the level-of-effort
data for a phase, bottlenecks in workflows are most likely to exist.
This correlation process is the first step in helping the VADS’ knowledge
workers visualize what and where improvements to the current way of doing
work should occur.
Probably for the first time they will have a “Big Picture” understanding of how
the work they do relates to other coworkers and customers.
This is a significant achievement. The group is now ready to create a new WFL2
model that will depict the VADS as it could be.

Correlating Goals to Conceptual Workflow - Second Proof of

Correctness
Now that the change analysis and project objectives have been correlated to the
existing WFL2, the group is ready to begin building a proposed WFL2. The goal
of the proposed WFL2 is to present a new workflow that achieves the preliminary
goals established on the change analysis and contributes to the achievement of
the project objectives.
Starting with a fresh flip chart page, the facilitator quickly roughs out the phases
of the VADS in the WFL2 format. Referring to the existing WFL2, the facilitator
begins talking through each phase and procedure. As situations or project
objective annotations are encountered, the facilitator asks the group what would
need to change in order to achieve the preliminary goal associated to the situation
and/or the project objective referenced. As the group’s dialogue ensues, the
facilitator listens for consensus.

94
Sometimes there will be a group mental block stalling the creative process.
When mental blocks happen, the facilitator can throw out an idea to the group.
Typically, this would start with the phrase:
What would happen if . . .
-or-
Let‘s try out this idea and see where it leads us?
The facilitator needs to use this technique sparingly. The group must own the
ideas generated. When a facilitator offers too many concepts, he or she runs the
risk of having the group abdicate ownership, leaving the facilitator with a model
that has no buy-in and thus no support from the group. If the facilitator senses a
rejection and/or abdication of an idea he or she offers, it should be scrapped and
new concepts pursued. The facilitator should never defend or fight for a concept
not supported by the group.
As different concepts surface which seem to have the seeds of consensus, the
facilitator works the concept through the model. This process helps the group
think through the viability of the concept. It also allows them to assess the
impact of the change on their role in the VADS. Questions like:
Does it create more or less work?
or
Does it increase or reduce the importance of their position?
often run through peoples’ minds when assessing the impact of change on their
day-to-day work lives. This process is good because it enables each person in the
group to project themselves into the proposed VADS allowing the process of
buy-in to begin.
Palatable concepts are introduced and unpalatable concepts are quickly rejected.
As consensus occurs, the facilitator updates the proposed WFL2 to reflect the
changes. Procedures that do not change are copied from the existing WFL2.
New or changed procedures are posted to the model and a box is drawn around
them to signify that they are new or changed. These new or changed procedures
are also labeled with the number of the goal and/or objective they are supporting.
By the end of the work session, the group will have produced a proposed VADS
that they collectively support and can promote to their coworkers.
After just 2½ hours, a significant step toward aligning business objectives to
workflows will have been achieved (see appendix-Factor #11 - Alignment of
Business Objectives to Value-added Delivery Systems and Process Groups).
95
These knowledge workers will be able to articulate how the changes being
proposed achieve their improvement goals as well as those of the organization.
Figure 6-14 - Correlation of Goals to Proposed WFL2 illustrates this correlation
process.
Figure 6-14 - Correlation of Goals to Proposed WFL2

Correlating Goals to Conceptual Workflow

Second Proof of Correctness
Situation Goal
A. No inventory
available
No shortfalls
Proposed WFL2
B. Slow Average Beg Customer wants
collections 38 days Status product Open Order
Shipped Order
Billed Order

P
r
1. ------ 1. ------ 1. ------ 1. ------
o
c
2. ----- 2. -----
e
d
3. A----- 2. ----- 3. ----- 2.B -----
Mapping
Mappinggoals
goalsto
tothe
the
u
r
4. ---- 4. B----
proposed
proposed workflowhelps
workflow helps e
people visualize new s 3. ----- 3. -----
people visualize new
procedures
procedures and
andunderstand
understand End Open Order Shipped Order Billed Order Paid Order
operational impact.
operational impact. Status

Change
ChangePoints
Points are
are
Identified
Identified

In the case study there are three goals and three objectives (1, 2 & 4) that the
proposed VADS must achieve to be viable. The following presents how the
Sales on Account VADS might be changed to achieve these goals and objectives.
The language of the goal has been paraphrased for the sake of brevity.
Preliminary Goal #1: The ability to print orders directly to the warehouse
when the customer‘s credit line and outstanding balance
are okay.
By looking at the correlated existing WFL2 model, the facilitator can quickly
pinpoint where current situation #1 occurs. Since preliminary goals have a one-
to-one correlation with current situations, it is most probable that the changes

96
needed to implement the preliminary goals will most likely occur on or before the
point where the current situation is posted.
Situation #1 occurs at phase B. However, preliminary goal #1 indicates that in
order to approve orders for printing directly to the warehouse, the system would
need to test the order during the order entry process, which is in phase A. The
facilitator verifies this with the group and asks them to indicate where the change
should be made and to provide the wording to be used on the proposed WFL2.
This is important because the group, not the facilitator, must own the proposed
WFL2.
The facilitator updates the model with the wording, draws a box around new or
changed procedures and labels them with a PG1. Based on the correlation of
preliminary goal #1, the proposed WFL2 would reflect the following changes.
A2 (order desk identifies customer…) would include a check of the
customer’s outstanding account balance to determine if it was current. The
system would flag the order as “clearing the credit check” since, in this
version of the WFL2, the assumption is the customer’s account balance is
current.
Procedure A4 would be changed. The new procedure would total the order
and compare the total order against the customer’s available credit limit.
Since the assumption is that the credit limit is okay, the system would
update the order to the status of “approved” and print it directly to the
warehouse. By approving the customer’s credit during order entry, phase
B (rough sales order pending credit approval) is eliminated. However,
what happens when the order does not pass the outstanding account
balance and credit check process? Since there has been a dramatic change
in the VADS under the assumptions listed, a new version of the VADS
would need to be developed. This version would depict the workflow
when the outstanding account balance and credit are not cleared during the
order entry process. This would be done at another work session.
At this point, the ending status of the order in phase A is an “Approved
sales order ready for shipping”. By eliminating the need to process the
order through Credit, the cycle time of orders is improved by two days. In
addition, 45 minutes of labor is saved. However, there will be a need to
install one or more printers in the warehouse. This will involve some cost
for the printer and the related cabling as noted in the change analysis.
Preliminary Goal #2: The ability to reserve inventory at the time the order
is taken.

97
Situation 2 (inventory is often oversold…) appears at A3 and C2 on the existing
WFL2. When a situation appears on a WFL2 more than once, the facilitator
needs to determine which occurrence represents the source of the problem and
which one represents a symptom. Typically, the first occurrence on a WFL2
represents the source. By implementing a correct change in the model, the source
situation is easily identified. In the case of this situation, it is clear that the failure
to update the inventory for the quantity ordered (A3) is the reason the inventory
is not available for shipping (C2). Therefore, adding an inventory update to the
model in phase A should eliminate related shortfalls in inventory from occurring
in C2. However, this corrective action will not mean that discrepancies in
inventory (what the records show vs. what is actually in the warehouse) will be
eliminated altogether. Since the integrity of inventory is critical to JMI, the
project scope will need to be expanded to include a review of every VADS where
inventory is transformed (increased or decreased).
With the group supplying the wording, the facilitator adds the inventory update to
the model, draws a box around it and labels it PG2. The inventory update occurs
in A4. The new A4 incorporates the reserving of inventory, a new concept, into
the system. This concept of reserving inventory for an “order in process” might
require a substantial change to the order processing system.
When information system changes are being proposed, it is advisable
to include a knowledgeable MIS applications analyst in the group.
Changes to information systems are typically complex and more difficult to
implement than expected. By including the proper technical staff from the start,
issues related to the complexity of the change can be identified and discussed. In
this case, the system’s database may not have a place to store the data about the
inventory being reserved. Unlike PG1 which merely changed where the system
would update the order for approval, PG2 implies that the system is going to be
expected to do something it never did before. This could signify a major change.

98
Preliminary Goal #3: The ability to update the customer‘s credit limit at the
time they place an order.
Situation 3 appears in the existing WFL2 at B4 and at E2. However, the goal is
to perform this credit limit update during order entry at A2 through A4. This
goal appears to have been addressed as part of PG1, where A4 was revised to
reflect the credit approval of the order. Here the facilitator reviews A4 again
with the group and confirms that PG3 is indeed resolved. PG3 is then posted to
the model at A4.
Project Objective #1: Reduce the time it takes to process a new order
through shipment from five to two days.
This goal is posted on the WFL2 at the top of phases A, B and C. Based on the
changes made to the model thus far, it would appear that orders with good credit
and available inventory would meet this goal. The issue about orders that do not
meet this criterion remains. At this point, it would be helpful to know how many
orders per day fall into the version of the VADS being developed. This might
require some research outside of the work session. However, it should be
available by work session number two. Other VADS scenarios of orders, in
which the customer does not pass credit approval and/or when the inventory is
not available will also require discussion at subsequent work sessions. For now,
the facilitator posts PO1 to the proposed model in the lapsed-time row in phases
A and B.
Project Objective #2: Keep lost sales due to inventory shortages to less than
two per day.
PO2 appears at A2 on the existing WFL2 model. Since A4 has already been
changed to reflect the achievement of PG2, the facilitator will review the
proposed A4 to see if it already achieves PO2. Theoretically, reserving the
inventory at the time the order is taken should greatly reduce the potential for
inventory shortfalls in the warehouse. An estimated 12 orders a day were
affected by this situation. The question is whether resolving this specific
inventory problem will achieve the improvement desired. Certainly, it will help.
However, other VADS related to purchasing, such as returns and shrinkage will
need to be reviewed to ensure that inventory is properly aligned with customer
demand. Each of these areas, if not already included in the scope of the project,
would require management’s approval before knowledge groups could be formed
and facilitation work sessions conducted. Assume for the sake of the case study
that six of the twelve orders with inventory problems were created because of the
anomaly introduced into the inventory object as reflected in the existing WFL2.

99
Respectively then, the proposed WFL2 can expect to increase order volume by
six orders a day. The facilitator need only post PO2 at A4 in the proposed model.
Project Objective #4: Increase sales order volume by 30 orders per day.
PO4 appears to be tightly linked to PO2 in terms of this VADS. They both
appear in phase A on the existing WFL2 model. By achieving an increase of six
orders a day via PG2, PO4 is supported. Therefore, what is needed to achieve all
of PO4 is to find opportunities in other VADS to increase orders by 24 a day.
The facilitator need only post PO4 by A3 to complete the level 2 correlation
process.
The proposed WFL2 model for JMI’s sales order process when credit is
approved, inventory is available and the customer pays on time appears in Figure
6-15.

100
 Figure 6-15 - Proposed WFL2

Phase A Phase B Phase C Phase D

Beg. Status

Approved sales order ready for Billed sales order pending

A customer wanting to order product Shipped sales order ready for billing
shipping collection

1 The customer calls the order 1 Warehouse receives order via 1 Billing receives order from 1 Customer receives the invoice.
desk with an order. printer. warehouse. 2 Customer sends payment to
Order Entry Process billing.
2 Order desk identifies the 2 Warehouse picks order and 2 Billing retrieves order from the
P customer and verifies that their updates quantities picked on system and enters the actual 3 Billing retrieves the customer's
R outstanding balance is current via the order form. quantities shipped. invoice from the system and
O the order entry screen. The system posts the payment.
C flags the order as clearing O/S 3 Warehouse packages and 3 The system updates inventory,
E Balance review. PG1 ships order to customer. adjusts the customer credit limit 4 The system updates the
D 3 For each item ordered, the order and creates the invoice. customer's credit limit and
U desk verifies the inventory is 4 Warehouse sends shipped accounts receivable balance.
available and confirms ship dates.
R order to billing. 4 Billing prints the invoice and
PO4

E 4 Upon completion of the order, the mails to customer.

S system reserves the inventory
being ordered, sets its status to
"Approved" and prints it directly to
the warehouse printer.
PG1 PG2 PG3 PO2
Status

Shipped sales order ready for

End

Approved sales order ready for shipping Billed sales order pending collection Collected sales order
billing
Lapsed
Time

5 minutes PO1 1 day PO1 2 hours 45 days

Effort

5 minutes 1 hour 10 minutes 10 minutes

101
All the real changes to the WFL2 occurred in phase A. This is not always the
case. However, since most of the problems occurred because of the failure to
accurately record transformations at the beginning of the process, it makes
sense that the changes needed to correct the VADS take place there. Also,
notice that on phase B where Credit approved the order, is gone. Since credit
approval is done in phase A, the old credit approval phase is eliminated.
However, the version of the VADS for when customers do not clear the
automated credit check must still be developed. It is likely that Credit will
play a major role in that version.

Review
At this point, the work session is almost complete. The group has:
Identified opportunities for change (the change analysis),
Developed models of the way work is done today (WFL1 and existing
WFL2), and,
Conceptualized a proposed model of how the process could be changed
in order to achieve the goals and objectives established (proposed
WFL2).
This complete process has only taken about 2½ hours. This is a significant
achievement!
The only remaining tasks are to review what has been accomplished, make
any data collection assignments and schedule the next work session.

Summarizing the HELIX Facilitation Work Session

The first work session is complete. It will be useful to review some key
aspects about the work session and summarize what has been accomplished.
The first work session is the most demanding of the three allotted to each
VADS. Each work session should be limited to 2½ hours. Participants
should include the facilitator, a monitor and the knowledge workers (4 to 12)
who represent all the workgroups that are involved in the VADS.
If changes to the information systems are identified, then the MIS
organization should also be included in the work session.
The first order of business for the work session is to have the participants
introduce themselves, if needed. Next, the project scope and objectives are
reviewed. Preferably, there are summary handouts to accompany the review.
Finally, the mission of the group is reviewed. These activities are done at the
102
beginning of the session to ensure that the team members are familiar with
one another and that the focus of the session is clear.
During the work session, four models are developed. The first is the change
analysis. This model sets forth the situations that currently exist in the VADS
that hinder its effectiveness and diminish the value it adds to stakeholders. It
also identifies preliminary goals that, if implemented, would resolve current
VADS deficiencies and contribute to the achievement of the project’s
objectives. About 8 to 12 change analysis items are developed during this
segment of the work session. Each situation/goal pair is written on a flip chart
and posted for easy reference in full view of all the participants.
The next model is the existing level one workflow (WFL1). This model is
drawn on a flip chart by the facilitator as guided by the knowledge workers.
The WFL1 depicts the information that is shared between workgroups in order
to achieve the goal of the VADS it represents. The model is also posted in
plain view of the participants.
The next model is the existing Level 2 Workflow (EWFL2). This model is an
extension of the WFL1. Like the WFL1, it is drawn on a flip chart by the
facilitator as guided by the knowledge workers. The WFL2 presents the
phases and procedures that take place during the VADS to move its main
object from its point of origination through its completion (final transformed
state). When completed, the model is correlated with the current situations of
the change analysis and the project’s objectives. The correlation process
results in a map of where problems occur along the workflow and where
change would most likely need to occur to resolve undesirable situations and
achieve the project’s objectives. The correlated EWFL2 is posted for easy
reference.
The final model is the proposed WFL2 (PWFL2). This model is driven by the
correlated WFL1 and the creativity of the knowledge workers. This model
reflects the procedural changes needed to achieve the preliminary goals of the
change analysis and contributes to achieving the project’s objectives. When
complete, the model clearly and graphically pinpoints what changes could be
implemented to achieve the related goals and objectives. It also clearly
identifies where these changes would have to be made in the VADS. The
WFL2 creates a graphical reference point for dialogue and allows easy
visualization of a change scenario that has support and buy-in from the work
session participants.
With all the models drafted, the facilitator conducts a quick review of what
was accomplished in the 2½ hour session. The facilitator then highlights the
key improvements that the group has developed and issues any data collection
103
assignments needed to support the work done and to use as input into the next
facilitation work session.
There were a number of notable items specific to JMI that came out of the
first work session. First, the group identified changes that support the
achievement of the project’s objectives.
These changes to the VADS can be quantified in terms of the contribution
made (see Figure 6-16).
In addition, the new WFL2 supports the preliminary goals identified by the
group.
Figure 6-16 - Contribution of VADS to Project Objectives

Contribution of VADS to Project Objectives

VADS Name: Sales Orders on Account
Project Objective
PO1 - Reduce order processing time
(entry through shipping) from 5 to 2 days. automatically approves orders for
Proposed Improvement
Modify the order entry process so it
customers with sufficient available credit
lines and non-delinquent balances.
These approved orders will be
electronically transferred directly to the
warehouse. This will allow credit-worthy
orders to bypass the Credit department.
Additionally, this will allow the credit
department to focus its attention on
problem orders. See Change Concepts.
Value of Contribution
This change will allow JMI to ship orders
that pass the automated credit check
within 24 work hours from the point the
order was received. In most cases, this
will be the next working day. This should
apply to 90% of all orders processed.
This will also save over $3,000 in labor a
day or over $750,000 a year.

PO2 - Increase sales by $40 million a
year by keeping lost sales due to stock
shortages to less than 2 per day.
Modify the order entry process so it
automatically reserves inventory for the
quantity ordered. This will ensure that the
system accurately reflects the impact of
open orders on the inventory and will
reduce inadvertent overselling without
supporting backorders.
This change is expected to reduce the
number of lost sales from 12 per day to
6 per day. Based on the current average
sale of $9,450, this improvement should
contribute about $56,700 a day or about
$18 million a year toward the $40 million
goal.

PO4 - Become an industry leader by Same as PO2. This change reduces the number of
increasing sales order volume by 30 per orders needed to meet the objective to
day. 24 per day.

The knowledge workers also identified other VADS that might need to be
included in the project. Specifically, these VADS relate to other ways of
selling product and all ways that inventory can be modified in the normal
course of business. A review of these new VADS might identify additional
ways to achieve the project’s objectives.

104
Overall, in the span of a 2½ hour work session, the knowledge workers
tentatively identified ways to dramatically reduce delivery times, increase
sales by $18 million a year and save over $1 million in labor.
How realistic are these types of achievements? Can a 2½ hour meeting ever
be expected to achieve an increase in sales of $18 million? Perhaps not
always, but certainly often. At a major utility company in California, the
existing payroll VADS created a weekly discrepancy of about $3 million
between pay checks and time sheets. In the course of one day, the flaws in the
process were identified and solutions conceptualized. In another instance, the
very first 2½ hour work session on streamlining of a time and attendance
function targeted over $1 million a year in lost monies in payroll just from
correcting ongoing overpayments to employees. In another instance, the
knowledge workers participating in a marketing project conceived a way (by
the end of the second work session) to improve customer service and drive
more business while reducing direct marketing costs by $5 million a year.
Although million dollar ideas cannot be guaranteed out of any given work
session, the results are usually dramatic.
The key point to remember is that the work sessions produce impressive
results because they are framed in the context of clear objectives, strong
executive-level support and the involvement of appropriate knowledge
workers.

105
NOTES
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

106