Robert H. Schaffer

At a time where "agile" is part of the common zeitgeist, is a book from 2005 about 100 day "rapid" projects valuable? Overall, yes. Although organizations like to think of themselves as agile and fast moving, many of them are still bogged down in slow changes where planning processes take months before any results are achieved. Thus, even if 100 days projects may not feel rapid by the standards of the agile movement, it still represents an area where organizations have room to learn.

That said, this book is not necessarily the best vehicle for this information. The writing is repetitive. The case studies are at just the wrong level of detail: long enough to be tedious but shallow enough to not communicate much. Overall, I would recommend reading a summary or resources in a similar spirit such as this HBR article on Agility Hacks.

That said, since I did read it, you can read my summary. :-D

Large change efforts have a high failure rate. Small changes which generate concrete, valuable results are lower risk. A series of small changes that build on each other can add up to a large impact. To be effective, rapid cycle projects must create a sense of urgency around a clear goal. These should be areas where failure would be truly problematic. These are not just quick fixes. Rather, they are efforts to find a more like punctuated equilibrium, periods of rapid evolutionary change that then define a new baseline from which the organization will operate.

Rapid result projects must focus on important goals which deliver concrete business value in a short, well defined time frame (~100 days). The result should be measurable. There needs to be clear accountability. The projects need to be something beyond the organization's current capacity so that it drives experimentation. Projects need to be disciplined and well managed to hit the aggressive timeline. Learning should be a primary goal; learning is what grows organizational capacity.

Rapid results projects can seem too small to be worthwhile: the projects are too incremental or not prestigious enough. On the other hand, people can be find it challenging to step up for projects where there accountability and success metrics are so clear. However, people involved in these projects generally find them quite exhilarating.

Some projects are more amenable to rapid results projects than others. These include performance improvement projects, process redesign, and aiming for model weeks where a group holds themselves to previously unheard of performance standards for a limited time period. They can be used in "soft" areas such as worker safety or diversity initiatives as long as the specific projects have well-defined and measurable outcomes.

Leadership plays a key role in these projects. They set priorities, provide organizational support, and help modify the project structure so that it works for their company's culture and work style. Leaders shift from linear to iterative strategic planning. They set ambitious goals, set up teams to run rapid results projects, and then integrate learning and outcomes from those projects back into the next round of strategy. Shifting from upfront to continuous planning and change increases the odds of success for large change efforts and avoids the coordination problems, integration failures, and inability to adapt that monolithic change processes are subject to.

There is a deep dive into mergers and acquisitions. Mergers and acquisitions — and their smaller scale cousin, the reorg — often fail. To be successful, there needs to be a vision of what the combined organization should look like in 12-18 months. There should be a detailed plan of how to get there. That plan should be executed (and adapted) through a series of rapid results projects. Like with strategy, the focus on a clear overall direction combined with incremental execution maximizes the opportunity for learning and adaptation.

The most effective leadership learning happens on the job. By using skills to achieve real results, people will internalize the skills better than with purely theoretical learning opportunities which are hard (or impossible) to apply in their day-to-day job. Results-oriented learning can take the form of stretch opportunities on rapid results projects. These become opportunities to learn new skills. Results-oriented learning can also be paired with formal education, e.g., by pairing an action-based project with learning opportunities targeted at the challenges people in that project will experience.

The best way to build up a culture of rapid results projects is to get started. Leaders can do this by publicly committing to an important and ambitious goal, hold people accountable for achieving better results, and be actively involved in the progress of the most important initiatives. This does not mean that leaders should micromanage. Rather, they should set up a structure of regular check-ins that convey their ongoing interests, measure progress, and help teams integrate their learning into subsequent iterations.… (lisätietoja)