Systems Change Implementation Preliminary Draft Plan Objective and Introduction: The objective of systems change implementation is to move our business group into the proper mode for the maturity of the product(s). This, as many tech companies, was founded on innovation, and the systems model was the most appropriate for that task. Fluidity afforded innovation. In the many years since, the product has reached maturity to the point of being a commodity, so that our focus is customer satisfaction and competition neutralization. The modern model of product life cycle, as used by such companies as Toyota and Intel and sometimes dubbed the “S-curve”, is that system rigidity must progress with product maturity. This follows from the philosophy that as the product matures into a commodity, quality and price must be equally foremost considerations. A commonly-held opinion is that systems necessarily stifle innovation. One argument to this likely well-grounded fear is the success of the aforementioned Intel and Toyota, as well U.S. Special Operation Forces. These three examples all incorporate what appears to the untrained eye as the most rigid of systems. However, they have proven that proper systems implantation affords flexibility and innovation. In fact, properly developed and implemented systems define boundaries and best practices that can only be gained by the collective experience of (tens of) thousands of uniquely talented individuals. Within these boundaries, innovative individuals may exercise their unique talents while minimizing dead-ends. Such a system might be thought of as Lean Design wherein such tools as Lean Design for Six Sigma, the Five Why’s and others known by many names may be a valuable part of an innovator’s tool box. Consider the recent growth of tires and wheels seen on the road today. The casual observer may think it no big deal that wheels are nearly twice the diameter, and the tires one-fifth the profile height of two decades ago. However, two decades ago even the best of wheel and tire developers may have considered this an impossible task. Had it not been for systems in-place, such as wheels must be round; X, Y and Z casting techniques have A,B, C limitations; likewise for SRB cross-linking and belt-weaving techniques; such innovations would not have been possible. Certainly, similar manufacturing boundaries were also in place, in addition to inter-departmental cooperation systems. It is the latter that is most often accredited as the major improvement of the late 20th and early 21st century. Cooperation and communication between departments, disciplines and functionalities must certainly be one of the greatest reducers of waste. When this is the case, each individual contributor understands the input that will come from the necessary resources and the output necessary for those to whom the individual contributor is a resource. In such a system, one may focus on the most important and productive tasks, while significantly reducing unnecessary redundancy. Further under such a system, necessary redundancy, for safety or quality..., may be properly and expertly performed as a coordinated effort that affords an efficient system of checks and balances.

Implementation of such a system is no easy task. Good and able personnel with long standing have seen many systems come and go...and fail...and other good and talented people go as a result. One must consider whether the proper approach is to “sell” the idea, or simply implement it with explanation. While buy-in may take time, the true test of any system is success. If system implementation were dependant on a popular vote, then no system, good or bad, will be given the opportunity of the test. I submit that the approach of Alexander Hamilton (the Father economist) whereby, in a democracy, the people or representatives of the people vote on the proper person for the Executive office, without promises or obligations to powerful parties; and that executive executes their office within the abilities, morals and ethics for which the executive was voted into office. Hamilton held that the next vote will be the approval / disapproval of the people; and is the proper implementation of the newly to-be-established democracy. A lesson of Hamilton’s philosophy is that Thomas Jefferson used the opposite: sell the people on promises. And so ensued the first mud-slinging campaign of the new democracy: a one-way dirty fight that led to a slave-owner becoming the leader of the new “free” nation. Following this, Hamilton went down in earlier-than-recent history as a mud-slinger because the beloved Thomas Jefferson said it was so. Only recently was nobility and honor of Hamilton given its proper place. Therefore, one may submit that popular vote, attained as always through making powerful allies by appeasing their needs and fears is not conducive to a proper, fitting and effective system. It is for these reasons that I submit that a time-honored system, proven through the success of companies that implement it, and the failure of the competition that did not, is the proper path for re-establishing the dominance of this great company that has lost its flexibility and become stagnant in a system that is was most effective for the past, but improper for the present and detrimental to the future. As proof I submit the following names: Intel Toyota The U.S. Army Best Regards, Patrick J. Neyman, Ph. D., Sergeant, Paratrooper