Do Managers Truly Understand How to Measure Critical Success Factors (CSFs)?

Earlier this month, I spoke with James H. Dobbins about his latest book, Critical Success Factors: How to Effectively Identify, Measure, and Apply CSFs, which equips managers with a practical framework to accurately identify, measure, and apply their critical success factors (CSFs). Unlike previous efforts that relied on broad surveys and statistical analyses intended to generate generalized lists of CSFs, this approach honors the foundational definition of CSFs and provides actionable guidance tailored to each manager’s unique context.

During our conversation, I asked James, "What are the biggest mistakes managers make when trying to measure critical success factors (CSFs)?" Here is his complete answer:

The biggest mistake managers make when trying to measure critical success factors (CSFs) is failing to understand what CSFs are in the first place. Managers turn to the results of research by others, projects often done by academics in the pursuit of an advanced degree. The research objective is to produce a list of generalized CSFs.  Once the list is published, the research is completed, the degree is granted, and the researcher goes on with their life. No measures are suggested. Many researchers worldwide, all with the same objective, have published different sets of CSFs. There is no guidance on which list to use. The biggest problem is that all the research was conducted using surveys of large numbers of managers, and there has never been a valid list of CSFs produced from surveys. Using surveys to identify CSFs has several fundamental flaws.  Some, noted in the Introduction to the book, are:

• The assumption that project managers know how to identify their CSFs,
• The failure to recognize that CSFs are contextually relevant to the manager, and therefore, the elimination of anything not generalizable, is contrary to the definition of CSF.
• The failure to understand that Critical Success Factors are, in fact, critical for a specific manager, and that all must be done well.  CSFs are not something you pick from a menu, like a survey result, hoping you chose the right ones.
• The absence of any longitudinal studies. There was no follow-up with any of the managers surveyed to validate the study's results or to determine whether and how they utilized the CSFs identified in the survey.
• There was no attempt to identify measures for the identified CSFs to help managers track their success in meeting the CSFs.  

Does your company actively use and apply critical success factors (CSFs) in its operations? Does your organization rely on surveys to determine which CSFs to prioritize? And do you agree with the mistakes James H. Dobbins identifies in this area?

The Common Obstacles to Sustaining a Culture of Continuous Improvement

Many books focus on the tools needed for for process control and continuous improvement, but the latest work by Philip Gisi -- entitled Sustaining a Culture of Process Control and Continuous Improvement: The Roadmap for Efficiency and Operational Excellence -- moves beyond this limited view and focuses on the daily work routines necessary to maintain and sustain these activities as part of a Lean process and management mindset. This past month, I spoke with Philip and asked him: "What are the common obstacles to sustaining a culture of continuous improvement? How can we overcome these problems?” Here is his complete answer:

A culture of continuous improvement is based on carefully defined operating standards, organizational work routines, and visualization of key performance indicators. The ability to sustain a culture of continuous improvement is rooted in the way an organization is structured (standards and procedures), the discipline they exhibit in executing their work routines and how effective they are at hold employees accountable to their commitments.  Let’s briefly consider the impact of structure, discipline, and accountability in sustaining a culture of continuous improvement.

Organizational Structure

If you don’t have systems that promote the right behaviors, you are unlikely to get what you expect.  

Look at the work habits, attitudes and engagement of employees, if you don’t like what you see, ask:

•       Do the behaviors of employees reflect the principles of the organization?

•       Are there methods and procedures in place that align with these principles and, if so, are they clearly defined?

•       If followed, will the methods and procedures generate desired results?

•       Do employees effectively implement the methods and procedures?

Discipline

Discipline is a mindset which stems from a commitment of employees to execute their roles and responsibilities as key contributors to organizational success. Management must ensure the right systems are in place to promote behaviors expected to achieve ideal results while employees must exhibit the discipline required to follow and improve standards, procedures, and work routines designed to realize and continuously enhance output performance.

Accountability

Management has the responsibility to monitor, control, and improve organizational systems with the support of all employees.  This requires continuous verification that processes are executed properly while corrective action and employee coaching occurs when deviations from standards are detected. In short, successful organizations have documented systems in place that align with their strategic goals and produce desired results when executed as intended.  

What has your experience been with sustaining continuous-improvement initiatives? What are your thoughts on Philip Gisi's ideas for overcoming common obstacles?